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"
Justin Roiland was always a piece of shit but his nonsensical internal calculation of "if multiverse, no one anywhere matters so be a murderous asshole" was a staggeringly bad cognitohazard that may very well have contributed to the recent "people I don't like are NPCs" cryptofascist :brainworms:
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.
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.
I've heard this before. Does the same "totally don't admire this nihilistic murderous asshole, pinkie promise you won't" message that missed so much of its loud fandom for years also apply to Roiland's "what if Back to the Future, but Doc Brown is a pedophile lololololol" pilot for the show, or for that matter this "just kidding, just want to see how people react, this is only ironic fantasies about brutally hurting children on multiple levels" cartoon short here?
(CW: "ironic" physical and sexual abuse of children, torture, snuff)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZQbX7_Eeg4
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.
It still gives the perpetrator most of the screen time, lines, plot armor, and basic invincibility. It's hard to really punish someone who by necessity must keep returning because the show runners say so to do more wacky edgelord hijinks next time around.
Also, the premise of the show requires that that murderous nihilism be technically justified by the plot. That's bullshit. There's no reason for a multiverse's existence to necessiate the conclusion of "no one matters, exploiting and murdering people is cool and good now" outside of Roiland's own beliefs.
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.
That "exploration," like so many others in similar and related material, seems an awful lot like "the chuds making this get off to it, and so do the hogs in the audience," with any message of "but this is bad, don't enjoy the spectacles of cruelty. Pinkie swear you don't enjoy the way the entertainment made for entertainment purposes emphasizes that in cinematically gratuitous ways" used for ass covering and plausible deniability. :kombucha-disgust:
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.
Agreed. I've sometimes did something like it if it was campy enough in the setting, but the "evil is objectively desirable actually" take is false and says more about the speaker than about everyone else.
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
Being the direct executor of murder is typically not fun
It is for some specific types :scared-fash:
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.
I was actually talking about how fascists tend to self-select for enjoyment of murder, especially for murder positions.
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.
"People are universally stupid and evil and it is implied that by saying this that I am slightly above the rabble" ideology is a symptom of too much Rick and Morty absorption. :kombucha-disgust:
I think we might be stupider as a species than you give us credit for
Why do you keep assuming that your own personal assumptions, about craving evil and craving fantasies of inflicting suffering and domination, are universal? People in this thread alone disagreeing with you already demonstrate that is a false assumption.
Again, not universal, but at least common enough that large sections of the US consumer good and political economy are dedicated to it.
If you're accepting it's not unversal why do you keep framing your arguments as if they are universal?
Earlier you claimed that my disagreement with your "not universal universals" was just a fluke and did not matter. I find that to be an arrogant position.
but at least common enough that large sections of the US consumer good and political economy are dedicated to it.
This is a leftist site for leftists. If your position is "fucked up things happen because capitalism" and your conclusion is "therefore do nothing and stop caring, it can't be changed and maybe is universal and maybe people are stupid, lol" what are you even doing here? :what-the-hell:
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.
Your "silly cartoon" is absolutely loaded with the :brainworms: and propaganda bestowed to it by Roiland and Harmon, and complaining that I'm "pushing the scope" sounds like you just don't like that I'm not willing to nod along to based sad atrocity plot armor man that gets to reset to a default state every episode for as long as the toxic fanbase will keep gobbling it up.
Separately my assertion is that we all evolved from fish and have good and bad instincts we handle in different ways.
because this isn’t reddit.
So much for no :reddit-logo: when you're whipping out reductionist biotruths bullshit to try to justify your own obviously not-universal beliefs about human nature that multiple people here alone don't agree with.
People are around 80% good from the psychological readings I have done.
Even more :reddit-logo: "make personal subjective beliefs sound sciencey and objective with window dressing" tactics there.
Who knows if it is accurate but I go with that.
You made it up and you did it from your own subjective biased perspective, so I think it's very unjust to "go with that" and keep assuming almost everyone craves a chance to inflict suffering and whatever biotruths you want to project upon them.
