@DuplexFields's banner p

DuplexFields

Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 05:51:34 UTC
Bronze Recruiter

				

User ID: 460

DuplexFields

Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 05:51:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 460

Bronze Recruiter

PoliticalCompassMemes is probably your best bet, though half of it is trolling.

It’s wild how less “pinched” it feels.

Seeing literally every culture of Middle Earth with at least one Black actor playing a speaking role is actually sort of hilarious. It implies that whatever Sauron did at Numenor ends up genociding ALL the Black people of each race.

On a more serious note, I wonder if there’s a clause in a union contract or a filmmakers guild handbook somewhere which requires a race or gender diversity hire, literally a token hire, on every show.

Then let me be the first. I am cautiously optimistic about how they’re telling these stories intertwining, and haven’t seen anything besides the necessarily-woke casting which has me worried. It fits the Peter Jackson / Weta interpretation of Middle Earth, and is, to me and my parents, as fun as The Hobbit Extended Edition was.

I would absolutely love a Princess and the Frog sequel in which Tiana’s mother (and aunties?) and Prince Naveen take turns telling each other their favorite animal fables; hers being Br’er Rabbit tales passed down from her enslaved ancestors, and his being Anansi stories from his homeland.

It would be a great way to finally show off the stories which got young Walt into imaginative storytelling, in a cultural context which allows them.

Oh, make no mistake, the deviations from canon were thoroughly derided by my family and despised. We really enjoyed the Bread and Butter cut, a Reddit fancut which only kept what actually happened in the books, and rearranged the third film to be at least somewhat reasonably canon-compliant. No dwarf/elf romance, no barrel dancing.

The Hobbit Extended Editions, however, (through their sheer volume of additional Appendix lore) are a unique delight. The bad of executive producer meddling is drowned out by extra crunchy, deep-fried lore that somehow alchemically turns shit into gold — or at least silver.

That’s how I feel about this series: it’s a theme-park romp through Appendix lore, a Cliff Notes expansion of the backstory of LOTR.

We all agree with murdering and censoring Hitler.

Consensus-building?

For actual Hitler, deposing (or assassinating maybe) before he starts the war, certainly a targeted strike after he starts it, and strong and vigorous argumentation against as soon as his strugglefesto gets published?

She had the incredible good timing to create a record-shattering children's book which celebrated witchcraft and poked conservative Christians at the exact moment to perfectly puncture and deflate the resurgent American Christian monoculture when it was poised to retake America.

She also had the hilarious bad timing to be on the wrong side of the same culture war she inflamed, in such a way that her children's movie about sexual tension and ideological war between gay pagan former lovers Dumbledore and Grindelwald played by Jude Law and Mads Mikkelsen totally failed to make any cultural impact.

How We Talk Past Each Other: understanding how the war over the future of Dungeons and Dragons is the entirety of the culture war in a nutshell

In a thread on Reddit Motte at least six months ago, I became enlightened to the fundamental difference between drag and crossdressing. The latter is fundamentally serious, a personal choice of expressing something important about one’s inner self. The former is a form of playing, specifically, performing a role meant to be absorbed as part of a fiction. It is part of the larger genre of performance known as clowning, which can be described as colorful character archetypes performing bold actions with obvious consequences for an audience. Clowning also includes professional wrestling, F/SF cosplay, Muppets-style puppetry, and political ads.

The same split is seen elsewhere in fiction; genre fiction is considered non-literary because it typically involves stereotyped archetypical characters walking a well-trod path in a specific type of world: Hopalong Cassidy, Zorro, Sam Spade, Batman, Spider-Man, Elric of Melniboné, and so on. I used words containing the root “typ” three times in that sentence because typing is the core of genre: any individual is an instance of a type.

By contrast, novels focus on individuals as beings-in-themselves, and might use types as something they struggle against. So do graphic novels, explorations and deconstructions of characters in a more realistic or nuanced way, even if they have types. They are more akin to the arthouse spirit of crossdressing than the clowning spirit of drag: the sitcom without the laugh track, the invisible and silent audience who appreciates instead of enjoys. And these two spirits cannot exist in the same world.

That brings us to D&D. Gizmodo/io9 published an article about taking biodiversity typing out of the stats of D&D playable species.

D&D is an RPG which is built on the clowning spirit of types and power levels, using fantastic biodiversity to tell adventure game stories. It is a core nerd culture property, enjoyed historically by oppressed people with autism to imagine being powerful people who don’t just fit into their milieu but who thrive as adventurers and heroes.

