...but I know it sucks. I know this because I enter shopping centres, I ride in friends cars and I work at a place that happens to have it playing. The current landscape of radio stations in Perth sucks gigantic donkey balls, for this many reasons:
1) 90% of music is terrible, that's a given. But there's a top 10% of that ninety, occupied by Pink, Nickelback and Snow Patrol, along with the damnable members of their ilk. You know the music I'm talking about, it's not that it actually physically annoys you, it's just kinda boring, and it sits in the background, boring and annoying you. The reason this shit gets played is because it is "inoffensive" so people are less likely to flip the station. Except it gets played ad nauseum so the odds favour someone landing on the latest boring and inoffensive tune when channel flipping. Ostensibly it's good business sense, but it makes basically every radio station unlistenable. Oldies stations have their roster of boring oldies to cycle through, while stations playing new shit have the top twenty singles to just recycle. Which brings me to my next point:
2) It just promotes whatever is popular at the time. OK, oldies stations don't do this so much, but think about top twenty stations. They play songs that are popular, thus increasing their popularity until they get thrashed to death or quietly fall off everyone's radar forever. It just perpetuates the cycle of shitty, shitty music. The worst bit is, they can, if so inclined, replace one Pink song with another one and most of the knuckledraggers out there won't even notice, thus keeping their fiendish pattern going on into perpetuity. Yes, I really hate Pink, we've covered this.
3) It's run like a business. I know this seems like a stupid quibble, but it does bug me. Radio ads are, by and large, really irritating, but because radio stations need cash flow to keep running, it becomes a case of appealing to the lowest common denominator, because that's where the money is. There's no money in niche marketing, so any station that wishes to stand on its feet financially needs advertising cash, hence the samey crap that gets peddled 24/7. It's all connected, and it's all fucking irritating.
4) DJs are boring. Unless they're irritating. By and large, talk radio falls into the "not even funny" category of comedy, and even very good talk falls flat after a while. This whole "three people hoping they're funny while simultaneously taking calls and occasionally shitting out two or three songs" deal has to change. It has no flow, is impossible to get into and leaves fans of any one of those three things irritated at how little a share their favourite section gets. A show just for music, a show just for talk and a show just for call-ins. It's not hard.
I don't even know why I bitch about this, I only ever listen to the radio under duress, as do many of my fellows. I will say, though, I'd probably listen to a lot more if they addressed these issues, and they'd probably educate the masses a bit more if they did. Educational talk radio? Yeah, it can exist. And it can be interesting too. That is, assuming you didn't have a healthy diet of paint as a child.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Again, Just To Clear This Up.
Agnostic Pyrrhonist Pearlist Atheist Left Leaning Social Liberal with an interest in Transhumanism and Postmodernism. How 'bout you?
Friday, May 27, 2011
For Fucks Sake, Vatican!
The priest that Ratzo put in charge of church reforms in the wake of a pedophilia scandal has been recorded trying to solicit boys "aged younger than 16" for sex in exchange for cocaine. He requested that the dealer "look for needy boys who have family issues." I don't even get schadenfreude from that, it's so vile. Seriously, pedophilia is disgusting, and when you look for boys that have troubled pasts already so they'll be more amenable to you raping them, you're a fucking terrible person. I literally don't give a shit about anything else you do, you're an irredeemable waste of life.
Let me extend the olive branch here. Agnostics, I know I may have called you weak-willed fence sitters in the past, but we're all agnostic really. You don't want to commit to any position right now, and that's fine. But As a whole, you guys all seem pretty humanist and I can almost guarantee you're anti-children being raped. Come on board and I promise I won't make fun of you for not being 100% logical and rational about everything all the time.
Moderate Christians. We've certainly had our differences, but you guys are all about the "God is love" bit. I don't even care what you think about the universe, these guys are tarring your otherwise pleasant message of love and tolerance with their stunted, fucked up take on morality. I promise not to bring up how nonsensical I find your take on reality if you come on board. Vaguely spiritual hippies, you guys can also piggyback on that promise.
The worst bit? Ratzo won't even get even remotely called up on this. Imagine if it was any other organisation, ever. "We hired a guy to fix all of our company cars, and he kinda accidently solicited sex from a minor in exchange for drugs. With any luck, we can sweep this under the rug..." but no, because His Holy Highness has a magical god-hat-radio he gets a walk on this one. The priest got caught in Morocco, so with any luck he'll get arrested and tried there, and treated to some Midnight Express style prisonry. In Ratzo's case, I have one question: Why the hell did someone try to assassinate PJP2? Shoot the nazi! It's not hard! Fuck, I expected a better quality of gun wielding maniac.
I can't wait for his next speech, where he starts apologising for how terrible his organisation is, and descends into blaming atheists and feminists for all the world's problems. You think it'd stop being funny after the first few times, but seriously, that shit gets funnier every fuckin' time you hear it.
Let me extend the olive branch here. Agnostics, I know I may have called you weak-willed fence sitters in the past, but we're all agnostic really. You don't want to commit to any position right now, and that's fine. But As a whole, you guys all seem pretty humanist and I can almost guarantee you're anti-children being raped. Come on board and I promise I won't make fun of you for not being 100% logical and rational about everything all the time.
Moderate Christians. We've certainly had our differences, but you guys are all about the "God is love" bit. I don't even care what you think about the universe, these guys are tarring your otherwise pleasant message of love and tolerance with their stunted, fucked up take on morality. I promise not to bring up how nonsensical I find your take on reality if you come on board. Vaguely spiritual hippies, you guys can also piggyback on that promise.
The worst bit? Ratzo won't even get even remotely called up on this. Imagine if it was any other organisation, ever. "We hired a guy to fix all of our company cars, and he kinda accidently solicited sex from a minor in exchange for drugs. With any luck, we can sweep this under the rug..." but no, because His Holy Highness has a magical god-hat-radio he gets a walk on this one. The priest got caught in Morocco, so with any luck he'll get arrested and tried there, and treated to some Midnight Express style prisonry. In Ratzo's case, I have one question: Why the hell did someone try to assassinate PJP2? Shoot the nazi! It's not hard! Fuck, I expected a better quality of gun wielding maniac.
I can't wait for his next speech, where he starts apologising for how terrible his organisation is, and descends into blaming atheists and feminists for all the world's problems. You think it'd stop being funny after the first few times, but seriously, that shit gets funnier every fuckin' time you hear it.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
So No-One Ever Has To Ask Again.
The ultimate hangover cure is: Suck up your pain, shower, get dressed, walk to your local deli, buy a Powerade and a sandwich/pie/sausage roll/something greasy and savoury (possibly a sweet if you're tasting salt too much and it makes you sick) and walk home. That will fix you, or at least get you functioning again. Proven with some kind of science. Also, drink tonnes of water.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The World Is Ending Because Of Condoms.
This isn't really topical, despite the title. Apparently the world has been ending for years now. Or so people of a more conservative bent would have you believe. As someone on the more liberal end of the spectrum, this is something I just don't understand. See, as far as I can tell, the moral fabric of society is (supposedly) crumbling with each successive generation as test scores plummet and teen violence and pregnancies soar. Thing is, and I don't want to ruin your brain or anything here, but none of those things are happening.
