I'm just imagining a whole bunch of people sitting at a table, and it's like "okay, council of evil, we've agreed that there will be one world government, and at the head of it will be" and everyone at the table says "me" at once. It's really awkward.
I really like the Neptunia series. I've played a shocking number of them to the end. I do cheat just a little bit, I don't have over 9,000 hours to grind.
Oddly enough, a lot of the other games by that company are actually kind of terrible.
Oddly enough, a lot of the other games by that company are actually kind of terrible.
Some people think that there is no such thing as objective reality. In my view, that's categorically wrong.
I work in science and technology, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter how good my arguments are, the final arbiter of truth is reality. At the end of the day, our ability to understand the world is only as good as our understanding of what is, not what we would like to be or what we think is. If you make predictions or plans based on incorrect models of the world, you will get outcomes other than what you want.
In the famous movie "The Matrix", one of the main characters named Morpheus asks "What is real?", with the implication of the question in that moment being that The Matrix, a simulation where people spend their days while objectively speaking their physical bodies are in vats of nutrients as their brains have the simulation implanted into them through a prosthetic implanted in the back of their heads, was just as real as the physical world. In a subjective sense, perhaps it is. The interactions between people are certainly real. In the movie, Neo and Trinity fall in love in part during their time in the Matrix. Their love is highly subjective (Trinity certainly isn't my type), but real to them. On the other hand, the existence of the subjective does not mean rejection of the objective. The objective reality (in the movie, at least) was that whatever the Matrix told the individuals brains, they were in vats of goo being used to power a supercomputer. The main theme of the movie was a rejection of inauthentic simulations to rejoin the more authentic world that while subjectively much less comfortable was nonetheless objective reality. The second and third movie I think didn't communicate that theme as well, but the point of the architect near the end of the second movie was that Zeon itself was something of a simulation -- Despite being in the objective world of atoms it was a false world created by the machines to give the humans who needed hope to not destroy their fictional world. Once again, however, the existence of subjective reality does not mean objective reality does not exist, only that the two both exist, and that our perceptions of subjective reality can cloud objective reality.
Consciousness is an example of something we know to be real subjectively but is very difficult to quantity objectively. We 'know' we're conscious, but some objective data really puts it into question such as research showing that for some decisions we have the answers before we consciously decide on the answers. This shows that the two can exist and be somewhat distinct from each other. The fact that the two can exist and even be at odds does not negate the existence of one or the other, however.
Now you can make a convincing argument that what we perceive and understand what the world isn't objective reality and instead a subjective shadow of reality seen through the lens of an organism which is evolutionarily developed in order to ensure survival and replication of the organisms containing specific DNA, but at the end of the day regardless of our ability to properly perceive it objective reality absolutely exists. There's something outside of ourselves that must exist independently of us, because things can happen the same to a lot of different people who hold entirely different beliefs and still have essentially the same outcome.
One civilization that doesn't strictly believe in objective reality is the Indian civilization. It's an incredible civilization in terms of culture, but anyone who has ever tried to take over the country has been wildly successful. Of course British colonialism is one example, but in the 9th century Muslims from the northwest came down and were absolutely dominating the Indian subcontinent, and all the leaders did was build nicer temples so the gods would grant them victory.
Things in the objective physical world also happened before there was anyone to subjectively perceive anything. Assuming our theories are correct (which is always a risk -- every era ever including ours has been fundamentally wrong about some understandings of the world. This is due to the objective nature of reality and how we are striving to understand what is, rather than what we think is), the universe was born, stars were formed, burned for billions of years, and exploded releasing the atoms that would someday become our solar system, our sun formed by accumulating hydrogen and building a gravity well that eventually accumulated material to form the planets including earth, the hadean period rocked the planet with red hot fire, and then after billions of years without any organism to perceive anything, the first life showed up on earth in the Archean period. It would be quite a long time before complex life would show up, and that would include objective events such as the oxygen catastrophe and ensuing ice age that killed most life on earth whether the simple single-celled organisms subjectively thought it would happen or not.