This little corner of the culture war turns RPGs from Fun With Action Figures to Serious Representation.

I could easily watch one DVD (half of one movie) each day of both Extended Editions, and feel fully satisfied with the binge. The Bread and Butter cut, coming in around 4 hours, is a great treat on its own.

Other fan cuts I want to see (but haven’t) are the Passengers cut which starts with her story, not his, and the Finding Nemo “Memento” cut: only the Dory scenes, backwards. The Outside-In cut of Inside Out is an amazing dramatic short all on its own.

The best meme I’ve seen come out of this whole business was Homer Simpson holding one of the “In this house, we believe” signs backing slowly into a shrubbery, then re-emerging with a “No Trespassing” sign.

The big, beautiful door was to be for legal immigrants, who will have been vetted and are not cartel members, who will swear allegiance to the USA. Sounds exactly like “the ones we need”.

One one level, it’s objectionable because the protagonist of the book, the viewpoint character for the audience, is explicitly trying to normalize cross-dressing play. The implicit heroism of the character’s role in the story implies what he’s saying is truth and any who question or mock him are antagonists. In other words, it’s textbook propaganda designed to make the audience believe that any other viewpoint would be shamed by a hero.

On another level, it’s not even androgynous clothing the hero’s promoting, it’s princess-trope clothing, the girliest possible costume. Princess tropes not only include flowing dresses, there’s also “waiting for my prince to come,” and “prettier than the rest,” which, being the girl’s/passive side of relationship tropes, are textbook entryways to being groomed for a pedophilic relationship. A little boy who’s trained to equate his princess-play with wanting smooches can be talked into being molested.

Whether you agree with these or not, or find more objectionable forms of make-believe play as counter-examples, I’ve listed two categories of objection to the book-as-activism.

Square One TV was my first exposure to Weird Al, police procedurals, and many, many math concepts. Whenever I remember that fractions are just division problems stacked vertically, I visualize the street scene from the skit I learned it from.

It was the dorkiest possible show in every respect, but I still love it. I need to data-hoard the rips before PBS takes them all down via copystrike.

To be a true utilitarian, one should consider all tools available, whether they be aligned with one’s ideology or not. One should also consider how long the effects of the intended goal is planned to last; simply doing something to have done it, regardless of how quickly the effect fades, is surface-level utilitarianism, practically a strawman version.

To that end, if the goal is human happiness, the tool used to get there shouldn’t be one which has caused misery whenever used. Before we commit to a “welfare state,” it must be a type which does not fail, which doesn’t grow to consume all capital while simply maintaining the status quo.

Here’s one better tool:

The FairTax proposal would turn the American tax revenue system (which is part of the current half-hearted welfare state) from a foot on the brake of the economy to a foot on the accelerator. It wouldn’t aim to eliminate poverty, but it would tear down some of the fences between impoverishment and prosperity, and make the cost of government no burden to the poor. It would automation-proof government revenue, preventing one aspect of the automationpocalypse. It would remove tax hassle, tax favoritism, and some of the class war’s acrimony. It would even lay the pipes for an eventual universal welfare program.

Would you like to hear more?

FairTax continues to be a large gross receipts tax, yes, the rate calculated to completely replace the personal + corporate income tax + investment taxes, with a monthly rebate which is calculated to be more progressive than the regressiveness of the sales tax.

It has some aspects each of the main political ideologies say they want from tax reform, but the main thing it does is reduce the power the federal government has over the individual, assuming cash (anonymous money) is still in use by the time it’s implemented. In that, it’s a libertarian, market-based reform, which is the third wing of the bird.

The right-wing/left-wing dichotomy is so intuitive that it naturally comes to mind when discussing politics, yet it is so flawed that it makes hash out of OP’s question. The political spectrum is more properly visualized as a triangular gamut, not a two-dimensional spectrum. The three points are the three basic methods of organizing a society of people who don’t always agree:

  1. Hierarchical Authoritarianism: whoever’s in charge decides, often considered right-wing.

  2. Collective Socialism: the collective will decides, often considered left-wing.

  3. Market Libertarianism: people make bargains and contracts so each can decide, either considered centrism or extreme right wing.

America is largely already market libertarianism with some collectivist and some authoritarian characteristics. As a libertarian Republican, I believe that generally the more such characteristics we add, the worse the situation will get for the poor and the weak. Every fiber of my being would tell me to reject authoritarian or collectivist policies which compromise that libertarian character of America, because any positive effect would be outweighed by eventual negative consequences.

