If I was a billionaire I'd probably get a nice farm like Gates keeps doing, but the difference between us is I wouldn't be doing it to make all the poors starve to death in the next recession.
It's kind of a perfect crime when you put it like that. It's like "who shot Mr. Burns" except the baby probably didn't do it.
That's pretty impressive. She had to compete with "Viruses are made by our cells so we can regulate the human body like a factory" Sotomayor.
The one funny cope that I keep seeing is at any father would do it for their son, but feel like if my son was such a fuck up I would think that he should probably spend some time in jail for all of the federal crimes that he committed before he ends up in a ditch. I bet you any money this is part of a long-standing pattern for them, and this is just the latest.
During rittenhouse, I remember the father of one of the idiots who got themselves killed sitting there acting as if their adult child wasn't first of all a massively horrible person with multiple convictions, and second of all presently chasing down an individual who is carrying a gun with the intention of harming that person carrying the gun. I feel for a father who has to go through that, but maybe if you held your kid to a standard a whole bunch of really bad decisions could have been avoided...
During rittenhouse, I remember the father of one of the idiots who got themselves killed sitting there acting as if their adult child wasn't first of all a massively horrible person with multiple convictions, and second of all presently chasing down an individual who is carrying a gun with the intention of harming that person carrying the gun. I feel for a father who has to go through that, but maybe if you held your kid to a standard a whole bunch of really bad decisions could have been avoided...
"I just don't understand people's non-verbal cues! That's why I decided I had to break into the computers in the hospital and sell what I found on the dark web to the Chinese! If only I had understood nonverbal cues!!!"
In my previous essay, I made the point that the first Matrix movie was the only one that was competently executed, and that is because the first movie is an anthem to postmodernism and that was the water in which the Wachowski fish swim, and they are made up of the same matter as the river thereby. The hero's journey is to understand that the world in front of him is a lie and it's only by rejecting the narrative his senses give him and embracing a literal deconstruction of reality in terms of the symbols of the matrix he sees near the end of the movie does he find the power to tear down the systems, and the final monologue is a proud statement that Neo will tear down the existing systems and reveal the falseness of the narratives.
The second and third movies were a mess in part because while they engage with philosophies, the movies don't really integrate those ideas in the same way the first movie integrated postmodernism. In my essay I proposed a second and third movies that would focus on Neo utilizing his inherent virtues as a hero to overcoming the challenges ahead of him. This would be what sequels rejecting postmodernism would look like in my view.
The second movie introduced a new power -- Neo's ability to interact with machines outside of the Matrix. This new power is a synecdoche, where a part represents the whole, of the problems with the movies. why does Neo have this power? Because the movie wanted him to have the power. Practically, there is no explanation for this power given the logistical hurdles of wirelessly manipulating machines. Philosophically, there is no connection between this power and the themes presented of the Matrix being the false simulacrum of the peak of human civilization and Zion being the Desert of the Real. Morally, there was no reason the he deserved this new power, he didn't engage in virtuous conduct to achieve it. It was a deliberate decision which was made ostensibly for the spectacle of it. The story and the narrative find themselves at a crossroads because the actions within the story and the narrative within the story are at odds, and that is a theme throughout the second and third movies, a disconnect between the themes and the events of the movies.
Instead, we got obtuse philosophical dissertations and action scenes that lacked any meaning. After the Architect scene, Neo "chooses love over logic" which has emotional weight, but lacks philosophical grounding and doesn't actually have any moral weight because it isn't clear that choosing to save his lover is the right thing to do, and his passivity limits the moral conviction he shows.
The sequels pivot from postmodernism to systems theory, free will versus determinism, and the cyclical nature of oppression and rebellion, but ultimately there is a difference between narrative and story, and I think that's best illustrated by the difference between the high-minded philosophical concepts spoken of in for example the Architects dissertation, and the actual themes the actions within the movie demonstrate. The themes are discussed but never actually integrated into the plot.
Another theme they somewhat ham-handedly tried to include was the idea of Neo as a messianic figure. They used the imagery at the end of the movie to imply that Neo was an embodiment of Justice and Christ-like, but the narrative is not the story and the trilogy doesn't really support this viewing.
