|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Do no harm.
That appears to be the mantra of GOP leaders as they barrel toward the November election –still optimistic they can hold onto their Senate majority and preserve their historic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives– even as their nominee Donald Trump remains an unpredictable force at the top of their ticket.
As Republican lawmakers return to Washington this week, there are few items they must actually complete before returning home to campaign for their re-elections. At the top of the list? Avoid a government shutdown and pass a funding bill that keeps the government's lights on after Sept. 30.
After an awkward spring and summer of having to answer for every one of Trump's inflammatory statements, flubs and stumbles, Republican leaders aren't interested in keeping their members in Washington longer than they have to. On Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Senate Republicans would push for a three-month continuing resolution that would fund the government until Dec. 9 and give lawmakers a chance to come back in the lame duck and pass a fuller spending package. But McConnell's announcement was met with resistance from some House conservatives.
"[Paul] Ryan is learning the old Washington adage, the other party is the opposition, the Senate is the real enemy," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX).
McConnell's plan could put Republican leaders in the House back up against the wall. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have been very clear with House Speaker Paul Ryan that they aren't interested in a short-term CR, arguing that coming back in the lame duck and rushing out a fuller spending bill right before the holidays does nothing but incentivize back door deal making and irresponsible spending.
"I don't like lame duck sessions, I don't think lame duck sessions are any good. I don't think you should have them, because there's a lot of people who vote in a lame duck session who aren't really accountable to anyone," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told TPM.
"I don't want to set us up to put our neck in the chopping block," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told TPM. "We want to bring this into the next year. We don't want to set this up for the leverage that would come in lame duck."
House GOP leaders, however, are limited in what they can do to avert a shutdown ahead of the election. They have pledged they will hear their members out during a Friday meeting, but avoiding a government shutdown will be key.
Source
|
On September 09 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:53 IgnE wrote:On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.  Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion. I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart. zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance? zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not. I didn't think anyone was truly interested in an elaboration; and several people have already pointed out some of the significant flaws in it anyways. and some kind of substance doesn't mean it isn't drek overall; or drek as ideas. Watching people rant is fascinating, no matter how stupid their rants are.
That you think that the article is a "stupid rant" pretty much proves the point that Igne and I are making. I guarantee you that Igne disagrees the majority of what the author says in the article, but he's not going to call it a "stupid rant."
EDIT: I take it back. I can see Igne agreeing with many of the intellectual criticisms that the author has of the current conservative movement.
|
On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault.
I didn’t say it was. But it is still a big dumb action movie that makes little sense that draws the most tantalizing parts of its plot from works far more complex and nuanced than it. If someone makes the argument that it is a really stupid action movie, they are not wrong.
|
On September 09 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:53 IgnE wrote:On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek. Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion. I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart. zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance? zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not. I didn't think anyone was truly interested in an elaboration; and several people have already pointed out some of the significant flaws in it anyways. and some kind of substance doesn't mean it isn't drek overall; or drek as ideas. Watching people rant is fascinating, no matter how stupid their rants are.
it might be useful then for you to comment on the substance of the discussion rather than on tangential matters related to an article that is only the basis for the actual substance of the discussion.
i am interested in your elaboration on why its drek though
|
On September 09 2016 03:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:53 IgnE wrote:On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek. Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion. I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart. zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance? zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not. I didn't think anyone was truly interested in an elaboration; and several people have already pointed out some of the significant flaws in it anyways. and some kind of substance doesn't mean it isn't drek overall; or drek as ideas. Watching people rant is fascinating, no matter how stupid their rants are. That you think that the article is a "stupid rant" pretty much proves the point that Igne and I are making. I guarantee you that Igne disagrees the majority of what the author says in the article, but he's not going to call it a "stupid rant."
I didn't call the article a stupid rant; though perhaps it is, and I can see how you'd think that was my view. My point was merely meant to demonstrate that fascination is not evidence of substance, at least not of worthwhile substance.
igne -> i'll have to look back at it and reopen the page. Mostly it's probably me using a different shade of meaning of "drek", as it is well-written, just full of too many unsoundnesses for me to care much about it. As I'd rather read stuff by someone who's filtered out the dumb.
|
On September 09 2016 02:56 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:
@dauntless
and that's why Trump's motto should be:
Fiat ars--pereat mundus I know that when acquiring a new lens it's tempting to look at everything throught it for a while, but you are taking this to new heights on these last few pages
As an aside, this lens is not new for igne 
|
On September 09 2016 03:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Do no harm.
That appears to be the mantra of GOP leaders as they barrel toward the November election –still optimistic they can hold onto their Senate majority and preserve their historic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives– even as their nominee Donald Trump remains an unpredictable force at the top of their ticket.