What the fuck is the "moral fabric" of society? Somehow I doubt that the gays getting married will lead to murder becoming fine by everyone. If you're talking about the systems of self-regulation that govern a stable society to prevent it from imploding, you're talking about stuff like murder, rape and lying (that's right, lying is bad for society. Look it up), it's never going to be the case that those things become acceptable. As a species, the vast majority of us are biologically wired not to do those things. Obviously there's extenuating circumstances (except for rape, I can't see a way that you could spin rape as the right thing to do in any given situation. I mean, statutory rape enters some nebulous territory when it's something like an 18 year old and a 15 year old, but I think we can all agree that a 30 year old and a 12 year old, in any direction, probably aren't going to be a healthy match sexually. Ugh, separate rant), but as a rule, The idea of killing another human being, or any other biologically antagonistic behaviour isn't something that many people will do.
I guess when people say "moral fabric," what they really mean is "adherence to the set of morals I like." This might not necessarily be religious, but if someone is a homophobe, I suppose they might see gay marriage as damaging to society. Unfortunately, the truth train does kinda roll in and demonstrate that it really isn't. Homosexuality is a biological quirk, no different to dwarfism or albinism. Hell, it's slightly different to those because it's not really detrimental (I'm not saying dwarves or albinos are disabled, but there are physical shortcomings that are characteristic of said conditions), but it's still something unavoidable and inherent in someone's chemical makeup. And yeah, I am calling those "pray the gay away" camps and "reformed homosexuals" a crock of shit. Because they are, suck it up. There's no argument for why two consenting albinos shouldn't marry, so why can't gays? Oh, they can't procreate? So, what about barren couples, or those that choose to remain childless? Ugh, pointless argument, it's been made a thousand times before.
And it'll be made a thousand times again before pants wetting conservatives understand that things change. The nature of society is constantly in flux as we understand more about ourselves and the world we live in. Yeah, change can be scary, but it's gonna happen, regardless. Fuck, even The Bible knows it: Proverbs 12:1 "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid." There, even your mystical sky-daddy said it: Stuff changes, be rigorous in your pursuit for correct information and rejecting changes and corrections is stupid. Or, as The King James version says it, "brutish." I like that one.
What the fuck is the "moral fabric" of society? Somehow I doubt that the gays getting married will lead to murder becoming fine by everyone. If you're talking about the systems of self-regulation that govern a stable society to prevent it from imploding, you're talking about stuff like murder, rape and lying (that's right, lying is bad for society. Look it up), it's never going to be the case that those things become acceptable. As a species, the vast majority of us are biologically wired not to do those things. Obviously there's extenuating circumstances (except for rape, I can't see a way that you could spin rape as the right thing to do in any given situation. I mean, statutory rape enters some nebulous territory when it's something like an 18 year old and a 15 year old, but I think we can all agree that a 30 year old and a 12 year old, in any direction, probably aren't going to be a healthy match sexually. Ugh, separate rant), but as a rule, The idea of killing another human being, or any other biologically antagonistic behaviour isn't something that many people will do.
I guess when people say "moral fabric," what they really mean is "adherence to the set of morals I like." This might not necessarily be religious, but if someone is a homophobe, I suppose they might see gay marriage as damaging to society. Unfortunately, the truth train does kinda roll in and demonstrate that it really isn't. Homosexuality is a biological quirk, no different to dwarfism or albinism. Hell, it's slightly different to those because it's not really detrimental (I'm not saying dwarves or albinos are disabled, but there are physical shortcomings that are characteristic of said conditions), but it's still something unavoidable and inherent in someone's chemical makeup. And yeah, I am calling those "pray the gay away" camps and "reformed homosexuals" a crock of shit. Because they are, suck it up. There's no argument for why two consenting albinos shouldn't marry, so why can't gays? Oh, they can't procreate? So, what about barren couples, or those that choose to remain childless? Ugh, pointless argument, it's been made a thousand times before.
And it'll be made a thousand times again before pants wetting conservatives understand that things change. The nature of society is constantly in flux as we understand more about ourselves and the world we live in. Yeah, change can be scary, but it's gonna happen, regardless. Fuck, even The Bible knows it: Proverbs 12:1 "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid." There, even your mystical sky-daddy said it: Stuff changes, be rigorous in your pursuit for correct information and rejecting changes and corrections is stupid. Or, as The King James version says it, "brutish." I like that one.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Schadenfreude Pie
Obviously I'm not surprised that we're all still here, because I'm not an idiot. With that said, let me jump on the "up yours, Camping" bandwagon and say direct to Mr. Camping; you are a fucking legend and I want to be you. Seriously, he got a buttload of people, with money and assets and all kinds of shiny things to believe the most ridiculous of bullshit. He even got people to kill their own children! I would eat my own left nut for that kind of influence! Of course, I'd use mine to make the world a better place for everyone, but I guess I'm just a crazy kinda guy that way.
I'd also like to draw attention to something I learned today, courtesy of my girlfriend Jess. Apparently in Genesis, there's a passage wherein the big guy upstairs declares humans to be the caretakers of the earth. He palms responsibility for keeping this place nice and tidy squarely onto us. So, Republicans, better do something about global warming or else Saint Peter is going to drop you down the chute to the big fry pan down there. And Liberal Party too, to keep it nice and close to home.
I'd also like to draw attention to something I learned today, courtesy of my girlfriend Jess. Apparently in Genesis, there's a passage wherein the big guy upstairs declares humans to be the caretakers of the earth. He palms responsibility for keeping this place nice and tidy squarely onto us. So, Republicans, better do something about global warming or else Saint Peter is going to drop you down the chute to the big fry pan down there. And Liberal Party too, to keep it nice and close to home.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Scientists R In Ur Base, Ruining Ur Conspiracies!!1!
Well, it turns out there was no cure for cancer. Doctors aren't conspiring to keep the cure under wraps as a method of population control. In other shocking news, the sky is blue. Seriously, it boggles my fucking mind how, in this day and age, people can still fall for these kinds of things. To read a frank and entertaining debunking, check out PZ Myers' Pharyngula post on the subject. He has a couple things in his favour; 1) He actually read the friggin' paper that was published by the University of Edmonton, wherein it is made abundantly clear that this isn't ready for clinical trials yet, and at any rate only shows promise for treating certain cancers, and 2) He is a professor of biology, so shut up. He's more educated than you on the topic of biology.
Yet another one for my "bullshit detector was right" file. And it's getting pretty full, I may need to upgrade to a filing cabinet pretty soon. Realistically, the whole "medical advances are suppressed as a form of population control" theory/whatever is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories, simply due to its size. Keep in mind, the bigger a conspiracy, the more links in the chain, the less likely it is to be true. Why, you ask? Because how do you manage and govern a group of people so large to be so organised, yet keep it completely under the radar? "Oh, the media are in on it as well!" Sorry, making the conspiracy bigger to solve the problem of it being to big is a logical faceplant.
