Doctor Bond, Professional Spider-man

James Bond, Doctor Who, and Spider-man. What do these three people have in common? All of them are caucasian, male, and have racist fans. OK, that might seem a little hyperbolic, and it is, but its also mostly true. I bring this up because last week a certain sycophantic, obnoxious, racist ass-hat said that Idris Elba couldn't be Bond because he is black. Not only did he get his facts wrong by claiming James Bond is always supposed to be white and Scottish (despite that he has been played by Scottish, English, Australian, and Welsh actors), but he openly admits to being racist about it.

Look, I get that people who like pop culture tend to want to see more of the same with no changes lest it ruin their show, but grow the fuck up. It doesn't fit with the way you think it "should be" so its automatically ruined? Is James Bond being white (or even male for that matter) that integral to what makes James Bond,  James Bond? I always thought Bond was a badass because he did all the cool spy stuff and was charming and witty while he did it. Race and sex have nothing to do with it.

The same type of thing happened when Peter Capaldi got cast as the current Doctor. In the weeks leading up to the announcement people argued about who should get the part, and a disturbing amount of fans only wanted to see a white, British, male get the part. This is ridiculous, just because it is a change doesn't mean that the show won't be as good. It might be better. Spider-man being biracial also sparked an outcry from people. They all claim to be purists, and I think they are, just not in the way they think.

Basically, what I am saying is that the best part of pop culture artifacts like the Doctor and Spider-man are cool because of what they do and how they do it. Gender and Race have nothing to do with that, and thus don't matter. Spider-man could still swing around and lay out "hilarious" one liners even if they were African American. James Bond could still kill everyone in spectre in cool spy-y ways even if they were Jane Bond. Stop trying to enforce your insecurities on other people.

For the record I think Idris Elba would be a good James Bond. I would also Love to see Chiwetel Ejiofor get the part as well, but thats mostly because I have had a man crush on him since I saw him in Serenity. Natalie Dormer could also do a good job with Bond. Make the casting call on ability, not to fit the character people expect. Hell, maybe they will shake up these over-done characters. The second one of these "white male only" roles gets someone who is not a white or male and does a great job with it, the more people will get over this prejudice. And if they don't, fuck em, the world will turn on despite their hangups.We can't expect to survive (even in a pop culture sense) if we keep pandering to the weak and stupid.

Weakly Cinemeh, Eshi's Top Five

We've been  a bit lax on our movie schedule for a while now, so we haven't had much ammo for a Weekly Cinemeh. I've missed the series (or periodical or whatever you'd call it) so today I'm going lay down my top 5. If you haven't seen these movies, do. Like now.

5. The Maltese Falcon. (Bogey version). This film is the template for American noir. The casting is immaculate, the writing is engaging, and the scenery is spectacular. I'm not usually in the mood for older films so I didn't watch this one until relatively recently at Brian's insistence, but this movie transcends that in a pretty pressing fashion.

4. Die Hard. The first one preferably, but really anything before four. I lump the first three die hard movies here because they aren't terribly different in tone and all three are worthy. Four was fun. Five was insulting. Never make five of a movie. No premise is worth five fucking films. Anyway, Die Hard is the platonic action movie. A strong (but believable), charismatic, protagonist prevailing against superior forces. There is a romantic angle that doesn't overshadow the plot and comes off more as a mutual triumph rather than the standard kill baddy->get nookie trope. Die Hard is also the best Christmas story ever told, so if that's a thing for you this also covers that category.

3. The Big Lebowski. I can't say anything about this movie that hasn't been said. It phenomenal. Fucking watch it.

2.Old Boy. The Korean one, not the shitty Spike Lee rip off.  Old boy has the best hammer violence I've ever seen. Ever. And I'm a huge fan of hammer violence. Also, while we're on the subject, just watch the whole Vengeance Trilogy, it really is a beautiful, fucked up, journey and it is well worth the taking.

1. Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil. Alan Tudyk is boss as fuck, just in general. In addition to that, Tucker and Dale is a fun exploration of the slasher movie genre and I love it like orgasms. It's not high cinema, its not a blockbuster, but it is delightful in a way few movies can manage.

See, Gamers Don't HAVE to be Jerks

We have talked about fans on this blog before. I once mentioned that the worst thing about some franchises is the fans that surround them. I was being hyperbolic when I talked about that. Not all fans are bad. Yesterday is a great example of this. Yesterday a bunch of people in the Pokemon community got together and did something nice for new players. In the latest generation of games there is a tool known as "wonder trade" where you can upload a pokemon and trade it for a random pokemon. On Christmas this year a bunch of people started uploading starter pokemon and other rare/nifty pokemon to give the newbies something cool as a Christmas gift when they start their adventures in Honnen. This is a bunch of players going out of their way to be nice to people just starting out.

I have been playing Pokemon since it came out in 1996. I was the perfect age for the target market back then, 10. It was not my first RPG type game, I played a lot of Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy Adventure (which was actually a Dragon Quest game) when I was a kid, but it was my first experience with a game that gave me a ton of control over my party. I got to choose from an impressive list of characters for my party, I could name them, and was forced to think about how to set up a party that would cover all of my bases so I wouldn't get caught unawares. I know what some of you are thinking, "you had to do all of that in Final Fantasy VI too" but FFVI's had a lot less customizability and the story was a little over my head as a stupid ten year old (such as genocide being a thing. Also an implied tentacle rape from one of tho bosses in the opera house scene) I bought Pokemon Red because there was a dragon on the games case and I have always thought dragons were cool (NEEEEEEEEEERRRRRD) and fell instantly in love.They are solid games, despite the dubious premise, and its great to see the community coming together to do something not shitty.

Fans helping new people fall in love with a good game is a great cause. Being nice is something that a disturbingly large amount gamers have a lot of trouble with, so its good to see a bunch of people get together and help kids feel good about a game. Especially in the face of general crappy behavior yesterday too.

A couple things that made the last week slightly better than normal.

So I want to talk about two things today, The finale of The Legend of Korra and Miracle Berries. I don't have a lot to say on either front, but together they could make a full post, so lets do this.

If you have not seen Korra, Spoilers be ahead. Also, watch it, its great.

Korra ended this last week and the finale was great. It had everything. Giant robot fights, badass bending fights, giant badger-mole musicals and two great couples finally getting together for reals. Varrick and Zhu Li do the thing, and Korra and Asami get together at the very end. Good stuff. People still got up in arms about it, but that's OK, because they are wrong, and we don't have to listen to them. Its nice to see a romance that was sort of there be confirmed to be 100% true. I say sort of, because it was obvious by the fourth season that Korrasami was a thing but I didn't know if Nickelodeon would have the guts to green-light something that would have made an unfortunately large amount of people upset. But hey, they did, so good on them. It was a beautiful scene that showed genuine love between two people, and I am sure that we can all agree that this is good thing, and if not, fuck you trollpants.

The Second thing I wanted to talk about was Miracle Berries. Eshi got some in the mail from the Cards Against Humanity people's annual Holiday gift package. For the past couple of years you can have given them like $10 and they send you a bunch of random stuff and holiday themed cards. This year one of the gifts was a package of pills made from the Miracle Berry. So you take the pill, and mull it around in your mouth for a few minutes, coating your tounge, and when it is dissolved you eat limes or some other similarly sour/bitter food. We ended up trying some stuff we had around the house like limes, lemons, dark chocolate, orange juice and coffee. Its fucking awesome. These aptly named berries made limes and lemons taste like candy. Seriously, candy. I legitimately thought that lemons are too sweet. Of the stuff we tried, Limes were the best. Its amazing, I would suggest that people try them out at least once just for the experience.

Jesus Christ Not Again

So, ugh, we've talked about shitty police stuff before. I can't describe how much I want to not have to do this, but I can't help it at this point. I've been trying to hold my tongue for a while here, hoping it would get better, but my hopes are often vain and counter to the impulses of human nature. So I'm just going to say it.

If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer,  are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.

We Negotiate With Terrorists....Wait.

I am currently kind of cranky at Sony right now. North Korea (according to the FBI) or some other group of hackers hacked Sony a while back, and in the resulting chaos, threatened to attack movie theaters if they showed the movie "The Interview". Showing their commitment to the art of film making and integrity as a company, Sony immediately acquiesced to the threats and pulled the movie from all theaters. This was a terrible decision that will only lead to more problems in the future.

The second you give in to people who threaten you, they win. It shows them that all they have to do to get what they want is make threats against people. Also there is no guarantee that giving them what they want will stop them from hurting people or releasing your sensitive data that they stole. CNN reported that they are still threatening Sony. So there you go, it didn't do anything to stop them. And if integrity isn't your thing, maybe greed is. How much money does Sony lose on this? $44 Million according to wikipedia's page on the film. Because the movie will probably never go to theaters or be released for sale at all, all of that budget gets lost.