As Republican lawmakers return to Washington this week, there are few items they must actually complete before returning home to campaign for their re-elections. At the top of the list? Avoid a government shutdown and pass a funding bill that keeps the government's lights on after Sept. 30.
After an awkward spring and summer of having to answer for every one of Trump's inflammatory statements, flubs and stumbles, Republican leaders aren't interested in keeping their members in Washington longer than they have to. On Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Senate Republicans would push for a three-month continuing resolution that would fund the government until Dec. 9 and give lawmakers a chance to come back in the lame duck and pass a fuller spending package. But McConnell's announcement was met with resistance from some House conservatives.
"[Paul] Ryan is learning the old Washington adage, the other party is the opposition, the Senate is the real enemy," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX).
McConnell's plan could put Republican leaders in the House back up against the wall. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have been very clear with House Speaker Paul Ryan that they aren't interested in a short-term CR, arguing that coming back in the lame duck and rushing out a fuller spending bill right before the holidays does nothing but incentivize back door deal making and irresponsible spending.
"I don't like lame duck sessions, I don't think lame duck sessions are any good. I don't think you should have them, because there's a lot of people who vote in a lame duck session who aren't really accountable to anyone," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told TPM.
"I don't want to set us up to put our neck in the chopping block," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told TPM. "We want to bring this into the next year. We don't want to set this up for the leverage that would come in lame duck."
House GOP leaders, however, are limited in what they can do to avert a shutdown ahead of the election. They have pledged they will hear their members out during a Friday meeting, but avoiding a government shutdown will be key. Source
Oh man, what if the Freedom babies cause a government shutdown during an election year. I can’t believe they are even talking about it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault.
As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi.
|
On September 09 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Do no harm.
That appears to be the mantra of GOP leaders as they barrel toward the November election –still optimistic they can hold onto their Senate majority and preserve their historic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives– even as their nominee Donald Trump remains an unpredictable force at the top of their ticket.
As Republican lawmakers return to Washington this week, there are few items they must actually complete before returning home to campaign for their re-elections. At the top of the list? Avoid a government shutdown and pass a funding bill that keeps the government's lights on after Sept. 30.
After an awkward spring and summer of having to answer for every one of Trump's inflammatory statements, flubs and stumbles, Republican leaders aren't interested in keeping their members in Washington longer than they have to. On Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Senate Republicans would push for a three-month continuing resolution that would fund the government until Dec. 9 and give lawmakers a chance to come back in the lame duck and pass a fuller spending package. But McConnell's announcement was met with resistance from some House conservatives.
"[Paul] Ryan is learning the old Washington adage, the other party is the opposition, the Senate is the real enemy," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX).
McConnell's plan could put Republican leaders in the House back up against the wall. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have been very clear with House Speaker Paul Ryan that they aren't interested in a short-term CR, arguing that coming back in the lame duck and rushing out a fuller spending bill right before the holidays does nothing but incentivize back door deal making and irresponsible spending.
"I don't like lame duck sessions, I don't think lame duck sessions are any good. I don't think you should have them, because there's a lot of people who vote in a lame duck session who aren't really accountable to anyone," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told TPM.
"I don't want to set us up to put our neck in the chopping block," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told TPM. "We want to bring this into the next year. We don't want to set this up for the leverage that would come in lame duck."
House GOP leaders, however, are limited in what they can do to avert a shutdown ahead of the election. They have pledged they will hear their members out during a Friday meeting, but avoiding a government shutdown will be key. Source Oh man, what if the Freedom babies cause a government shutdown during an election year. I can’t believe they are even talking about it.
God it would be so funny if they do :p
please please do it :D
|
On September 09 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault. As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi.
That genre demarcation is meaningless.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 09 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault. As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi. That genre demarcation is meaningless.
You might have a point, but nevertheless one uses far more magic than the other to move its plot along.
|
On September 09 2016 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2016 03:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Do no harm.
That appears to be the mantra of GOP leaders as they barrel toward the November election –still optimistic they can hold onto their Senate majority and preserve their historic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives– even as their nominee Donald Trump remains an unpredictable force at the top of their ticket.
As Republican lawmakers return to Washington this week, there are few items they must actually complete before returning home to campaign for their re-elections. At the top of the list? Avoid a government shutdown and pass a funding bill that keeps the government's lights on after Sept. 30.
After an awkward spring and summer of having to answer for every one of Trump's inflammatory statements, flubs and stumbles, Republican leaders aren't interested in keeping their members in Washington longer than they have to. On Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Senate Republicans would push for a three-month continuing resolution that would fund the government until Dec. 9 and give lawmakers a chance to come back in the lame duck and pass a fuller spending package. But McConnell's announcement was met with resistance from some House conservatives.
