Harrison Danneskjold

I don't follow.

I'm not sure if this warrants its own thread, but I just learned about this thing and I'd like to say a few things about it in a somewhat orderly fashion. This thing is called The Black Lives Matter. game. This is an alleged video game which consists of nothing more than an eight minute and forty-six second timer (which is an obvious reference to George Floyd's accidentally-assisted suicide). When the countdown reaches zero the application closes itself without giving any indication as to whether you've won or lost, except that you paid $1 for this very specific timer function and probably deserve to feel like a bit of a loser at that point. I won't insult everybody's intelligence by asking whether this game is good or bad. What I would like to point out are the specific reasons why it's such an outrage. It's not the name. When I first heard its title the very first thing I pictured were violent mobs of people looting and burning the Twin Cities to the ground, which (as atrocious as such activities were in real life) would make for a pretty awesome video game; something like Grand Theft Auto. The period stuck in the middle of the phrase is slightly annoying (as all bad grammar is to me) but it could've been called the White Lives Matter, All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter game; it wouldn't affect its quality by one iota. The problem here is that this is not a video game. Calling a countdown timer in isolation a video game is like mounting a wall clock on some tree somewhere and calling it a house - in a word, retarded. This is a timer application and a greatly substandard one at that; at least the one we've all got on our phones, for absolutely free, can be set to count down from whatever time we'd like. This one could only be useful for a task that requires precisely 8:46 to complete. As somewhat of a novice, hobbyist programmer myself, I could replicate this exact functionality in less than eight minutes and forty-six seconds - only I would never ask to be paid for it! I may be a raging alcoholic with obvious psychological issues, but asking to be paid for something like that seems several dozen rungs of Hell still lower. Now, let's ask ourselves why someone would throw a turd like that out onto the internet, specifically link it to the BLM movement and then ask people to pay them one (presumably symbolic) dollar for their non-efforts. This did not come from any sincere sort of belief in that movement or love of their ideals. If it were then they would've actually created some sort of video game instead of this abject waste, which surely isn't doing any favors for BLM's public image. Would any of you create an app which only displayed "9/2" on a blank background, call it the Atlas Shrugged Calendar and then ask real human beings to pay you for it? Can you think of a better way to demonstrate your utter indifference to the movement you referenced in that way? This was the attempt of some lazy and dishonest but somewhat cunning "person" to make the most money they could from the least possible amount of effort or risk. There's been a lot of talk lately about major corporations and especially movie studios "getting woke" and creating remarkably similar turds of their own, and in those cases where such talk is justified (because it's true) I think it's working in just the same way as this "video game". It's not that this weird ideology gets into creative endeavors and wrecks them. It's that some people who are incapable of creativity but wish to pretend otherwise (and get paid for it too) know that they can get away with this by slapping certain buzzwords onto whatever garbage they emit. And the best way I've been able to think of for discouraging such behavior is for each of us, as individuals, to not allow them to get away with it. Do not buy this game. Do not buy any analogous "movies" or "music" and above all, call them what they are: worthless.

That one is in fact perfectly relevant. You might miss a few of the subtler points if you don't speak German but just watch the music video and I think you'll get its drift.

BTW I absolutely love the response of the Welsh pub-keepers. "You're gonna declare our business illegal and shut us down? Well YOU'RE not allowed any more booze from us ever again!" I've been waiting to ask my own boss if I'm allowed to do likewise to the Dear Leader of Minnesota: Tim Walz! Haven't gotten a good chance to ask yet. But here's something!

I don't understand any of it. I'm listening to the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters (with Sargon of Akkad) at least once every few days, so I think it's fair to say that I'm more up-to-date with British politics than most Americans. To be honest, I don't really care about that in and of itself; it's just soothing to me to hear him take something insane, break down all the reasons why it is so and eventually state so. I guess it reminds me that solipsism is not really the case. That's not the only place I hear about current events. Ben Shapiro, Yaron Brook and several others are my go-to for such things. But when it comes to dissecting some unnecessarily-complicated piece of crap (which seems to be modern America's REAL surplus) which I don't have the time to figure out for myself I usually lean on the Lotus Eaters' dissection. But based on what I've heard in that I really don't know why anyone is locked down anymore, in any country. Come to think of it the John's Hopkins COVID19 mortality rate calculator perfectly backs up that opinion. It starts out with dozens of disclaimers about how it's not meant to be taken seriously and if you have the Wuhan Flu you should go and see your doctor about it. And I agree: if you personally are currently suffering from the Wuhan Flu then you should see your doctor about it. But what's the point of even having such a mortality calculator if it cannot also be consulted about the risks involved? I strongly encourage everyone who reads this to do precisely that. Let me know what the odds of you dying are! If I personally caught the Wuhan Pneumonia there would be a 0.0001% chance of my death from it. And I'd call any risk that tiny entirely and universally not worth worrying about. Which is why I have never (and currently still have not) taken such a risk even semi-seriously.