The disconnect between narrative, the story, and the actions of the story makes the addition of philosophical ideas weak, and arguably serves to distract from the core themes of the story as such. If the addition of philosophical ideas was firmly rooted in the core construction of the trilogy then it could have been one of the smartest and best trilogies of all time, but most people found the sequels pretentious, bombastic, and boring because it's ultimately just a bunch of things that happen with little holding the events together once you start ignoring the dissertations on philosophy peppered throughout.
Contrast with the first movie which is explictly about postmodernism, and has a "real world" that's gritty and ugly and boring and a "Matrix" which is sexy, stylized, and exciting, and the core journey for the hero was to learn to deconstruct the world around him and to reject the narrative of the machines, with one of the main enemies in the story being someone who has been released from Platos cave but wants to return and never know the sun.
To your point about Debord's works criticizing spectacle, the Wachowskis neglected to give Neo an integrated arc by exploring the boundaries of his powers in ways that reflect his virtues or philosophical growth. We have many great examples of this in media, where the hero's journey is quiet and reflective instead of loud and reactive. Instead, they leaned on spectacle, which felt like a regression rather than an evolution.
The original Matrix movie is so powerful that today its imagery is used as shorthand for major political movements (The Red Pill). The second and third movies by contrast were ephemeral, and nobody talks about them much today except to mention that they weren't very good. Nobody uses Colonel Sanders, extended rave sequences, stopping robots with your mind or Neo-Jesus as metaphors for anything. that's in spite of the fact that we're in a world that wants meaning and is seeking it desperately. This helps illustrate the difference between them.
One argument could be made that the disjointedness of the sequels was intentional or that the big dumb action scenes were intended to be hollow and meaningless as an intentional philosophical statement. I tend to think neither of these are true based on how self-satisfied the writing seems to be, and how the cinematography really seems to want to convince you that the big dumb action scenes are actually interesting and cool (for example, the slow motion focus on a cool flip from Trinity in Matrix Reloaded). It would suggest that there's further disconnects within the movie where the visual language it's using aren't consistent with the message allegedly being portrayed. Contrast with a highly philosophical piece such as Spec Ops: The Line, which starts off playing things straight but slowly changes the character of how it is portrayed to enhance the discomfort the player would be feeling from the actions the player character has taken in the player's name.
As Morpheus said in the first movie, "Quit trying to hit me and hit me!" -- If the movies were doing their job as implementations of a compelling philosophical framework, they would be engaging through the embodiment of those values. Instead, the movies are boring to watch even during the most incredibly choreographed fight scenes (and one could argue that it was intentional, but I'd counter that the cinematography didn't imply it was intentional, it seemed to imply "you should think this is really cool and epic"). This likely wasn't what they were aiming for, but instead was a symptom of a Hollywood that by this time was starting to be disconnected from the material world and like a car stuck in the snow continued to push the gas harder hoping to move forward but instead just digging a deeper rut in the ice.
So given this perspective, what do you think makes the sequels a cohesive and integrated whole that is greater than the sum of its parts? How does one great movie and two poor movies equal three great movies as a whole? How do you counter the criticism that instead of leaning back from spectacle they instead leaned into it with action sequences that were ultimately boring and hollow in ways that harm the piece instead of helping them?
The second and third movies were a mess in part because while they engage with philosophies, the movies don't really integrate those ideas in the same way the first movie integrated postmodernism. In my essay I proposed a second and third movies that would focus on Neo utilizing his inherent virtues as a hero to overcoming the challenges ahead of him. This would be what sequels rejecting postmodernism would look like in my view.
The second movie introduced a new power -- Neo's ability to interact with machines outside of the Matrix. This new power is a synecdoche, where a part represents the whole, of the problems with the movies. why does Neo have this power? Because the movie wanted him to have the power. Practically, there is no explanation for this power given the logistical hurdles of wirelessly manipulating machines. Philosophically, there is no connection between this power and the themes presented of the Matrix being the false simulacrum of the peak of human civilization and Zion being the Desert of the Real. Morally, there was no reason the he deserved this new power, he didn't engage in virtuous conduct to achieve it. It was a deliberate decision which was made ostensibly for the spectacle of it. The story and the narrative find themselves at a crossroads because the actions within the story and the narrative within the story are at odds, and that is a theme throughout the second and third movies, a disconnect between the themes and the events of the movies.