"[Paul] Ryan is learning the old Washington adage, the other party is the opposition, the Senate is the real enemy," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX).
McConnell's plan could put Republican leaders in the House back up against the wall. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have been very clear with House Speaker Paul Ryan that they aren't interested in a short-term CR, arguing that coming back in the lame duck and rushing out a fuller spending bill right before the holidays does nothing but incentivize back door deal making and irresponsible spending.
"I don't like lame duck sessions, I don't think lame duck sessions are any good. I don't think you should have them, because there's a lot of people who vote in a lame duck session who aren't really accountable to anyone," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told TPM.
"I don't want to set us up to put our neck in the chopping block," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told TPM. "We want to bring this into the next year. We don't want to set this up for the leverage that would come in lame duck."
House GOP leaders, however, are limited in what they can do to avert a shutdown ahead of the election. They have pledged they will hear their members out during a Friday meeting, but avoiding a government shutdown will be key. Source Oh man, what if the Freedom babies cause a government shutdown during an election year. I can’t believe they are even talking about it. God it would be so funny if they do :p please please do it :D
They could get somewhat baited into it by democrats making things just barely unreasonable enough. A boost in PP funding would be an enormous non-starter for these people. Headlines saying GOP shutting down the government over PP funding would be an easy win for democrats.
|
On September 09 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 09 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2016 03:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Do no harm.
That appears to be the mantra of GOP leaders as they barrel toward the November election –still optimistic they can hold onto their Senate majority and preserve their historic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives– even as their nominee Donald Trump remains an unpredictable force at the top of their ticket.
As Republican lawmakers return to Washington this week, there are few items they must actually complete before returning home to campaign for their re-elections. At the top of the list? Avoid a government shutdown and pass a funding bill that keeps the government's lights on after Sept. 30.
After an awkward spring and summer of having to answer for every one of Trump's inflammatory statements, flubs and stumbles, Republican leaders aren't interested in keeping their members in Washington longer than they have to. On Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Senate Republicans would push for a three-month continuing resolution that would fund the government until Dec. 9 and give lawmakers a chance to come back in the lame duck and pass a fuller spending package. But McConnell's announcement was met with resistance from some House conservatives.
"[Paul] Ryan is learning the old Washington adage, the other party is the opposition, the Senate is the real enemy," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX).
McConnell's plan could put Republican leaders in the House back up against the wall. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have been very clear with House Speaker Paul Ryan that they aren't interested in a short-term CR, arguing that coming back in the lame duck and rushing out a fuller spending bill right before the holidays does nothing but incentivize back door deal making and irresponsible spending.
"I don't like lame duck sessions, I don't think lame duck sessions are any good. I don't think you should have them, because there's a lot of people who vote in a lame duck session who aren't really accountable to anyone," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told TPM.
"I don't want to set us up to put our neck in the chopping block," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told TPM. "We want to bring this into the next year. We don't want to set this up for the leverage that would come in lame duck."
House GOP leaders, however, are limited in what they can do to avert a shutdown ahead of the election. They have pledged they will hear their members out during a Friday meeting, but avoiding a government shutdown will be key. Source Oh man, what if the Freedom babies cause a government shutdown during an election year. I can’t believe they are even talking about it. God it would be so funny if they do :p please please do it :D They could get somewhat baited into it by democrats making things just barely unreasonable enough. A boost in PP funding would be an enormous non-starter for these people. Headlines saying GOP shutting down the government over PP funding would be an easy win for democrats.
Nah I expect the democrats to (rightfully so) just sit back and accept any 'normal' deal. You don't wanne push for it and risk the backlash falling on you.
|
On September 09 2016 03:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:53 IgnE wrote:On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek. Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion. I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart. zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance? zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not. I didn't think anyone was truly interested in an elaboration; and several people have already pointed out some of the significant flaws in it anyways. and some kind of substance doesn't mean it isn't drek overall; or drek as ideas. Watching people rant is fascinating, no matter how stupid their rants are. That you think that the article is a "stupid rant" pretty much proves the point that Igne and I are making. I guarantee you that Igne disagrees the majority of what the author says in the article, but he's not going to call it a "stupid rant." I didn't call the article a stupid rant; though perhaps it is, and I can see how you'd think that was my view. My point was merely meant to demonstrate that fascination is not evidence of substance, at least not of worthwhile substance. igne -> i'll have to look back at it and reopen the page. Mostly it's probably me using a different shade of meaning of "drek", as it is well-written, just full of too many unsoundnesses for me to care much about it. As I'd rather read stuff by someone who's filtered out the dumb.
So it may not be a "stupid rant," but it's "drek" (ie "shit"), and "unfiltered of dumb." Got it.