Thank Galt he didn't back down on that!!! I think it's much better with all the complicated entanglements he chose to put in there than it would've been with one between Mal and Zoe. Also, thank you for letting me know about Big Damn Hero. Apparently it's one of the ones Audible gives away for free to all members, so I'm about halfway through listening to the audiobook right now and it's definitely almost as good as the show. It does seem like the Alliance and Mal's fight for freedom is pretty central to that as well, but I'll see if it's worth commenting about once I've actually finished it. Regardless, though, this is another excellent story and I am grateful that you pointed me towards it. --- Also, September Second could also be abbreviated with Roman Numerals as 9/II. Coincidence??? Ha! PS: Yes, it definitively is coincidence; that's how the vast majority of Numerological claims work. And since Atlas Shrugged was written (someone please help me specify here) somewhere in the 60's or 70's, the only way for Ayn Rand to have deliberately referenced 9/11 would be if she somehow had access to knowledge from the future. But if you're ever talking to a Numerologist and want to blow their mind (and/or cause them to shut up) ...

You really shouldn't. I think I'm right about the theme of the show, but maybe I'm not; what I can guarantee for certain is that you need to see it. Maybe start with Serenity (the movie which summarizes what the general plot of the show was meant to be) but it is in your own self-interest to start somewhere with that.

I do. You're right; at no point during the show is he literally a soldier (because, just as in John Wick, I don't think flashbacks should count). Exactly. As I was rewatching it this morning I recalled all the bits about money and self-interest (which I'd forgotten) which really should constitute another theme that I'd say is coequal with family and less important than freedom. There's certainly a lot going on in that show, though. I think that might be part of why it's so good and also what makes it a bit more difficult to dissect than, say, John Wick: Thanks for letting me know about Big Damn Hero, though. I probably won't be able to get it for another two weeks but it certainly sounds like one I simply have to read. If the concept of "family" includes that one gets to choose it for oneself then yes, I'd say it's definitely one of the primary themes of the show. And this may just be a personal quirk of my own conception of it but I've been thinking of "family" as something non-chosen. Simon sacrifices his brilliant career in something that he deeply loves for the sake of his sister, but also cuts off all ties with his father over it. None of the other characters really fit into the traditionally "familial" roles with each other (as I was just pointing out about Kaylee and Jayne) but it could be the main theme if we're playing a bit fast and loose with precisely what the term "family" really means. Generally yes. There have always been hack writers, even before there was a Hollywood. What's different today is that a hack writer might still be able to pass something off as worthwhile by simply screaming "bigotry" at anyone who points out that they are, in fact, a hack. And I also think Firefly is a great example of certain ideas about equality and liberty being perfectly demonstrated without any sloppiness or laziness whatsoever. Zoe and River are both female warriors who're capable of besting entire squads of men single-handedly, and once you know a bit about their backstories this actually makes sense. They don't seem to "fight fair" either, in the way one would stereotypically think of a fistfight between two men. And I don't think the subject of race even comes up once in either the show or the movie. I'm actually quite curious as to why it got cancelled, though. I've heard a couple of contradictory stories and not one of them would rationally justify the cessation of something so great, to my mind, anyway. I'd really love to see a reboot at some point - as long as it's not a soulless and minimal-effort cash grab.

Why don't you watch all the Firefly excerpts I just posted and then tell me if any of them changed your mind?

Not only does that second one introduce all the main characters pretty seamlessly but there's a particularly illuminating but about Mal's relationship with Simon at the three minute mark. And speaking of the movie Serenity, what's with the origin of the Reavers? Spoiler alert:

I think I actually care more about Firefly and its meaning than I do about racism. Sorry.

If you've never seen Firefly then watch this (which does include several lines about "family") and listen to it.