Instead, we got obtuse philosophical dissertations and action scenes that lacked any meaning. After the Architect scene, Neo "chooses love over logic" which has emotional weight, but lacks philosophical grounding and doesn't actually have any moral weight because it isn't clear that choosing to save his lover is the right thing to do, and his passivity limits the moral conviction he shows.
The sequels pivot from postmodernism to systems theory, free will versus determinism, and the cyclical nature of oppression and rebellion, but ultimately there is a difference between narrative and story, and I think that's best illustrated by the difference between the high-minded philosophical concepts spoken of in for example the Architects dissertation, and the actual themes the actions within the movie demonstrate. The themes are discussed but never actually integrated into the plot.
Another theme they somewhat ham-handedly tried to include was the idea of Neo as a messianic figure. They used the imagery at the end of the movie to imply that Neo was an embodiment of Justice and Christ-like, but the narrative is not the story and the trilogy doesn't really support this viewing.
The disconnect between narrative, the story, and the actions of the story makes the addition of philosophical ideas weak, and arguably serves to distract from the core themes of the story as such. If the addition of philosophical ideas was firmly rooted in the core construction of the trilogy then it could have been one of the smartest and best trilogies of all time, but most people found the sequels pretentious, bombastic, and boring because it's ultimately just a bunch of things that happen with little holding the events together once you start ignoring the dissertations on philosophy peppered throughout.
Contrast with the first movie which is explictly about postmodernism, and has a "real world" that's gritty and ugly and boring and a "Matrix" which is sexy, stylized, and exciting, and the core journey for the hero was to learn to deconstruct the world around him and to reject the narrative of the machines, with one of the main enemies in the story being someone who has been released from Platos cave but wants to return and never know the sun.
To your point about Debord's works criticizing spectacle, the Wachowskis neglected to give Neo an integrated arc by exploring the boundaries of his powers in ways that reflect his virtues or philosophical growth. We have many great examples of this in media, where the hero's journey is quiet and reflective instead of loud and reactive. Instead, they leaned on spectacle, which felt like a regression rather than an evolution.
The original Matrix movie is so powerful that today its imagery is used as shorthand for major political movements (The Red Pill). The second and third movies by contrast were ephemeral, and nobody talks about them much today except to mention that they weren't very good. Nobody uses Colonel Sanders, extended rave sequences, stopping robots with your mind or Neo-Jesus as metaphors for anything. that's in spite of the fact that we're in a world that wants meaning and is seeking it desperately. This helps illustrate the difference between them.
One argument could be made that the disjointedness of the sequels was intentional or that the big dumb action scenes were intended to be hollow and meaningless as an intentional philosophical statement. I tend to think neither of these are true based on how self-satisfied the writing seems to be, and how the cinematography really seems to want to convince you that the big dumb action scenes are actually interesting and cool (for example, the slow motion focus on a cool flip from Trinity in Matrix Reloaded). It would suggest that there's further disconnects within the movie where the visual language it's using aren't consistent with the message allegedly being portrayed. Contrast with a highly philosophical piece such as Spec Ops: The Line, which starts off playing things straight but slowly changes the character of how it is portrayed to enhance the discomfort the player would be feeling from the actions the player character has taken in the player's name.
As Morpheus said in the first movie, "Quit trying to hit me and hit me!" -- If the movies were doing their job as implementations of a compelling philosophical framework, they would be engaging through the embodiment of those values. Instead, the movies are boring to watch even during the most incredibly choreographed fight scenes (and one could argue that it was intentional, but I'd counter that the cinematography didn't imply it was intentional, it seemed to imply "you should think this is really cool and epic"). This likely wasn't what they were aiming for, but instead was a symptom of a Hollywood that by this time was starting to be disconnected from the material world and like a car stuck in the snow continued to push the gas harder hoping to move forward but instead just digging a deeper rut in the ice.