@Igne. I'm just going to hazard a guess that you're not going to derive enough satisfaction from this answer to warrant lighting up a cigarette (figuratively).
|
On September 09 2016 03:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On September 09 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault. As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi. That genre demarcation is meaningless. You might have a point, but nevertheless one uses far more magic than the other to move its plot along.
Star Trek does as well. It is heavily invested in the realm of magic to solve production problems and move plots forward.
|
Interestingly, the LAtimes poll today has Clinton at +2, which is pretty bizarre given their track record and the way their poll is set up (since it tracks the same people, one expects the random error vs. other polls to be systematically in one direction and it has traditionally quite underestimated Clinton vs. other polls). This is kind of a token post because I wanted to say something off topic below.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 09 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault. As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi. I think the Matrix is less about AI ethics and more bog standard Descartes malicious demon when it comes to philosophy. Unless you count the dreadful 2nd and 3rd movies where the philosophy is basically "Jesus"
|
On September 09 2016 03:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On September 09 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 09 2016 02:59 Acrofales wrote:On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality. The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault. As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi. That genre demarcation is meaningless. You might have a point, but nevertheless one uses far more magic than the other to move its plot along.
Not so sure... Terminator starts by invoking the grandfather paradox, and the sequels do even more handwavy stuff with time. At the end of the day, there are very few stories in the genrevthat stick to the science. Contact is good in that sense. And books generally do better than blockbusters, but most are science fantasy when you get into the details.
|
On September 09 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:
Kasich basically confirmed he got offered the presidency by Trump in exchange as his VP. I see no reason to assume Pence got a worse deal
Well, Kasich brings Ohio and no Republican has won the presidency without Ohio in a long time. If Trump is a master negotiator, he may have given Pence less because he brings less. 
|
The Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous US administration, according to a new report.
The surge in sales is in part to reassure the Saudi monarchy of US backing in the wake of last year’s nuclear deal with Tehran, which raised fears in the Gulf that Washington would tilt more towards Tehran in its foreign policy.
The report’s author, William Hartnung of the Centre for International Policy, said another factor was a drive by US arms manufacturers to boost sales to compensate declining procurement by the Pentagon. However, the most recent deals – such as the offer to sell more than 150 M1A2 Abrams battle tanks for an estimated $1.15bn – were principally intended to replenish the Saudi arsenal, depleted in the war in Yemen.
“I think that though the Obama administration is not thrilled about the Yemen episode; it feels it can’t stay out of it, because of the need to reassure the Saudis,” Hartnung said.
His report found that since taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn in weapons to Saudi Arabia, half of which are accounted for by deals that are still in the pipeline.
“There are $57bn in sales in formal agreements so far, which is also head and shoulders above other administrations,” Hartnung said.
The report comes as concerns about the UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia and their implication in potential war crimes in Yemen have split MPs on parliament’s arms control committee.
Arms sales over the eight years of the Obama administration have also included combat aircraft, attack helicopters, bombs, air-to-ground missiles, warships and military training. A division of Northrop Grumman is involved in a $4bn train-and-equip programme for the Saudi Arabian national guard, which has reportedly played a key role in the Yemen intervention.
The latest tank deal has drawn resistance from congressional Democrats, who have called for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because of its bombing of civilian targets in Yemen. UN officials have estimated that airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition are responsible for most of the 3,000 civilian casualties in the war so far, twice as many as those caused by Houthi insurgents and other forces in the conflict put together.
Source
|
On September 09 2016 01:41 farvacola wrote:
"incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace."
lol, what the fuck does that even mean.
It means you have to be white to be around white people.
Off topic re discussion of genre:
+ Show Spoiler +As far as I know it was Terminator that was really the movie that got people to consider AI ethics in some depth. The Matrix makes for good movie watching but it is ultimately a movie that falls solidly into the realm of science fantasy, not scifi. That genre demarcation is meaningless. You might have a point, but nevertheless one uses far more magic than the other to move its plot along. Star Trek does as well. It is heavily invested in the realm of magic to solve production problems and move plots forward. Dear god people if you don't know how genre works that's okay, but please don't pretend you do. Intelligent people have spent real time and effort defining genre and have useful things to say about genre conventions. + Show Spoiler +Incidentally, Science Fiction is stories about epochal change causing new problems and giving new solutions. The Matrix is fundamentally not about AI, but rather about our existence in a platonic cave, so it is fantasy for that reason. Star Trek is about the problems and benefits of a post-consumer exploratory society, and therefore is science fiction. Star Wars is not science fiction because its plot would work just fine as a samurai movie or a Western. (And in fact it borrows conventions from both). The Leftovers or and zombie movie are science fiction, because again they revolve around the beginning of a new era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
