Philosophy is like the consulting business: there is a low barrier to entry but a low probability of survival, and a near total inability to capitalize your investment.
I survived the consulting business and capitalized my investment too you know.
Sigh. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:18:00 UTC
I am sorry but who greenlighted “Pan”? “Abominable Bride”?
The Steve Jobs script? The Man from Uncle Reboot? The Terminator 2 Script? Oh. And my favorite face palm of the year: Tomorrowland?
I am sorry but (a) characters, (b) their experiences, and not (c) your woo woo.
And I am sorry but if you haven’t got storyboards ala-hitchock and it isn’t fucking obvious, then you don’t do it. It’s just wishful thinking or gambling. Or really, it’s a bunch of losers free riding on money so that they can get enough credentials to work on something that isn’t total shit – or at least have fun and get laid during the shoot.
Illustrated novels and comic books work well because they’re storyboards already.
One of the ways to not get (fucked) is to take the best ten storyboard sequences you can find and put them on your wall (this works with all art not just film). This way anything you look at that isn’t great will look like shit.
The other way is to spend more on experienced actors than on sets and destinations.
I’m just bitching. But you know, it’s like air pollution sometimes. You choke on the bad art.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 13:29:00 UTC
—“The status quo is that we have free immoral speech and unfree moral speech.”— Eric Orwoll
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 03:34:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDQIxebP8x4COMPARE KINSELLA’S ARGUMENT WITH DOOLITTLE’S
ON THE TOM WOODS SHOW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDQIxebP8x4
Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it.
ON PROPERTARIANISM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imc_kETTSlQ
This is what completeness looks like.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 01:52:00 UTC
http://www.dickmorris.com/is-bill-clinton-a-sociopath/IS BILL CLINTON A SOCIOPATH?
Um. I thought we all just assumed it. Too obvious to be anything else.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 13:30:00 UTC
—“The Stoic would not give much consideration to simple pleasures–enjoy them when they present themselves but don’t actively pursue them. The ideal is to be completely indifferent to externals (things outside our control), to not have any preferences concerning those things. Amidst all externals, one should try to keep one’s attention occupied with the things that are under one’s control.”—
–vs–
—“Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”—
–vs–
—“Be impeccable with your word. Don’t take anything personally. Don’t make assumptions. Always do your best”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 09:07:00 UTC
REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB.
There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.
First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.
Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.
What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.
So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.
I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.
I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.
But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 11:29:00 UTC
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/OPEN LETTER TO “SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY”
( http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/ )
(posted on site in comments section given no link to messaging)
===
Wondering if you’d be willing to do a chat.
We both started working on similar problems at about the same time. And have come to similar conclusions although not identical through different methods.
I know that the difference in our work comes down to the difference between aggregates and consumption under the assumption of common good on your end, and truthfulness, morality, and rational cooperation under the assumption of not doing ‘bad’ on mine.
And perhaps nothing more than the difference between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction as the translation of the criteria we both call that “assumption” of common good or ‘doing bad’.
With that understanding (if we can achieve it) I feel you are better informed than I am on the consequences of MMT and inflation on prices, credit, debt and possibly information.
Now I am not an MMT supporter but it is the only referrer I know that has enough meaning to provide a starting point.
And while I agree that the K/NK movements describe cause and consequence. I do not think it constitutes a full accounting of consequence, and as such is insufficient. Nor do I find agreement with discretionary action rather than rule of law in matters of influencing the economy by policy means. Any more than I find agreement with discretion in rule of law in the practice of law, or policy.
The problem we (both) face in this subject matter is that there are very few people with broad enough knowledge of the various movements to converse with. Particularly the relatively serious failure of the 20th century thinkers to solve the problem of social science (the Wilsonian Synthesis) and its consequence.
It would help me a great deal if we could talk through this set of ideas. I would be hopeful it would be equally helpful to you as well.
Thanks
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 06:54:00 UTC
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-07 15:00:00 UTC
Beowulf and the Shield Lands. Couldn’t make it thru the first 20 minutes without political correctness, multi-culturalism, and effeminacy of males, general lack of intelligence, and absurd decor making me so nauseated I had to stop. Couldn’t take it any longer.
Watch the new Frankenstein series instead. Or the Last Kingdom. That’s how it’s done.
Once again: smart people write smart things, and stupid people write stupid things and moral people write moral things and immoral people write immoral things.
It should be obvious then that stupid immoral people would write stupid immoral things.
And do.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-07 09:18:00 UTC