Also, what the fuck made you think that this one, poorly written article had stumbled upon some vast and incredible secret? Doesn't it even register on that mismatched jumble of synapses you call a mind that it doesn't make any sense, on any level? If there really was such a suppression conspiracy, and this one dickhead threatened to blow the lid, why not just kill him and get rid of the article? Clearly, if they can remain so secretive for so long, they're a tad more computer literate than most, and if they don't mind thousands of people dying of cancers pretty much 'round the clock then surely one random almost-journalist wouldn't weigh too heavily on their conscience. Well, you'd think people would use that good, old-fashioned process of logic and reason, but no dice.
As the mighty, mighty PZ pointed out, the reason funding for this costly project isn't forthcoming is because it's unpatentable. The company that funds the research will lose that money because any other pharmacuetical company can just piggyback on the findings later and sidestep that whole investment problem. That's the issue here. Businessmen are the evil ones, not doctors and scientists. I mean, really, guys. Doctors and scientists spend the best part of their youth working their nutsack off to make your life better. Engineers and mathematicians too. They are in no way out to get you, to make you feel stupid and piss on your parade. Don't get me wrong, they may inadvertantly piss on it, but that's not their fault, blame reality. Sidenote, I am here to piss on your parade. Scientists and authors fill me up with all kinds of pithy urine which I can't wait to unleash on you poor, deluded fuckers. That's not the educated guys, that's me.
Anyway, the villains in this bizarre story of life are businessmen. The guys in suits heading the companies. They're the ones not funding important cancer research. They're the ones who set in play the series of events that caused some pretty serious financial buttrape in America and all over the world. They're the ones driving fuel prices up and milk prices down, screwing over our farmers and utterly molesting the quality of food. When's the last time someone bitched about Coles and Woolworths working in tandem to achieve a monopoly on groceries, thereby fucking over the consumer, while the price war that they are having to try and one-up each other hammers nails in the coffin of local produce? That's not a conspiracy, it's really happening! Right now! Someone bitch about that! (Someone who isn't me, I bitch about it constantly).
Scientists, doctors, engineers, mathematicians, psychologists, philosophers... these are the good guys. Businessmen, CEOs, some unscrupulous lawyers and journalists who care more about cash than truth... these are the bad guys. It's not difficult, people.
Authors note: The majority of lawyers and journalists are honestly interested in truth, law and integrity. A few bad apples kinda spoil the bunch, but honestly? Journalists have their hands pretty tied when the guys paying their wages demand MOAR CONSERVATIVE SCARE PIECES! Filter your news, don't watch Fox and try and double or triple check facts. That's all I ask.
Yet another one for my "bullshit detector was right" file. And it's getting pretty full, I may need to upgrade to a filing cabinet pretty soon. Realistically, the whole "medical advances are suppressed as a form of population control" theory/whatever is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories, simply due to its size. Keep in mind, the bigger a conspiracy, the more links in the chain, the less likely it is to be true. Why, you ask? Because how do you manage and govern a group of people so large to be so organised, yet keep it completely under the radar? "Oh, the media are in on it as well!" Sorry, making the conspiracy bigger to solve the problem of it being to big is a logical faceplant.
Also, what the fuck made you think that this one, poorly written article had stumbled upon some vast and incredible secret? Doesn't it even register on that mismatched jumble of synapses you call a mind that it doesn't make any sense, on any level? If there really was such a suppression conspiracy, and this one dickhead threatened to blow the lid, why not just kill him and get rid of the article? Clearly, if they can remain so secretive for so long, they're a tad more computer literate than most, and if they don't mind thousands of people dying of cancers pretty much 'round the clock then surely one random almost-journalist wouldn't weigh too heavily on their conscience. Well, you'd think people would use that good, old-fashioned process of logic and reason, but no dice.
As the mighty, mighty PZ pointed out, the reason funding for this costly project isn't forthcoming is because it's unpatentable. The company that funds the research will lose that money because any other pharmacuetical company can just piggyback on the findings later and sidestep that whole investment problem. That's the issue here. Businessmen are the evil ones, not doctors and scientists. I mean, really, guys. Doctors and scientists spend the best part of their youth working their nutsack off to make your life better. Engineers and mathematicians too. They are in no way out to get you, to make you feel stupid and piss on your parade. Don't get me wrong, they may inadvertantly piss on it, but that's not their fault, blame reality. Sidenote, I am here to piss on your parade. Scientists and authors fill me up with all kinds of pithy urine which I can't wait to unleash on you poor, deluded fuckers. That's not the educated guys, that's me.
Anyway, the villains in this bizarre story of life are businessmen. The guys in suits heading the companies. They're the ones not funding important cancer research. They're the ones who set in play the series of events that caused some pretty serious financial buttrape in America and all over the world. They're the ones driving fuel prices up and milk prices down, screwing over our farmers and utterly molesting the quality of food. When's the last time someone bitched about Coles and Woolworths working in tandem to achieve a monopoly on groceries, thereby fucking over the consumer, while the price war that they are having to try and one-up each other hammers nails in the coffin of local produce? That's not a conspiracy, it's really happening! Right now! Someone bitch about that! (Someone who isn't me, I bitch about it constantly).
Scientists, doctors, engineers, mathematicians, psychologists, philosophers... these are the good guys. Businessmen, CEOs, some unscrupulous lawyers and journalists who care more about cash than truth... these are the bad guys. It's not difficult, people.
Authors note: The majority of lawyers and journalists are honestly interested in truth, law and integrity. A few bad apples kinda spoil the bunch, but honestly? Journalists have their hands pretty tied when the guys paying their wages demand MOAR CONSERVATIVE SCARE PIECES! Filter your news, don't watch Fox and try and double or triple check facts. That's all I ask.
Monday, May 16, 2011
On Shock vs. Substance
Ok, this is unrelated to the rest of the post, but it's something I'd like to share. Part of the journalist's code of ethics, the MEAA (I forget what it stands for) is that you cannot use your position as a journalist improperly for personal gain. Does that mean that if you meet a chick with a journalist fetish (it could happen!) it's improper to give her a good seeing to? Get back to me.
Anyway, shock vs. substance. What I'm talking about here is the difference between standing out by quality vs. standing out by outlandishness. There's a place for both, sure, but it's really a question of who's gonna be remembered when the next thing comes along. I'm gonna attack this one via music, but there'll be a few tangents into TV and writing while I'm here.
So, new music comes along quite a bit. I'll be totally honest, I ignore a lot of it. I know that sounds odd coming from a music fan, but realistically, I've listened to a lot of music, from a lot of different styles. Odds are, these new guys? I've probably heard something like it before. Probably something better, too. Yeah that sounds smug, but it's the honest truth. I stopped giving a shit about technical metal when Protest the Hero declared a moratorium on all things technical. Ditto Oceansize and crazy jammy space-prog-indie. Yeah, that's a genre, get over it. Fact is, in any given genre, there's really only about 5(ish) really good bands that are actually worth listening to, the rest are pale imitations or just not that good.
