How im also raising my little guy
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would recommend introducin the son to a literal lemon in real life prior to playing Portal 2.
... probably goes the same for a p0taTo.
-
My point wasn’t that fantasy needs elves, but rather that when a fantasy setting does include elves, you likely have a rough expectation of what kind of stereotype they’ll fit. That stereotype is the influence I’m talking about.
The “elves are old, somber, magical, close with nature, tall and thin, magically graceful, pale, have pointy ears, have delicate swooping architecture and designs, etc” stereotype is what you’d likely expect from elves if they get brought up in fantasy… And that stereotype is largely influenced by LOTR. A setting can still be fantasy without elves, but including elves in your story will have the reader automatically setting certain expectations about how those elves will fit into your world. You as the writer can choose to conform to (or rebel against) those expectations, but there’s no denying that the expectation exists, and is heavily influenced by LOTR.
I really loved Pratchett's take on the elves, come to think of it.
-
you don't need to try so hard, just don't let him have weird ideas about gender and hope he befriends at least one girl. that'll be enough. all these idiots need is a female friend going "don't be an idiot that's not how things work".
We won the lottery on this. Had twins, 1 boy 1 girl at birth. They're too young to know if they're gonna be friends, enemies, (probably both?)
-
I would recommend introducin the son to a literal lemon in real life prior to playing Portal 2.
... probably goes the same for a p0taTo.
That's why you introduce LOTR before Portal 2 -
PO-TAY-TOES: Boil 'em, Mash 'em, Stick 'em in a stew.
-
The priority on Mythbusters is always entertainment first, not science. It's not best practices, it's what is visually appealing. It's not data driven, it's shooting schedule. The skulls are not necessary tools, they are props. Adam Savage himself states that the goal is to "replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results", or in other words, create a spectical. Which again, is fine, but is not hard science. If you can't tell the difference between hard science and television I don't know what to do for you.
But I suspect you understand this already, and are motivated more by the excitement of eliciting a response by adopting a posture of "enlightened" objectivty, blowing the minds of us lesser beings, us superstitious cave dwellers, than by legitimately considering the finer points of profiting off of human remains or the needless destruction therof.
Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?
-
Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?
Hard science is science that uses systematic observation, experiments and sometimes mathematics to get knowledge. In hard science, experiments have to be reproducible (if the experiment is done a second time, it will have to produce the same results as the first time).
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
My opinion is that Mythbusters is not science, but science themed entertainment, and as such, does not justify the use of human remains. I further contend that they do not treat the human remains with sufficient dignity, and that their use is disrespectful.
It is also my opinion that you will continue to reply/argue with me until one of three conditions is met: 1. You continue to argue semantics until one of us expires from old age. 2. You whittle me down and I give up. 3. The actual heat death of the universe.
It's looking like option #2 is the front runner. Because at this point I'd rather get my own skull crushed than to continue going back and forth with you.
-
I think that's a lot like saying modern orchestral music stands on the shoulders of classical composers but that isn't really accurate, is it? Moonlight Sonata is Moonlight Sonata. Many classic compositions are still utilized in modern media.
There's a difference with being disastisfied with certain aspects of a story and that story being overrated. Gandalf and Saruman's powers being vague was the point. Tom Bombadil is such a minor portion of the Shire, is that even something relevant to the narrative as a whole? Fantasy, specifically, has evolved over time through the introduction of power systems sure — does that make them inherently better than LotR?
Not every book is for every person. You simply cannot deny the level of effort that went into creating LotR on Tolkien's part, nor that it is held in very high regard to this day. The books simply are not overrated.
Harry Potter, though, absolutely. 100% overrated.
Classical music is a bit different because it's effectively frozen in time. They're not introducing new instruments. They're not using amplification for the most part. It's like doing the same Shakespeare plays over and over again.
If there were a Beethoven today, he probably wouldn't be composing classical music. He'd be doing popular music of some kind. In fact, the historical record suggests he would have been a keyboardist in a rock band.
For music, a better example might be Jimi Hendrix. He was an amazing musician and his approach completely shaped modern rock music. But, while his music was influential, are his songs the best rock songs of all time? I don't think so, because other people have built on what he did and have taken it further.
Tom Bombadil is such a minor portion of the Shire, is that even something relevant to the narrative as a whole?
No, and that's why a better author (or their editor) would have removed it.