So given this perspective, what do you think makes the sequels a cohesive and integrated whole that is greater than the sum of its parts? How does one great movie and two poor movies equal three great movies as a whole? How do you counter the criticism that instead of leaning back from spectacle they instead leaned into it with action sequences that were ultimately boring and hollow in ways that harm the piece instead of helping them?
I went all-in on the fediverse when I realized you could be shadowbanned on establishment platforms at any time.
People who read my posts might disagree with them (or might not read them because they're too long), but a post talking about how the reason the matrix sequels sucked was because the wachowskis are postmodernists isn't exactly calling for desu desu to the juice.
People who read my posts might disagree with them (or might not read them because they're too long), but a post talking about how the reason the matrix sequels sucked was because the wachowskis are postmodernists isn't exactly calling for desu desu to the juice.
Stick man is banned from all those conferences for not closing his brackets half the time.
First trans world leader. The latest he can pull it off by is next October.
Did you know that there are only two prime ministers in history who have ever gotten divorces in office, and they are both named Trudeau? The first was his dad, the second is him.
Did you know that there are only two prime ministers in history who have ever gotten divorces in office, and they are both named Trudeau? The first was his dad, the second is him.
It's sad that the joke about the President of the Universe from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is often way too true.
We have an FBXL Social exclusive: anonymous sources familiar with Trump's thinking have confirmed that contrary to prior reports that he would be removing trans people from the military, he will be implementing a draft so all trans individuals will be forced into the military. From there he's going to send them all to Thailand to protect the strategic ladyboy reserve from attacks by the Chinese, whose reserve of this essential resource are significantly depleted after the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 in which they made significant use of those reserves in their fight against the global pandemic of unknown origins.
In order to facilitate this, Trump would utilize the selective service registry to find all the trans women who signed up at 18 as males, and to use the FBI to find and charge the trans men for failing to register on the selective service registry but will give sweetheart plea deals to drop all charges if they complete their service honorably. He reportedly said of the trans men caught in this scheme: "Your body my choice, boys! You should have known males need to apply after 18." (Experts we spoke to agree trans men are not legally required to or allowed to sign up for selective service)
We contacted trans rights organizations about this new development, and they expressed deep confusion at the matter, which admittedly was on-brand.
We also contacted Trump's transition team, and the spokeswoman said "What were you smoking when you came up with all this? Just from the loss of all our domestic Linux sysadmins alone such a plan would be catastrophic.". This damning non-denial gives strong support to our source's claims.
This has been an FBXL Social exclusive report. No, it's inappropriate to reveal our sources.
(It's actually the janitor at the FBXL office, who read a statement I prepared for him to read. But don't tell anyone. That's the source.)
In order to facilitate this, Trump would utilize the selective service registry to find all the trans women who signed up at 18 as males, and to use the FBI to find and charge the trans men for failing to register on the selective service registry but will give sweetheart plea deals to drop all charges if they complete their service honorably. He reportedly said of the trans men caught in this scheme: "Your body my choice, boys! You should have known males need to apply after 18." (Experts we spoke to agree trans men are not legally required to or allowed to sign up for selective service)
We contacted trans rights organizations about this new development, and they expressed deep confusion at the matter, which admittedly was on-brand.
We also contacted Trump's transition team, and the spokeswoman said "What were you smoking when you came up with all this? Just from the loss of all our domestic Linux sysadmins alone such a plan would be catastrophic.". This damning non-denial gives strong support to our source's claims.
This has been an FBXL Social exclusive report. No, it's inappropriate to reveal our sources.
(It's actually the janitor at the FBXL office, who read a statement I prepared for him to read. But don't tell anyone. That's the source.)
I'd actually accept that premise. It explains too much about how poor the ideology is. You can't tell me there isn't a smart ideology in there somewhere, but you also can't tell me what most people advocate for is it. It makes a lot more sense as a purely realpolitik construction because you couldn't build a coalition on the real thing.
To an extent I'd accept the same about the right, which has 8000 years of history but ends up focusing on a few hours of sound bites total.
To an extent I'd accept the same about the right, which has 8000 years of history but ends up focusing on a few hours of sound bites total.