However we still like seeing fucked up violent shit sometimes.
There's that "not universal" universalist arguing again. I have seen real fucked up violent shit in my actual offline life. I have had people die right in front of me and I've seen the light face from their eyes. I smelled them shit themselves post-mortem while waiting for help to take away the corpse.
I don't like seeing "fucked up violent shit" like that and it's both arrogance and privilege on your part that you think the entertainment you derive from such fantasies is "not universal" universal.
feel ought to be uncontroversial.
Stop deluding yourself into saying what you feel about things is universal or derived from first principles about biotruths :stop-posting-amogus:
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?
I get you don’t like my assertions that people probably behave in the ways we observe them behaving.
What an incredibly arrogant way to put it, with a "we" to imply that surely you're not only speaking for yourself when it comes to your sermons on the biotruths of the human race and how evil and stupid it must be as a whole.
Your attempts to transmute your misanthropy into not-universally-but-universally accepted facts is pure :reddit-logo: brain with, yes, Rick and Morty characteristics.
What is your point?
What is your point? You keep claiming that your deeply absorbed propaganda ideology is some scientific fact or near-universal constant and you keep ignoring people saying that they don't share your beliefs and don't apply to your not-universal-but-mostly-universal claims.
That my media criticism skills are lacking
Yeah, I am, because you're not criticizing it. You're making excuses for the entertainment product that came from the :libertarian-approaching: edgelord ideology of a pedophilic worker abusing monster and his worker abusing diet-monster buddy.
Letting people enjoy a silly cartoon occasionally is misanthropic? I think you are losing perspective here
You've moving the goalposts sooooooo far here. At no point did I say you weren't allowed to enjoy the misanthropic nihilistic propaganda of a pedophile worker abuser and his worker abusing buddy. But clearly that entertainment's message has been absorbed by you to the point of driving you to continually claim how not-universal-universal its message is when applied not only to you but to humanity in general.
I think you are losing perspective here
You can indulge in your edgy propaganda show. Don't expect it to not get criticized sometimes.
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.
I think you are criticizing it incorrectly.
I think you're arrogant and presumptive about the character of humanity itself when you absorb a bunch of misanthropic nihilistic propaganda from a rich white pedophile with domestic violence tendencies and continually make claims about how universal and near-constant the message is and how it totally applies to almost everyone.
You are mad at what it is
If you're going to do "u mad" games, you're definitely enraged that the show got criticized, period, and that I'm not nodding along to your arrogant biotruth assumptions about how everyone is evil and stupid and tempted to be Rick Sanchez if given the chance.
What messages did you get from 80s action movies? :what-the-hell:
What I generally saw was over the top good guys (Optimus Prime) beating the shit out of over the top bad guys (Megatron) and yeah some edgy kids always wanted the bad guys to win but it was not a universal desire no matter how many times you say it was.
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.
Judging by your professed claims of craving "not universal, but sort of universal" fantasies of inflicting cruelty and death to people if only you had the privilege to do so without consequences, I don't think you're in any position I'd respect to tell me what you think is "right" about fictional bad guys either.
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?
Your favorite edgy show got criticized.
I am not threatening its production.
I am not taking it away from you.
I will call out the sheer arrogant bullshit of claims that its propaganda is some universal scientific constant that speaks deep near-universal truths about the human race. Fuck that.
It's sad how you see criticism of a stupid show as some kind of "policing" when I can't take it away from you.
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 will say it one more time for charitable purposes: I am not taking away your edgy show.
It is my opinion that you've so thoroughly absorbed its message and its :libertarian-approaching: propaganda that you're drawing pseudoscientific conclusions about humanity and about life itself based upon the "silly cartoon" that you want to not be taken seriously until it suits you to state its ideology as universal truths.
Art that ties and fails is more interesting than art that doesn’t try.