Quantum mechanics makes people believe there is no objective reality because of elements such as wave-particle duality or quantum entanglement, or even quantum superposition. In my view, this argument is critically flawed because quantum mechanics in fact shows the objective nature of reality. We subjectively believed for 200 years that Newtonian physics is the language we can use to understand reality, but it turns out that on very small scales Newtonian physics break down and there's an entirely new conception of reality that is unintuitive to us at the macro scale. On very high scales of relative speed, we also saw Newtonian physics break down at very large scales or for objects travelling very fast, and that's where Einsteinian relativity came in. Once again, it shows that reality is objective rather than subjective because these rules apply to us independently of our perception or understanding of them. Our perception of time relative to other things may change due to relativity, but reality and the rules of the universe don't care about our perception of them. Also important is that stuff like Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem that suggest we can know a particle's position or its speed but not both isn't a subjective thing because it doesn't require a human observer to be true -- particles interact in predictably unpredictable ways with or without us, which is why quantum mechanics works when a scientist isn't looking directly at a screen. At the quantum scale the nature of measurement is that you are interacting with something using forces or particles that are on similar scales to what you're measuring, so of course you're changing the value by measuring it, to measure it you need to interact with something smaller than most people can imagine.
I think it's important with respect to quantum mechanics to understand that there's sort of 2 fields -- one is based on strict measurement and analysis of experiments, and one is based almost exclusively on thought experiments and often fails to come up with any testable hypotheses. Personally, I consider the former to be actual quantum physics, and the latter to be quackery. Thought experiments have their place, but a problem with leaving the objective measurement and understanding of measurements is that you can justify many interpretations, most of which can be quite wrong. Everyone knows Democritus theorized about the existence of atoms, but few people follow that up by pointing out that for millennia people followed instead the concept of everything being made up of 4 elements of wind, fire, water, and earth. The correct answer was largely forgotten and the incorrect answer was largely accepted in part because people could only go by what looked better on paper or felt better instead of what was objectively true.
Some people think that reality is socially constructed. To me, this is an egocentric and arrogant view of the world, fitting for our egocentric and arrogant civilization, but not fit as a theory of reality. Give 1 person LSD and convince them they can fly, and they'll jump out a window and die. Give 10 people the same and do the same, they'll jump out a window and die. Give a million people the same and do the same (jeez you're a dick, what did those million people ever do to you?) -- reality exists independently of our perception of it, and the only thing that changes is our perception of reality.
On the topic of objective truth and social sciences, the social sciences in particular are in a crisis caused by failures to measure objective reality. Some problems are with famous researchers being accused of faking data to lead to certain results they want. Some problems are with techniques such as "p-hacking" where a statistically insignificant result is played with (for example by increasing the sample size of a borderline result but only for one that wouldn't be significant) until it becomes statistically significant, because novel positive findings have greater prestige than negative findings. There is objectivity in measuring the subjective, after all. In failing to properly design their experiments, measure the outcomes, or analyze the data, they have stopped being a science and thus entire fields are in a crisis because nobody can be correct -- not because reality is subjective, but because it is objective and failure to correctly work with that fact results in objectively negative outcomes for everyone as the results of research only serve to make the authors better off, not the scientific field.
This links up with the concept of postmodernism which simply put often tries to reject grand narratives and often questions the existence of objective truth. There is actually a benefit to this in subjective or human sciences, but at a cost -- Postmodernism has created new artforms that are often intellectually stimulating or aesthetically pleasing and a complete departure from previous norms, but it has also put out an almost unlimited amount of gibberish and garbage, since the biggest benefit of questioning if we really have the right answers is that we might find another area of subjective emotional or aesthetic truth we hadn't considered before. On the other hand, where postmodernism runs up against objective reality, it always loses -- At the end of the day, reality doesn't care how smart you are, it chooses what is correct, not you.