The Bible is two parts:
"This is the model for how you live a good life, follow it or else. Here's a bunch of stories of people who did and did not follow this advice and what happened to them. Even here you can somewhat negotiate with God as Lot did in Soddom and Gamora. He also shows grace as with Israel's many failures, but such grace isn't as explicit as the second part."
And
"But God doesn't hate you, God loves you, so let's discuss how He understands you are a fallible human living in a broken world so He will show grace when you falter so long as you know you screwed up and you feel legitimately bad for it, but that by no means suggests you ought to accept or embrace sin. By the way, don't be like these assholes who focus on rule lawyering over being a good person. In the same way the first part demonstrates Grace, this part still demands one follow God's laws."
No part of the Bible is the hippy trippy boomer story about how you can do whatever you want whenever you want.
As with any matter theological, I have to point out that I'm not an authority and just a retard on the internet trying to make some sense out of the world and the long arc of human history.
"This is the model for how you live a good life, follow it or else. Here's a bunch of stories of people who did and did not follow this advice and what happened to them. Even here you can somewhat negotiate with God as Lot did in Soddom and Gamora. He also shows grace as with Israel's many failures, but such grace isn't as explicit as the second part."
And
"But God doesn't hate you, God loves you, so let's discuss how He understands you are a fallible human living in a broken world so He will show grace when you falter so long as you know you screwed up and you feel legitimately bad for it, but that by no means suggests you ought to accept or embrace sin. By the way, don't be like these assholes who focus on rule lawyering over being a good person. In the same way the first part demonstrates Grace, this part still demands one follow God's laws."
No part of the Bible is the hippy trippy boomer story about how you can do whatever you want whenever you want.
As with any matter theological, I have to point out that I'm not an authority and just a retard on the internet trying to make some sense out of the world and the long arc of human history.
The far left is always amusing.
1. They oppose "cultural imperialism" yet strive to impose their values on a foreign culture, in this case Japan. If you're going to impose your values on a foreign culture, why not really get in there and help make Afghanistan woke again?
They have a moral certitude that their ideology is the true and correct one and so spreading it is justified, but given that their ideology is based on postmodernism, it's a broken certitude -- If you are going to reject grand narratives and deconstruct their elements, why should that result in a new grand narrative? The answer is that it shouldn't, and orthodox progressivism as I've defined wokeness as in depth is built on a paradox that can't be solved.
2. They oppose "cultural appropriation" yet strive to appropriate light novels, manga, and anime to carry their woke message. If you're going to appropriate culture, why not choose something totally alien to the west, like making Mongolian throat singing woke? If you think about it, it's a lot more on brand.
Incidentally, some people sound like they're Mongolian throat singing when they burp, but I'm not opposed to a little cultural appropriation as long as it's in good fun!
1. They oppose "cultural imperialism" yet strive to impose their values on a foreign culture, in this case Japan. If you're going to impose your values on a foreign culture, why not really get in there and help make Afghanistan woke again?
They have a moral certitude that their ideology is the true and correct one and so spreading it is justified, but given that their ideology is based on postmodernism, it's a broken certitude -- If you are going to reject grand narratives and deconstruct their elements, why should that result in a new grand narrative? The answer is that it shouldn't, and orthodox progressivism as I've defined wokeness as in depth is built on a paradox that can't be solved.
2. They oppose "cultural appropriation" yet strive to appropriate light novels, manga, and anime to carry their woke message. If you're going to appropriate culture, why not choose something totally alien to the west, like making Mongolian throat singing woke? If you think about it, it's a lot more on brand.
Incidentally, some people sound like they're Mongolian throat singing when they burp, but I'm not opposed to a little cultural appropriation as long as it's in good fun!
Randomly, got stung by a wasp near my shed a couple years ago. This year I discovered the largest wasps nest I've ever seen I(about the size of a volley ball) in a hidden corner of the shed. Dead now, but it explains a lot.
This isn't how it's done in other countries. My kid is 3 and I think he had just your very basic shots, like 5 or so, and some of them were the same one multiple times. Not an unreasonable number like 32!
Considering that all the predictions about the unvaccinated were totally wrong, it definitely seems fishy.
Trump made a lot of mistakes his first term, I hope he's learned better this time around.
Trump made a lot of mistakes his first term, I hope he's learned better this time around.