So, how do you stand out from the crowd? Well, you've gotta do something different, obviously. You have to be a new take on an idea. A good way to gauge if something is a new take on an idea is if it pisses off (most) old people. People of a certain age, let's say... 40 and over, are much more likely to be conservative in their tastes and dismissive of new ideas. Therefore, if it happens to piss off people in that age bracket, it's probably doing something different. Critics fapping over something is also a good (but imperfect) gauge of quality.
Now, admittedly, some things are just designed to be abrasive, difficult and exclusionary. Hardcore music, for example. Hardcore is basically designed to push all but the most open minded or deranged folk out, simply by virtue of its requirement for fast tempos, aggressive sounds and its generally antagonistic take on pop and rock. Now, the average hardcore band, who's gonna give a shit about them in two years time? Someone heavier or faster or more whatever will come along eventually, it's just the way it goes. You're only as good as the next guys who try to out-irritate you.
Take a show like South Park. Despite what your parents may tell you, it is NOT designed to be offensive. It can be, sure, but the average episode of South Park is more likely to be politically or socially subversive than outright offensive. Half the reason South Park has such a reputation as an offensive show is because it lampoons public figures, makes fun of silly traditions and calls stuff out when it's stupid. People hate swear words, but they hate being told they're stupid more, even more so when the person telling them is right. South Park offends via substance, not shock, and that's why it's so endearing.
There's this cute little grunge revival happening in music now, it's darling. It's like watching a 6 year old try on mummy's heels and makeup. I loved the nineties, great time for music in general. We don't need it again though, it's already happened. It's currently 2011, not 1991. It's not original, it's not subversive and it certainly won't be memorable in ten years time. People are still listening to Jane's Addiction (guess who my favourite band is right now!) and they'll continue to listen to them long after this little imitationist fad has died. The original grunge acts had substance. This second wave is just trying to shock. Probably not consciously, but by trying to ape the sounds of their heroes, they're trying to get a reaction without having the substance to back it up.
There's always gonna be imitationists. It goes with the territory. But original ideas live on. Pale imitations don't. Guys, go for substance, not shock.
P.S. As someone who has proclaimed outright he's trying to offend and alienate, I feel it is my duty to acknowledge that yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, and no it doesn't bother me because the readership of this here blag is miniscule at best. If you want to make me feel bad, get more people reading.
Anyway, shock vs. substance. What I'm talking about here is the difference between standing out by quality vs. standing out by outlandishness. There's a place for both, sure, but it's really a question of who's gonna be remembered when the next thing comes along. I'm gonna attack this one via music, but there'll be a few tangents into TV and writing while I'm here.
So, new music comes along quite a bit. I'll be totally honest, I ignore a lot of it. I know that sounds odd coming from a music fan, but realistically, I've listened to a lot of music, from a lot of different styles. Odds are, these new guys? I've probably heard something like it before. Probably something better, too. Yeah that sounds smug, but it's the honest truth. I stopped giving a shit about technical metal when Protest the Hero declared a moratorium on all things technical. Ditto Oceansize and crazy jammy space-prog-indie. Yeah, that's a genre, get over it. Fact is, in any given genre, there's really only about 5(ish) really good bands that are actually worth listening to, the rest are pale imitations or just not that good.
So, how do you stand out from the crowd? Well, you've gotta do something different, obviously. You have to be a new take on an idea. A good way to gauge if something is a new take on an idea is if it pisses off (most) old people. People of a certain age, let's say... 40 and over, are much more likely to be conservative in their tastes and dismissive of new ideas. Therefore, if it happens to piss off people in that age bracket, it's probably doing something different. Critics fapping over something is also a good (but imperfect) gauge of quality.
Now, admittedly, some things are just designed to be abrasive, difficult and exclusionary. Hardcore music, for example. Hardcore is basically designed to push all but the most open minded or deranged folk out, simply by virtue of its requirement for fast tempos, aggressive sounds and its generally antagonistic take on pop and rock. Now, the average hardcore band, who's gonna give a shit about them in two years time? Someone heavier or faster or more whatever will come along eventually, it's just the way it goes. You're only as good as the next guys who try to out-irritate you.
Take a show like South Park. Despite what your parents may tell you, it is NOT designed to be offensive. It can be, sure, but the average episode of South Park is more likely to be politically or socially subversive than outright offensive. Half the reason South Park has such a reputation as an offensive show is because it lampoons public figures, makes fun of silly traditions and calls stuff out when it's stupid. People hate swear words, but they hate being told they're stupid more, even more so when the person telling them is right. South Park offends via substance, not shock, and that's why it's so endearing.
There's this cute little grunge revival happening in music now, it's darling. It's like watching a 6 year old try on mummy's heels and makeup. I loved the nineties, great time for music in general. We don't need it again though, it's already happened. It's currently 2011, not 1991. It's not original, it's not subversive and it certainly won't be memorable in ten years time. People are still listening to Jane's Addiction (guess who my favourite band is right now!) and they'll continue to listen to them long after this little imitationist fad has died. The original grunge acts had substance. This second wave is just trying to shock. Probably not consciously, but by trying to ape the sounds of their heroes, they're trying to get a reaction without having the substance to back it up.
There's always gonna be imitationists. It goes with the territory. But original ideas live on. Pale imitations don't. Guys, go for substance, not shock.
P.S. As someone who has proclaimed outright he's trying to offend and alienate, I feel it is my duty to acknowledge that yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, and no it doesn't bother me because the readership of this here blag is miniscule at best. If you want to make me feel bad, get more people reading.
Yet Another Tawdry List
I was going to post this on tuesday, but then I got an idea for an actual entry, so I use filler on a day that didn't need filling. Because I'm organised. Anyway, my top ten albums of all time in no particular order, with some short justification.
Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd (1974). This album is, and always will be, a classic. It hasn't dated production-wise, is still lyrically relevant and balances it's challenging music with enough melody and hooks to keep everyone happy. I can safely say that if you do not like this album, you don't like music. Interesting sidenote, it was on the Billboard top 100 from 1974 to 1983. That is fucking incredible.
OK Computer by Radiohead (1997). One of those defining, zeitgeist-y records, probably the best thing to come out of the nineties. The whole thing has this washy, spacey vibe, even during rocky moments, it's a record you can get lost in. Cool kid points go to guitarists Jonny Greenwood and Ed O'Brien, who turn ideas about leads, chords, distortion and effects on their heads.
Frames by Oceansize (2007). This short lived UK band is no longer with us, but all 4 of their albums are really something special. This one, their third, stands out as my favourite because it seems much more complete than their other records, at least in my humble opinion. What really sets it apart is how groovy it is, and how much of a headspace you can get into while listening, despite the fact there's nary a bar of 4/4 to be seen.
Ritual de lo Habitual by Jane's Addiction (1990). Jane's Addiction were grunge before grunge, funk metal before funk metal, a psycho-sexual extravaganza of a rock band. Their second record stands out as a classic because of the strength of both "sides" (remember when records had those?) The first five songs are about the funkiest, danciest hard rock songs you'll ever hear, while the last four are these amazing, eastern-influenced prog-rock epics. Also, Dave Navarro pissing out solos as if no-one told him to stop is about as awesome as you can get.