Look, I get it. If people got hurt it would look bad for your company. If you are worried about people being hurt make a statement explaining the situation. Informed consent is a thing, and if people are worried about being hurt they won't go to the theater. I bet they would have sold a bunch of tickets due to the "Lets show those terrorists a giant middle finger by all watching the thing they don't want us to see" stance that a lot of people take around these types of situations. And if the threats still had people worried, I am sure that the police would have posted guards around major theaters. In all honesty I thought that this might have been a marketing scheme until Sony actually pulled the film. Get a bunch of people to see a movie just because it is controversial.

Acquiescence does nothing good in this situation. Terrorism's goal is to enforce change by making the other side afraid. The second you do anything out of fear, they win.

Also, we hit 100 Posts. Yay or whatever. =p

Seasonal Disa-fuckthis Disorder

I loathe people this time of year. Its not entirely a christmas thing or a holiday thing, or even a rabid consumerism thing, though my issue is related. I hate people in the winter because american culture apparently demands that, what is for me, the most beautiful, comfortable, and peaceful time of year has to be fucking terrible.

Between the narcissistic, masturbatory rage of the evangelicals bitching about how their monopoly on a season is slipping, to the tragic slide of joyous celebrations into vile obligations as progressively more distant and abusive families bludgeon each other with politics and forced proximity, society fails this season completely.

Additionally, this season means enough cooking to rival the feast of Tantalus, and though I love to cook, it means that I have neither the patience nor the inclination to write more on this subject than this. So I'll just say that if its cold outside and you're an asshole, fuck you. Viciously. With the pointiest, most horrific, seasonally appropriate prop you can find.

Carl Sagan Is My Spirit Animal

I don't believe in a specific god or a specific pantheon of gods/goddesses/spirits or whatever. I have made this clear in the past. But I am also definitely not an atheist in the more modern sense of the term. I call myself an atheist when people ask what I believe only when I don't feel like describing what I am.

Apathetic agnostic would be the least offensive term to describe me. I don't know if any form of divinity definitely exists, but I am not opposed to the idea. I don't think that anyone has gotten it right yet, and really, I don't care. We don't have a way of proving the subject either way, so I propose we table the subject in any discussion of broad spectrum legislation/debate and instead focus on what we can do. Explore the world.

Every time I call myself an agnostic people will have basically one or both of these responses: contempt because I can't/won't pick a side and/or they will try to convert me to their cause. This pisses me off, because it makes the assumption that I have not thought about it. "If you had thought about it, you would come to a decision" I hear some of them say. This is bullshit. There is no definitive proof in support of either side so picking one seems irresponsible at best to me.

To that end, as I mentioned above, instead of wasting our time trying to arguing about it/legislate it/eliminate religion, lets just explore the universe as is. Its amazing, and the more we explore it the more we understand about it and the more questions pop up.


"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

Carl Sagan

Dragons are Great and All, But Dungeons?

I've talked a bit about pen and paper gaming in previous posts, how ridiculously awesome it is, how disappointed I tend to be with newer systems. I think its about time to actually discuss how I run a game.

I've been told I'm a strange creature as far as GM's go; I'll let my players do damn near anything that doesn't kill immersion or outright violate the laws of common sense, I tend to build my worlds from whole cloth instead of utilizing existing settings, and I don't give my players a storyline. That last one seems to be the most unusual from what I've heard. I run my games open world, there are things happening, monsters to slay, maidens to rescue, machinations of the foulest sorts guiding forces of various descriptions, but I leave it largely to my players to explore the world I've created. Its not that I don't want to tell a story, its that there is more to a world, and therefore a game, than any one series of loosely connected quest lines. I run my games open because that's how the world is, your growth is determined by your conviction, your path is shaped by your interests. Sure, another story about a sinister lich/cleric/warlord/ruler trying to conquer/destroy/enslave the world can be a lot of fun, but there's more going on than that. What happens if you misjudge where your party is at mentally? What happens if the story you set up doesn't have the punch you thought it would?

By setting up a world, with individual characters, with factions interacting and forces influencing events on various scales, some of which directly effect the party, some of which will have effects later, some who'll never directly influence the party at all, I can create a world where something will always be happening. I can run a game that isn't done until we want to be done. And by letting players flex their creative muscles and bend rules that don't make sense or justify actions that fall beyond the normal scope of the game, they can shape the world in new and interesting ways, creating their own story lines and dealing with unforeseen consequences.

I love to run a living world because it forces me to be creative and active on a much higher level and it lets my players decide not only what stories they want to tell, but how far they want to pursue them. It's hard, admittedly; you either have to be able to work with a shit-ton of world level events simultaneously or improvise at blinding speed, but its incredibly rewarding if you can pull it off.

We Can Be Heroes

I am feeling kind of crappy so this will be a shortish post, but I would like to talk about hero worship. Its something that happens a lot when a person becomes famous for doing something great. We put them on a pedestal because we like what they did and after a while we tend to forget that they were people too.

Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.

All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.


All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.

SPAAAAAAAAACEEEEEE! I'mma Go To Space.

Brian and I have expressed our general approval of scientific progress on several occasions around these parts. One of our biggest interests along those lines is space travel. The exploration of planets outside our own, the possible revelations waiting for us in the Deep Black, its the stuff nerd boners are made of. I think most people are probably on board with us on this, space is exciting, I mean seriously, kids wanting to grow up to be astronauts is cliche` common. So why aren't we out there? Why has the biggest intellectual resource for space exploration been whittled down to a bunch of politicians grumbling at each other?

The most common excuse I've seen sited in regards to why we shouldn't bother, you know, exploring the universe, is that it isn't a worthwhile expense. There are no words to express how absolutely, fundamentally fucking wrong that is, nor am I possessed of the patience to describe how many levels this argument fucks up on. Of course, that's never stopped me from trying before and its certainly not going to stop me here.

Point 1: Ugh, Fuck You. We live in a world where economic worth is entirely the product of (usually enforced) scarcity and perceived advantage. If the powers that be wanted the money made available it would be.

Point 2: You know what? Fuck you some more. Even if we're buying into the "market factors" bullshit as a stumbling block to scientific progress, that progress is its own reward. There is no such thing as a "worthless" scientific discovery. Even the weird penis ratio studies that we keep throwing money at (but exploring the infinite bounty of space is just not worth it) tell us things about the human body, psychology, how hormones do and don't effect development. These studies are functionally one step below naval gazing but they still inform us of new things, confirm or deny old things, and lead us to further inquiry. Failure to recognize the value of scientific progress to the level that denies space exploration represents a complete failure as a modern human.

Point 3: Na uh! Lets talk about the fact of extra terrestrial life. Its out there. See the period? There is no room for argument on that subject. I'm not saying that little grey men abduct red necks for sodomy experiments. I am saying that the universe is unimaginably vast, assuming that we are unique in that universe represents a degree of hubris that ought to be terminal. Absolutely any contact with extraterrestrial life would explode the limits of modern science, open up entire new fields of inquiry on every front, and give us opportunities we can't even fully conceive of. Even if that life develops exactly as we have, that says so very much about how reality works its staggering.

Point 4: Bite Me. Let's give the nay sayers as much charity as I can bare. If the questions to be answered mean nothing. If the progress to be made is meaningless. If science for science sake is of no value to their tiny, malformed brains. Even if all of that is true, space is just fucking full of resources. There are compounds found in asteroids that can't be found anywhere on earth. There are exoplanets that rain fucking diamond, carbon arrangements that can't occur naturally on our planet. Asteroids litter our solar system just fucking lousy with raw material begging to be mined. From an economic perspective even the colossal expenditures involved in space flight can just be passed onto consumers as our fears of finite resources fade ever farther away. sure it means we can't be gutted as badly for the resources themselves, but the cost of acquisition would more than cover it if they're really insistent about being an avaricious cuntbag about it.

So next time you read a newsfeed about some senator or wrong-heaed media mouthpiece bitching about how much NASA is costing us and how worthless space programs are, take a minute to write them. Tell them what an ignorant, shortsighted shit-licker they are. I suppose you could be more politic about it than that, but I don't see the point in mincing words with the enemy.

A Bad Policy

I hate it when people try to talk about things in terms of black and white. It is a very rare that something will ever be so clear cut that there is never any mitigating circumstance that might have an effect on outcome. Let me give you an example that happened to me a while ago, but has stayed with me.

