Find Me On:
I mean there’s a lot of stuff in this nu-media to get worried about. If the Atlantic is succumbing to it, that’s a borderline national tragedy, some of the best articles I’ve ever read on any topic has come from that paper.
I was reading about Kierkegaard’s ideas on the press in his day (OHMAIGAWD WHADDANERD) and it REALLY made me think of Gawker. He was talking about a “reflective age without passion.” In other words, people would now have endless amounts of information on endless topics for people to sit, reflect upon and come to a conclusion and feel enlightened by that conclusion, without ever having to actually DO anything, or have an expertly informed opinion. There’s no real decision to act to be made most of the time. It really made me rethink how I use the internet and where I go.
Yeah, Thurston isn’t exactly in a position to be picking fights. My problem with Jezebel is that it shows how dangerous the Gawker system can be: Take a topic of real importance and need for thoughtful editorial, and then grind it through a click-baiting, dishonest-snark machine that just prints money in amounts directly proportional to internet outrage and ill will. IF the writers at Jezebel actually believe they are being earnest, that’s sad, but ultimately there’s no honesty there.
vandertramps, I have to disagree. There’s no proxy, as in, there’s no third party speaking on either of our behalfs. You typed in words with the expectation or motivation that I would see them. The medium is of course different than in meat-space, but I would say there are more proxies there than here. This is a space of zero consequence, where the only thing guiding our interactions is our respective motives with no social, economic or political influence to filter or affect our tones or ideas. Which is why it’s so terrifying when millions of people are ready to spew bile at the drop of a hat, because it suggests consequence, whether internal or external, is the only thing keeping that at bay in the street.
It’s an accurate representation of human interaction because it is human interaction. It’s humans interacting.
I think the internet is fascinating because it pulls back this social barrier and exposes how personally everyone takes everything. I mean, people are ready to strangle each other over CELL PHONES. You’ve got enough people walking around with raw nerves, they’re going to want a safe space to bite someone’s neck. I also don’t get the “it’s just the internet” excuse. The internet is the guy sitting next to me on the subway who just posted to a gawker thread telling someone to go hang themselves. It’s exhausting and scary.
If this doesn’t make you happy, you’ve actually never been happy and your insides are made of asbestos.
Thank you. If Lemmy Kilmister says “I’ll never do heroin.” no one should ever try heroin.
Also, having a moral stance on addiction and addiction being a disease are not mutually exclusive, i don’t know why people talk as if they are.
Really? I’m not a huge country fan, but this list doesn’t include ANY Johnny Cash? That seems kind of crazy to me.
Ask her how some of us felt when James Blake was nominated for a “Best New Artist” grammy this year.
To Be In A Sensory Deprivation Chamber Inside A Burning House And Have It Be Awesome was too long of a title.
Sony must have a better reputation for dealing with insufferable face-biters.
This is better than anything that will be on the next 5 Grammy’s at least.
According to wikipedia, he does have an older brother who is a teacher. This is the part of the story that is kind of weird to me. “Oh it’s your birthday? I’ll take you to a concert where you can meet my brother.” SEEMS kind of like something that would be out of line in teacher-world.
When I walk into a room, and see someone sitting on a couch with folded drinking straws crammed in his teeth to prevent damaging grinding and his eyes darting wildly while staring into nothing, and then move into a pacing, obviously agitated phase where they can’t settle down for hours, I see a hard drug.
Besides, I’ve heard the toys themselves kinda suck. Lego has been putting out gender-neutral proto-engineering sets for all kinds of age levels, for decades. I honestly don’t think I’d be the person I am today without Legos, and if I have daughters or sons, they are all playing with Legos.
If they had just made this as a standalone cover/parody, and even sold it as such, it would have been a slam dunk fair use. The problem is, they parodied the song for the exact same reason one would license the original song: promotional material. People get confused by the word “use” in fair use. Use isn’t necessarily utility but sometimes it is, especially in different licensing agreements. Since the original song wasn’t made specifically for promotional material, but could be licensed as such, a parody doesn’t change the use of the song in that context.