Miss Machine by Dillinger Escape Plan (2004). This is the hardest, fastest, most abrasive listen you're ever likely to hear. It is absolutely, mind-destroyingly hardcore. And yet, somehow, there are bits that get stuck in your head. There are hooks, there are melodies, there are textures. Subtle destruction is how I'd describe it. Amazing slice of math-core.
The Great Misdirect by Between The Buried And Me (2009). Is it death metal? Is it country? Is it technical? Is it jazz? Is it Legend of Zelda? Well, it kinda has all of those things. With only 6 tracks, you might think you're getting short changed, but there are about 3 albums worth of ideas crammed into one brutal, technical yet ultimately brilliant album. All five members of this band are leaders in their chosen instruments, amazing to listen to.
Fear of a Blank Planet by Porcupine Tree (2007). Steven Wilson, singer, guitarist and songwriter of Porcupine Tree (among other things) basically saved prog from being a relic in the 00's. This album is a perfect example of how to put lots of disparate ideas into one record without making it disjointed. Plus, any record that bitches about young people for 50 minutes is fine by me.
Kezia by Protest the Hero (2005). Technical progressive hardcore concept album? I'll take ten! Well, in reality, you only need one, because this is the best concept album to come out in a long time. Every note is immediate and in your face, every moment completely relevant. 10 songs, no filler, amazing record.
De-Loused in the Comatorium by The Mars Volta (2003). You will never hear a record that sounds like this one. It is singularly unique. I still have no idea how the fuck it got made in this day and age, it's so out there, abrasive and challenging, every section mangles anything you expect about music. Listen with an open mind and no presuppositions, it'll mess you up.
Congratulations by MGMT (2010). I bought this record based on nothing other than some mixed reviews. I hate hate hated MGMT when they first came out, then all the reviews seemed to say things like "what the hell are MGMT doing?" and "this sounds nothing like their first record!" Well, I love weirdness, and this is exactly what it is. 9 weird, catchy, psychedelic tunes and a really cohesive, interesting album. Gives me hope for the next decade.
And those are my ten favourite albums. I don't expect everyone to like everything on this list, but frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find ten records, all of this quality that also cover this much stylistic ground. And that's a bit of a challenge to anyone reading. Have at, kids.
Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd (1974). This album is, and always will be, a classic. It hasn't dated production-wise, is still lyrically relevant and balances it's challenging music with enough melody and hooks to keep everyone happy. I can safely say that if you do not like this album, you don't like music. Interesting sidenote, it was on the Billboard top 100 from 1974 to 1983. That is fucking incredible.
OK Computer by Radiohead (1997). One of those defining, zeitgeist-y records, probably the best thing to come out of the nineties. The whole thing has this washy, spacey vibe, even during rocky moments, it's a record you can get lost in. Cool kid points go to guitarists Jonny Greenwood and Ed O'Brien, who turn ideas about leads, chords, distortion and effects on their heads.
Frames by Oceansize (2007). This short lived UK band is no longer with us, but all 4 of their albums are really something special. This one, their third, stands out as my favourite because it seems much more complete than their other records, at least in my humble opinion. What really sets it apart is how groovy it is, and how much of a headspace you can get into while listening, despite the fact there's nary a bar of 4/4 to be seen.
Ritual de lo Habitual by Jane's Addiction (1990). Jane's Addiction were grunge before grunge, funk metal before funk metal, a psycho-sexual extravaganza of a rock band. Their second record stands out as a classic because of the strength of both "sides" (remember when records had those?) The first five songs are about the funkiest, danciest hard rock songs you'll ever hear, while the last four are these amazing, eastern-influenced prog-rock epics. Also, Dave Navarro pissing out solos as if no-one told him to stop is about as awesome as you can get.
Miss Machine by Dillinger Escape Plan (2004). This is the hardest, fastest, most abrasive listen you're ever likely to hear. It is absolutely, mind-destroyingly hardcore. And yet, somehow, there are bits that get stuck in your head. There are hooks, there are melodies, there are textures. Subtle destruction is how I'd describe it. Amazing slice of math-core.
The Great Misdirect by Between The Buried And Me (2009). Is it death metal? Is it country? Is it technical? Is it jazz? Is it Legend of Zelda? Well, it kinda has all of those things. With only 6 tracks, you might think you're getting short changed, but there are about 3 albums worth of ideas crammed into one brutal, technical yet ultimately brilliant album. All five members of this band are leaders in their chosen instruments, amazing to listen to.
Fear of a Blank Planet by Porcupine Tree (2007). Steven Wilson, singer, guitarist and songwriter of Porcupine Tree (among other things) basically saved prog from being a relic in the 00's. This album is a perfect example of how to put lots of disparate ideas into one record without making it disjointed. Plus, any record that bitches about young people for 50 minutes is fine by me.
Kezia by Protest the Hero (2005). Technical progressive hardcore concept album? I'll take ten! Well, in reality, you only need one, because this is the best concept album to come out in a long time. Every note is immediate and in your face, every moment completely relevant. 10 songs, no filler, amazing record.
De-Loused in the Comatorium by The Mars Volta (2003). You will never hear a record that sounds like this one. It is singularly unique. I still have no idea how the fuck it got made in this day and age, it's so out there, abrasive and challenging, every section mangles anything you expect about music. Listen with an open mind and no presuppositions, it'll mess you up.
Congratulations by MGMT (2010). I bought this record based on nothing other than some mixed reviews. I hate hate hated MGMT when they first came out, then all the reviews seemed to say things like "what the hell are MGMT doing?" and "this sounds nothing like their first record!" Well, I love weirdness, and this is exactly what it is. 9 weird, catchy, psychedelic tunes and a really cohesive, interesting album. Gives me hope for the next decade.
And those are my ten favourite albums. I don't expect everyone to like everything on this list, but frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find ten records, all of this quality that also cover this much stylistic ground. And that's a bit of a challenge to anyone reading. Have at, kids.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Wherein I Alienate Most Future Employers
Just an observation I've noticed about myself, I'd love to know if this is actually a real psychological thing. I don't mind work, really. I mean, some jobs are fucking awful, retail springs to mind here, but as a general rule, most work is at least tolerable. I don't mind putting work into an assignment, or a task, whatever, as long as it feels like it has a point. However, it feels like most jobs are time based, not objective based. What I mean by that is, take a university assignment. You have until x date to achieve y task. How and when you do it is up to you, but as long as the job is done by the time is due, you've done your work. The important thing there is the task, not the time. Then take a job. You have to be there for x hours, wherein you may achieve any amount of stuff. I find this incredibly frustrating, because it never quite seems to sync up; working retail, there was always waaaay too much to do in the shifts I was given, so tasks were left unfinished by the time I clocked off. Conversely, at my current digs, sometimes there isn't enough work to last my shifts, so my supervisor and I discuss football and Diablo for 20 bucks an hour. I'm not bitching about the latter, but it doesn't seem like a great way to do business. Obviously contractors dodge this bullet because their work is almost completely objective based; they get paid x amount to do a certain job in a certain time period. Maybe I should be a contractor. A contract writer, writing pithy blogs about nothing for fat stacks of cash.