Fantasy, specifically, has evolved over time through the introduction of power systems sure — does that make them inherently better than LotR?
Yes. Not just because of their "power systems", but because the authors have used some of the ideas that Tolkien introduced, and told better stories with them, or introduced better characters. Or, because they lack some of Tolkien's key weaknesses, like they're able to write interesting 3-dimensional female characters. IMO the heavy lifting that Tolkien did is to introduce a world filled with all these various kinds of creatures that we all take for granted now: elves, dwarves, ents, orcs, etc.
He was probably the greatest fantasy writer of his time. But, he's "of his time". He unconsciously brings all kinds of biases and baggage into his writing that a reader in the 1950s wouldn't even notice, but that become more apparent 75ish years later.
You simply cannot deny the level of effort that went into creating LotR on Tolkien's part
Nor can you deny the amount of effort that went into The Room but that doesn't mean it's a great movie. LotR is a great book, but it's not because Tolkien put a certain amount of effort into it.
But, is it overrated? There are 2 ways something can be overrated. Something can be bad and rated as being ok, and so it's overrated. Or something can be good but rated as being the best in the world and so it's overrated. I think LotR is in the second category as a fantasy story. As a foundation for fantasy literature, I don't think it's overrated because it introduced so many things that we just take for granted today. But merely as a book, looking at it through modern eyes, it is probably overrated. I think it's great, but it's no longer the best fantasy book ever written.
-
Robot Wars.
...grant imahara should've been cast as reed richards... =(
-
Hard science is science that uses systematic observation, experiments and sometimes mathematics to get knowledge. In hard science, experiments have to be reproducible (if the experiment is done a second time, it will have to produce the same results as the first time).
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
My opinion is that Mythbusters is not science, but science themed entertainment, and as such, does not justify the use of human remains. I further contend that they do not treat the human remains with sufficient dignity, and that their use is disrespectful.
It is also my opinion that you will continue to reply/argue with me until one of three conditions is met: 1. You continue to argue semantics until one of us expires from old age. 2. You whittle me down and I give up. 3. The actual heat death of the universe.
It's looking like option #2 is the front runner. Because at this point I'd rather get my own skull crushed than to continue going back and forth with you.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Trying to get to the root of a commonly expressed anti-intellectual bias, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "science" and (exhaustively) explaining that what mythbusters has done with human remains is absolutely inline with the normal treatment for human remains in science is fair justification to argue a semantic point. Fundamentally though, mythbusters is science. Even by the definition you provide for hard science, it 100% fits with the process mythbusters used. Formulation of hypothesis, bias-controlled experimentation, reporting of process and results. That's all science is (and even including 'bias control' is possibly too restrictive to meet the common definition).
If you use the definition from the non-simple wikipedia article,
the presumably accidental misuse of a highly colloquial term is quite evident. That obfuscation of meaning is one of the primary criticisms of Simple Wikipedia, in fact. This is again a commonly repeated piece of anti-intellectual rhetoric, wherein one assumes that science can only be done by those with accreditation, grant funding and a sterile white lab (obviously this is a slightly hyperbolic exaggeration of the specifics for comedic effect). Mythbusters is undeniably science, just as much as it is undeniably entertainment. The two are not mutually exclusive, and flashy editing does not impact the rigour (or lack thereof) of their methods nor the validity of their conclusions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s funny. I’m definitely a nerd and neuro-something-or-other, and I have really good friends who are into all this stuff, Linux, Terry Pratchett etc - all of it - but I absolutely bounced off this smug nerd culture and grind my teeth if a group all start yelling “Ni!” or make me listen to the “hilarious” Portal song. Possibly I’m just trying too hard to be an arch, diffident outsider, this is my tribe, and I’m just the tribe jerk.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I dunno. I grew up on He-Man, Transformers and G.I. Joe, and I think I turned out OK. I suppose I also grew up on Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, and The Neverending Story, which may have been just as formative in my nerdiness and are leagues ahead of those first three in terms of quality.
-
Trying to get to the root of a commonly expressed anti-intellectual bias, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "science" and (exhaustively) explaining that what mythbusters has done with human remains is absolutely inline with the normal treatment for human remains in science is fair justification to argue a semantic point. Fundamentally though, mythbusters is science. Even by the definition you provide for hard science, it 100% fits with the process mythbusters used. Formulation of hypothesis, bias-controlled experimentation, reporting of process and results. That's all science is (and even including 'bias control' is possibly too restrictive to meet the common definition).
