So I just had a neat thought as to how the US could help solve several problems at once.
Something like 50% of land in the west is owned by the federal government. Look up a map of it, it's nuts.
Just sell the land.
1. Massive money immediately
2. Lots of land to build new homes or industrial plants or whatever, probably a baby boomers and an economic bump
3. Reduced overhead from having to deal with all that land
A new wild west.
Something like 50% of land in the west is owned by the federal government. Look up a map of it, it's nuts.
Just sell the land.
1. Massive money immediately
2. Lots of land to build new homes or industrial plants or whatever, probably a baby boomers and an economic bump
3. Reduced overhead from having to deal with all that land
A new wild west.
Why? Because it's current year little Timmy! Now take your violent assault like a good little subject!
The New York Times, the Washington Post and MSNBC put out articles telling us how yummy it is on the same day I'm sure it's really delicious and nutritious and everyone will eat it.
No offense to these people being all self sufficient and shit, but other than the first guy who at least has it in its own location, the second guy can't bathe and the third wakes up in the morning smelling like chicken shit and piss...
Build a shed, bro....
Build a shed, bro....
The Matrix is interesting because arguably only the first movie was classic. The movies that came afterwards were big and flashy but lacked the impact of the first.
I remember seeing Matrix 2 in theatres, and the scene on the highway is really a good example. There was a massive car chase, a fight on a transport truck, lots of explosions and flash and kung-fu fighting, but I was bored. Back then, televisions were vacuum tubes, and I was watching the movie on a giant movie theatre screen in high definition, but I was bored.
The first film had quiet moments, but it also had tension because a lot of the characters in the movie do die. We see several people die over the course of the movie and they don't come back, they aren't saved by a deus ex machina. It seemed contrived the way in Matrix 2 they basically needed to teleport Neo to the other side of the planet so he could be kept out of a scene and he had to superman it back.
Ironically though, you *can* do a great story about a character on God mode. Japan has an entire genre of anime where the main character gets cheat powers.
Another way isekai handles the "god mode" problem is to make it so you don't care the MC is overpowered. In The Matrix, the end of the first movie chastens the Matrix. They know Neo is The One, and they respect him deeply even though they're opposing him. It sort of means there's nowhere to go. He's overpowered and everyone knows he's overpowered and everyone is scared of him. By contrast, in isekai often the enemies think they stand a chance and so they use the perceived imbalance to really kick the dog, really make the audience hate them. The fun of a "God Mode" character is seeing an overconfident and really evil antagonist get their comeuppance. They thought they were in control, but in reality they were just a fly buzzing around the MC waiting to be righteously swatted.
Isekai can also make their cheat powers interesting by making learning them an arc. Matrix 2 for example could have shown that the two things Neo did at the end of Matrix 1 were not enough to deal with the strongest threats the Matrix could muster, and so he'd have to use hard work and diligence to learn the fundamentals of his powers and become much more powerful so he could overcome the greatest threats. This could have an inherent tension in The Matrix because he could only train on his powers while inside The Matrix, but being inside the Matrix would also be the one time he was actually at risk from it as well. Instead, we got a whole Zion subplot.
One of the reasons this kind of training arc also works is that it demonstrates that the power alone isn't what makes the hero heroic. Most isekai protagonists with cheat powers are often told their powers are useless and won't be beneficial to anyone. The reason the protagonist is successful isn't just the cheat powers, but because of the hard work, diligence, and ingenuity that helped them master their powers. Outside of Isekai, consider Naruto. He starts off as hated, then has this gross red chakra that makes him more powerful but takes away his humanity and doesn't make him all-powerful as most high-level opponents defeat him in that state. He has to learn how to master chakra and the rasengan, but he also has to use his innate virtue to communicate with, tame, and later befriend the nine tails to change the nasty red chakra into something that turns him into a glowing being of overwhelming power. He never would have earned that power without his innate virtue and his clever intuitions about how to connect with a being that is a prisoner inside of him (with the help of other jinkurichi like Killer Bee).
The final movie could have meant finally transcending the Matrix altogether and having Neo (and his friends who could have been somewhat powered up by the new wisdom Neo gains during his training to keep them relevant) entering the machine mind. The concept of an Agent Smith who sucks people up like a virus is still acceptable, but the movies never investigate the idea that Smith gains his power through non-virtuous means while Neo would earn his power through acts of virtue. In the actual movie, Neo gains real-world Matrix powers that are not in any way investigated or explained for no apparent reason than he's special. Smith ultimately wins because he's more powerful, and only through a philosophical deus ex machina does Neo defeat Smith. It was a cool fight, but it doesn't feel like a good payoff, and it doesn't really feel earned. If instead Neo gains some measure of control over the robots in the physical world because of his brave actions in the virtual world, then that could help resolve part of the Zion plot. In the end, you could still have a major fight between The One Neo and The Many Smith, but it could be framed in such a way that Neo's fight is with power he gained through discipline, virtue, and bravery and the support and love of his friends while Smith's powers were gained through greed, vice, and cowardice but rejecting friendship, and in the end Neo wins because of the attributes inherent to that virtuous rise to power, and Smith would lose due to the attributes inherent to his vicious rise to power.