I don't really see a methodology wherein objective based work could be more widespread than time based work. Take stuff like fast food, how could you make that objective based? "You can leave when you serve 100 customers" or "when you make 100 meals" or something like that, but it's almost impossible to plan your life around that, and it kinda screws over anything resembling scheduling. So in stuff like retail, where there's a million tiny tasks that never finish, time based work is the only way you can make it work, realistically. At least, to the best of my knowledge, I could of course be wrong on this one.
What's left is my horrifically tiny attention span. I got laid off a retail job because I wasn't paying attention, and that's my own fault, but time based work seems to do that to me. I become more concerned with watching the clock than getting anything done. Fooling everyone around me that I'm useful until it's time to leave becomes my objective. I don't have this problem so much in my current place of work because, even though it's time based, orders come in, I pack them, send them out, job done. There's no sense of infinite, futile work until the clock just stops.
I watched a neat video on "gamification" by some guys called Extra Credits (check 'em out, they're on The Escapist) and this idea seems to be tied to that. People seem to respond better to explicit tasks to be completed in a certain amount of time than they do to doing as much as they can in a limited amount of time. It creates a sense of achievement, rather than making you feel like a rat on wheel. Most people would agree that work, by and large, isn't so much fun and that any way to make it feel a little more rewarding would be welcome, and this is just my personal experience weighing into the argument, but I would not be surprised if more people felt this way. And really, anything to make work less awful would be nice.
I don't really see a methodology wherein objective based work could be more widespread than time based work. Take stuff like fast food, how could you make that objective based? "You can leave when you serve 100 customers" or "when you make 100 meals" or something like that, but it's almost impossible to plan your life around that, and it kinda screws over anything resembling scheduling. So in stuff like retail, where there's a million tiny tasks that never finish, time based work is the only way you can make it work, realistically. At least, to the best of my knowledge, I could of course be wrong on this one.
What's left is my horrifically tiny attention span. I got laid off a retail job because I wasn't paying attention, and that's my own fault, but time based work seems to do that to me. I become more concerned with watching the clock than getting anything done. Fooling everyone around me that I'm useful until it's time to leave becomes my objective. I don't have this problem so much in my current place of work because, even though it's time based, orders come in, I pack them, send them out, job done. There's no sense of infinite, futile work until the clock just stops.
I watched a neat video on "gamification" by some guys called Extra Credits (check 'em out, they're on The Escapist) and this idea seems to be tied to that. People seem to respond better to explicit tasks to be completed in a certain amount of time than they do to doing as much as they can in a limited amount of time. It creates a sense of achievement, rather than making you feel like a rat on wheel. Most people would agree that work, by and large, isn't so much fun and that any way to make it feel a little more rewarding would be welcome, and this is just my personal experience weighing into the argument, but I would not be surprised if more people felt this way. And really, anything to make work less awful would be nice.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Problem of Stupid
OK, right out of the gate: I'd consider myself a weak agnostic implicit atheist secular naturalist. To break that down for the uninitiated; I consider any claims for the existence of a deity as being able to be investigated (assuming they aren't phrased in such a way that they are impossible to define or make no sense... which is kinda the same thing, really. If you say you believe your "god" is unknowable, all you've said is that there does not exist a system where anything that "god" does can be observed, and any effects it might have are indistinguishable from nature. That's literally what it means), and although I won't assert that no gods or supernatural beings exist, I do not believe any of them exist (and there are a few that have been proven NOT to exist. Literal God of the Christian bible, I'm looking at you) and as such I consider most claims about gods and the supernatural to be either ill-informed or warranting further investigation. I'm secular in that I think religion should stay the fuck away from governments and schools. Like, all the way away, as far as possible. Finally, as a naturalist it is my stance that anything that claims to be "supernatural" or is claimed to be can be explained with naturalistic science. The reasoning for this is hardly belief, if something manifests in the natural world, of course it can be explained by the application of science, how else would you explain it?
So that's the breakdown of how I view the world, but to put it even simpler, I can sum it up this way: "Oh yeah? Prove it." Understandably, people will pull out the old chestnut of "but you can't prove anything!!!111!1" and to them I say; shut your ugly face, I'm using prove in the colloquial sense, meaning "provide sufficient evidence such that the claim is plausible and likely." Until you can give me a reason to think anything is true, I'm gonna think it's false. It's called a bullshit filter, and it kicks ass.
Anyway, it kinda follows that when you have such a worldview, you may get Christians/Muslims/Hindus/nondescript spiritual hippie wankers/whatever confronting you with why you don't subscribe to their particular flavour of magical niftiness. My answer is usually along the lines of "I've got no reason to" which really, really pisses people off. Turns out, if you're dismissive of their deeply held beliefs, they'll think it's a slight on them or something. Personally I find such an attitude to be immature, overly sensitive and stupid, but hey, what are you gonna do?
Given that most people become drooling, stuttering mongoloids when you take them off script, I'm gonna try and flesh out an argument against a benevolent creator god that I've been working on. Namely, The Problem of Stupid. Now, you've probably heard of the Problem of Evil, the whole "why would a good god let evil exist, unless he wasn't really that good?" thing, but the problem with said question seems to be that it's been recycled so much, those ad hoc rationalisations have gotten reeeeeeeally streamlined. So, a new approach.
It kinda goes like this; assuming there's a benevolent god who wants us to worship it, who had a hand in creating everything, including every human being, why the disparity in intelligence? I don't mean book learnin', I mean why do some people have more powerful/active/whatever brains? Why do some people have brains that are, by default, more rational, investigative, rebellious and logical? There exists a positive correlation between IQ scores and atheism (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c) and extensive research has been done on the topic of academic achievement and religiousity (http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm), each time showing a negative correlation between results and belief. Why would a benevolent creator god make it so only the most credulous, gullible and retarded are the most devout?
The responses I predict for these are:
1) There are other ways of measuring how smart someone is besides IQ and test scores.
2) The tests were biased against religious people.
3) What about the positive correlation between religiousity and Emotional Intelligence?
4) God works in mysterious ways.
My answers:
1) Well, sure, depending on how broad you want to make your definition of smart. Yeah, IQ tests aren't perfect, and yeah, scores from high school and university may not be an accurate representation of how intelligent you are, but realistically, how else are you gonna measure intelligence? The number of low scoring but otherwise intelligent people (out of laziness, or language barriers, or a myriad of other factors) may be significant, they may not. However, it is undeniable that there is a direct and established correlation between IQ scores and belief, and academic achievement and belief. And both of those things are related to intelligence.