Some religious ideologies may consider reality subjective, such as the Indian brahmins I mentioned earlier. While their worldview can often be quite compelling emotionally, only religions that manage to find a compromise between their subjective worldview and the objective reality of survival will grow because if a religion's tenets lead individuals to objectively die then those religions will die out. Whatever the beliefs of the Minoans or the Harrapan civilization, neither of them have any adherents today because their civilizations were wiped out by objective reality's harsh tenets -- we don't even know what they believed their ideologies were wiped out so completely.
I guess finally, we can say that due to the limitations of human perception perhaps there's cognitive glitches that mean reality actually is subjective and it only appears objective because we collectively believe it's objective. I suppose that's a possibility, but I think at that point we're having to make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions to fit the hypothesis to the data. It is much simpler and much more likely that objective reality existed before us, subjectivity exists on a small timeframe in the universal scale because there exists something to be subjective, and then for many times the current estimated length of the universe objective reality will outlive us because we have every piece of evidence that we're not that special.
I work in science and technology, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter how good my arguments are, the final arbiter of truth is reality. At the end of the day, our ability to understand the world is only as good as our understanding of what is, not what we would like to be or what we think is. If you make predictions or plans based on incorrect models of the world, you will get outcomes other than what you want.
In the famous movie "The Matrix", one of the main characters named Morpheus asks "What is real?", with the implication of the question in that moment being that The Matrix, a simulation where people spend their days while objectively speaking their physical bodies are in vats of nutrients as their brains have the simulation implanted into them through a prosthetic implanted in the back of their heads, was just as real as the physical world. In a subjective sense, perhaps it is. The interactions between people are certainly real. In the movie, Neo and Trinity fall in love in part during their time in the Matrix. Their love is highly subjective (Trinity certainly isn't my type), but real to them. On the other hand, the existence of the subjective does not mean rejection of the objective. The objective reality (in the movie, at least) was that whatever the Matrix told the individuals brains, they were in vats of goo being used to power a supercomputer. The main theme of the movie was a rejection of inauthentic simulations to rejoin the more authentic world that while subjectively much less comfortable was nonetheless objective reality. The second and third movie I think didn't communicate that theme as well, but the point of the architect near the end of the second movie was that Zeon itself was something of a simulation -- Despite being in the objective world of atoms it was a false world created by the machines to give the humans who needed hope to not destroy their fictional world. Once again, however, the existence of subjective reality does not mean objective reality does not exist, only that the two both exist, and that our perceptions of subjective reality can cloud objective reality.
Consciousness is an example of something we know to be real subjectively but is very difficult to quantity objectively. We 'know' we're conscious, but some objective data really puts it into question such as research showing that for some decisions we have the answers before we consciously decide on the answers. This shows that the two can exist and be somewhat distinct from each other. The fact that the two can exist and even be at odds does not negate the existence of one or the other, however.
Now you can make a convincing argument that what we perceive and understand what the world isn't objective reality and instead a subjective shadow of reality seen through the lens of an organism which is evolutionarily developed in order to ensure survival and replication of the organisms containing specific DNA, but at the end of the day regardless of our ability to properly perceive it objective reality absolutely exists. There's something outside of ourselves that must exist independently of us, because things can happen the same to a lot of different people who hold entirely different beliefs and still have essentially the same outcome.
One civilization that doesn't strictly believe in objective reality is the Indian civilization. It's an incredible civilization in terms of culture, but anyone who has ever tried to take over the country has been wildly successful. Of course British colonialism is one example, but in the 9th century Muslims from the northwest came down and were absolutely dominating the Indian subcontinent, and all the leaders did was build nicer temples so the gods would grant them victory.
