this is vaguely related to the string theory related post from a day or two ago, it's all bazinga science folks TL;DW string theory is a big thing because people that read pop science really liked it and it took a long time for physicists to come out in force and say "this is untestable garbage"
Roiland is a piece of shit, but the show is very explicit about how letting everyone you care about die, and then jumping into an alternate universe where you didn't do this is traumatizing.
The show doesn't go more than an episode without reminding the viewer that everybody including Rick hates Rick for behaving like a detached asshole.
Yeah, it is an exploration of the ultimate liberal paradox. What would it mean if a smart rich person was mean? To the liberal mind, it means they must be correct. Which given that he show it entertaining it is hard for liberals to understand they are wrong.
Satire requires a clarity of purpose. Just because it fails the test doesn't make the liberals correct. They are fundamentally unable to see a smart rich white man as deserving anything other than praise. Which is on them for being shitlibs
One episode a season is dedicated explicitly to how bad a person is and how he is the cause of his own problems. They even wrote a in show therapist to tell him this to his face and they multiple times show that she is correct. If that is not enough for the libs, then I am afraid they are simply libs.
We have to deal with the fact that being evil and doing rad evil shit is fun. That is our lot as fun hating comunists.
We have to deal with the fact that being evil and doing rad evil shit is fun.
I don't know, I have a hard time even doing an evil playthrough of a video game, by which I mean I've never been able to do an evil playthrough of a video game. Being cruel feels bad, even if nobody is actually harmed.
We have to deal with the fact that being evil and doing rad evil shit is fun
Being the direct executor of murder is typically not fun
We like the hanging of Mussolini because it represents the triumph of the Italian public over Mussolini. If the picture was more zoomed it, it would still be more nauseating than anything because it is still fundamentally a mutilated corpse. We may support killing Mussolinis, and we may be flippant or jovial in our talking about supporting killing Mussolinis, but that does not make the actual act of killing a Mussolini fun. Even if the killer is happy in the act, which would be a bit odd, we would expect it to be mainly due to the public good the killing represents rather than the visceral reality of the immediate situation.
Did you know that watching a highly fictionalized, stylized version of something is not like doing or even watching the real thing? Have you ever watched snuff footage?
I don't know that the first part is necessarily true. I think we might be stupider as a species than you give us credit for
This is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of the human tendency toward involuntary empathy for people right in front of them and a general revulsion towards human mutilation.
Again, not universal, but at least common enough that large sections of the US consumer good and political economy are dedicated to it.
I am not using precise game theory arguments because this isn't reddit. You keep pushing the scope of this beyond the level of precision I am using about a silly cartoon. I feel no specific need to use this moment of silly cartoon man discourse to make this of any particular significance.
Separately my assertion is that we all evolved from fish and have good and bad instincts we handle in different ways. People are around 80% good from the psychological readings I have done. Who knows if it is accurate but I go with that. However we still like seeing fucked up violent shit sometimes. Which given the squib discourse here I feel ought to be uncontroversial.
I get you don't like my assertions that people probably behave in the ways we observe them behaving. What is your point? That we need to police everyone's treat consumption patterns? That all of this is fake and we haven't enjoyed problematic treats for all recorded history? That my media criticism skills are lacking and my analysis that sad man appears to be sad is fascile?
Letting people enjoy a silly cartoon occasionally is misanthropic? I think you are losing perspective here
I'd that were simply it we wouldn't have a conversation. I think you are criticizing it incorrectly. You are mad at what it is, not what it does I feel. Which ignores the context of the moment in important ways.
The bad guys were usually right. They were usually marginalized people or even communists Appart from like Rambo I mean. I am all in with whatever plot to destroy America some vaguely foreign assholes have.
I feel this treat policing is got to be some king of liberalism. I like watching kung fu movies sometimes. Am I a bad person for enjoying the spectical? There are enough people who do that they make those movies. Is that all propaganda?
I am saying by virtue of addressing the fact that it is wrong sometimes it is less propaganda that most shows where they never have that conversation. I am saying that you, and a subsection of people, are mad at the show for failing when most shows don't try. This not even my favorite edgy show. We have had this same conversation before. Art that ties and fails is more interesting than art that doesn't try.
I feel like we are being justva little post modern here though. Human nature is fundamentally knowable and mundane. That is why being nice to each other is important. That is the implication of historical materialism.