Bojack Horseman did a lot of what Rick and Morty did and did it without the pedophilic and mass murder fantasy aspects of Roiland which were also included in the subtext of the pilot episode ("what if Doc Brown was a pedo lololololol") and the "bonus" shorts Roiland put out that doubled down on child cruelty because that's what gets Roiland off. Stop making excuses for toxic trash when art, by definition, should be eligible for criticism.
Do you even understand the purpose of art at all or is this :freeze-gamer: gater "my entertainment is art but you're not allowed to criticize art" have-cake-and-eat-it-too belief on your part?
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.
Christ. Now you're using the "postmodern" boogeyman word like :up-yours-woke-moralists: . I'm not even going to humor that accusation with further commentary.
Again, because you still don't have anything else new to say: Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
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
Do you think I understand what you mean by repeating the mantra?
Clearly you're not understanding because you keep moving the goalposts and spinning in circles about how it's just a silly cartoon but also art but also art criticism must be friendly or else it's policing and somehow a threat to your consumption of the product.
I don’t think the criticism you are making is justified yourblogic you are using
You haven't offered anything of substance so far that deserves any more because you refuse to internalize the very basis of art criticism which is, again, that art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
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.
Bojack doesn't have to exterminate world populations to carry the same supposedly sacred point. That's actually working against you there: it means that the edgy shit in Rick and Morty doesn't have to be that way to get a similar message across if such a message is so very important.
For that matter, Bojack experiences more lasting consequences than Rick Sanchez, which is incredible in itself because of how much Rick Sanchez gets away with by way of plot armor.
Arthur or sesame street as well.
That's a mind-blowing false equivalence made on your part. If you refuse to see the difference between "character has flaws" and "character has godlike powers and is immune to lasting consequences and does atrocities for comedy-intended purposes" I don't know what to say except that's some amazing unexamined ideology on your part. :zizek:
you are protecting.
I'm assuming you meant to say "projecting," and again, I'm not interested in playing "u mad" games with you.
I'll just state the following over and over again if you have nothing else to say but that you like the edgy show and you think it's "policing" when the edgy show is criticized:
Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can't be criticized, it isn't art. If you want your edgy nihilism cartoon to be considered art, stop getting defensive about it getting criticized.
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
I am saying the scope of the conversation keeps sliding back and forth in ways that are not useful or interesting
You're not saying anything new, you're only moving the goalposts around and around from "it's just a silly cartoon" to "it has profound universal truths about how everyone would be Rick Sanchez if given the chance" to "it's art" to "stop criticizing the art, that's policing" and back to the start again and again.
Because of that, I will reply as I warned you I will reply to your ongoing sophistry: Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
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
This is not a twitch debate
Whatever you claim it is, post by post, goalpost movement by goalpost movement, seems to change constantly. You want the edgy show made by the domestically violent racist pedophile to be "just a silly cartoon" until it's to be considered art, until it's supposed to be some great analysis of humanity as a whole which you hold in apparently dismally low contempt, but it's also art that can't be criticized because that's "policing."
can have intresting themes
So can Mein Kampt, Birth of a Nation, the Turner Diaries, and Atlas Shrugged. But they can and will be called out for terrible ideology and as propaganda that has driven destructive movements.
You can portray a thing without endorsement.
I call bullshit here because that only seems to be the authors' intent when they get called out for what is portrayed, over and over again, with the atrocities and cruelties presented for entertainment purposes and as comedy for that matter to the taste of Roiland and Harmon themselves, with characters presented with immunity to lasting consequences that are more often than not admired by the loud and obnoxious side of their fandoms.
friendly read
You really don't understand art criticism if you think that "criticism" has to be "friendly" to be acceptable.
Again, I'll say it again because your goalpost moving Olympics are otherwise not worth further comment:
Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
So we are just disagreeing over weather a show having a character being miserable countd as it showing them being miserable?
Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
You're refusing to accept that a story can be told with just about the same themes and ideas without an emphasis on gratuitous violence, cruelty, torture, and toxic nihilistic sermonizing. I gave an example of a show that did very similar things without Roiland's creepy fetishes and preoccupations (Bojack Horseman) and you responded by burying that example in false equivalencies about how fucking Arthur from the children's cartoon is equally as bad as Rick Sanchez because... reasons.
I will keep saying it because you keep replying with nothing but sophistry and goalpost moving: Art, by definition, is eligible for and should be criticized. If it can’t be criticized, it isn’t art.
So, it's fun if you've been propagandized into thinking it's fun?
The propaganda's so deeply set that he believes that everyone must surely crave atrocity-enjoying power fantasies the way he does, and he's outright ignoring people saying "I don't" in this thread.
There's absolutely nothing in the process of writing fiction that requires the assigned protagonist to keep returning each episode without any actual lasting consequences except cynical momentum, fan expectations, and the capitalist drive for more of the same for the sake of profit.
To me, the Thermian Argument doesn't count. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk
There really isn't any truly mandated actual higher purpose to why Rick Sanchez keeps getting tut-tutted at instead of actually having lasting consequences besides the baseline of generic self loathing while continuing to commit atrocities for edgy comedy purposes.Roiland and Harmon decided what the fiction's reality is, up to and including "because multiverse, all of these mass atrocity antics have understandable character motivations because surely the audience should be expected come to the same philosophical conclusions and have enough sympathy for Rick to continue enjoying his mass atrocity antics."
We have to deal with the fact that being evil and doing rad evil shit is fun.
That's awfully presumptuous. I don't find that fun, even in concept, especially not as a Rick Sanchez nihilist. Maybe a cape twirling tyrant in a campy fantasy setting, but no, your claim isn't universal. Furthermore, normalization of ultraliberal notions of "everyone would surely be a nihilistic mass murderer if only they had the means" is societal poison.
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.
The reason Rick doesn’t face consequences is because he is rich and white. Same reason all the people in real life don’t.
Yeah, great. How many episodes in how many seasons does that very unique message need to be repeated, outside of profit motives? As art with a message, it's cynically stagnant by now and has been for some time. There's only so many times a piece of fiction can say "this is bad actually and we don't condone it" while still basing its entire purpose for continued episode production on pushing out more and more of what is supposedly bad actually and presenting it with entertainment purposes before it's just a cynical and ideologically bankrupt :brrrrrrrrrrrr:
I think sales and fandoms show that most people are attracted to the notions of being perfectly liberalized from every possibility of consequence.
That sounds an awful lot like "Leftism is about defeatism and the more defeatist the more leftist it is." :lenin-sure: I know capitalist realism is a helluva drug, but come on.
That is laudable that you don’t like it, but hardly consequencial.
Sounds like a very fancy way of saying "let people enjoy things" which by that same tiresome notion could be applied to Fox News (legally defined as "entertainment" now after all, to escape liability), NewsMax, and for that matter cryptofascist influencers like :heated-gamer-moment: because it's surely inconsequential to find their influence destructive therefore do nothing lol amirite? :agony-minion:
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.
It is the dialectic.
You make the claim that everyone of significance must by necessity crave meat. Ironically, that's an idealist claim that ignores the dietary habits and preferences of people in cultures that really don't have that same urge or drive to crave le epic bacon that you're implying everyone must.
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.
Power fantasies can exist without endlessly indulging a pedophilic sex pest (and maybe worse) and his union busting asshole buddy's redundant particular power fantasy. Power fantasies can exist without that exact blend of pop nihilism, cynicism, and glorification of such things thereof.
You're making too many presumptions of how things MUST be, all based upon what you are used to now.
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.
You're taking me here now. :debord-tired:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Revolutions of the past succeeded in spite of defeatist/fatalistic opinions in their midst. We ought to aspire to a better world or what the fuck is the point of leftism?
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.