Things in the objective physical world also happened before there was anyone to subjectively perceive anything. Assuming our theories are correct (which is always a risk -- every era ever including ours has been fundamentally wrong about some understandings of the world. This is due to the objective nature of reality and how we are striving to understand what is, rather than what we think is), the universe was born, stars were formed, burned for billions of years, and exploded releasing the atoms that would someday become our solar system, our sun formed by accumulating hydrogen and building a gravity well that eventually accumulated material to form the planets including earth, the hadean period rocked the planet with red hot fire, and then after billions of years without any organism to perceive anything, the first life showed up on earth in the Archean period. It would be quite a long time before complex life would show up, and that would include objective events such as the oxygen catastrophe and ensuing ice age that killed most life on earth whether the simple single-celled organisms subjectively thought it would happen or not.
Quantum mechanics makes people believe there is no objective reality because of elements such as wave-particle duality or quantum entanglement, or even quantum superposition. In my view, this argument is critically flawed because quantum mechanics in fact shows the objective nature of reality. We subjectively believed for 200 years that Newtonian physics is the language we can use to understand reality, but it turns out that on very small scales Newtonian physics break down and there's an entirely new conception of reality that is unintuitive to us at the macro scale. On very high scales of relative speed, we also saw Newtonian physics break down at very large scales or for objects travelling very fast, and that's where Einsteinian relativity came in. Once again, it shows that reality is objective rather than subjective because these rules apply to us independently of our perception or understanding of them. Our perception of time relative to other things may change due to relativity, but reality and the rules of the universe don't care about our perception of them. Also important is that stuff like Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem that suggest we can know a particle's position or its speed but not both isn't a subjective thing because it doesn't require a human observer to be true -- particles interact in predictably unpredictable ways with or without us, which is why quantum mechanics works when a scientist isn't looking directly at a screen. At the quantum scale the nature of measurement is that you are interacting with something using forces or particles that are on similar scales to what you're measuring, so of course you're changing the value by measuring it, to measure it you need to interact with something smaller than most people can imagine.
I think it's important with respect to quantum mechanics to understand that there's sort of 2 fields -- one is based on strict measurement and analysis of experiments, and one is based almost exclusively on thought experiments and often fails to come up with any testable hypotheses. Personally, I consider the former to be actual quantum physics, and the latter to be quackery. Thought experiments have their place, but a problem with leaving the objective measurement and understanding of measurements is that you can justify many interpretations, most of which can be quite wrong. Everyone knows Democritus theorized about the existence of atoms, but few people follow that up by pointing out that for millennia people followed instead the concept of everything being made up of 4 elements of wind, fire, water, and earth. The correct answer was largely forgotten and the incorrect answer was largely accepted in part because people could only go by what looked better on paper or felt better instead of what was objectively true.
Some people think that reality is socially constructed. To me, this is an egocentric and arrogant view of the world, fitting for our egocentric and arrogant civilization, but not fit as a theory of reality. Give 1 person LSD and convince them they can fly, and they'll jump out a window and die. Give 10 people the same and do the same, they'll jump out a window and die. Give a million people the same and do the same (jeez you're a dick, what did those million people ever do to you?) -- reality exists independently of our perception of it, and the only thing that changes is our perception of reality.
On the topic of objective truth and social sciences, the social sciences in particular are in a crisis caused by failures to measure objective reality. Some problems are with famous researchers being accused of faking data to lead to certain results they want. Some problems are with techniques such as "p-hacking" where a statistically insignificant result is played with (for example by increasing the sample size of a borderline result but only for one that wouldn't be significant) until it becomes statistically significant, because novel positive findings have greater prestige than negative findings. There is objectivity in measuring the subjective, after all. In failing to properly design their experiments, measure the outcomes, or analyze the data, they have stopped being a science and thus entire fields are in a crisis because nobody can be correct -- not because reality is subjective, but because it is objective and failure to correctly work with that fact results in objectively negative outcomes for everyone as the results of research only serve to make the authors better off, not the scientific field.