So, I am bound by my moral goals to fulfill the core societal improvement which is envisioned by a welfare state by reducing collectivism or authoritarianism. That means some level of volunteerism or market action.

They didn’t name “our enemy” once. North Korea? China? Russia? It was basically “us vs them” without a “them.”

Also, it was all about a single bombing run mission using fighters, a mission pretty much guaranteed to begin a hot war if one wasn’t already happening. It was an extended action sequence without a grand framing story. It would easily have been the pilot episode for a prestige streaming Top Gun series starring the new top guns. Instead, it’s the underwhelming coda to a generation’s coming-of-age story. It’s what Cobra Kai would have been without an overarching vision.

Other than that, it was a damn fine movie.

It was SO easy to get right, too! Every deposed tyrant on that ship was capable of the physical feats of Khan Noonian Singh. Just have Cumberbatch play John Harrison, Augment Supremacist, straight.

“At least I’m not Khan Singh, you’re telling yourself right now, Kirk? I took over Europe with a handful of strategic coups and crashed economies, and I beat twenty-nine assassins with my bare hands. You sit on your throne pushing buttons and you smile that your underlings follow your orders, your underlings in the same organization that hired you to give them orders. I carved together an army of supermen with my vast raw talent, and used them. Under my leadership, we commanded a continent. No, Kirk, I’m not Khan. I am his equal, and you, blind evolution’s pride and joy, are dirt beneath my feet.”

And then toward the end, Spock can scream to the Heavens, “JOOOHN!!!”

And at the very end, the other hibernation tubes can be shown in a Section 31 warehouse. The camera pans over and circles around one, and there’s Montelban’s Khan in the prime of his 1960’s youth, meticulously digitally recreated, the perfect sequel hook.

Just yesterday I met a Turkish man who came to my church asking for a place to stay for two days. After I downloaded Google Translate, he said he’d come up through Mexico and has been in a camp just outside of town for a month, and on Monday, he has a flight to New Jersey. He’s using his ICE paperwork as his ID.

After he and I were both unable to find local church resources, I started looking up hostels, and he interrupted, asking if we’d just drive him to the airport instead. So we gave him a ride.

It was the oddest encounter I’ve had in years.

The White House has already walked back the President’s statement. (Pause here to reflect on the zen of that.)

I would point you to a specific CNN article, but the paste function seems to be disabled on my iPhone, /u/ZorbaTHut.

Yes, it’s an Ontological Mystery, although TV Tropes describes the subcategory as Escape From The Crazy Place. You’ll find examples you’re looking for there.

obligatory warning: TV Tropes will ruin your life.

Ontological Mysteries:

The characters are locked in a strange room, have no idea how they got there, why they're there, or how to get out, nor do they know exactly who is behind their predicament, if anyone.

The simpler versions are You Wake Up in a Room. Often spawns an Escape from the Crazy Place. Some are examples of Beautiful Void. Some fans may want the various mysteries to be Left Hanging. See also Send in the Search Team, when the characters do know how they got there, and now they need to find out what happened. May have an Amnesiac Hero.

ABC’s Lost, and later ABC’s Once Upon A Time, are examples of not waking up in a hospital, but Lost does start with a man waking up in a daze in possibly the greatest single-shot TV open of all time.

It does, however, fit my favorite hilarious conspiracy theory: Trump and Trump Co have always been undercover law enforcement honeypots for mobsters and bad lawyers, designed to look corrupt as hell but never actually crossing into criminality.

This theory would have him originally run by Giuliani to catch NYC mafia concrete mobsters, then shifted over to the NSA to expose vote rigging by the FBI/CIA deep state.

(The rare “good guys are secretly protecting you” conspiracy theory.)

I consider myself a generalist. More specifically, I try to find patterns in one part of reality which are replicated elsewhere, in order to understand reality better. I filed “criminal law” under “science” in my mind when I recognized the epistemological similarities between falsification in science and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal laws.

My belief in “beyond a reasonable doubt” was somewhat shaken by having watched the TV series “Bull”. However, I was fairly confident that American law, by and large, gets it right. Until today, when I ran across this article on LessWrong. Basically, there are so many confounders in most experiments that actually learning something new is unlikely if the experiment is made to test one variable.

If criminal law and science are twin methods of knowing, both based on eliminating all reasonable doubt, I no longer have faith in the death penalty except in the most absolutely obvious and clear-cut of non-cherrypicked cases.

But nobody’s claiming he wasn’t paying back those loans. He’s basically inflating his credit score and then making money for those lenders?