2) To what ends? You stand to make waaaaay more money by producing a study that confirms religious/spiritual people's belief in their own superiority. By pissing in their cornflakes by implying they're dullards, you alienate a large audience, all with disposable income. The only reason you'd ever produce a study that went against what the majority thinks is if you cared whether or not it was true, and the only way it'd ever get published is if the methodology and evidence was too sound to poke holes in. Yeah, just let that one stew for a while.
3) Never mind the fact that religiously leaning people may have a greater ability to identify, assess and control the emotions of themselves and others, because frankly that's what everything from the mildest psuedoscience to full blown fundamentalism is built upon; snagging people emotionally, not intellectually. Never mind the fact that there isn't an established link between theistic belief and EI, or that the results trying to link EI to workplace productivity is patchy at best. Let's just hone in on the fact that the whole concept has "no sound scientific basis" (Eysenck, H.J. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. ISBN 0765807076). Yeah, that one I like.
4) Assuming such a thing exists. Maybe we should get that one down first.
So yeah, basically: There is a whole spectrum of intelligence from the most cretinous of dimwits to Stephen fuckin' Hawking. Any system for measuring where you sit on said spectrum produces a correlation such that the strongest belief is closer to the nitwit end, while rejections of unfounded silly-talk is up on Stephen's end. As such, this aforementioned benevolent creator is a jerk, a retard or not really playing much of a part in people's intelligence or the evidence pointing to his existence. Nice hand to pick from there.
P.S. Yeah, OK, I know this was just a rehashing of the Problem of Evil, but it was fun to write. Suck it up.
So that's the breakdown of how I view the world, but to put it even simpler, I can sum it up this way: "Oh yeah? Prove it." Understandably, people will pull out the old chestnut of "but you can't prove anything!!!111!1" and to them I say; shut your ugly face, I'm using prove in the colloquial sense, meaning "provide sufficient evidence such that the claim is plausible and likely." Until you can give me a reason to think anything is true, I'm gonna think it's false. It's called a bullshit filter, and it kicks ass.
Anyway, it kinda follows that when you have such a worldview, you may get Christians/Muslims/Hindus/nondescript spiritual hippie wankers/whatever confronting you with why you don't subscribe to their particular flavour of magical niftiness. My answer is usually along the lines of "I've got no reason to" which really, really pisses people off. Turns out, if you're dismissive of their deeply held beliefs, they'll think it's a slight on them or something. Personally I find such an attitude to be immature, overly sensitive and stupid, but hey, what are you gonna do?
Given that most people become drooling, stuttering mongoloids when you take them off script, I'm gonna try and flesh out an argument against a benevolent creator god that I've been working on. Namely, The Problem of Stupid. Now, you've probably heard of the Problem of Evil, the whole "why would a good god let evil exist, unless he wasn't really that good?" thing, but the problem with said question seems to be that it's been recycled so much, those ad hoc rationalisations have gotten reeeeeeeally streamlined. So, a new approach.
It kinda goes like this; assuming there's a benevolent god who wants us to worship it, who had a hand in creating everything, including every human being, why the disparity in intelligence? I don't mean book learnin', I mean why do some people have more powerful/active/whatever brains? Why do some people have brains that are, by default, more rational, investigative, rebellious and logical? There exists a positive correlation between IQ scores and atheism (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c) and extensive research has been done on the topic of academic achievement and religiousity (http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm), each time showing a negative correlation between results and belief. Why would a benevolent creator god make it so only the most credulous, gullible and retarded are the most devout?
The responses I predict for these are:
1) There are other ways of measuring how smart someone is besides IQ and test scores.
2) The tests were biased against religious people.
3) What about the positive correlation between religiousity and Emotional Intelligence?
4) God works in mysterious ways.
My answers:
1) Well, sure, depending on how broad you want to make your definition of smart. Yeah, IQ tests aren't perfect, and yeah, scores from high school and university may not be an accurate representation of how intelligent you are, but realistically, how else are you gonna measure intelligence? The number of low scoring but otherwise intelligent people (out of laziness, or language barriers, or a myriad of other factors) may be significant, they may not. However, it is undeniable that there is a direct and established correlation between IQ scores and belief, and academic achievement and belief. And both of those things are related to intelligence.
2) To what ends? You stand to make waaaaay more money by producing a study that confirms religious/spiritual people's belief in their own superiority. By pissing in their cornflakes by implying they're dullards, you alienate a large audience, all with disposable income. The only reason you'd ever produce a study that went against what the majority thinks is if you cared whether or not it was true, and the only way it'd ever get published is if the methodology and evidence was too sound to poke holes in. Yeah, just let that one stew for a while.
3) Never mind the fact that religiously leaning people may have a greater ability to identify, assess and control the emotions of themselves and others, because frankly that's what everything from the mildest psuedoscience to full blown fundamentalism is built upon; snagging people emotionally, not intellectually. Never mind the fact that there isn't an established link between theistic belief and EI, or that the results trying to link EI to workplace productivity is patchy at best. Let's just hone in on the fact that the whole concept has "no sound scientific basis" (Eysenck, H.J. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. ISBN 0765807076). Yeah, that one I like.
4) Assuming such a thing exists. Maybe we should get that one down first.
So yeah, basically: There is a whole spectrum of intelligence from the most cretinous of dimwits to Stephen fuckin' Hawking. Any system for measuring where you sit on said spectrum produces a correlation such that the strongest belief is closer to the nitwit end, while rejections of unfounded silly-talk is up on Stephen's end. As such, this aforementioned benevolent creator is a jerk, a retard or not really playing much of a part in people's intelligence or the evidence pointing to his existence. Nice hand to pick from there.
P.S. Yeah, OK, I know this was just a rehashing of the Problem of Evil, but it was fun to write. Suck it up.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
On Eugenics
My girlfriend and I talk about genocide a bit. Normally a variation of "man, people are annoying, we should just kill them all." We're a fun couple. So, let me just post this to cover my arse. I don't really endorse the murder of every retard on the planet. Similarly, we tackle eugenics in a lighthearted fashion, but the common sense impaired may not see why we aren't being serious. Here is, broken into logical steps, the reason why I think eugenics is bad:
1) In order to genetically improve the species, you'd need people with very different positive genetic traits to procreate. Stuff like a smart lady with a handsome man, or a particularly strong man with a creative lady... and these can't be skills that you work for, I'm talking natural talents. And you can't be mating with people with the same traits, no doubly artsy couples. Also, you'd kinda have to hope that the two of you don't share a recessive gene that is detrimental.
2) Assuming such a thing as optimal couples exist, there's no certainty that the optimum traits will be passed on; it's completely possible for smart parents to have dumb kids, handsome parents to have ugly kids, straight parents to have gay kids, and so on. Realistically, there's no way you could pick the right people to make the best kids without a percentage of kids produced being, shall we say, less than satisfactory. And that's not even factoring in genetic defects like Downs Syndrome.
3) So, hypothetically, assume you could develop a system wherein you could identify the two people who, when paired, would make the best kids. Do you enforce them to breed? What about people with which there is no optimum pairing? Considering how easy it is to accidentally sire a little bastard, if you wanted any degree of control over the way the species is drifting genetically, you'd have to outlaw any sex except that which is allowed by this new Bureau of Baby-Making. Which I can see going down so well.