“If their lives depended on it in a fictional scenario that will never happen”
Except the billions of scenarios every day where food insecurity is a real thing. This is what pisses me off.
I’m saying that certain militant vegans already ARE hypocritical by morally elevating themselves in an objective sense above a huge percentage of the world where considering the existential worth of an animal is simply not comparable to the survival imperative. If someone like Morrissey will not stay in the same room as someone eating meat, he is simply setting himself up for a huge moral crisis when it comes to people who would otherwise starve to death: He, as a wealthy white westerner, is in a position of ethical privilege, the moral objectivity of which is undermined by the very fact that if he did not ever have access to the foods and choices that he does, he would have most likely never bothered with the question. His moral superiority is by virtue of economic superiority. Maybe vegans could theoretically make some kind of case that humans should not consume animals when they have a legitimate alternative that I could find compelling. I also, would of course, never tell a vegan to eat an animal. But veganism is absolutely the product of a society of choice, and choice in many, many cases throughout human history, is a luxury. So when it comes to how a vegan relates their dietary/ethical choices to other people, they would do well to show a little humility and thankfulness that they even have the choice to be a vegan instead of starving in the first place.
Rio isn’t really concerned with copyright law as it is, they are more concerned with their ideas on what intellectual property should be, as they see it. I’m a professional photographer, and IP law is what keeps that industry running, as a legitimate way for us to make an honest living. Their main confusion is this notion that IP law somehow makes abstract “ideas” proprietary, which it doesn’t. It makes a certain communicable manifestation (a constructed product, a specific design of a product, written words, lines in sequence, music) of ideas proprietary.
“Maybe they develop a loyal fanbase who are willing to purchase their records even though they have access to free copies.” Translate that into any other industry, and you see the insanity of it: “Maybe Toyota should convince people to buy their cars out of loyalty as opposed to just stealing cars out of the lot of the dealership.”
My favorite part of this song is how mad some people are going to get when I tell them that I more or less enjoy it.
That’s also a spectacular misuse of the word “genocidal.” No one is sitting around thinking “VEE MUST EXTERMINATE ZEE COWS!”
Cruelty to animals is vile, but it comes in different degrees. Factory farming is cruelty by way of cold economics, not inflicting pain for pleasure’s sake. OBVIOUSLY changes need to be made, but for more reasons than just a cow’s existential crisis.
But just to hammer something home: Cow’s milk is a legitimate complete protein source. That’s a fact. Is it the ultimate food? No, there are drawbacks, and I’ll let the internet rage back and forth about them.
My main problem with the argument “no other animal eats a fluid for the young of another species” is not actually an argument against drinking milk. It proves nothing. At all. Horse blood is not “intended” for consumption, but there are animals “intended” to eat horse blood. Impalas are not “intended” to be food, but lions thrive on them.
Am I saying humans are evolutionarily tuned to consume cow milk? Not exactly. There are obvious issues with that concept. But. That doesn’t change the fact that dairy products are delicious to a lot of people, and they do provide vital nutrition in cultures/parts of the world that would not otherwise have access to a complete amino acid source in any kind of sustainable way, which is an age old problem. Why do you think people started drinking milk in the first place? It helped keep people alive. So from that perspective, the evolution of husbandry was vital to human evolution, and to try and paint it as poison, or totally “unnatural” is just preposterous.
It would also be particularly survival-threatening to a given individual who got in the way of me and a pint of Phish Food.
ZING!!!!!!! You just changed my life.
A vegan asked me once, while I was drinking something with milk in it, “Don’t you think it’s fucked up that you’re drinking something made for the baby of another species?” and I said “Not when I eat the entire family of that species.”
Eat whatever you want, because approaching food ethically is a privilege of western modern society. Put an aggressive vegan in a position of starvation and then they can see how ready they are to pontificate to everyone else.
I like the policy from a purely spiteful standpoint. I know people that absolutely must share every single thing they do on social media, to the point of making other people in their lives feel weird. I’m also a photographer as my job, so I look at the times where I can put my camera(s) down and just enjoy what’s in front of me as treasured opportunities.
Yeah, because the two options here are like it, or you’re a misogynist. That’s a good dichotomy right there…