If you use the definition from the non-simple wikipedia article,
the presumably accidental misuse of a highly colloquial term is quite evident. That obfuscation of meaning is one of the primary criticisms of Simple Wikipedia, in fact. This is again a commonly repeated piece of anti-intellectual rhetoric, wherein one assumes that science can only be done by those with accreditation, grant funding and a sterile white lab (obviously this is a slightly hyperbolic exaggeration of the specifics for comedic effect). Mythbusters is undeniably science, just as much as it is undeniably entertainment. The two are not mutually exclusive, and flashy editing does not impact the rigour (or lack thereof) of their methods nor the validity of their conclusions.
Are you for real, man? Can you really not let this go? Let me break it down for you:
I don't think Mythbusters should have used human skulls, you disagree. That's it. It's that simple.
How about this: you win! You're very smart and we're all proud of you. There is nothing wrong with using human bones for
entertainmentscience. Adam and Jamie are real scientists. I was wrong about everything, it just took like 5 replies for me to realize it. I promise to print out your replies so that I can study them by candle light even if my power goes out. Thank you for helping me to understand such a complicated issue.Now leave me alone.
-
Are you for real, man? Can you really not let this go? Let me break it down for you:
I don't think Mythbusters should have used human skulls, you disagree. That's it. It's that simple.
How about this: you win! You're very smart and we're all proud of you. There is nothing wrong with using human bones for
entertainmentscience. Adam and Jamie are real scientists. I was wrong about everything, it just took like 5 replies for me to realize it. I promise to print out your replies so that I can study them by candle light even if my power goes out. Thank you for helping me to understand such a complicated issue.Now leave me alone.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This is a public forum. You started this discussion, again, on a public forum. While I'm not particularly interested in winning (I can sate that desire by playing helldivers (lies I suck at that game)), I am interested in educating and reasoned discussion. I know you're not, but you keep coming back despite that, and I'm curious why? What do you gain from this? If you didn't want responses, why did you put your ideas out there? Was it just an excuse to vent, and if so, why did you come out to pick fights in the comments afterwards? Just... walk away, if that's what you want.
-
Unlikely. The reason I didn't have many friends is simply because I didn't get along with them: my interests were not their interests. It's much more fulfilling to find people who align with and elevate you than to seek popular approval.
If you had access to the same things as them you could have had the same interests?
-
If you had access to the same things as them you could have had the same interests?
No, because my interests were "reading books" and "knowing things" and I had very little patience for people who did not understand the basic rules to a game on first explanation, for example. That's still true but it's much easier to select your peer group as an adult.
-
I would recommend introducin the son to a literal lemon in real life prior to playing Portal 2.
... probably goes the same for a p0taTo.
Make sure it's not a lemon party.
-
They're at home, suffering their husbands abuse while their son learns to be just like Dad.
Oof. Hard to read/think about. But I'm pretty sure that's what's happening.
My kid won't experience that (at least from their parents), thankfully. But we're doing our best to instill an open mind and acceptance for our child.
-
Says a 40k fan.
At the very least the LotR fandom isn't infested with Nazi's that fail to understand the very basic themes of 40k.
Doesn't like my thing huh, you NAZI.
i guess i was wrong, lotr fanboys seem really chill and level headed.
-
I dunno. I grew up on He-Man, Transformers and G.I. Joe, and I think I turned out OK. I suppose I also grew up on Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, and The Neverending Story, which may have been just as formative in my nerdiness and are leagues ahead of those first three in terms of quality.
I grew up on all of those exact same things and I’m not a nerd, so it’s basically a crapshoot anyhoot.
-
It’s funny. I’m definitely a nerd and neuro-something-or-other, and I have really good friends who are into all this stuff, Linux, Terry Pratchett etc - all of it - but I absolutely bounced off this smug nerd culture and grind my teeth if a group all start yelling “Ni!” or make me listen to the “hilarious” Portal song. Possibly I’m just trying too hard to be an arch, diffident outsider, this is my tribe, and I’m just the tribe jerk.
I feel you. I often hate things because too many people annoy me by liking them too much but ya know that's nebulous and stupid. As I've gotten older I've just kinda stopped letting that happen and try to give things a chance