I once had a job working for a company that had a high level management person come in to talk to us about an "incident". The company I was working for was an event planning group that worked for a big corporation, we'll call them Macrohard, back when they were releasing the Wall 8 OS. In our contract we had a requirement of at least a 30 minute delay between events in rooms so that we could clean them up and reorganize seating as was usually required. This seemed like a clear cut agreement and while I worked there it had never been broken until this point. We had to switch a room from circular tables to theater style seating for round about 350 people in 15 minutes. This would only be doable if we got all of our staff to work on it at the same time. As this was against the terms stipulated in the contract, and since we had other events happening in that day so we wouldn't have had the manpower, my boss had words with the people who set up the schedule.

A few days later, said corporate manager showed up to tell us that we fucked up. We should have done this the way the client had wanted, and that this might end up costing us a contract. He said, and I quote, "I don't believe in a grey world in the service industry. The service industry is black and white. You either get it done, or you don't." This boggled my mind. They broke a contract and it was somehow our fault. What the fuck! I quit fairly soon after that, along with at least five other people.

I will admit, we didn't get the job done, but it was because they asked us to do something impossible with our (then) current staffing. The corporate manager kept telling us about stories in which he had bent over backwards to help clients in the hotel industry when he worked in it, and how this was to be our goal. To do what the clients ask us to do, regardless of how unfeasible, legal, or appropriate the whole situation was. I know this doesn't sound like a big deal, but people got fired over this. One of them was my manager who was just trying to make sure that our contract was held up. Its ridiculous. I would be willing to bet that if this was a smaller client, the corporate office wouldn't have cared as much.

I understand why corporations take this route. The main goal of a corporation is to maximize profit, and not doing so is a failure in that goal. Not being flexible/understanding to at least some degree though hurts the people who work for you, which seems like a self destructive behavior. Seeing the world via this black and white only perspective limits your options, which could very well doom a company, especially in today's economy. That company I worked for? Lost most of their employees over this (several people quit due to not liking the management's decisions) and no longer has the contract they fucked themselves so hard to maintain.

Appeal to Authority

So, it has been a while since I have talked about a fallacy on here, so I wanted to talk about one that happens a little to often for comfort. Appeal to authority on its most base principal goes something like this:

A says X about subject matter Y.
A should be trusted about subject matter Y due to them holding some form of sway in the field of Y.
Therefore, X is correct.

This all falls apart in step two. Unless a person displays competence in a field and has evidence to back up their claim, believing their claim based on the fact that they are perceived as an authority alone is fallacious. This is not to say that you shouldn't accept information from a person who holds authority, it just needs to be accompanied by proof.

A big example of this in popular culture is with evolution. If you watch most news reports/debates about evolution you will see a representative from both sides of the argument given equal airtime and voice based on them both being experts in their fields, despite the evidence being mostly one sided (that is about global warming, but I think it still makes a good point). Creationists/Intelligent designers don't show a good knowledge of how things work so taking that half formed knowledge and using it as a place of authority is wrong.

Aristotelians had this problems as well. Aristotle was taken as a genius and that everything he said was the truth. The problem with this is that he was often wrong. Because he was considered an authority for so long a lot of his statements were accepted with no thought for a long time, until people decided to check on his facts. One of which was that because women have a smaller jaw than men they have less teeth. Despite this being observably false with just a little effort people accepted it for a long time.

There are a couple of off shoots of this argument that are used fairly commonly.

Dismissal of evidence 

A says X about Y with Evidence Z
B, an authority, says X is false.
Therefore A is wrong.

Once again, without evidence of how X is false B's claim is fallacious. This might just be a disagreement in how the evidence was interpreted, but that doesn't discount A.

The last variation of this that I want to talk about is Argumentum ad verecundiam, which means argument from authority. This is basically a person of authority shutting down someone because they are not an authority on a subject. Without supporting evidence of why the person without authority is wrong this argument is fallacious.

Eshi had this happen to him when he was talking to a professor about the aesthetic nature of morality. Eshi claimed that at its core morality was an aesthetic subject, while the professor claimed that morality was based on absolutes. Their argument went on for a while and ended when the professor said something akin to "well I have a doctorate, so there is no way that I am wrong on this." This is clearly a shitty thing to do.

So there you have it, the appeal to authority fallacy. Its all to common, but knowing what it is takes away its power. So, unless someone has evidence to backup their claims, don't accept them offhand.

Gygax is My Spirit Animal

I'm late, I know. I'm bad at things and my heart is made of smelly cheese. Rather than self-flagellate over my established failings in punctuality I'm going to ramble about gaming some more.

I've written about my possibly unhealthy obsession with pen and paper gaming before, and none of that has changed. I fucking love tabletop gaming, rolling dice might as well be an aphrodisiac. That said some aspects do run afoul of my pickier sensibilities from time to time. As I've mentioned before, I game for the high degree of customization and adaptability available in a pen and paper situation. I dig the complexity of options and versatility of interactions; which makes it troublesome to me how many systems are trying so hard to become video games. When a system goes from versatile feats based on the development of skills and abilities to a series of powers or maneuvers dependent on level I see a problem. I will admit that its largely an issue of nuance but its a little difference that matters. One option encourages the growth and development of an interesting and at least relatively unique character and the other rewards you for your numbers going up by making your numbers go up.

I'm probably being a bit of a fuddy-duddy about this but I don't really care. I understand that there are perceived market factors in play, the new generations of gamers like a simplified system or whatever. I understand the desire to streamline what can be kind of ridiculously convoluted systems. Seriously, just the licensed books for D&D 3.5 numbers in the high sixties. But the effort to streamline also seems to act as a restrictive measure on the flexibility of the system. While I understand that nobody, especially me, wants to pay a thousand bucks to get a nice, relatively complete set of books; the methods used to clarify the system also demand a higher degree of specificity in the use of power. Classes that once stood as starting points in the development of a character and bases for roleplay options have started shifting into the MMO vernacular. You don't talk about the paladin in terms of her dedication and righteousness, you talk about her capacity as a tank and the control value of her powers. We don't talk about the sorcerer in terms of what his innate connection to magic does to his mind or what his draconic heritage means for his future, we talk about his DPS. I'm not saying the trend in the new systems makes this kind of roleplay impossible, but it is so much easier to ignore the story-potential of a character when more and more the only thing we're given rules for is how that character is equipped to kill shit. I know I'm picking on D&D pretty hard, and they are by no means the only perpetrators, but I feel like they lead the way, I mean D&D has been The Big Name in tabletop for a lot of years.

I feel like an old man yelling at these damn kids for their newfangled power cards and skilltrees, why back in my day you had to pass a tumble check just to get your armor on or whatever. I'm not saying that there aren't any good things to be had from the new breed (13th age has some interesting showings in the mechanics department) but I'm always left wanting more, and not in a good way. Give me some real skills, give me a chance to love my character for more than their ability to one shot a group of mooks, for fucks sake give me more control over my character than I'm liable to find in a Bioware game and we can talk. Until then I can't see myself spending money on, much less running, the new wave. I can't imagine I represent much of a loss in their profits but that's fine, I'm plenty capable of enjoying myself with some 3rd ed D&D or homebrew oWoD. Maybe I'm not alone. Hopefully, I'm not alone. If so, good luck out there. I hope to see you all at the table someday.

Adventures in Capitalism

As Eshi pointed out in his post yesterday, we have had some troubles getting internet in the new place. Before we moved here we had talked to our internet provider and got them to switch our coverage to the new place and we would originally just have been without internet for a couple of days. That's not so bad. We could use the time away to do productive things like unpack and get setup in the new place. When the day came that we were supposed to get internet the guy came from the internet company and told us two things, that they were not here for us, but our neighbor,  that they would be with us the next day, and that they would need to lay cable for us to get internet because the place wasn't wired up for it. Two or three days tops though, annoying, but not a deal breaker. It ended up in the end taking two weeks because they didn't submit the work order and they didn't provide us with any information that we could use to follow up the order with.

I know, I know: First world problems, but it is something that is a symptom of a larger problem. Two weeks without internet kinda sucked, but it wasn't as soul destroying as I thought it would be. The worst part about it was that we had no other choice. Here in Seattle you have basically two choices of internet providers if you don't live in a swanky apartment complex or Condo, Comcast or Century Link. Neither of these companies scores well on yelp, and both have some very shitty policies when it comes to how they treat customers. They are always late to appointments, they charge a lot for services, and they both support anti-net neutrality bills.

We have zero other options.

