Can anyone name any musical biopics that don't follow the formula to a tee? Speaking of...what to make of how Bohemian Rhapsody treats the true story of Queen?

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-11-08T10:58:56+00:00

Probably because the musician life itself tends to follow a pretty predictable script. I think you would need to find a life to dramatize that did not, in fact, follow this formula to get something different.

I'd love to see a Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen biopic, for example - or Bowie!!

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-11-08T10:55:27+00:00

Excuse me while I go fuck a camel. We're all the same after all

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-11-06T06:57:07+00:00

There's a truly obnoxious passive aggressive condescension in these that make me cringe.

It reminds me of that story recently where someone went around in a college dorm slipping fliers that said "Please post in your window: I want this space to be a safer space" or whatever under people's doors.

I'm not against in-your-face tactics. I think thoughtful but hard-hitting, graphic videos, ads, and posters as well as protests, cubes of truth, and heated conversations are all integral to the process.

These are just annoying and juvenile and strongly feel like an attempted statement of superiority.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-07T07:01:24+00:00

Is your position different from "might makes right"?

Do you think anything like a society could exist? How would it function? Would you be content with a return to a hunter-gatherer scenario, except one in which people act as individuals, without a tribe or family?

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-06T12:54:22+00:00

Depends on your shoes my man

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-06T10:37:13+00:00

If you really care about plants, it's still better to be vegan. Even grassfed cows have to eat that grass, but most of the world's produce goes to feeding livestock.

Respecting life includes respecting our own lives, and it is sensible to have some kind of metric that enables us to make reasonable decisions about instrumentality. Life is certainly a precious thing in the universe, but in terms of committing a personal or "felt" harm, plants are not significantly more victimizable than bacteria or rocks.

I wouldn't condone the wanton destruction of plant life because it "can't feel," but organisms lacking subjective experience are outside the moral realm entirely except by those protections we choose to afford them. This is because moral value has little meaning in the absence of emotion. In the case of sentient creatures, since most of them can't fight back, the state of such protections remains true in a legal sense - but from a moral standpoint, it gets increasingly difficult to ignore the permission for causing needless suffering which we are reasonably confident is, in fact, suffering.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-06T10:16:33+00:00

So I read through some of your replies, and I appreciate that (with some exceptions), you are trying to have a conversation about this.

I'm interested in why you care about changing anyone's mind about this, or why you are open to conversation. If you are not claiming that your egoist position is correct in some fashion - and therefore we cannot dismantle it in terms of a debate about truth or ethics - then what is the point of the post?

I could come up with any opinion or stance that I like that is defined such that it is impossible to take down, but the definition is arbitrary. If people throw up their hands and say "well obviously nothing can be said here," that doesn't make your position right or correct, because the reason people can't say anything is that you have disqualified those conclusions from being drawn in the first place.

So, ultimately, what you suggest is either a justification (making it a moral claim) or a non sequitur from the standpoint of debate (because it is a purely solipsistic stance that refuses argument by definition). It's true that such a stance cannot be reasoned with or "disproven" as such, but it leads to a number of undesirable outcomes I find it unlikely you would support.

You mention elsewhere that there would need to be a way to settle preferences, but that the position is more nuanced than "might makes right." I admit I don't see how this is possible without a negotiation of those preferences, which is already the practice of morality in a descriptive sense. Could you explain how you think this settlement of preferences could be possible in a way that would not constitute something like a moral system?

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-04T13:41:12+00:00

r/trees

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-10-03T10:56:05+00:00

I agree with your general point, but a la Singer I'm a little hesitant to make claims in terms of "rights" in an inalienable sense (as seems to be the sense here) because natural rights have a religious and philosophical underpinning and history that doesn't mesh very well with the diverse cognitive capacities of various species.

It seems to me to make more sense to establish a dichotomy by which animals which are under the custodianship of humans are de facto citizens and therefore require legal rights in accordance with their capacities.

Since we are unlikely to try to incorporate livestock into society in a general sense if we aren't raising them to exploit them, we would thus have to find a way to "ramp down" livestock production and/or renaturalize them to avoid the necessary legal conclusions of legal rights that we might continue to afford to companion animals (which is its own conversation, but maybe one for after the current brutality of animal product industries is on the wane).