One final thing is you could tie the concept of virtue vs. vice, of the one among many vs. many subsuming the one and you could help win the war against the machines by convincing the ruling class of the machines that humans and machines can work together after all. There could even be a character who similar to how Dozer and Tank exist entirely in the real world exist entirely in the Matrix. I mean a main character who can join in on Matrix adventures, perhaps Neo's teacher in the second film who is a rogue AI program or something. In that way, the end of the machine war and the end of The Matrix would be representative of Neo's virtue rather than just the fact he's machine Jesus.
I think the reason the Wachowskis didn't go this route lies in the first movie: "Simulations and Simulacra", one of the defining tomes of postmodernism. The rejection of overarching narratives means that ultimately they couldn't accept the victory being because the good guy was virtuous and the bad guy was vicious, because that conception breaks the ideology. This explains to an extent why the Matrix movies have been so disappointing since the first one, and it also explains why they didn't take these clear and obvious steps that would have made the trilogy likely one of the greatest movie franchises of all time. Their ideology simply couldn't accept a broad narrative like that.
I remember seeing Matrix 2 in theatres, and the scene on the highway is really a good example. There was a massive car chase, a fight on a transport truck, lots of explosions and flash and kung-fu fighting, but I was bored. Back then, televisions were vacuum tubes, and I was watching the movie on a giant movie theatre screen in high definition, but I was bored.
The first film had quiet moments, but it also had tension because a lot of the characters in the movie do die. We see several people die over the course of the movie and they don't come back, they aren't saved by a deus ex machina. It seemed contrived the way in Matrix 2 they basically needed to teleport Neo to the other side of the planet so he could be kept out of a scene and he had to superman it back.
Ironically though, you *can* do a great story about a character on God mode. Japan has an entire genre of anime where the main character gets cheat powers.
Another way isekai handles the "god mode" problem is to make it so you don't care the MC is overpowered. In The Matrix, the end of the first movie chastens the Matrix. They know Neo is The One, and they respect him deeply even though they're opposing him. It sort of means there's nowhere to go. He's overpowered and everyone knows he's overpowered and everyone is scared of him. By contrast, in isekai often the enemies think they stand a chance and so they use the perceived imbalance to really kick the dog, really make the audience hate them. The fun of a "God Mode" character is seeing an overconfident and really evil antagonist get their comeuppance. They thought they were in control, but in reality they were just a fly buzzing around the MC waiting to be righteously swatted.
Isekai can also make their cheat powers interesting by making learning them an arc. Matrix 2 for example could have shown that the two things Neo did at the end of Matrix 1 were not enough to deal with the strongest threats the Matrix could muster, and so he'd have to use hard work and diligence to learn the fundamentals of his powers and become much more powerful so he could overcome the greatest threats. This could have an inherent tension in The Matrix because he could only train on his powers while inside The Matrix, but being inside the Matrix would also be the one time he was actually at risk from it as well. Instead, we got a whole Zion subplot.
One of the reasons this kind of training arc also works is that it demonstrates that the power alone isn't what makes the hero heroic. Most isekai protagonists with cheat powers are often told their powers are useless and won't be beneficial to anyone. The reason the protagonist is successful isn't just the cheat powers, but because of the hard work, diligence, and ingenuity that helped them master their powers. Outside of Isekai, consider Naruto. He starts off as hated, then has this gross red chakra that makes him more powerful but takes away his humanity and doesn't make him all-powerful as most high-level opponents defeat him in that state. He has to learn how to master chakra and the rasengan, but he also has to use his innate virtue to communicate with, tame, and later befriend the nine tails to change the nasty red chakra into something that turns him into a glowing being of overwhelming power. He never would have earned that power without his innate virtue and his clever intuitions about how to connect with a being that is a prisoner inside of him (with the help of other jinkurichi like Killer Bee).