Capitalism is great on paper. Companies compete, forcing themselves to innovate, charge competitively, and provide good customer service. This is great for the consumer (and for encouraging progress), but kinda crappy for the companies. In this system companies have to spend money on R&D, constantly keep fresh new ideas coming, and the constant competition forces them to constantly reevaluate situations in order for them to survive. Companies fail on a regular basis because they fail the balancing act of how much money to spend to make the most money. This can be stressful, so companies try to do things like completely erase competition in order to not have to do it. When this happens the winner can set prices to whatever they want, stop innovating because there is no need, and treat employees and customers badly because who else are they going to go to? Nobody, that's who. They are the only game in town. This is shitty. Its an example of winning at the expense of others, and as we have discussed before, that's fucking bad.

This is why anti-trust laws exist. They say that people cannot have a monopoly in an industry because its terrible for the economy and more importantly, the people. Competition is healthy because it forces companies to act better towards the countries they reside in and in turn, the consumers who buy from them. Its also illegal for companies to collude and carve out markets for themselves and just not compete with each other, but its hard to prove so companies still do it. A perfect example of this is from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver when talking about Comcast and Time Warner and their collusion. Watch the clip here. Also, if you have not seen the series, watch it. John Oliver is hilarious, and he doesn't need to pull punches like he did on The Daily Show.

Companies try to do whatever they can to eliminate competition and while that is good for them, it fucks people over. The internet business is only one example of where this happens, and this came to light when we decided to try to find internet from another company. We have two to choose from, and they are both terrible. Access to the internet is a human right, according to the UN, but companies can still get away with being shitty when it comes to providing it because there is no real competition. Sure we have two choices, but neither are any good, and because they don't need to compete very hard they don't need to provide a good service.

This stagnation also means that there is no innovation or drive to produce something better. The US is 31st in the world when it comes to internet speeds. 31st! We are behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Hong Kong, the Czech Republic, and Uruguay. It is also way more expensive here than in any of the countries higher than us in speed. This is all because we don't have a choice in the matter. There are 3-4 major internet companies and they are the only place to get it from. Competition is something that keeps economies from stagnating. I don't know how to fix this problem other than instituting harsher regulations on companies that collude but it is a hard thing to prove in court.

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry

Alright folks, we're back, relocated, recaffeinated, and (after entirely too fucking long) possessed of internet fit to shake the heavens or something. As is tradition, we're gonna leap right back into it with me ranting. The topic of the day is something close to my heart in several, possibly dangerous, ways. Today I'm going to discuss anger. My anger specifically. Its not that I don't care about the righteous indignation of others or the mindless, squalling, rage that some partake of. It isn't even that my anger is shiny and pretty and made of magical hats, though that may bare discussion at a later date.

I'm going to talk about my anger, and the joys and pitfalls therein, because its the only anger I can effectively describe. As some of the more observant readers may have noticed I'm a bit prone to aggression. Rage comes to me with an ease that has been rightfully described as hopeless. I'm pretty good at keeping it in hand enough to avoid actually injuring someone. Unfortunately that doesn't counter the fact that I regularly get the sort of scorched-earth, damn-the-family-line-forever kind of mad that is largely reserved for doomed anti-heroes and relatable villains. Now, I can't say that was never really a problem, mostly because I never really bothered to examine it, but it was something that I never felt I could really do anything about. I mean reactive catharsis tends to be a dopamine loop of the worst kind, and suppressing anger just seems like a great way to snap your fucking brain and wake up in the ward.

Being angry feels really, really good. Dangerously good. It makes me feel powerful, active, motivated in ways that have been unavailable to me in any other state. Its also caused me to hurt people I care about, lose opportunities that I needed to take, and lose arguments that I couldn't afford to lose, not because I was wrong or not thinking clearly, but because I was mad and so my audience was incapable of receiving my point. I've been trying to let go of my anger recently. Not bottle it up or let it out, just let it go. Stop myself and consider the rage itself. Is it productive? Is it meaningful? Or is it just a fire in my chest waiting for the rest of me to catch. It helps, and it is getting better. Do I still get mad enough I feel like I'm going to pass out from the headache it gives me, yes, but only when a succession of idiotic, incompetent cunts absolutely and continuously fails at their one and only job for two weeks despite proper preparation and constant direction. (Later there will be a link here to Brian's post about our adventures in internet acquisition.) I just try and let the useless anger go, go cook something until I calm down, take a few deep breaths and watch a movie, whatever. This is a troublesome process but it is helping. I'm pretty sure I'll always be a wrathful, hate-ridden person; but I refuse to let that hate run roughshod over my life anymore.

Kinda Whenevs

A bit ago I mentioned that we where looking for a new place to live. I'm happy to report that that seems to have gone through, in a rather more pleasant circumstance than the one I described previously. That said, we're busy as fuck getting things ready and moving and such, so updates will be sporadic for a couple weeks. We'll get back up and running as soon as possible once we're settled.

Kinda Whatevs Presents: Weekly Cinemeh

Here is our first list of movies we watched and what we thought of them. We didn't know if we wanted a theme or not, and just decided to do foreign films as a make-shift theme. We will try to do better with that in the future, if we decide to make themes a thing.

Spoilers abound, so read at your own risk.

Week of 10/27

1: Stalled

Stalled was an odd movie for me. It was very funny in bits, but also pulled some of the crappy stuff that most horror pulls nowadays. It is basically a movie about the worst day in a guys life, a guy who, while working a shit job, is stuck in a bathroom after zombies attack. It was fun, with a couple of very unique scenes that had Eshi and I rolling. If you just want to watch a silly zombie movie on Halloween with a couple of friends, this is a great contender.

Other than those couple of laughs it was a fairly standard zombie movie that pulls something that all to many zombie movies pull. I hate it when a zombie movie decides that it needs to have message or make a point. Horror doesn't need to make a point, that's not why most people watch them, but I understand if you want to, just do it better. If they were subtle about it I would have less an issue with it, but when its this ham-fisted it just seems lazy.

(Eshi) I liked this movie, it wasn't good but it was a lot of fun. It doesn't bother me as much as it does Brian when they include messages in their horror movies, what bothers me is when they cram it down your throat unashamedly. Stalled gets into that territory a bit but I can't entirely blame them, subtlety is a troublesome proposition in modern film.

2: Beyond Outrage

This is the sequel to a movie that Eshi and I loved, Outrage, and both deal with modern yakuza infighting/some level of police corruption. Takeshi Kitano (also known as Beat Takeshi) wrote, directed and starred in both, and he is amazing. He has a nice atmosphere about him, and he did a good job showing the political movements in the yakuza that underlie most of the actions they undertake. Beyond Outrage continues the story of the first movie 5 years later, and has a corrupt cop trying to orchestrate a gang war to further his own ambitions (and he is fucking bad at it).

The movie is the right level of violent, only being overt about it when it needs to accentuate the importance of certain kinds of symbolic violence. A scene that shows this well is when a character bites his own goddamn finger off to show submission to someone he is trying to ask a favor of. This is a great way to make sure that the audience is not so desensitized to violence that important uses of it still have impact. This is antithesis to how most American gangland movies/TV shows seems to lack nuance when it comes to showing violence.

(Eshi) Beat Takeshi is a fucking artist.

3: Age of Uprising: The Legend of Michael Kohlhaas

Age of Uprising is a French/German film (originally titled just "Michael Kohlhaas") based on a novella about this guy. Michael Kohlhaas is a 16th century German merchant who seeks revenge/justice for being wronged by a corrupt Baron. This movie is bleak and heavy. It is basically an exploration of justice and whether justice served from the self is better than justice served from the courts and or God.

The movie struggles a bit near the end and ends kind of anti-climatically and things felt kind of unresolved for me. Kohlhaas gets what he wanted but its ultimately unsatisfying, and I am not sure if that was meant to be that way. It could be that the movie was trying to point out that the justice from the justice system and justice meted out by the hurt party are both, at some point, unsatisfactory to society. If so it does a great job of making the viewer feel that way.

Mads Mikkelson is also fantastic. I think that he is one of the best actors I have seen in a while, not just with this movie but with Flame y Citron and the TV show Hannibal. He emotes well, and does a great service when it comes to the dark, oppressive tone of the film.

(Eshi) I cannot stress how oppressive this movie is. It takes place almost entirely in the countryside and yet never for a second does it feel more open than a firmly planted casket. I spent the entire film completely immersed in the futility so masterfully created. Brian mentioned that the film is a commentary on Justice. The most interesting demonstration of this for me was the absolute worthlessness of the theologian character. That single character and his interjection of how a "good christian" finds justice, and how completely he fails to engage, was spectacular.