But she isn't a symbol of femininity, even to John Wick. She's a token of his dead wife's affection. Since she is a dog she has none of the physical or behavioral characteristics usually associated with "femininity" and thusly cannot be said to symbolize it on any level. And the gender of the dog has literally zero impact on the plot. What matters about her, in terms of what moves the story forward, is that she was a present from his dead wife and that she dies. That's all. That's really the one and only plot point, followed by vast quantities of murder. And although the dog is involved its genitalia most certainly are not. Precisely. The dog has nothing to do with femininity; what matters is that his dead wife gave it to him. In this conversation it is my third favorite, yes. The Wikipedia article also says: The Battle of Serenity was also a crippling defeat for the pro-freedom Browncoats and it basically cost them the war. At one point one of the characters asks Mal how many of the soldiers under his command made it out of Serenity valley alive and he can't answer that question; he just glares back with his whole body clenched. He also named his own starship (which he specifically bought "in order to live beyond Alliance control") after that same battle. You actually cannot remove the Alliance from this story and still have it make any sense at all. That's why most episodes begin with a brief summary of the Unification War, who fought it, why they were fighting and who won (before proceeding to where several of its losers are today). Well, unfortunately, I've never heard of it. What's it called? It sounds like something I really do need to read. I know he thinks of his crew like his family. That's true. But let's continue keeping this concrete. Zoe is more like a sister to him than a potential wife. Alright; that makes sense. And since you seem so enthusiastic to pick some symbols of "masculinity" and "femininity" Inara is a pretty good choice; you might be onto something there, as well. So what does that make Wash? Simon and River's uncle and Mal's brother-in-law? How about Kaylee (the ship's engineer, for those who haven't seen it) who at several points mentions in uncomfortable detail her burning desire to have her adoptive brother Simon in her bed? What about Jayne, who isn't very secretive about the fact that he'd sell everyone else out for a nickel and at one point attempts to do just that? As I said before, there are a few bits about family in it: Simon's devotion to his actual sister River and the fact that Mal views his crew as something like his own children. That's the extent of it, though, and even the second part breaks down from time to time. When does his paternal sort of affection dissolve into something very different? When someone (usually Jayne or Simon) says the wrong thing about the Alliance. This happens in those specific moments because, although Mal does usually enjoy acting in the role of a father figure, he is ready to kill or to die for freedom. As is perfectly befitting a self-respecting soldier. And although he might like to think of himself as something like a father he literally is a soldier. In one of the episodes (I can't recall which) but also in Serenity it's shown that he's listed as an enemy combatant in the Alliance database, alongside the word "volunteer". That being said, I haven't read the canonical novel (I didn't know there were any) and maybe there'll be something in it which proves me wrong. Perhaps we should table the Firefly discussion until I've read it. But if we're just going by what's in the movie and the TV show you are still demonstrably wrong. PS: Just to be perfectly clear, you do see all the elements of Firefly that are about freedom and just disagree that it's the primary theme, right? Or do you not even see that they exist?

Alright. Where do you think we're heading?