The final movie could have meant finally transcending the Matrix altogether and having Neo (and his friends who could have been somewhat powered up by the new wisdom Neo gains during his training to keep them relevant) entering the machine mind. The concept of an Agent Smith who sucks people up like a virus is still acceptable, but the movies never investigate the idea that Smith gains his power through non-virtuous means while Neo would earn his power through acts of virtue. In the actual movie, Neo gains real-world Matrix powers that are not in any way investigated or explained for no apparent reason than he's special. Smith ultimately wins because he's more powerful, and only through a philosophical deus ex machina does Neo defeat Smith. It was a cool fight, but it doesn't feel like a good payoff, and it doesn't really feel earned. If instead Neo gains some measure of control over the robots in the physical world because of his brave actions in the virtual world, then that could help resolve part of the Zion plot. In the end, you could still have a major fight between The One Neo and The Many Smith, but it could be framed in such a way that Neo's fight is with power he gained through discipline, virtue, and bravery and the support and love of his friends while Smith's powers were gained through greed, vice, and cowardice but rejecting friendship, and in the end Neo wins because of the attributes inherent to that virtuous rise to power, and Smith would lose due to the attributes inherent to his vicious rise to power.
One final thing is you could tie the concept of virtue vs. vice, of the one among many vs. many subsuming the one and you could help win the war against the machines by convincing the ruling class of the machines that humans and machines can work together after all. There could even be a character who similar to how Dozer and Tank exist entirely in the real world exist entirely in the Matrix. I mean a main character who can join in on Matrix adventures, perhaps Neo's teacher in the second film who is a rogue AI program or something. In that way, the end of the machine war and the end of The Matrix would be representative of Neo's virtue rather than just the fact he's machine Jesus.
I think the reason the Wachowskis didn't go this route lies in the first movie: "Simulations and Simulacra", one of the defining tomes of postmodernism. The rejection of overarching narratives means that ultimately they couldn't accept the victory being because the good guy was virtuous and the bad guy was vicious, because that conception breaks the ideology. This explains to an extent why the Matrix movies have been so disappointing since the first one, and it also explains why they didn't take these clear and obvious steps that would have made the trilogy likely one of the greatest movie franchises of all time. Their ideology simply couldn't accept a broad narrative like that.
I still don't know how that guy sits like that.
Sitting like that would cause me tremendous amounts of pain.
Sitting like that would cause me tremendous amounts of pain.
In general, I have come to believe that what we call "wokeness" can be viewed instead as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
Yes, FBXL Social which I'm the admin of has a max character limit of 60,000 characters. There's only been a few times I've come close to that, but I like giving ideas space to stretch their legs, and while the fediverse might not be the ideal format for it, it's the freest platform anywhere since we own it ourselves.
"Doctor Angelicus, it seems to me that because God is good, his commandments to help us achieve the kingdom of heaven are not things that ultimately hurt us in this material world, but help us. I believe this is in accordance with what you call natural law, that God's law is not in disharmony with nature. We follow His commandments, and not only are we saved spiritually by the grace of God, but the material world we live in gets better for it. Of course, we live in a world after the fall, so in this imperfect world good things will still happen to bad people and bad things will happen to good people and it may not immediately be apparent that the commandments will help us, but that's what patience and humility are for. Because the material world becomes so much better, we become arrogant, thinking we achieved all this on our own without God, and so cast aside His commandments. Like Adam, we leave the garden of Eden as we are doomed to do whenever we choose to allow our Hubris to grow too strong. This would be a tragedy like Sisyphus but for two things: First, God's grace to give us entry to the kingdom of heaven. Second, we do fall, but because we have been saved through Christ, we are not like Adam -- we grow and are a little stronger, so when we once again find His commandments and follow them again, we aren't starting just outside Adam's Eden, but near the gates of our own metaphorical Eden, a new high point for humanity on Earth. To be clear, we need not fall to grow, and we do not need to choose pride and can instead choose humility so we do not fall. However, when we do fall, when we do allow ourselves to be taken over by pride we do not fall all the way, reflecting God's grace reflected in our natural state."
(I'm just a fool playing with ideas in the form of a dialogue, so don't take this as anything but that)
(I'm just a fool playing with ideas in the form of a dialogue, so don't take this as anything but that)
The whole planet has been bathing in this poison too long.
I'm hoping change is finally in the air, not just for us but for everyone living under the haze.
I'm hoping change is finally in the air, not just for us but for everyone living under the haze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcWkzTT_DUY
Shit, turns out this was a Destiny biography in rap form the whole time.
Shit, turns out this was a Destiny biography in rap form the whole time.
Imagine that there's all kinds of people out there who think the fediverse is just mastodon and the creepy far left cheese pizza enthusiasts, when we have compelling art that blows that narrative away. (Oh god, bring some towels....)
A while back I realized that this time next year Canada could have cheap gas and plastic straws.... And that makes me Maple MAGA for sure.