4) So, the alternative would be to try and get a meme going where you only want to have kids with people who are going to produce the best offspring. "Smart chicks, only pork handsome guys!" and similar billboards. Which is retarded in and of itself, and I shouldn't have to explain why. Factor in the Dunning-Kruger Effect (the psychological confirmation bias that causes unskilled people to think they're skilled, and skilled people to think they're unskilled) and it's practically impossible for people to accurately identify which traits they have and which they should breed with.
5) This is all concerning the conception of the children, it says nothing of raising the kids or the quality of the relationship that the kids will be brought up in.
So there you have it, my logical breakdown of why I don't think population control works. I didn't throw in any emotional stuff, you know, "you can't do that to people, think of their human rights!" because frankly, who else but me gives a shit what my morals are?
1) In order to genetically improve the species, you'd need people with very different positive genetic traits to procreate. Stuff like a smart lady with a handsome man, or a particularly strong man with a creative lady... and these can't be skills that you work for, I'm talking natural talents. And you can't be mating with people with the same traits, no doubly artsy couples. Also, you'd kinda have to hope that the two of you don't share a recessive gene that is detrimental.
2) Assuming such a thing as optimal couples exist, there's no certainty that the optimum traits will be passed on; it's completely possible for smart parents to have dumb kids, handsome parents to have ugly kids, straight parents to have gay kids, and so on. Realistically, there's no way you could pick the right people to make the best kids without a percentage of kids produced being, shall we say, less than satisfactory. And that's not even factoring in genetic defects like Downs Syndrome.
3) So, hypothetically, assume you could develop a system wherein you could identify the two people who, when paired, would make the best kids. Do you enforce them to breed? What about people with which there is no optimum pairing? Considering how easy it is to accidentally sire a little bastard, if you wanted any degree of control over the way the species is drifting genetically, you'd have to outlaw any sex except that which is allowed by this new Bureau of Baby-Making. Which I can see going down so well.
4) So, the alternative would be to try and get a meme going where you only want to have kids with people who are going to produce the best offspring. "Smart chicks, only pork handsome guys!" and similar billboards. Which is retarded in and of itself, and I shouldn't have to explain why. Factor in the Dunning-Kruger Effect (the psychological confirmation bias that causes unskilled people to think they're skilled, and skilled people to think they're unskilled) and it's practically impossible for people to accurately identify which traits they have and which they should breed with.
5) This is all concerning the conception of the children, it says nothing of raising the kids or the quality of the relationship that the kids will be brought up in.
So there you have it, my logical breakdown of why I don't think population control works. I didn't throw in any emotional stuff, you know, "you can't do that to people, think of their human rights!" because frankly, who else but me gives a shit what my morals are?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Darwin Neglected To Mention That We're Descended From Magpies
Saw Thor last night. Saw Sucker-Punch two mondays prior. Both movies were kinda awful. Kinda really awful. I'm not a cinema buff or anything so serious, but I do appreciate good writing enough to recognise when the screenwriter's integrity went AWOL. In both films mentioned, basically the entire production team got it ass-backwards. Visuals serve the story, not story serving visuals. Thankfully, we as an educated bunch, as a whole, expressed this and the films have been universally panned.
Wait, shit, I did that thing where I slip into my realm of fantasy again. Nope, people thought those films were awesome. Yet again I show my complete schism from my generation by not understanding what the fuss is about. Oooooh it's super fucking shiny, who gives a shit? I mean, you know it's all computer generated, fine. But there's nothing to really immerse you in the plot enough for you to get invested in the characters, let alone invested in the scene where some blonde dude with a hammer pretends to kill a bunch of pretend blue guys. I know I should care, because it does look pretty damn cool, but I just can't.
And this isn't a case of me being pretentious (well it kind of is), I just didn't enjoy it. The most fun I had during the entire film was shooting snide comments back and forth with the friends sitting around me. Looking back, the last film I properly enjoyed was The Social Network. And no, it wasn't because of the scene where Jesse Eisenberg reclaims Mjolnir by sacrificing himself to save innocents, thereby obtaining the power to fly and do a whole manner of silly shit (warning, previous sentence contains spoilers). It was because the writing and directing made you actually give a shit about the characters. You actually wanted them to learn and grow, not just shoot lasers out of their dicks. Also, the soundtrack didn't turkey-slap you with string swells. Kudos, Trent Reznor. Now, granted, The Social Network did clean up on awards, but so did Avatar, so that doesn't really mean shit, does it?
I don't know why shiny things can distract people from a complete and total lack of substance, but somehow they can. The actions scenes are cool, in the indulgent, videogame sense of the word, but the movies as a whole were little more than a well polished turd. Yeah, it's plenty shiny, but it's still crap. Is it so hard to be Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? That film had it all, fun characters, great writing, a storyline that was familiar yet not cliched, plus it looked great. And why? Because the visuals served the plot, dialogue and characters, rather than defining them. So, if you want to see a blonde guy fly around and Natalie Portman keep her clothes on, see Thor. If you want to see a movie you'll enjoy (assuming you're not a retard, in which case Thor'll be fine), see something else.
Wait, shit, I did that thing where I slip into my realm of fantasy again. Nope, people thought those films were awesome. Yet again I show my complete schism from my generation by not understanding what the fuss is about. Oooooh it's super fucking shiny, who gives a shit? I mean, you know it's all computer generated, fine. But there's nothing to really immerse you in the plot enough for you to get invested in the characters, let alone invested in the scene where some blonde dude with a hammer pretends to kill a bunch of pretend blue guys. I know I should care, because it does look pretty damn cool, but I just can't.
And this isn't a case of me being pretentious (well it kind of is), I just didn't enjoy it. The most fun I had during the entire film was shooting snide comments back and forth with the friends sitting around me. Looking back, the last film I properly enjoyed was The Social Network. And no, it wasn't because of the scene where Jesse Eisenberg reclaims Mjolnir by sacrificing himself to save innocents, thereby obtaining the power to fly and do a whole manner of silly shit (warning, previous sentence contains spoilers). It was because the writing and directing made you actually give a shit about the characters. You actually wanted them to learn and grow, not just shoot lasers out of their dicks. Also, the soundtrack didn't turkey-slap you with string swells. Kudos, Trent Reznor. Now, granted, The Social Network did clean up on awards, but so did Avatar, so that doesn't really mean shit, does it?
I don't know why shiny things can distract people from a complete and total lack of substance, but somehow they can. The actions scenes are cool, in the indulgent, videogame sense of the word, but the movies as a whole were little more than a well polished turd. Yeah, it's plenty shiny, but it's still crap. Is it so hard to be Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? That film had it all, fun characters, great writing, a storyline that was familiar yet not cliched, plus it looked great. And why? Because the visuals served the plot, dialogue and characters, rather than defining them. So, if you want to see a blonde guy fly around and Natalie Portman keep her clothes on, see Thor. If you want to see a movie you'll enjoy (assuming you're not a retard, in which case Thor'll be fine), see something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)