You got me. I would apologize for getting that one wrong and thank you for the correction if the statistical differences in muscle mass between the races was an issue that mattered even a little bit. Like the new Ghostbusters reference it was purely a shorthand way of expressing my primary point, which was (ironically enough) that such statistical differences are totally devoid of meaning. All ten of the strongest men on Earth are white. Awesome. Does that make me physically stronger than anyone who's ever bothered to visit a gym at least once? Does it mean that all of the strongest people on Earth even really look like me, aside from the very approximate melanin levels of their epidermis (and what would that mean for my own life even if they did)? I won't ask who cares about that since, unfortunately, far too many people in the world today actually do. But who really should care about such a cartoonishly irrelevant factoid? Maybe those with European ancestry statistically tend to be physically stronger than others. That's neat. What about it? First of all, as you yourself just pointed out, the trials he goes through are unrealistic for anybody of either gender. Perhaps it would be slightly less realistic to watch a woman fistfighting that mafia boss at the end, but only if you're framing it in statistical terms inside of your own head as you're watching it. Accuracy to reality is not what movies are for. I hope this doesn't come across as more combative than I mean for it to but why are you drawing your "suspension of disbelief line" (if you will) particularly at gender? A seemingly immortal super-assassin and master of gun-fu would be alright as long as they're not a chick? Second of all, I'm curious as to why you specified that it was a female dog. Certainly, of all the characters in that film, the sex of the dog which dies almost immediately should be the least relevant to the plot by light-years. Thirdly, the fact that his wife dies before the movie even begins is precisely what I meant when I said that sex does not enter into its plot at all. John Wick does not seem to experience sexual attraction (or hunger or pain) and he doesn't have any complicated romances that might make his gender legitimately relevant to the plot. All John Wick does is kill. And any police officer in America could tell you that, although they may statistically tend to prefer different techniques from men, women are equally capable of ending human lives. Exactly! Which is what I love so much about that show! He doesn't have a family. He never had one. I'm sure he'd like to start one with Inara but the fact that both are such totally independent people makes that somewhat difficult. I think that's one of the biggest things he loves about her: that she is so damned headstrong. He's constantly mocking and belittling her profession, which sometimes prompts her to flaunt it ("since the boy's not long for this world I gave him a free thrust" and all) and maybe her refusal to give a single inch to such peer pressure makes him want her even more. It probably reminds him of what he (and I) considers to be the best part of himself. It wouldn't be rebuilding since he never had one. And until this moment I have never looked at it that way. I guess you could look at it that way, but wouldn't that make Zoe the proper mate for him? Not only is he quite clearly into Inara but neither he nor Zoe feel that way about each other, at all; that was a huge part of what the torture episode was about. "Take me, sir.  Take me hard." was a joke because it underscored that their dynamic is nothing like that; that it's so far removed from it that it's actually funny. That - are you saying that was supposed to symbolize a traditional mother-father pairing? He adopted Simon and River into his crew pretty much exclusively to spite the Alliance. They're not very useful and he really doesn't like them, on any personal kind of level; all he knows is that by hiding them he is hurting the Alliance at least a little bit, in some way he doesn't understand. Because he still thinks of himself as the valiant soldier who's looking for ways to continue fighting a war he's already lost. It's the same reason he consistently gets into fistfights with Alliance sympathizers every single Unification Day - it's a holiday which he celebrates by beating up anyone who thinks it was right for him to be stripped of his freedom. Zoe (a girl, I might point out, who's constantly bashing in the teeth of bad men) gets this. And you've lost me. I'm not gonna be the kind of dick about this that I said I would be, the other night. I'm sorry that I briefly was. But you are demonstrably wrong about Firefly, for starters. There are a few bits about family scattered in it, certainly, but that's not the theme of the show. Firefly is a show about freedom. And like everything else in life that actually matters, freedom has no race or gender. And now that I've got all that rattling around in my head I have to go rewatch some more of it.

#1 Nope. Off the top of my head try Isaac Newton or Alexander the Great. She was up in that same league, but "best person of all" are some pretty strong words. #2 again, the Archimedes pump or vaccinations were pretty revolutionary for all of mankind. #3 what??? I don't think anyone on this forum would ever say that if her words contradict their own eyesight then she must be right because she is the ultimate authority of everything. That really is nothing more than a straw man. Point #4 should be obvious to anyone who really understands Atlas Shrugged and its relevance to the modern world. We are either heading for a Golden or a Dark Age and Objectivist Epistemology is what we all need to understand in order to avoid it. If the Presidency of Donald Trump and most elements of the backlash against it (save maybe Yaron Brook) have proved anything, it's that. #5 is tougher for me but I think it's doubtful. I know he was one of the main motivators of both Stalin and Hitler but I'm inclined to think that the former were actually worse than the latter. I find it difficult to blame the ideological spokesperson more than I would the actual trigger man. #6 is also pure rubbish. We all know that Kant was too busy lying to himself to consciously conceive of Hitler's death camps, even apart from the other reasons why this one is rubbish. That's two that I doubt any real Objectivist has ever actually thought or said. #7 is the third straw man. For someone even more evil than Kant to deceive and then seduce someone like Ayn Rand would either require some degree of wilfull evasion on her part or for her to be far less perceptive than most of her fans would believe. To me, the simplest solution seems to be that he simply wasn't that bad of a guy in the first place. Maybe he told Rand a few lies that he shouldn't have and maybe she also reacted a bit more harshly than was warranted, but to say that either one of them was comparable to Immanuel Kant is to say that Objectivism is somewhere a falsehood, somehow. Show me the alleged Objectivist who thinks that and I will explain to them why they are only allegedly so. #8 I can't be sure of. Since I've never read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics for myself I thusly can't really judge whether it's right or wrong. #9 I gave myself a point for, not because there's anything wrong with Einstein (I personally think that what Leonard Peikoff once said about it was based on a faulty understanding of what its math really means) but I do disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics for reasons of that general nature. If the Law of Identity seems to contradict Locality then we've got to view the universe as one big web of interactions (via De Broglie Bohm) because in a conflict like that Locality is the thing which must necessarily lose. #10 is true in the special Objectivist sense. 😝 #11 is precisely true. The biggest problem with old-school logic is Hume's problem of induction, which Rand gave us the leads to the solution of in the ITOE. I devoured that book and am still a bit upset that it hasn't been elaborated on since The Logical Leap. #12 I consider false because I'm in the David Kelley camp, which is to say the truly Objectivist camp. Its alternatives consist primarily of posers. I gave myself a 4.5 (depending on what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand whenever I get around to it) which gives me Randroid tendencies - which are the best kinds of tendencies! I also gave the quiz itself 3 Straw Men. I doubt she would've approved of heavy metal, but I'll always be interested in hearing the reasons why she held the opinions that she did. Since she is not my mother, though (and neither are you) here you go all the same!