4: Las brujas de Zugarramurdi (In the US as Witching and Bitching)

LBDZ is a horror/comedy that takes a satirical look at gender politics, and does a great job with it. Both the protagonists, represented as some very badly misogynist, self-centered criminals, and the antagonists, "feminist" and literally man-eating evil witches, are shown as being bad due to the hard line they take when it comes to their positions. Only when the two sides (or at least one person from each side) work together and trust each other does any kind of good relationship occur.

This is the first movie that I have ever seen from Spain and I was very impressed. It was great at creating a surreal, and in an odd way kind of whimsical, depiction of the world; with people acting normal in situations where running away would have been more than appropriate. I would suggest watching it with an open mind as it took a while for us to realize that it was supposed to be a satire and not poorly veiled assholery.

(Eshi) This was the least sexist film about sexism I've ever seen. Through and through it displayed an honesty and earnestness about a subject that is nearly impossible to be honest and earnest about. Also, one of the only movies I've seen that even remotely handles a child character well.

5: The Woman in Black

The last movie in our list this week was The Woman in Black and it was solid, if slightly disappointing. Its a movie about a sad lawyer who goes off to a hamlet in northern England to deal with a dead woman's will, and while he is out there shit goes down. Its a sadly vanilla story with a good, but very telegraphed, ending. Daniel Radcliffe is good at what he does, and the rest of the acting was pretty solid. The movie as a whole though feels flat. Its all stuff we have seen before done well, but not so well as to be exceptional.

I have written about how I feel about horror before, and I want to add something to my list of things that need toning down and or elimination: musical cues. If I am supposed to be scared and you have done a good job setting it up, I will be. You don't need to add tense music only at all the exact times in which shit is going down. WiB does this for every jump scare to "enhance" them, and that just felt cheap. This is especially unacceptable when it ruins the really well established scares.

(Eshi) There were things I really enjoyed about this movie. The environment was beautifully arranged, there were a few well developed scares, and Daniel Radcliffe is one of the rare male actors who can play tortured and empathetic without just being pathetic. Other than my appreciation of set direction and a growing respect for Danny Rads, however, this one was a bit bland, more than bordering on stereotypical. Would be a good third movie in a five movie horror marathon.

Unreasonably Hostel

As you may have gathered Brian and I watch a fair number of movies. During our cinematic escapades I've noticed something that grates on me in a weird way. I have yet to see a movie service, streaming or otherwise, that can figure out their genres.

Its not a huge deal, I'm not suppressing facial ticks or digging up the ol' Nailbat of Disapproval, but when I'm looking for a nice psychological thriller and Netflix offers Kiss the Girls and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back in the same breath; it goes from funny to annoying pretty quick. That one isn't that bad, I can dig it, bugs happen in any automated system. The thing that bugs me the most is (as per usual) horror movies. It seems these days that anything that has a monster or any significant gore in it counts as horror. Black Death is not a fucking horror movie, an amazing, slow-burn, psychological thriller and one of Sean "Dying is my Job" Bean's best showings sure, but scary it ain't. Now, the organizational failings of a few internet services is disappointing but I can't entirely blame them when neither the people making the movies, nor the people watching them can get their shit together.

There has been a slow divergence in what kind of story is presented as audiences change, but this change hasn't really been observed in our categorizing genres. Thriller has slowly evolved out of the horror category but that's about it. Horror movies are still essentially any movie that makes you any kind of uncomfortable. Comedy is still just anything that can cram more than two one liners into a script. Sci-fi and fantasy still get crammed together (which I kind of understand, considering most people only really differentiate in that one is uses technology and one uses magic) and Action/adventure, well, I don't really have any issue with that one actually, both the movies in the genre and the genre itself are a little too straight forward to fuck up.

I admit that I talk a lot about needing better categorization of things but I feel it really is important. Specification is an absurdly important aspect of language, its how we know what the fuck people are talking about. Its how we know what we're looking at. This is especially apparent with movies. I like gore, the occasional torture-porn movie can be a delightful romp through the nastier bits of the psyche, but torture-porn isn't fucking scary. Unsettling, hopefully, but not scary; and the urges that lead to either watching horror or gore are very fucking different. Wanting to watch a bunch of shitty, pandering cunts get ironied to death makes someone getting skull-fucked by a power drill a disappointing sight.

Rom-coms are another pain point for me, but honestly less because I'm usually looking for something else when I stumble on a romantic comedy and more because they're just... just so bad. But that's another post entirely.
 
I know its nit-picky but I think we can do better than just shoehorning disparate themes together under whatever happens to be handy. We're in charge of this shit, we can make new categories as new subjects arise and, considering how much time us movie geeks spend on things like this, there isn't any reason not to make the fucking effort.

The Ship Of Theseus

I have brought up thought experiments before, and I would like to share another one with you, dear reader. The "Ship of Theseus" is a thought experiment that I love thinking about. As with most thought experiments it doesn't really have a final or absolute solution, but it is a great way of examining the concept of Identity, and how it ties in with the physical self.

I like using a more modern version of this experiment, but really anything made up of smaller parts works, but for now I will explain it in the way I learned it from the Philosophy and Sci-Fi class I took in school. The Millennium Falcon is a rather large spaceship. If you take away one part and replace it, is the ship still the Millennium Falcon? What about if you replace a second part? What about if you replace every part of the ship? Is it still the same ship? At what point would this ship cease to be the Millennium Falcon, if it ever would? Hell, you can get more fancy with it if you want. What if I slowly replace all the parts in the Millennium Falcon over time, but take the original parts and put them together in another location. Which one is the Millennium Falcon?

This forces the experimenter to examine where Identity lies. Does Identity lie in the parts themselves? After all that is what the Millennium Falcon is, a collection of parts. But replacing bits of it, surely, wouldn't make it a different entity, would it? Does the identity of the ship lie in one part? If I replace everything but, say, the ships computer, would it be the same ship? Is the "soul" or "spirit" of the thing where the identity lies?

Like I said a few before, there is no real way to answer this. There are responses on both sides (yea or nay), but both leave something to be desired. I have not explained most of the answers because I think It would be fun to see how people, just hearing the basic experiment, would respond. Please leave a comment on how you would answer the main problem of this experiment.

Adventures in Househunting

So we've been in the early stages of moving lately; looking for a new place, getting rid of the things we don't need etc. This process has illuminated for me a pretty considerable failure in our society. Its a big reason we're leaving our current home and the prevailing reason we haven't lined up a new place yet. The problem is essentially one of expectation and demand. The leasing agency is running a business, I have demand for a home.

Now I understand how this comes about, one party is looking to earn a consistent profit and over time increase revenue; the other party is typically in various states of anxiety for need of a place to live. This puts nearly all the leverage in the hands of the party seeking profit. The tricksy aspect in our case is that we aren't in any rush (which would usually mean buying a home which is a different beast altogether), meaning that relatively normal behaviors and manipulative techniques, while still used, are ineffective.

About a week ago the family and I were at a walkthrough at a prospective place; nice, relatively large, pretty solid kitchen, everything we were looking for. The only real problem with the place was the fact that the kitchen was floored with unglued, shitty linoleum. I mentioned that I spend a lot of time in the kitchen and asked if that was a possible fix. It was not. That's not really a problem in itself but the fact that his reaction was essentially surprise at being called out was troubling. we were still pretty alright with the place though so we applied.

He got back to us a couple of days later more than a bit zealous to sign the lease. Which again not a problem in itself, we asked for a copy of the lease so we could take a look at it as a household and make sure everything was amenable. This is where the deal broke. At this point the landlord got huffy and started talking about all the other people who wanted the place. He said he'd email me the lease but to get back to him as soon as possible. So I waited while he sent me the lease and talked to Brian and my wife about his overall attitude, the lot of us becoming less enthusiastic by the minute. I received the lease and started poking through it only to immediately get a call from the landlord.

Did I get the lease? There are just, like, sooo many people on hold for the location, waiting with baited breath to see if we'll snatch it up. We really need to get this lease signed as soon as possible. Yes, yes, thank you. I read through the (blank) lease he's sent me and thought some more about how he'd treated us as prospective clients. I never heard the words "just sign the fucking lease" but that was very much the gist of our communication thus far. After a few about two hours later he called again once more insisting that we get the lease signed because of all the other frothy-mouthed applicants. So I told him that we weren't interested. His response was almost comic. He blustered for a second and then repeated his claims about just, so, so many applicants. Then he hung up.

I realize that's a bit long-winded and I could just be oversensitive, but why would I want to rent from someone so blatantly manipulative and pushy? Why would anyone? I don't know. It bugged me and now I'm sharing it with you. For whatever that's worth.