Do you think I understand what you mean by repeating the mantra? Is repeating it helping? I don't think the criticism you are making is justified yourblogic you are using
Bojack has just as many monsters working and funding it. We just don't know about it. Every show is made by monsters. Arthur or sesame street as well.
If you think I am mad that are canceling Rick and Marty you are protecting.
Given that we are living on a world that has and is facing apocalypse so powerful people can have treats they don't enjoy there is some artistic merrit there.
I am saying the scope of the conversation keeps sliding back and forth in ways that are not useful or interesting
This is not a twitch debate. Moving the goalposts isn't real in a conversation. A silly cartoon can have intresting themes and remain unimportant. You can portray a thing without endorsement. I don't see the point of consuming treats if you are going to give it a friendly read
So we are just disagreeing over weather a show having a character being miserable countd as it showing them being miserable?
So, it's fun if you've been propagandized into thinking it's fun?
The reason Rick doesn't face consequences is because he is rich and white and powerful. Same reason all the people in real life don't.
I think sales and fandoms show that most people are attracted to the notions of being perfectly liberalized from every possibility of consequence. That is laudable that you don't like it, but hardly consequencial.
Of course. It is the dialectic. Meat is delicious. Veganism is morally and ethically correct. So we must develop a synthesis acknowledging pleasure is not sufficent.
Power fantasies are fun. You have the antihisis. So again we have the dialectic and it does no good to deny it. It is complicated by art of this style being a hedonistic exercise.
I am not saying how they must be. I am saying how they are. In these contexts I have no significant power to change anything, it does seem important to me to be aware of the facts as they exist so if I ever get a chance to fix anything I will understand what is going on and would be able to make better decisions. I dunno if that is optimistic or fatalistic to be honest.
In the context of the sad man on a TV show being sufficiently sad or not? Maybe you are right because I cannot say. I feel like Rick is sufficiently sad to inspire me to feel leftist emotions. Like, watching him suffer from alienation and hurt others gives me reason to think of my solidarity with others.
Pickle Rick was the writer directly insulting those people. The joke is that there's no joke, Rick turns himself into a pickle and acts like it's a major accomplishment to get out of a social engagement. Morty immediately sees through this and Rick is left screaming Pickle Rick while a disappointed Morty walks away.
There's not much you can do to tell these people that the things they value in Rick are actually really horrible traits that hurt Rick and everyone he cares about.
Roiland is a piece of shit, but the show is very explicit about how letting everyone you care about die, and then jumping into an alternate universe where you didn’t do this is traumatizing.
Is it implied that that's the only reason why you shouldn't do it?
No, there's a few episodes where the survivors (and his adopted family) tell the guy who did it how fucked up it was, then he does it again. I can't say they hate him for that specifically because there's so many other things everyone he cares about hate him for it's unclear.
They also go back to the old universes a couple times to see what happened after he irreversibly fucked up the planet, but also removed himself from the equation. The show is pretty clear that every he loves is better off without him.
Or how about Dan Harman, the other co-creator of "Rick and Morty," who filmed himself
CW: yuk
spoiler
r*ping a babydoll.
And Dan Harmon is the good one. He did a big project of apologizing for having being am alcoholic racist serial abuser that got to the top in Hollywood. He seems to be genuinely repentant and trying to do as much good as he can without risking his position on top of the pile. Which is insufficient, but way more than anyone else in his position has tried so it is weird to see.
It is possible he has, I wouldn't know. I don't think it would really change anything if he did though.
I don't think he could make those changes is what I am saying. I am saying of him personally. You are correct in an ideal case. However, hypocrisy is an option in real life.
I agree with you completely. He could simply do better. We are speculating on odds. Of which I am not as optimistic as you.
If I was in a position to try to talk the man into a more just course of action it might matter, but in these particulars it does not
how is a multiverse any less testable than a single universe though? It seems to me there are “at least one” universes and narrowing down the “at least” part seems difficult
Theories depending on ever-more universes which cannot be observed at all by us are massively inelegant compared to ones with just our universe.
Not really, no. It's probably not right to call the Everett interpretation the most popular account of anything; it's got a niche, but it's not super popular with most physicists. Even setting that aside, calling the Everett interpretation "many worlds" or "multiverse" is kind of a misnomer. The wave function has a branching structure with respect to certain events, but even on distinct "branches," you're not really looking at separate worlds in the standard sense. For one thing, branches can recohere on the Everett interpretation--it just requires a very particular series of events.