Avoiding racism? Heavens, no; I actually find actual racism to be quite funny. Those are my favorite sorts of jokes! Because actual racism is fucking silly! Good night.

Why? Couldn't the ones on the right represent individuals? This is what I mean about making certain key assumptions about such drawings. They clearly represent human faces (that is also self-evident) but you're assuming that they're supposed to represent ALL faces of a certain ethnic group. I'm pretty sure @Eiuol thinks they're supposed to represent Harold and Kumar (just as the pictures on the left apparently do). If so it would be because the assumptions he's making in order to call it "racist" actually happen to differ from yours. Because they are not justified assumptions and you'd do better without them.

Non-mental stereotypes are not racism. African people have dark brown skin and tend to be taller than people of Asian, American or European ancestry (along with many other facial and biological quirks). That's not racism any more than it's sexism to say that men have outties while women have innies. And yes @MisterSwig; I know exactly how ridiculous those terms sound, which is precisely why I'm using them. Anatomical differences between the races and genders are literally self-evident; it's how we define what a "race" or "sex" even means. They also happen to mean very little outside of the bedroom (since they do not relate to the sorts of people we choose to be) and to think otherwise about THAT is just as silly and cringe as those terms ("innie" and "outie") are. I wish there were some equivalent ones for skin color so I could use them too! To point out that men statistically tend to be taller and stronger than women (and black men the most of all), or that there are certain anatomical features that only some of us are born with, is not bigotry; it's a simple observation of the facts that everyone can literally see for themselves. To say that this dictates what kind of person they are is bigotry, and false because of the fact of human volition (which is also self-evident, but introspectively).

Please do!

To be frank, I haven't. I've seen bits and pieces cut out of it and heard the general synopsis from multiple critics who generally seem to get things right, but I'm not ready to dive into any of the details because I haven't seen it for myself. I was just trying to use it as a useful shorthand for an example of real cultural parasitism (which I still think exists and is not good). And by the way - I do actually agree with what you said in the OP. Perhaps it might make it easier for us to identify what the actual issues involved were if I endured the new Ghostbusters firsthand. The soldier who's still fighting a war he's already lost in any way he can find. The person who can endure any manner of insult, except to be called an Alliance sympathizer, and looks out for his own best interests except when it comes to the Alliance or Inara. I could go on, but I think you get the behavioral sort of gist I'm driving at. John Wick (which I have seen for myself) would be a much better example, though, since sex actually never comes up in it once. Also, I have to respect the entire box set of Firefly. That's a beautiful thing.

Really? Racism is specifically attributing mental characteristics to someone (usually someone you don't even know) on the basis of their ancestry or skin color (like "all black people are thieves" or "all white people are murderous colonizers" or "you must be good at math because you're Chinese"). I can't find any such thing in that picture. The pictures on the left are very well executed and photorealistic while the ones on the right are pretty goofy looking sketches, but that is not what racism is. To say that Mal couldn't be the same person if he'd been born with darker skin WOULD BE racist if anyone here was actually trying to say that. Again - it's not something that can even be expressed with pictures alone. The only reason you think that's racist is because you're making certain assumptions about what we're supposed to be looking at. What if those assumptions are wrong? What in the picture could give one rational grounds to know for sure?

Sorry; it's not from "if I ran the zoo" but "to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street". The whole thing is just listing off a whole lot of cool and exotic things he saw on Mulberry Street, including "a Chinese boy who eats with sticks". In the time period it was written in I'm sure that sounded much more exotic and fascinating. But racist? Really. To say that you once saw a Chinese boy eating with chopsticks is racist. It's still a little hard for me to believe that anyone on Earth is actually taking that seriously. Here's the full PDF. It's not long.

Alright. I'll bite. What's the underlying narrative you think they're trying to sell? Exactly. It's not like movies like the new Ghostbusters are bad because all the heroes are women; they're bad because they're badly and lazily written. And the "white supremacist misogynist" crap that's designed to cover that up is not believable but just irritating to basically everyone. But there seem to be a few carts being put before their horses about that.