A New Project

Eshi and I both love movies, and have wanted to watch more for a while now. A little while ago I suggested to Eshi that, since we have a lot of time on our hands currently, we should watch a movie a day. Now that our blog has hit the sixth month mark, if you include our previous incarnation, I wanted us to include that with our blog along with us doing some analysis/review of the movies we watched. It might not be one movie a day (probably more like 4-5 a week), but we will try our best to get close to that goal.

So, starting next Friday I will be posting a list of the movies we watched along with a bit of a review of them on here. If anyone has any suggestions for movies to watch please let us know in the comments section of any of the posts pertaining to this project.

Its Not Stupid, Its Advanced.

I talked about transhumanism a while back with regard to some of the common issues/misconceptions about the community. One of these issues involves the fact that some people will not want to be synthetically (or biologically) improved, resulting in a class system where the unmodified are the natural second class citizens. I touched on this issue in my last post and intentionally limited myself to discussing the lack of malice towards the unmodified. This is not that post.

I appreciate that augmentation is a choice, I approve of it being a choice. A real choice even, as far as I'm concerned capitalism and transhumanism are opposed ideals, so financial restrictions should theoretically be absent. However, I feel that choosing not to modify is essentially an existential failure. Those who remain "natural" wont just be at an absolute disadvantage in nearly every aspect of life, they'll have done it to themselves.

Assuming my hopes and dreams are relatively accepted by the H+ revolution and we do away with scarcity dependent systems, the inequity leveled on the unmodified would be, not just easily remedied, but their own fault. The most common source of hesitation to modify is the fear, for one reason or another, that getting augmented in some way diminishes one's humanity. I've covered that ground before, but if you have some religious or philosophical block that prevents augmentation that's fine, but your choice to not develop with your environment makes you obsolete. I'm not speaking from a position of cruelty, I don't hold any ill will as long as those who have no desire to modify don't try to prevent me from doing it. Its fucking evolution. Voluntary evolution, admittedly, but when the species adapts into something demonstrably superior choosing not to evolve with it demands divergence. The unmodified will not be able to keep up with people who have been upgraded, their ability to contribute, or even effectively interact, with society will disintegrate.

When human upgrading becomes an option it will be the most important, life changing decision anyone will make. It will also be an absolute wall in society. The modified and unmodified will quite rapidly segregate as the abilities of the one group grow beyond the imaginings of the other. I'm not saying that people who choose not to change themselves will or should be culled. I am saying that, past a certain point, co-civilization wont be a viable option, and if the unmodified have a problem with that, the impetus is on them to evolve.

That Movie Where Cockneys Shoot Former People

There is a lesson that I too often forget after I learn it. Don't judge a movie by its title/perceived subject matter. Eshi and I just finished (literally, like moments ago) the movie "Cockneys Vs Zombies", which we both had put off watching because it sounded like another shitty zombie movie that was made because zombies are popular right now. I saw something this morning that said that it was a surprisingly good movie, so I mentioned it to Eshi and we ended up watching it.

Aside from relatively standard zombie movie bigoted undertones, it was super funny. Not the most cerebral of movies, but nonetheless one of the better horror/action/comedy movies I have seen in recent times. It has some of the most genuinely original zombie jokes that I have seen and is well worth the watch if you don't mind watching something that is super serious. It did get slightly preachy about a subject that, having never stepped foot in the UK (sadly), I am not super familiar with; that British working class communities are all about overcoming adversity, but it wasn't so bad as to make any part of the movie unwatchable, just a little saccharine at times.

As I mentioned, this is not the first time this has happened. A few years back Eshi and I were also shocked to see that "Hot Tub Time Machine" was far superior to the initial impression that either of us had. It was irreverent, played well with time travel, and had some great moments of humor when it mixed the two. I, at the very least, was surprised by this and have tried to keep up with watching movies that looked like they could be bad just based on the concept.

I have subsequently had a mix of surprise and disappointment that lent more towards the later and so I succumbed to a kind of complacency and just watched movies that I was more certain would be good based on initial impressions. Cockneys Vs Zombies turned that around, and I am glad. It reminded me that movies (and books, video games, etc.) shouldn't be judged by their cover/brief netflix descriptions. And so, I urge you, dear readers, to take a chance on a movie. Find something that you have passed over because it might not be good and give it a try. You might get pleasantly surprised and if so, you're welcome.

YKWFA: The Least Violent Way to a Man's Heart.

Not long enough ago and not far enough away my wife and I lived with her mother. Now I love my wife spectacularly. Seriously, its crazy. But she and I agree that her mother is a vile, shit-souled, solipsistic, thunder-cunt. I know, I know, this is supposed to be about something fucking awesome, not the subhuman bilge waste that spawned my lovely wife; but it follows, I promise. When she wasn't manipulating my wife or insulting me she was a terrible food snob, not in that she was overly fussy about what she ate (though she did insist that her cats ate organic gourmet lobster cat food), but in that she was bad at being a food snob. So bad in fact that it inspired me.

I once heard this woman utter the phrase "Oh, I don't really care, food is really just fuel." on the 45 minute drive to the organic farmer she bought milk and eggs from. That stopped me pretty much dead. Her hypocrisy boggled my mind, but more than that I was inspired by how wrong she was. I'm a tubby fucker, so I've always had a complex relationship to food (that link rambles a bit and is a bit nsfw but I love Ed Byrne and he makes my point well... eventually). She pushed me over the edge. After that point I loved food, no question, no hesitation. Food is fucking awesome. See, I told you we'd get there.

First, let me say, "food is fuel" is an accurate statement; "food is just fuel" is super fucking not. Food is a massively complex amalgamation of social/cultural/ethnic/religious standards and compromises layered over geological/climatic/biological limitations wrapped in what is both one of the most complex, and the most accessible, sciences and sprinkled liberally with the ecstatic neuro-biological phenomenon of flavor.

Anthropologically, food is almost frighteningly important. The production of food stuffs, the security of food resources, the social systems that arise surrounding going from seed to stomach are all fascinating, interdependent structures that are incredibly enlightening. Not to mention the wondrous cultural gestalt that happens when people from different food-cultures share food with each other. Food can tell us about people, describe ancient environments and technologies, and lubricate peace between cultures. It also has an anthropological "dark side". If you don't believe me go to Philadelphia and mention cheesesteak, hell just saying the word "baklava" in certain company can start fights.

Beyond anthropology there are advanced and novel chemical processes involved in cooking at every juncture. The process of turning light and dirt into energy and passing that energy up the food chain, the way different additions and catalysts (some in terribly minute quantities) can change the flavor, content and structure of a dish, down to the way the body processes different nutrients in different preparations.  Have no desire to hunt links for every other word in this post, though I could, so here's a starter link, study up. Also, food is mighty tasty.

I could go on about this for days, the science and culture of food is one of the most beautiful, nuanced aspects of day to day life. Whether or not people think about it, what and how we eat plays a massive role in our lives top to bottom. If you take anything away from this post, let it be this; my mother-in-law is a cunt, and food is fucking amazing.

Same as it Ever Was

For the past couple of years 3D printing has been getting a lot of attention in the media so naturally there's a lot of false information being propagated. I don't want to talk about that today, but I do think that its important to know about so here are a couple of links. Now, while a lot of those burst the bubble as to what 3D printing is currently, do not be discouraged. The best minds of our generation are working on making it even better, but for now I want to talk about one consequence of 3D printing that has come up often in forums talking about 3D printing that I have seen.

I was perusing Kotaku the other day and they had a post on a person who was 3D printing weapons from a video game. This was cool, if slightly unimpressive to me when compared to people like the Man At Arms crew who make functional, full size, versions of all kinds of replica weapons instead of small plastic replicas. After I was finished ogling the pretties I decided to read the comments. There was a poster who talked about 3D printing as being the bane of all creative people. After all, its just printed out rather than hand made. To the poster, and a few of the the people who agreed with them, it meant that people will be devaluing their work by producing something cheaper with less work, instead of figuring out how to do something yourself. This argument is something I kind of hate, because people have been making it for centuries. There are two main problems that I have with it.

One, just because something is made easier doesn't make it better. Sure, more people will buy the cheaper version, but that's mainly because they don't care about quality, just something cheap and easy. You shouldn't want these people to buy your product, because they will not respect it. Let me give you an example. Ikea. They sell cheap, easy to assemble, furniture. You buy it because you don't care if it only lasts for 2-3 years, its cheap. Lets say a table is $100. Now, you go to a carpenter and order a table, or even an antique store and buy a nice old mahogany table. The ordered table or antique table are going to be way more expensive, but the quality is vastly superior, resulting in not just a more pleasing furnishing but a more durable one as well. This is why there are still tables around from 100 years ago. No Ikea table today will be around that long ever. If people care about quality they won't buy the mass produced shit, and if I was the carpenter who made the table, I sure as hell wouldn't want my table to go to anyone who didn't respect the work that went into it. The same goes for food. I doubt that major chains like McDonald's have any lasting impact on quality restaurants. They might have had to increase prices to make up for lost sales, but people tend to be willing to pay more for quality.