This links up with the concept of postmodernism which simply put often tries to reject grand narratives and often questions the existence of objective truth. There is actually a benefit to this in subjective or human sciences, but at a cost -- Postmodernism has created new artforms that are often intellectually stimulating or aesthetically pleasing and a complete departure from previous norms, but it has also put out an almost unlimited amount of gibberish and garbage, since the biggest benefit of questioning if we really have the right answers is that we might find another area of subjective emotional or aesthetic truth we hadn't considered before. On the other hand, where postmodernism runs up against objective reality, it always loses -- At the end of the day, reality doesn't care how smart you are, it chooses what is correct, not you.
Some religious ideologies may consider reality subjective, such as the Indian brahmins I mentioned earlier. While their worldview can often be quite compelling emotionally, only religions that manage to find a compromise between their subjective worldview and the objective reality of survival will grow because if a religion's tenets lead individuals to objectively die then those religions will die out. Whatever the beliefs of the Minoans or the Harrapan civilization, neither of them have any adherents today because their civilizations were wiped out by objective reality's harsh tenets -- we don't even know what they believed their ideologies were wiped out so completely.
I guess finally, we can say that due to the limitations of human perception perhaps there's cognitive glitches that mean reality actually is subjective and it only appears objective because we collectively believe it's objective. I suppose that's a possibility, but I think at that point we're having to make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions to fit the hypothesis to the data. It is much simpler and much more likely that objective reality existed before us, subjectivity exists on a small timeframe in the universal scale because there exists something to be subjective, and then for many times the current estimated length of the universe objective reality will outlive us because we have every piece of evidence that we're not that special.
On the other hand, perhaps most of them could have been made to work with a little manpower (business laptops are often pretty robust, it might surprise you how often it's something minor), and after this guy t-boned the car they're fully junk. It was a big opportunity destroyed by someone else's reckless driving.
Fuck 'em. I hope the guy who t-boned him sees his premiums go up forever and a big traffic ticket too.
Fuck 'em. I hope the guy who t-boned him sees his premiums go up forever and a big traffic ticket too.
Why not? He had the laptops, and then after the wreck he no longer had the laptops. It isn't like there weren't 50 laptops in the car.
What you just said reminds me of the last comic book convention I went to before the lockdowns. It was like Feburary 2020.
I went because one of the youtubers I watch was going, and a bunch of anime industry cancel culture folks had targeted it. They called the fans of that youtuber racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic -- you know the score.
The thing that blew me away was just how diverse the fans actually were. The person running the convention is a non-binary trans, and you saw people of every hue of skin color, gay people, women, as well as people who clearly weren't neurotypical, and so on and so forth.
It's where you realize, the accusations are just part of the attack, they didn't need to be accurate, they just needed to successfully isolate the people they wanted to isolate.
I went because one of the youtubers I watch was going, and a bunch of anime industry cancel culture folks had targeted it. They called the fans of that youtuber racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic -- you know the score.
The thing that blew me away was just how diverse the fans actually were. The person running the convention is a non-binary trans, and you saw people of every hue of skin color, gay people, women, as well as people who clearly weren't neurotypical, and so on and so forth.
It's where you realize, the accusations are just part of the attack, they didn't need to be accurate, they just needed to successfully isolate the people they wanted to isolate.
In that case, I tend to agree quite strongly with you.
Unfortunately it's like a lot of things right now, a lot of movements claim to be about one thing and then end up actually about something entirely different.
I guess in that way, it also ends up becoming a lot more difficult to criticize, because whatever bad stuff they're doing, they're doing in the name of something that you actually might agree with. If we were actually talking about more freedom and less government I would totally be on board with that. In fact, if austerity was actually about balancing budgets I am 100% on board with that. Instead it just becomes sort of performative liberalism where they use the right words to convince people despite having no intention on following through with the whole.
I guess it's just human nature, claim you're doing something popular and then do whatever you want. It isn't new certainly.
Unfortunately it's like a lot of things right now, a lot of movements claim to be about one thing and then end up actually about something entirely different.
