Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

Regulars
  • Posts

    2944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Yikes. I've listened to "The Money Making Personality" more than once. This is a detail I had not attenuated to in the process.
  2. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Cultural Parasitism   
    You are just making this thread messy by posting 3 times in a row to respond to the same person. If you can't wait for me to start a thread tomorrow, go ahead and start it yourself for now. 
  3. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Cultural Parasitism   
    I knew it would come to me eventually.
    I don't know how far back this sort of "cocky intimidation from a vulnerable position" trope goes, but it was masterfully applied in Princess Bride. Not so much in Charlie's Angels.
  4. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Cultural Parasitism   
    Maybe, maybe not. Without the context, I would guess that the action scene that you are mentioning has a completely sensible justification, even if surprising. And if there is no justification, it can easily be bad writing - no ulterior motive but definitely failing to account for how a character can fight. If that's true, I would bet that many of the Rock's action sequences were just as ridiculous and overblown. Actually, that might be the point: Fast and the Furious isn't supposed to be remotely realistic and is often wildly exaggerated.
    I've seen more bad writing on the face of it than any attempt necessarily to make a political statement by means of bad writing. 
     
  5. Haha
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Cultural Parasitism   
    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????????
    Hey, are you drunk? What are you listening to?
    Warning: This video contains explicit lyrics about dirty sex.
     
  6. Haha
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Cultural Parasitism   
    The reason could always be put on low standards for writing. It's not that changing the expected look of a character is inherently bad. It's about what about the characters identity is important for the plot. I don't think Annie as a character should have any particular race. Same with Catwoman. It doesn't matter what race they are. But their sex matters, because those are factors that are meant to influence who they become (as related to how people react to them or judge them). Ghostbusters is not dependent on sex of the characters for conflict in the plot, but the writing was terrible anyway, the jokes were not good. A gender-swapped Ghostbusters sounds interesting, to see what kind of comedic ideas that can uniquely come out of that, but writers failed to do that.
    One reason writers can fail is that they treat their story as a product rather than a piece of art or meaningful story. If writers are not careful, they end up destroying some of the tension in the franchise, because they improperly consider why the character had a specific identity. That's not an effort to be "woke" because 1) "wokeness" at least recognizes that sometimes maintaining the race of a character matters, and 2) these movies are focused around sales and money (and why would "woke" like even the slightest whiff of capitalism?). The issue is loss of artistic integrity. 
    If anything, the relatively large number of bad movies is due to the proliferation of technology and Internet. Big studios are not the only way to make a movie anymore. There is a much greater volume of movies out there than ever before, so you are going to find more trash. Just as you will find more good movies in total, or more good movie and television media in general. 
  7. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to human_murda in Cultural Parasitism   
    Despite the existence of Katie Dippold's twitter page, Paul Feig and Ivan Reitman are still men. Who are they taking revenge against? Also, the Ghostbusters movie is about women in media. BLM is irrelevant here and doesn't prove any point about women taking revenge against men (the director and one of the producers are men). Sure, there are women in the team but that's not relevant to the point that these movies are supposedly ways of taking revenge against men.
    And they could have written totally different and better stories with pansexual, brown, female leads but they didn't. It's easy to talk about how imaginary movies would have been better, but given how the 2016 movie was a lazy sequel, they would have produced a shitty movie with straight, white male leads. You are blaming the problems of the movie on the fact that they have non- straight, White male leads (or the politics behind it) when the actual problem is that they just used that as a selling point and did not try to be original. They tried to sell the movie with politics but the problem is not the politics, the problem is that they were lazy (and they would have been lazy no matter who the leads were).
    Similar stuff could be said about the recent Aladdin movie. It was a remake and wasn't that well done (from the Genie's CGI to the costumes looking home-made to the casting). Jasmine was specifically supposed to be Persian, but they did not cast someone Middle-Eastern (and she was probably the only famous Middle-Eastern character in Western media who wasn't a terrorist, apart from Jesus). Is this because the casting was done by the alt-right trying to make Jasmine whiter? No, it was because Naomi Scott (who doesn't look Persian) was more famous and could sing and because the film was a remake and kind of lazy. The film wasn't bad because Disney was infiltrated by the alt-right or because of politics. It was bad because it was a lazy remake.
    There are also examples on the opposite end of the spectrum, like Hollywood casting light-skinned actors to appeal to China. Has the alt-right infiltrated Hollywood?
  8. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Eiuol in Cultural Parasitism   
    When has this happened? I mean, it seems like the Magnificent Seven remake was the forgotten one... And if the original was forgotten, it's not because it was canceled.
    The logic seems to go like this:
    1) companies that are rational make money
    2) companies that are not rational don't make money
    3) therefore companies that make money are rational
     
    4) since it is not rational to make parasitic movies, the companies that make such movies won't make money
    5) therefore the companies make these movies for reasons besides money
     
    1-3 is circular (Why they rational? Because they make money. Why do they make money? Because they are rational.)
    4 misses the fact that you can make money this way.
    5 indicates a hidden premise that no one who is irrational tries to make money or will always fail to make any money. 
     
    Sometimes it's hard to accept that companies can be manipulative. You can make money off of marks and do quite well. The progressives are the marks. 
     
     
  9. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    At the end of YT URLs add this code:
    &t=1h12m24s
    But replace my madeup numbers with the particular hour, minute and second you want to start the video.
  10. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    She read that article on the radio. ARI uploaded it to YouTube. At 18:36 she tells the story of James E. Robinson of Indian Head Mills.
     
  11. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Reidy in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    I believe the quote comes from her article "The Money-Making Personality" that ran in Cosmopolitan in the early 60s.
     