The second problem I have with this complaint is that it has been made about nearly every advancement in production ever. Someone shows up with a more efficient ways to do things and people say that it will kill jobs. Companies pick it up anyway because its cheaper for them (after all, making money is a company's only real concern), and people may lose jobs, which sucks. It's worth noting, however, that the result of this process (often referred to as "progress") is a net improvement in overall quality of life. I hate this because I can't really think of a solution to that problem other than retraining for something else, which some people won't want to do, but that's another post.

People panic when they face change. Sure it will have some negative effects in manufacturing, but think of the benefits it produces (or will be able to in the near future). Artificial organic prosthetics, more engineering jobs, and tea, earl grey, hot. Its a cost benefit analysis, and very rarely is progress ever on the negative side alone.

People are worried that things will change for them, and it will, but that is not always a bad thing. I have talked a lot about change in my past posts and its the same thing here. People who resist change will either be swept along while change happens anyway or just accept it and adapt. The further technology advances the need for "standard" jobs falls apart, and by being afraid of that and calling for a halt on progress instead of just adapting as we go along, you just drag everyone down and that's fucking cowardly.

You will Laugh and You Will Play and You Will Like it

There is a side effect of nihilism that bugs the hell out of me. I've mentioned my love for nihilism before but it needs to be known that its not a relationship composed solely of orgasms and cupcakes. The problem lies with the fact that existential prioritization is often difficult to maintain without some universal source of value. Since this issue tends to be such a bug fucker too me I have determined a solution. Happiness. In a universe without intrinsic values, happiness ought to be the clearest priority. It seems obvious but the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain is something that a lot of people have a problem with.

Its important to note that I'm not talking about utilitarianism, I'm not going into ethics. I'm not concerned, in this instance, with optimizing groups. I'm also not speaking from a objectivist perspective. Mostly because I'm an adult and I understand that I exist within a system and that other people are actually people. I am speaking to the social-subjective, the self within the system. In a nihilistic world, prioritizing your own happiness is the rational option. The primary arguments against this idea tends to land either on the point that some people find happiness in hurting others or as a misplaced attack on objectivism.

My response to the objectivist association bears an unfortunate similarity to the new age adage "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". My little philosophic solution does come with the caveat that you didn't fail the bit of kindergarten where they teach you that hurting other people is fucked up. Subjective joy isn't a resource limited in the subjective joy of others, and if it is for you... just work your shit out man. There might not be any intrinsic value to life, but being an  anti-social dickhead is a shit way to go about it. This is not a belief shared by objectivism.

In response to the other argument, i.e. some people take pleasure in hurting others, against this maxim my answer is two prong. Yes, and so what. Some people are fucked up. There are consequences in place for people being fucked up. There are people in the world who take joy in being the people who stop fucked up shit. Don't limit everyone's options because a few people can't handle their shit.

But, I digress. If there is not essential meaning to your life then there is no reason to not be happy. Any pain is then either unavoidable or optional. If pain is either unavoidable or optional and your happiness doesn't violate some eternal mandate then seeking to feel good while avoiding feeling bad is just common sense. There isn't really anything else to say about it, its fucking simple, and the fact that it isn't a more apparent solution kinda boggles me.

Psychic convention cancled due to unforseen circumstances

I hate charlatans. Specifically the ones who claim to have some sort of supernatural power, talking to the dead or reading minds. These people are the worst. At best they bilk people out of a few dollars at a carnival, at worst they defraud bereaved people in the most ham fisted way possible.

They make shit tons of money doing it too. Ed and Lorraine Warren, famous for the parts the played in the supposed real life events depicted in the movies "Amittyville Horror" and "The Conjuring". "The Conjuring" made $318 million from a $20 million budget, making it one of the highest grossing horror films of all time. This couple was also accused by two of the children from the Amittyvile Horror case of telling the Amittyvile family that they would become millionaires when the film rights sold if they helped play up the demon possession angle (also investigators found multiple holes in the case).

John Edward charges $150 a ticket for the cheap seats and up to $850 for a private reading. When I checked his website most of his shows for the next few months are sold out. He was caught using "hot reading", which uses knowledge gained prior to the official reading and passes it off as gained from another method, during a dateline NBC interview. Basically he defrauds grieving people looking for closure for personal gain, which has earned him the title the biggest douche in the universe.

Uri Geller was a psychic in the 70s that used spoon bending as "proof" of his power. He has published several books most of which have sold a decent amount of copies. This became a wildly popular phenomenon that is considered by many to be proof of psychic powers. The problem is that his spoon bending has been recreated by stage magicians, and thus might just be a fraud. When he went on the British TV show "Noel's House Party" he was seen to have bent the spoon with his hands at two times. But then again, he never said he didn't use his hands.

These charlatans prey upon the weaknesses of others to make a quick buck but also cause another problem. What if there are actually psychics out there? I don't think that there are, but what if. These frauds make that person less likely to "come out" as it where because they might be called crazy or a fraud just on the face of it. This is especially true when it comes to how we test for ESP or other poorly understood/ "paranormal" phenomena. A recent study at Harvard showed that there is no evidence of anything out of the ordinary when using neuroimaging on subjects taking tests to see if they have any ESP ability. This test seems good but it bases itself on the assumption that ESP is a brain based effect, but to be fair that is a very logical assumption. What if we don't have the tools yet to test this thoroughly enough to discount ESP as a possibility? What if ESP has nothing to do with the brain? What if the subjects have no ESP ability?

I am not saying that ESP exists. I don't tend to believe in paranormal stuff, but I think not investigating it fully (or at all because "they are all frauds" ) might be a misstep. I bring up the charlatan thing because while they are causing plenty of harm just on the surface they are also creating tons of evidence for people to just disregard the abnormal wholesale, and I think that this is short sighted. I don't think we have adequate tools yet to test the theory (I believe that the Harvard study takes us in the right direction on that front by the way despite my poking at it earlier). Basically, keep an open mind, just don't open your mind to much or your brain will fall out.

Won't Somebody Think of the Children

I hate children. I hate children for a very specific reason; their fucking parents. Now, naturally I'm making a hyperbolic statement. I am pretty sure I don't hate all children, not all parents are horrible fucking cunts intent on inflicting their idiotic, cunt children on the world. But most parents, and by extension most children, I feel are unfit for public exhibition.

I should say, I'm not a parent, I wont be a parent and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for parents. That lack of sympathy arises from a pretty logical, if unpopular, place. It's their fault. We know what causes it, we know how to prevent it (in any number of simple, effective ways), and we have methods to remove the problem if a child pops up before people are ready to be parents. Ignorance is no excuse, beliefs are no excuse, culture is no fucking excuse. I understand that some of the options above are unpleasant or somewhat unacceptable to some folk. Those people are fucking wrong. I don't really (honestly, I swear) like to be that dogged under most circumstances, but I'm pretty justified here for one simple reason. If you aren't ready (emotionally, physically, financially, socially etc. etc. ad infinitum) for a child, you are creating a person and starting them at a deficit. Raising a kid well is hard enough without playing with a handicap.

I'm not saying that people who grow up in non-optimal situations are just unavoidably fucked. I'm not saying that if you grow up rich and well accounted for you'll be well adjusted. I am saying that its irresponsible to the point of fucking disgust to raise a child in a situation where that child is not your absolute priority. I will freely admit that I've been a bit shaded by my experiences on this topic, but this is one of those situations where if you fuck up the consequences range far and wide. A bad parenting situation won't just ruin the kid, it can fuck up everyone that cares about that kid. Its not just hard, its heartbreaking, loving someone who is a victim of neglect or emotional abuse. We make jokes about people who weren't hugged enough as kids, but people who come from homes that weren't really adjusted for them can be really and painfully fucked up.

I hate children. I hate them because our society overvalues parenthood without valuing the skills it takes to be a parent. I hate them because some people's adherence to tradition supersedes their capacity for rational thought. I hate them because people's need for vainglorious validation, their ridiculous, vicarious immortality, overwrites their ability to produce fully-functional people. I hate them because there is a reliable percentage of the population that, on some level, equates their child to a particularly clever pet. I hate what we do to children.