This is always something that's bugged me about the popular depiction of "multiverse" stuff as well (think Sliders, Rick & Morty, etc.): if you can travel between "universes," in what sense are the multiple universes instead of just one universe with a very strange geometry? It seems like if causation and human beings can move between two points, then those two points are by definition in the same universe.
Among physicists, probably still something like Copenhagen. Most of them don't really think about it too much.
I vaguely remember seeing a study that polled physicists and found that most of them supported copenhagen. It helps that the copenhagen interpretation is kind of the bare minimum you need to do quantum mechanics and the issues with it like what counts as a measurement never come up in practice: a measurement is whenever the physicist measures something.
The whole pop-culture "multiverse" trope is also not taking into account the fact that only quantum particles are able to exist in an uncollapsed state. The thing that collapses a wave function isn't magical observation, it's a concentration of quantum particles interacting with each other.
A human sized collection of particles is incredibly stable because of the "inertia" of those particles interacting with one another. The Schrodinger paradox wasn't meant to be some big revelation about the nature of quantum systems, but a joke about how we don't really understand yet what it is that causes the collapse of the wave function and viewing quantum events outside the context of the local systems they occur in is bound to lead to paradoxical conclusions.
But we get multiverse pop-culture stuff because it's an easy cop out for writers.
Covid really did a number on scientific credibility. It's like they decided to cash in centuries of being right about everything and being able to prove it for a chance to hijack control of the culture. Oh well, it only empowered quacks and frauds who give more work to the fact-checkers, right?
There is a lot wrong with STEM in the west especially, although that’s mostly just caused by capitalism.
centuries of being right about everything
Tell me you don’t know the history of even our current definition of science without using those words.
:no:
Watching absurdly long YouTube videos is my favorite. I watched like 10+ hours of someone talking about iCarly, it was great.
There are some banger video essays out there don't sleep on long-form content you might be missing out on some great shit.
I like those 1h music compilations so they do have a use . I will admit I often dont have it in me to watch a vid that is longer than 30mins unless im "really" into the topic or the content creator.
They're good if you have a second monitor, I just throw them on to keep my mind occupied. I watched this one as I played some Kerbal Space Program. Can't imagine watching videos this long with full, undivided attention though.
If you're not watching with attention you're not watching at all. Try it: next time you're playing video games, rewind the video by 30 seconds and try to predict what he's going to talk about. You can't, not because it slipped your mind but because it never entered it in the first place.
You're 100% right! I never really remember. I've done it before. But I accept that; if the video person says some things that sound interesting I will pause my game and rewind as you said, and actually listen. It's the best of both worlds.
Let me interest you in my 4 hour podcast
It will certainly change your point of view. Share it to all your friends, surely they have that much spare time in a day!
fr tho which ones more "acceptable" theory. i have watched pop sci videos and really didn't understand it even after like five times, its so confusing.
i think its basically just standard model plus giant question mark in place of gravity
Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model are pretty rock solid, same with General Relativity. The issues come up with the fact that they're mutually irreconcilable. There's other theories for quantum gravity but, no luck so far there (e.g. loop quantum gravity). There's other interpretations of quantum mechanics than the standard Copenhagen one, like pilot wave theory but it doesn't comport with what we know about Quantum Field Theory (which has tons of evidence).
Otherwise, it's one of the big open problems in physics.
People want to unify gravity and the 3 other forces that are more important on the atomic scale because combining forces is how we used to make really big leaps. Like electricity and magnetism turning out to just be electromagnetism - and then later the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism were unified into a single force called the electroweak force that spontaneously seperates at ""low"" temperatures. It's the big hope that everything can be unified into one big theory of everything, but tbh it could just be that they aren't able to be unified and it just isn't how the universe works.
the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism were unified into a single force called the electroweak force that spontaneously seperates at ““low”” temperatures
wow, pop science is really behind. I've never heard of this before. Come to think of it, I don't really know anything about the strong or weak forces
the standard model is wildly successful, it predicted a boatload of particles which physicists then knew to look for and find; conversely string theory is not really conducive to this kind of experiment-setup and has yet to produce major experimental results
So does this video explain our best knowledge about the state of stuff ? I feel like after that latest Nobel prize for Quantum non locality people really lost the thread of how to communicate that to people. I have heard multiple different explanations for what it means so I am not sure I know anymore
But what if the answer was actually string theory and god did that as a joke to fuck with physicists for being nerds?