    PS: https://www.amazon.com/COSMOPOLITAN-magazine-MONEY-MAKING-PERSONALITY-Cosmopolitan/dp/B000NE6D22
  12. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    That company does not strike a bell with me. The movie "Wanted" (2008) comes to mind.
  13. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in How many masks do you wear?   
    "We The Dying", perhaps?
    To be taken as metaphor, but "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". As the character Kira showed.
    I only caution to pick your fights carefully. I'm afraid this is one that no one can immediately win against the weight of 'public opinion' (emotions). Live to fight another day.
  14. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Amazon might be trying to virtue-signal its way out of a controversy.
  15. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Yeah, if you're Amazon you want to raise the minimum wage to ass-out smaller businesses trying to compete with you. 
  16. Haha
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to happiness in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    I have no "issues" with Objectivism. I use the philosophy to lead the best life possible in an irrational society. I may be an outlier, but I'm better off knowing and acting on the truth than I would be if I were to invest in a bad cultural movement. I focus on tings I can control and enjoy, and limit my exposure to politics except to the extent that I enjoy crafting arguments on issues I'm passionate about as an end in itself, regardless of the likelihood that my views will prevail in my lifetime. I enjoy going online and saying things that are on a totally different wavelength than the mainstream political narrative, things that people have never heard before. It's an art to me.
    Supporting closed borders in our current situation is not a contradiction of Objectivism. Objectivism doesn't have anything to say about borders, it says that life is the standard of value. If open borders would threaten our lives under the status quo, Objectivism leads to the conclusion that we should keep them closed. Although this scenario is perhaps so unrealistic that it's worthless to consider, in my opinion, if a group of Objectivists somehow founded a free country today, a policy of free immigration would result in an influx of people who would corrupt the government in a short time, so I wouldn't support it. 
  17. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Doug Morris in What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?   
    What if they set things up so that in order to actually vote (citizenship), people had to demonstrate an understanding of rational politics and take an oath to vote accordingly?  (Perhaps there could also be a background check to catch people likely to have hostile ulterior motives.)
  18. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Easy Truth in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Yes it is possible as in Gore vs. Bush. But this election would have required multiple states committing the fraud. No single county or state could have changed the result, Biden was too far ahead in electoral votes. And of course, the fraud had to be meticulous enough to give GOP and edge in congress but not for the presidency.
    All in all, the evidence is weak.
  19. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    You think that's obscene? Watch this!
    It's okay to leave up all the videos of Dems accusing Trump of collusion but dare to say the election was stolen and your channel is terminated. This isn't about "severe violations," it's about protecting favored classes of people.
  20. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    When the local store is out of cat food, and Amazon delivers, it is the product that is being focused on, not the establishment of the establishment running in the background. 
    Real Clear Politics is doing fluff pieces on what BLM is advocating while Amazon's contributions are brought up as an aside in an OO thread. 
    Gratefully occupationally work-from-home-capable keeps the 9 to 5 hours focused on maintaining the supply side of the Amazon equation, where a conscientious objection from the manufacturing side of the equation would remind me that paychecks come from products Amazon purchasers click "buy" on (though not exclusively in my line of work.)
     
     
  21. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    The missing episode:
    https://rumble.com/ve0bm3-ep.-003-academic-cancel-culture-and-the-lefts-attempts-to-stifle-intellectu.html
  22. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to MisterSwig in Truth In Politics Youtube Channel   
    Andy and Bosch recently started a new show called "Truth In Politics." It appears the YT channel for this show has been terminated "due to multiple or severe violations" of TOS.

    The most recent upload appears to have been an interview with Dr. Jason Hill about "transgender insanity" and "academic cancel culture."
    Unfortunately I missed this episode and it doesn't seem to be on Andy's Facebook page. If you find it please let me know. Thanks. And thanks to Tony for pointing this matter out on the HBvAB thread.
     

  23. Like
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to Doug Morris in How many masks do you wear?   
    If someone comes up with a toothpaste that prevents COVID-19, I'm all for it.
  24. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to dream_weaver in How many masks do you wear?   
    An experimental toothpaste aims to treat peanut allergy
    A more rational approach to peanut allergy. Interesting to note that roughly 32 million (~10%) Americans have food allergies. The politicians seek to modify the behavior of the 90% (through mask mandates or taxing infringements), while the better scientists strive to inure the 10% of the anomalies that prevent them from enjoying the foods others enjoy without reactive concerns.
  25. Thanks
    Harrison Danneskjold reacted to whYNOT in How many masks do you wear?   
    The govt. do nothing method, counter-intuitively for nearly everyone, was always going to be and still looks to be the correct strategy. Some scientists recommended that approach at the start of the pandemic (and were silenced on social media). The role of government, surely, is to advise of the latest information and allow the public to choose, it's their own (and their grandma's) lives to look after not any (scientific) bureaucrat's to control.
    On the face of it, I'd agree with ET that masking is the softest measure. Better than the anti-life lockdowns. Apart from how it has still devastated small and medium businesses, all part of "the economy" - I'd also point out the psychology of it. That even now out of lockdown, watching masked people scurry around avoiding each other, rushing home to safety - the whole mask business is fraught with guilt and fear. We've been taught that masks protect others better than oneself. The onus has been thrown onto one to care for others first. Largely away from protecting oneself (if need be).
    On pain of death, everyone hates imagining the possibility of transmitting the virus to another person. That way, the 'other' has become our standard of morality in the pandemic and will be long afterwards. And the children, who have been warned and admonished by parents and adults that they are responsible for others' lives. How does that duty and this long episode go on to affect them later in life? Depression, low self-esteem, angry defiance?
    Many people, while watching the numbers climb, might feel guilty that they personally are too healthy or young to be a victim of Covid. Guilt and fear, once implanted, is the way a society becomes obedient to others/Gvt. and will meekly surrender its freedoms.
×
×
  • Create New...