Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
26
-
That's the trouble with judging history by our own modern values. Higher standards are the product of pretty universal prosperity. Throughout history, human life was filthy, brutal and short.
The "evils" of industrialization, of which much has been made in the last 50 years, invariably leaves out the fact that child labor was often the difference between a child starving and a child surviving. By our standards, it's NASTY. By the standards of 100 or more years ago, the alternative to that "awful" exploitation was DEATH by starvation, or heavy manual labor from sunrise to sunset for kids of all ages, out in the countryside. Those kids were in the cities working in factories, because their parents couldn't support them in any other way and HAD to move to the city, or die.
13
-
13
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Critical reviews can save you a lot of time filtering out things you won't like and locating things you WILL like. You just have to find critics whose preferences align with your own. Rotten Tomatoes and other outlets clearly have their audience that likes what they say. It's not a very big audience. Apparently 1% of the users on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.
What this Dave Chapelle story tells us is that 9% of the public is out of step with one outlet. So find another outlet. There're more of them out there than ever before in history, thanks to social media on the Internet.
Legacy media have been in an inevitable decline for a couple decades, now. Their entire business model is wrong for the current era, and they're scrambling to secure a stable niche for themselves. It's just that people are controlled by their habits, and so the legacy media have a lot of inertia. For now and the next few years, people that grew up on commercial t.v. are still at the top, with more money than the generation after them, and we're still conditioned to watch that crap. Younger people, not so much. They can buy a game that entertains them, tirelessly, for hours, with zero commercial interruptions. They can binge a t.v. series on Netflix or Amazon. I'm binge-ing the Australian-produced "City Homicide," right now.
I don't think many people watch any series premieres, any more. Why watch a series that ends in shit? And when you're in a mood for movie/series entertainment, part of making it more fun is being able to watch it for 2 hours straight, without commercials. Make the product fit YOUR preferences, in a sufficient amount to keep you going for days. Maybe your hour or two of t.v. each day that week is the first couple seasons of "Arrow," and you spend the rest of your time outside or reading books. And there's enough good historical content out there on video, that you can give yourself a pretty good liberal-arts education for free.
You won't have a teacher grading your written work, but you can go to a brainiac channel and spout your nonsense, and they will tear you to shreds better than any teacher with a red pen. You can compare your writing to the better writers in the comments. You can learn like crazy on the Internet, and plainly a lot of people out there are doing just that.
1
-
@dannyfirst6544 : Actually, it is. There's just such a ruckus, right now, because those who once dominated the entire public square are being reduced to just one more voice among many. They can't keep the independents from talkin'. They can't stop regular folks talkin' like regular folks to one another. If advertisers don't like dissent or cuss-words, that's their problem. You see, those fools work for us, they forgot that fact, and they're getting their comeuppance in lost revenues, audience and prestige. It's actually happening very quickly, if you take a step away from the 24-hour news cycle and compare to a year or two ago. These "assaults on free speech" are very strong, but their "victories" just mean their retreat is slowed, slightly. The trend is down for legacy media with legacy business and advertising models.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Treating the Outsider like shit is a pretty universal human trait, mainly because we are the descendants of the tribes that were the most ruthless (in most cases) and so survived to pass their genes on to the next generation. It's not that nice guys finish last. It's that nice guys are finished.
One of the main exceptions to this that I can think of is the early Christian martyrs, who converted the Roman Empire with conspicuous passivity, and praises to their God on their lips as their bodies were ripped apart by lions..
Maybe another is the Christians who were raped and pillaged by Vikings. Starting in the 5th Century with the Anglo-Saxon invasions, a lot of British got raped or were more or less willingly married to the invading heathens. Both races got stronger, and the emerging culture was Christian, because Mom, and because the written word was a huge advantage to those who understood it.
This is the flip side of the invading rapist. The invaded get new vigor, a less effete society, with a better idea of how to survive. However it turns out, in whatever era, the "winners" end up more poisoned by the losers' culture than the other way around, sometimes, although it may be that Christianity was more patriarchal through the middle ages, because of the war gods brought over on Anglo-Saxon boats, glorifying battle prowess and might making right. Not some twisted Druid who gets maybe 50% of it right, and the other 50% is oppressive, institutional craziness.
Humans are pretty cool. Sucks we have to fight, but the survivors are generally pretty eclectic and the resulting culture tends to take on superior aspects of both. Like a really insane gene-mixing that everybody knows the race needs, but nobody can express in words. Just looking around, seeing things are getting soft or stupid, and herding up to go do something stupid, like invite an invader.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the kids on stage had any kind of diversity of opinion, they would receive less scorn. If they debated each other instead of making attention-getting speeches to partisan-packed yes-crowds, some of the holes in their one-sided rhetoric would be exposed. If they want grownups to listen to them, then they should stop speechifying like wind-up toys.
But you make a good point. It's like commenting on a video that has some serious collectivist fallacies to be disputed. JUST when you've absolutely, positively DESTROYED the fallacy, some asshole will come along and AGREE with you, and then go on to talk shit about Jews, while singing your praises.
So this wonderfully-crafted argument you make gets swept off into the "another Nazi sub-thread" bin by any leftist looking for an excuse not to really THINK about what you just put all your creativity - your life's blood - into presenting, and just take a shit on it, with a brush-off "Another Nazi" remark, for the "win" that is a loss.
Also, the back of your hand isn't designed to deliver blows. It's not stressed for it. Exerting force sideways on a long bone is hitting it at right angles to the direction in which it was designed to do all its work (pushing is what bones are for. An octopus can pull.). A solid punch from a tightly-closed fist, in a forward direction puts all the forces in a line that the body is designed to handle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1