No one is immune to propaganda, and it's especially clear here when you're saying that the murderously creepy sad man simply must be that way because that's the will of the fictional character's owners, and you went further than that and said that Harmon mistreating and underpaying his workers and thwarting their unionization efforts simply is and therefore must be how things will go.
Society can be improved somewhat, and it could very well start among the working class of the capitalist realism propaganda entertainment we've been talking about.
I feel like Rick is sufficiently sad
Even in the fiction I don't think that's true. No amount of Thermian Arguments will convince me that he's really that sad compared to the countless people he's hurt and destroyed. Also, it's all conveniently conjured fictional messaging based upon what the owners decided that was funny and then continued to profit from showing more and more of that with no lasting actual consequences presented for the ongoing sad funny atrocity man.
Even if that wasn't the case, what you got out of the show is clearly not what the majority and dare I say the intended target audience got out of it, which was "nihilistic sad atroctity man is funny watch him do more funny atrocities haha that therapist was a (slur) for scolding based atrocity god wasn't she IM PICKLE RIIIIIICK" :so-true:
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.
The show is a money printer fueled by blue curtain admiring toxic fans at this point, so because of the pressures of capitalism and the personal ideology of Roiland and Harmon, of course the invincible godlike atrocity enjoying sad man will continue escaping lasting permanent consequences for his actions.
If Rick actually died or was replaced as the main character because of lasting consequences, that would put off much of that fandom but those that remained would stop gobbling up the RICK IS BASED ACTUALLY messaging because he wouldn't be there continually feeding it with presence and screen time.
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.
I didn't even know that yet but at this point pretty much anything new that I hear about the owners of the Rick and Morty franchise is sure to be full of "ironic" :awooga: :libertarian-alert: :hypersus: cravings from one of two deeply privileged worker-hating rich white assholes.
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.
If only he stopped being a piece of shit to his employees and stopped preaching about how he bootstrapped himself to greatness and anyone poor is just lazy, as he preached on "HarmonTown." :disgost:
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 it would really change anything if he did though.
It would improve the material conditions of his workers enough for that to matter to them. Was that not obvious to you? :what-the-hell:
I don’t think it would really change anything if he did though.
That wasn't my question.
I was addressing this claim:
I don’t think it would really change anything if he did though.
If he stopped mistreating his workers, you apparently claimed, that wouldn't really change anything.
Either you didn't mean to say that and I misread you, or you may have internalized a bit too much of the pop nihilistic propaganda of the show.
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 don’t think he could make those changes is what I am saying.
I call a big steaming pile of bullshit there.
You've already made a claim that rich powerful white men are above consequence. If he cared enough, he could pay his workers better, maybe even let them unionize, and escape consequences with such privilege. It wouldn't likely take that much except maybe a reputation hit with his fellow rich white asshole associates.
You are correct in an ideal case.
Call me an idealist if you will, but I in turn urge you to consider what an ideological dead end it is to internalize the defeatism and nihilism in the entertainment you're apparently making excuses for here to the point of leaving apparently no room for even the possibility or potential of positive leftist movements in the future.
At some point in the past, the Czars seemed untouchable. And before them, the Sun Kings. Plenty of entertainment implied the same for them, and consumers of that entertainment nodded along to Divine Command Theory and other defeatist bullshit messages of the time too.
I'll offer some words of wisdom from a vastly superior fiction writer than Roiland or Harmon:
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/867757
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
"I don't think he could make those changes" is not the same claim as "he would not likely make those changes."
The ability to do so is not the same thing as the likelihood that he would use that ability.
This defeatism/fatalism is exhausting. I sincerely worry you may have internalized way too much of the messaging of the show you're making excuses for here.
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
I'm no physicist, but I assume if a multiverse was easily testable within the confines of this universe, it wouldn't really count as a separate universe. :edgeworth-shrug:
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.
"Theism is about a god of the gaps dae isn't it silly and superstitious magical thinking to believe in deities" :so-true:
"DAE le string theory means based E-L-O-N will help us escape the universe and its limitations" :so-true:
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?