I guess in that way, it also ends up becoming a lot more difficult to criticize, because whatever bad stuff they're doing, they're doing in the name of something that you actually might agree with. If we were actually talking about more freedom and less government I would totally be on board with that. In fact, if austerity was actually about balancing budgets I am 100% on board with that. Instead it just becomes sort of performative liberalism where they use the right words to convince people despite having no intention on following through with the whole.
I guess it's just human nature, claim you're doing something popular and then do whatever you want. It isn't new certainly.
La distensia para una duelo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nGusAJYHcjo&pp=ygUabGEgZGlzdGFuY2lhIHBhcmEgdW4gZHVlbG8%3D
I know it's weeb music, but the Spanish guitar type stuff is something I always liked.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nGusAJYHcjo&pp=ygUabGEgZGlzdGFuY2lhIHBhcmEgdW4gZHVlbG8%3D
I know it's weeb music, but the Spanish guitar type stuff is something I always liked.
I always see criticism of neoliberalism and austerity, but I don't think there's been virtually anywhere actually practicing neoliberalism or austerity. In the past 100 years, the government in almost every country went from 10% of GDP to 50 or over 60% of GDP, and that's under all kinds of parties, there really wasn't one that you could predictably say did anything differently since everyone basically agreed you needed to spend more, it's just a question of on what. Cut one thing, and splurge on another. The death of freedom in a thousand cuts. 110 years ago there essentially wasn't such thing as an income tax on most of the globe, today a blue collar worker can pay over 50% in taxes on his or her last dollar.
The politicians who claim to believe in that tend to just intend to cut taxes to buy votes while still increasing spending. Reagan is a perfect example, where he talked a good game about increasing freedom and shrinking government, but quadrupled the national debt and set up the next 40 years of debt explosion. Some politicians end up selling off common goods as well, but that seems to me to be sticking only to the most self-serving aspects of the ideology.
We'll have to see what President Milei in Argentina does. It would be interesting to see someone actually reduce government and actually increase individual freedoms in a century of creeping government weeds choking up our entire civilization.
The politicians who claim to believe in that tend to just intend to cut taxes to buy votes while still increasing spending. Reagan is a perfect example, where he talked a good game about increasing freedom and shrinking government, but quadrupled the national debt and set up the next 40 years of debt explosion. Some politicians end up selling off common goods as well, but that seems to me to be sticking only to the most self-serving aspects of the ideology.
We'll have to see what President Milei in Argentina does. It would be interesting to see someone actually reduce government and actually increase individual freedoms in a century of creeping government weeds choking up our entire civilization.
I picked up a remote for my chromecast. I looked up how to set up a chromecast remote, and it's like "First, use your chromecast remote to go to the pairing screen"
Google, they're not sending their best...
Google, they're not sending their best...
Making these characters not look like they hit every branch on the ugly tree they fell out of is literally violence against me.
I don't even call Jeff Cliff Jeff Cliff most of the time.
I mean, I did just now but most of the time I'd either talk directly to him so I wouldn't need to refer to him by his name, and I generally try not to talk much about anyone in particular since that's kinda weird to do.
I mean, I did just now but most of the time I'd either talk directly to him so I wouldn't need to refer to him by his name, and I generally try not to talk much about anyone in particular since that's kinda weird to do.
It can also be .xml. I checked my RSS feeds, and most have no file extension instead pointing at a folder which presumably has a default file it shows, some have .RSS extensions, and a few have .xml. one just used a parameter fed into the feed using ? (Squarespace sites)
The .RSS feeds tend to be more newsish and the .xml feeds tend to be more technical.
The .RSS feeds tend to be more newsish and the .xml feeds tend to be more technical.
Also remember that the sweet nothings commies use to seduce you are not the reality of living under their boot.
Environmentalism is counter-revolutionary, off to the gulag with you.
Environmentalism is counter-revolutionary, off to the gulag with you.
