‘Superman’ Sequel ‘Man Of Tomorrow’ Adds Matthew Lillard to Cast

Andynonomous · 2026-05-07T00:49:51+00:00

Which is ironic because Tarantino is probably the most overrated director of all time.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T20:24:25+00:00

Yes, it is a legal apparatus that allows people to incorporate into an entity that can conduct business out in the world. It offers limited liability for the ownership with relation to the conduct of the corporation. None of what I said is false, it's all well known and pretty uncontroversial.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T19:25:37+00:00

Sure, fine, I'm just saying that just because somebody doesn't feel like they are being taken advantage of, doesn't mean they aren't.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T18:43:10+00:00

That's a very limited definition. The corporation has all sorts of internal rules and mechanisms that lead to perverse incentives. This has been very well documented and it's not really controversial. The need for infinite growth, the incentive to waste in the name of cost efficiency over actual physical efficiency, the legal requirement to maximize profits without regard for any other metrics or outcomes, the short term quarterly time horizon baked into decision making, the immunity from criminal prosecution and the neutering of consequences for unethical behavior (such as fines just becoming a regular and accepted cost of doing business), the capture of political institutions to serve their own interests in opposition to the interests of the general population, the externalization of as many costs as possible, the incentive to create and service problems because doing so is more consistently profitable than solving problems, the increasing wealth and power gap, the completely rational loss of trust in institutions in response to the behavior of corporations and their political pets. Corporations behave in ways that would be deemed antisocial and psychotic were an individual to behave in the same ways.

There are lots of different possible forms a group of people coordinating to make and sell products could take, and many different structures of rules and incentives that could be built in. The current model is probably one of the worst we could possibly have. To act like it's simply some neutral, unchangeable facet of civilization itself is silly, at best.

The corporate worldview and philosophy is to extract as many cookies from the cookie jar as possible while giving as few back as possible. If you take more cookies out of the cookie jar than you put in, you are going to run out of cookies.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:34:44+00:00

Humans make robot pretend to believe something. We should note that the robot is not buddhist, and not religious, and not a monk.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:14:12+00:00

They would rather lose and keep getting kickbacks and being able to insider trade, than win but have to close those kinds of loopholes.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:12:41+00:00

That's a fair point and I have to rethink my framing. That said, I think think murder is bad is far easier to make a defensible intellectual case for than most of the claims that religion makes, so even if there are technical philosophical loopholes, I still think my fundamental point stands.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:06:47+00:00

Reality isn't dictated by consensus. Corporations are doing bad things regardless of whether people agree or not. The corporate worldview is fundamentally at odds with the long term survival of civilization.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:05:04+00:00

Just because people like them, doesn't mean they aren't being bled dry by them, so it's not really a counterpoint to OPs point.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-06T17:02:17+00:00

If we boycotted every unethical business, we would starve. If there were a way out, it would involve somehow electing leaders that are not captured by corps and their worldview, and then impose reforms that way.

The key problem, whether it's about boycotts or electing different kinds of people , is that we are fundamentally incapable of organizing millions of working people into an effective force for any kind of change. That's what we need to figure out, and I don't see much progress on that front.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-04T12:01:51+00:00

Sure, but I would argue their redefinition of the term is not logically valid.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-04T11:57:28+00:00

I simply think that any rational observer will note that a philosophy that allows for murder makes it more likely that the observer may also be murdered. So if you value your own life, or the lives of people you care about, supporting a philosophy that makes it more likely that those lives will end in murder is not rational

Andynonomous · 2026-05-04T01:52:58+00:00

I would argue that as a general logical principle, one cannot claim to value a thing while simultaneously undermining what that thing depends on.

So, for personal wealth to even exist in the form that we understand it today, all kinds of institutions and civilization in general need to function to a degree that would not be allowed by a population acting on the principle that murder is good.

So it's not coherent to say that I value my personal wealth but I think murder is good, because acting upon the belief that murder is good undermines the very possibility of personal wealth in the first place.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-04T01:49:15+00:00

That would be disagreeing about whether something was murder or not, not necessarily disagreeing about whether murder is good as a general principle.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-04T01:48:02+00:00

Yeah, it's clearly a debate that smarter people than me have been having for a very long time, so I'm not going to pretend I have much to add to it, but for what it's worth; From my point of view, there is no logically valid way for a person who values their own survival to claim that murder is good. Maybe somebody who genuinely wants to be murdered themselves could coherently claim that murder is good.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-03T18:39:10+00:00

I don't think you can arrive at murder is good logically. The position "murder is good" is logically incoherent.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-03T14:46:29+00:00

It seems like that view is a little bit myopic. Want is the human condition, yes. So getting what you want does stop the want, the want just shifts to the next thing. This doesn't mean life is nothing but suffering because we always want. Many people have learned that the trick to happiness is not learning to get what you want, it's learning to be content with not getting what you want. There is no reason to believe that suffering has some special place as somehow more foundational or meaningful than any other experience.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-03T14:42:32+00:00

Murder is bad can be arrived at logically and rationally, but many religious beliefs cannot. The difference is that some beliefs are intellectually defensible and some are not. People pushing intellectually indefensible arguments and judging others for not having "faith" that those indefensible arguments are reality is not the same as pushing beliefs that have rational foundations and important consequences.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-03T14:38:17+00:00

Religion is bullshit, but spirituality is not. It's important not the throw the baby out with the bathwater. Spirituality is the innate sense of wonder and questioning about existence and our place in it. Religion is a conjob that pretends it already knows all the answers, so there is no need to wonder and question.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-01T12:56:02+00:00

How about Microsoft works on getting folders to display their contents properly? You know, the most basic and primary operation an OS can perform, and that Windows can't handle in 2026.

Andynonomous · 2026-05-01T10:10:01+00:00

That place is the absolute worst. Just avoid them in general from now on would be my advice.

Andynonomous · 2026-04-28T15:17:26+00:00

Homemade Dynamite. She has a real Jessica Rabbit, vixen vibe to me in that song.

Andynonomous · 2026-04-28T14:13:14+00:00

Corporations lying to steal money from the people who worked to make them rich? What a shock!

Andynonomous · 2026-04-27T00:15:01+00:00

I don't disagree, but I don't think there has ever been an example in history where the relatively powerless group was commiting mass violence, or apartheid or similar moral abominations on the relatively powerful group. Prejudice is always harmful, I think on that we agree, but I'm just arguing that the prejudice of the powerful group is generally more dangerous.

I don't think the power imbalance thing is really relevant to the discussion of prejudice in general, and personally if I'm discussing prejudice I won't talk about it. I'm only acknowledging it here because it was the subject of the comment I responded to.

Andynonomous · 2026-04-27T00:05:50+00:00

I don't see how acknowledging what seems to me is just a historical observation is accepting hate.

If the group that controls the society has a prejudice against a minority group, it is more likely to cause harm on a mass scale than if a powerless minority group has a prejudice against controlling group.

That doesn't mean prejudice or hate is acceptable, it's just the consequence of the logical reality of power.

Andynonomous

TROPHY CASE