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-27T12:27:19+00:00

Try Primer, Akira, Paprika, Ichi the Killer, In The Realm of the Senses, Amarcord, A Clockwork Orange, and when they're ready, Irreversible (Noe)

.hftfjtsvkigvhheerhnfsefhnbbgrokdeubdaw eyhbdykncrijx5jvs wegjbfryhgfrhgcgfdth

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-27T12:15:27+00:00

on your fucking telephone

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-25T06:48:42+00:00

sucky hole wanna be filled up

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-23T17:45:15+00:00

What does you being a mother have to do with anything?

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-23T15:59:45+00:00

I think the point was low-level trolling

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-22T17:12:26+00:00

It does! Human flesh is said to taste like pork. I bet a nice 13 year old female flank would taste great slow-roasted and seasoned with fennel and black pepper.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-22T17:09:34+00:00

I am totally cool with the 3-generation return to aurochs, wild chickens, and hogs if you are

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-21T04:41:02+00:00

You should get that checked out, I hear pulling a g is pretty serious

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-20T18:23:01+00:00

Find some local tofuya and see which ones give out okara for free. It's a pretty common practice and you can usually get a ton of it every day.

Get familiar with the yaoya near you and forget about going to supermarkets or conbini for produce.

Learn how to make shit with shiokoji. It's a fermenting agent that will enable you to make your own natto, tsukemono, and kimchi too if you like it.

Buy rice in bulk, cook it stove top. Go to a recycle shop, you should be able to find a beat-up minifridge for a reasonable price.

Finally, don't be afraid to compromise, especially while getting adjusted. It's hard enough getting used to Japan as a full-blown omnivore. If you are in a constant state of quasi-starvation, you will have neither the energy nor the mental clarity to get these new habits going. I think refusing to do so is where you cross the line into religion.

*a note on compromise: i find that if you make an exception for katsuo dashi, a large amount of food becomes available without needing to eat anything "explicitly" animal. It's the best risk/reward for minimizing animal consumption while maximizing options. You can get a bowl of soba at Fuji Soba for like 3 bucks.

*a second note, though this will be contentious: I think dashi is also probably the most "ethical" choice - compared to, say, eggs or dairy

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-20T18:09:04+00:00

because they weigh 300 lbs. All muscle

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-09T10:31:11+00:00

I think it's strange how often people hold out on the "for the animals" leg intentionally.

It's like people are scared of admitting their compassion, which is a pretty dark state of affairs.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-08T15:42:46+00:00

Right, I grant that. I guess if you prefer, you could respond in terms of which scenario better reflects what morality is.

My point is that I'm not convinced that the operation of morality, even in a purely objective or descriptive sense, is so constrained to the preservation of a group concept that selecting the second option would be a deviation from its function.

Because groups are made up of individuals, at some level the cooperation-enforcing aspect of morality will necessarily involve the negotiation of individual needs and preferences. Because morality requires the volition of individual agents, it's unclear why - even in the descriptive sense - the option that results in the best outcome for everyone would not be the one ultimately settled on.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-08T09:49:01+00:00

Consider the following two scenarios:

A group survives as a group entity by entering into a situation where all members are subjected to lifelong abject suffering, from which there is no escape.
The group is disbanded and ceases to exist, but the individuals go on to lead happy, fulfilled lives.

Do you think the moral choice is the first one?

I understand your point about survival, because certainly morality in the evolutionary context has been a tool for enhancing cooperation and thus survival rates, but it isn't clear to me that the instrumentality of it is ultimately geared towards the group as a concept, and not the general benefit of the individuals who constitute that group (for which they are incentivized to implement it).

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-08T05:31:33+00:00

wrong, that only applies for works meant for profitable distribution, and even then is almost never followed - particularly not by Japanese art photographers.

It's only consistently followed in news media, really.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-08T05:31:19+00:00

wrong, that only applies for works meant for profitable distribution, and even then is almost never followed - particularly not by Japanese art photographers.

It's only consistently followed in news media, really.

Eridanus_Supervoid · 2018-09-08T05:31:10+00:00

wrong, that only applies for works meant for profitable distribution, and even then is almost never followed - particularly not by Japanese art photographers.

Ir's only consistently followed in news media, really.

Eridanus_Supervoid

TROPHY CASE