In industrial maintenance, an important axiom is: "every time you walk up to a working machine and do maintenance to it, there's a chance even a great technician will break it". Therefore in order to achieve the greatest reliability in your equipment you must strive to find the right balance so you're spending the best dollars and spending the best time to deal with potential problems without introducing more problems as a result.
This concept came about on the Boeing 747 project because they needed to get higher reliability and it turned out that aircraft maintenance was dramatically over maintaining aircraft and causing more equipment failures. Today aircraft have orders of magnitude better reliability because they're doing the right maintenance instead of just more.
It seems to me that medicine is about 60 years behind the curve in this regard. We think more treatment is better, even if nothing is ostensibly wrong.
This concept came about on the Boeing 747 project because they needed to get higher reliability and it turned out that aircraft maintenance was dramatically over maintaining aircraft and causing more equipment failures. Today aircraft have orders of magnitude better reliability because they're doing the right maintenance instead of just more.
It seems to me that medicine is about 60 years behind the curve in this regard. We think more treatment is better, even if nothing is ostensibly wrong.
I mean, Hollywood's idea of "diversity" is entirely performative.
30 years ago, movies and television shows written, acted, and produced by black people existed. There were a number of fairly big names that came from that, including the Wayans brothers and Wil Smith (and let's not rewrite history here, he was considered very cool for a very long time). Family Matters had a time slot right next to Full House on TV. Saturday morning cartoons had Static Shock alongside batman. Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan did a buddy cop movie that as I recall had some sequels.
So what do we have today?
We have a bunch of stories from the whitest parts of europe but now we dipped the main characters in tea (looking at you, black snow white). Every character is just the same southern california stereotype. You can swap in anyone -- black, white, muslim, christian, asian, gay, straight -- and it doesn't matter, it's surface level. The same character dipped in certain strengths of tea or rainbow or "foreign religion", but in reality they're just the same southern California writer who lacks any ability to write anyone but themselves. The idea of acknowledging that people are different in any way other than the food they eat or the most superficial of traits is in stark opposition to their entire ideology.
Things are far worse than they've ever been. They say "Oh, blazing saddles! That could never be made today!" Why not? The movie is fundamentally about racism, making a mockery of it. Despite that, it's the left that wouldn't let it get made, not the right. And guess who dominates Hollywood?
It can't be made today because it doesn't represent perfect orthodoxy, and so it can never be allowed. This isn't a matter of ignorant writers, it's about writers who know exactly what they're doing -- they're doing what they're told and following the script they've been given perfectly.
30 years ago, movies and television shows written, acted, and produced by black people existed. There were a number of fairly big names that came from that, including the Wayans brothers and Wil Smith (and let's not rewrite history here, he was considered very cool for a very long time). Family Matters had a time slot right next to Full House on TV. Saturday morning cartoons had Static Shock alongside batman. Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan did a buddy cop movie that as I recall had some sequels.
So what do we have today?
We have a bunch of stories from the whitest parts of europe but now we dipped the main characters in tea (looking at you, black snow white). Every character is just the same southern california stereotype. You can swap in anyone -- black, white, muslim, christian, asian, gay, straight -- and it doesn't matter, it's surface level. The same character dipped in certain strengths of tea or rainbow or "foreign religion", but in reality they're just the same southern California writer who lacks any ability to write anyone but themselves. The idea of acknowledging that people are different in any way other than the food they eat or the most superficial of traits is in stark opposition to their entire ideology.
Things are far worse than they've ever been. They say "Oh, blazing saddles! That could never be made today!" Why not? The movie is fundamentally about racism, making a mockery of it. Despite that, it's the left that wouldn't let it get made, not the right. And guess who dominates Hollywood?
It can't be made today because it doesn't represent perfect orthodoxy, and so it can never be allowed. This isn't a matter of ignorant writers, it's about writers who know exactly what they're doing -- they're doing what they're told and following the script they've been given perfectly.