Teaching The Controversy Part II

Last time I wrote about teaching the controversy I mentioned the Norse gods: "Does your god kill shit tons of frost giants in a bloody, multi-dimensional hammer war?". So I figured it would be nice to explain the origin of the world from Norse mythology. Norse mythology is brutal in a lot of ways (Odin once tears out his eyeball, stabs himself with a spear, and hangs himself as a way of discovering the runes used in Teutonic magic) and I appreciate that their version of the end of the world is as bleak as it is. Seriously, basically every god dies in a bloody war and the outcome of the world is murky at best. So with that in mind, on to the Norse origin of the world.

Before time their was great void known as Ginnungagap (which is super fun to say out loud) in between two places known as Muspelheim and Niflheim. Niflheim (which means mist home) is a land filled with ice and mist that basically represents everything dark and cold. Muspelheim on the other hand was land covered in lava, sparks, and fire. In Muspelheim live fire giants, fire demons, and Surt. Surt will eventually grab his flaming sword and engulf Asgard (the home of the gods) in flames, so the gods don't like him very much. Now, both lands began to encroach on the Ginnungagap and when they meet the fire and ice essentially cancel each other out and produce steam and water droplets. From these drops of water a frost giant is born, Ymir, as well as a large cow named Audhumla.

Ymir, not having much to do I guess, slept and in his sleep sweated out two more frost giants who would make more (bow chicka bow wow), a race who would be known as the Jotun. The Jotun, including Ymir, suckled ffrom the cow, who in turn licked the salty ice from Niflheim. While licking this ice, Audhumla began to uncover a person, who, after 3 days was, completley out of the ice. This man would be known as Buri. Buri had a son named Borr, who would marry a Jotun named Bestla. These two would eventually have three sons; Odin, Vili, and Ve. The first of the Aesir (Norse gods).

The three sons grew worried over the mass propagation of the Jotun and decided that the best response would be to murder the shit out of all of them. The three brothers assaulted Ymir as he slept and after a long battle killed him. When his blood poured out form his body all the other Jotuns drowned save for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who hid in Niflheim. all Joten beyond this point are descended from these two survivors.

Odin, Vili, and Ve took Ymir's corpse to the center of Ginnungagap and broke it down and used his parts to make the world. Ymir's blood became the oceans and other bodies of water, his meats became the land, bones and teeth became mountains and rocks and his hair became the trees. His eyelashes formed a circle around a new realm known as Midgard ( also known as middle earth where humans would eventually live). Ymir's brains became clouds and his skull became the sky. While all of this was happening, maggots ate the flesh and became the Dwarves who would live in the ground. Later the Dwarves would become master craftsmen and make weapons for the Aesir such as Thor's hammer Mjolnir and Odin's spear Gungnir. Four of these Dwarves were conscripted by the Aesir to hold up the sky since they worried it would fall. These Dwarves are named Nordi, Vestri, Sundri, and Austri for which the cardinal directions are named (North, West, South, and East respectively.)

A man named Mundilfari from Midgard had two children whom shined brightly. He decided to name his daughter Sol (the sun) and His son Mani (the moon). The Aesir were angered by his hubris and put both children in the sky. The Jotun also contributed to the sky. There was a Jotun named Nat (night) who has a son named Dag (day). These two pull the heavens across the sky (night and day) pursued by two Jotuns in the form of Wolves; Skoll, meaning treachery, and Hati, meaning he who hates. Hati is constantly trying to eat the moon and sometimes takes bites out of it, though it regenerates the damage eventually (phases of the moon). During Ragnarok (the end of the world) The wolves will catch the sun and the moon, eating them up.

From Ymir's corpse also grew Yggdrasil, a giant ash tree that supports the nine worlds. These nine worlds are Niflheim, Muspelheim, Asgard (where the gods live and where Valhalla is located), Midgard (where humans live), Jotunheim (home of the Jotun), Vanaheim (Home of the Vanir, a group of gods that fought with the Aesir, and eventually made peace. Njord and his daughters Freya and Freyr are Vanir), Alfheim (home of the elves), Svartalfheim(home of the dark elves) and Nidavellir (home of the Dwarves). Odin, Vili, and Ve found two logs from Yggdrasil and from them carved the first man and woman Ask and Embla. Ask, Embla and all of their descendents where given Midgard as it was protected from the Jotun by Ymir's eyelashes.

So there you have it, some mild genocide and corpse-desecration and bam, The Universe. If you want a more complete version of this I would suggest reading the Prose and Poetic Eddas. They are full of badass Norse mythology, all of which is at least as entertaining as most stories written today while also being fucking insane in a lot of places. I cannot recommend them highly enough.

No Damnation Via Misrepresentation

I'm a gamer. I'm not a particularly proud gamer, but that's because I've never seen the purpose in taking pride in an identity. There has been a pretty significant brouhaha concerning that identity lately that I would like to address.

Concerning any misogynistic/racist/bigoted bullshit anyone in the "community" has said; the people saying these things are assholes. The propagation of the whole Gamergate fucking thing was primarily the concern of assholes. There are legitimate concerns over professional misconduct in regards to both the gaming industry and its associated submarkets, most gamers have known and complained about this for years. Most of us didn't need to abuse a nearly unknown developer to discuss industry glad-handing, and by and large gamers hate those fucking dicks, they make us all look bad, as gamergate effectively demonstrated. If anyone decides to be an abusive fucknugget, that person is a dick, and ought to be dealt with accordingly. The fact that the anonymity afforded the overall gaming community draws more than its fair share of this trash shouldn't damn the whole community, babies and bathwater and whatnot.

I will make no attempt to rationalize or apologize for people who bear a vague and general similarity to me. I admit that we as a community need to establish better standards for behavior, we need to apply pressure to the various industries that cater to us to be more inclusive and forward thinking. We, like so many other groups, need to either educate or excise the factions who share our identity. This isn't a matter of to each their own, the assholes in our community aren't just making us look bad, they're hurting people. It's up to us, not just to deny the people who would see our community die due to the actions of the idiot fringe, but to denounce that fringe. They don't really represent us, so we need to do more to stop them representing us.

Comming This Fall: Spoilers!

Movie trailers are kind of a hard thing to do right. You need to show just enough to convince the viewer that they want to see more, but not so much as to ruin the premise of the movie. This is fucking hard to do, but it would be way easier if the film industry had any faith in the viewing audience. Unfortunately, they don't. This is why sequels and remakes get made and new ideas are shunned like modern day lepers.

This is a spoiler heavy post. You have been warned.

Movie trailers are all set up to make you want to watch a movie, but if the main reason the movie is going to be a significant plot twist, that needs to be left out of the trailer. Not gently alluded to. Not casually referenced. Left the fuck out. The Cabin In The Woods trailer gives away the main idea behind what makes the movie unique, and easily could have been sold as a standard teen slasher instead. I was told prior to seeing the movie to not watch the trailers or read anything about the movie because what makes it a great movie is a meta-narrative plot twist that comes completely out of left field. Its a great movie that fucks with the horror paradigm in a very original way, and the trailer gives away the twist like 30 seconds in.

If I had seen the trailer prior to watching the movie I would have been pissed. Your opening weekend might take a hit because the movie looks cliche, but overall you would produce a better viewing experience for your audience, and as such, you might still get decent numbers overall as people who see it will flock to tell other people to watch it due to how great a film it is. In the same vein as ruining the twist in the main plot; sometimes trailers just straight up ruin the movie's ending (al la Quarantine). The impact that the ending of a movie is supposed to have is greatly reduced if you know it going in. Its why prequels to movies don't have much in the way of tension when it comes to worrying about characters dying. If a character from the original film is in the prequel you know they come out of the movie unscathed, don't fucking waste that scene trying to manufacture false tension.

Trailers sometimes also make you think the movie is completely different from what it actually is. The trailer for Sweeney Todd looks like a slasher film instead of a musical, which probably made a lot of people angry (I knew it was a musical going in as I had seen a stage show of it prior to seeing it so I was not put off, also, a good musical is bad ass). Observe and Report is another movie that does this as it makes itself look like Paul Blart: Mall Cop rather than what it is: a dark comedy complete with a date rape scene and copious amounts of violence and drugs.

This comes down to one of the problems that prevail in the movie industry. No one trusts audiences to watch anything anymore, so they have to make a movie seem appealing by jamming all the best stuff into the trailers. This is why twists get revealed, because they want people to see them as unique. The only real solution here is to stop letting idiot marketing departments cobble together movie trailers without any apparent oversight. I don't think anyone was pleased with Cabin in the Woods' carefully crafted twist being called out at the first fucking opportunity and shitting all over the first act. Let's try for some subtlety in our previews, maybe then it'll be worth going to see a movie again.