It was definitely dumbed down thematically though, especially from 1st/2nd GiG. While they were pretty pretentious (e.g. 'second order simulacra'), at least they were full of things to think about. The whole 'give consent' theme was as far as I can tell introduced in the adaptation and immensely cringe inducing.

What also irritated me is how they created a weird mish mash of the seperate Ghost in the Shell stories for no good reason. Why did they have to combine the 2nd GiG antagonist with the original movie's key plot scenes? It was just strange and unnecessary.

I don't at all mind the westernisation / white lead. Felt that controversy was nonsense. It's a Hollywood adaptation, why even bother remaking it if you're not going to have a new take on it or adapt it to be more familiar to local (American / English) audiences?

Same thing with the Netflix Death Note adapation. No idea if it will actually be any good but couldn't care less that they moved the location to the US and made the lead characters white. There are already multiple Japanese live action Death Note movies with Japanese leads. What's the point in another?

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

blame?

i don't know if i would use such a charged word to describe a very and nuanced question.i think there is plenty of blame to go around,and it is never quite as simple as the media soundbytes we are all subjected to on a daily basis.

who do i blame most?
democrats..hands down.

but there are other factors that all served to produce this circus of an election cycle.

1.the failure of the left to actually understand just how frustrated and angry the working class had become.those people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

this really had very little to do with republican vs democrat.this was a large portion of the american population that had simply become fed up with a system that they finally understood had thrown them overboard decades ago.many of the people who voted for trump also voted for obama..TWICE..because they wanted to see "change" and what they got nothing,zip,zilch,zero,nada.

they simply refused to play charlie brown to the democrats lucy.

2.the DNC and debbie wasserman shultz,may she burn in hell for eternity.
this woman singlehandedly secured the nomination for clinton,while blocking a sanders nomination.

remember laurence lessig?
well,don't feel bad if you don't,because wasserman and the DNC kept changing the rules of application so lessig couldn't even get on the primary ballot.

the DNC basically said to the sanders supporters "sanders? fuck you! you get hillary and will like it".

3.the ultra left liberals,for being so sensitive and touchy (don't get mad,you guys are way too soft skinned) that they restrict their interactions in these weird,singular echo chambers.where everybody is agreeing with each other and nobody is challenging anything,no critical examination.

so when trump won.
they damn near lost their minds in shock!
because anybody who may have shed some actual light on the situation was already blocked or on ignore.

4.the republican party,who hated trump but allowed him to fan the flames of dissent with his bombastic speeches,emotionally charged rhetoric and divisive language.

they let this go on for almost a year,and while publicly denounced trump,privately sought a way to capture his thunder.

want carson?.....nope
cruz?...nope.
kasich?..nope.

because just like the left,they too,had misjudged just how pissed off people were in regards to our political system,and their plan backfired.

5.the democratic party for allowing such a shit candidate,and just like the republicans,not fully understanding just how pissed the electorate was.

6.the corporate media,who sought solely to profit from the election by giving us all this mish mash of reality tv,wrestling and days of our lives.they didnt report the issues,they fed the drama.

and every political pundit,every pollster,every opinion news mrs mcprettyface,got it FUCKING WRONG.

7.bernie bros who stayed home in protest,but this entire election was a protest vote.

so,
yeah..a lot of mitigating factors went into trumps win.

i didn't think he was going to win but i knew it was going to close,but i sure as fuck was not surprised.i was actually laughing at loud.

would you look at that...
my fellow countrymen just hit the nuclear option.
i didn't want a trump victory..no sir..but i have to admire the audacity of my fellow citizens to hit that shiny red button.

fuck you washington!

we live in interesting times my friends.
interesting and terrifying times.

and really...what would clinton have given us?
more of the same?
more wars and regime change?
more tax breaks for the super rich while children starve and more people become homeless?

i may find my fellow americans choice horrifying,but i have to respect it.
either way kids...something is gonna change.

MY biggest complaint was not necessarily the ending. By the time it got close to being over, I was well warned that they were going to do something that I wouldn't like.

My issue is that the trailers were misleading. They took most of the funny (and non-offensive) bits and used those for the trailers. A couple of the things in those trailers didn't even make it into the actual movie. So based on the trailers, I thought this was going to be a solid comedy. Not the brutal mish mash I was eventually subjected to.

I like this guy's bent, but introspection doesn't necessarily mean self-centered behavior. If we accept that we all are a mish-mash of influences from the world around us, introspection means learning about the world around us.

unbuntu
I am we.

Hmm. A lot of people seem to get *very* different reads on Feynman from watching this than I do.

I don't read him as "smug" at all. The smiling? Defense mechanism, I say. He felt regret for his part in developing the bomb, hopeful pleasure in the idea that perhaps dropping the two bombs on Japan represented a net savings in lives both among the Japanese and allied forces (an invasion would have been catastrophic), and the mish-mash of conflicting emotions makes even his incredibly gifted mind go into meltdown.

I personally don't think that any of the Manhattan Project scientists "deserved" to be blamed for deaths caused by the two bombs that were actually dropped "in anger", nor for the near-disasters of the Cold War, etc. etc. I don't think they should even have lost any sleep over their involvement in developing the weapons, but I expect that all of them did in spades.

I think a better (bit still rather unfair) place to start second-guessing things is either with President Truman for giving the executive orders, or the committee that suggested the targets of the bombs (which did include Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists along with military leaders). I have always wanted to think along the lines of:

What if we had dropped the first bomb in a remote forest, where there would have been hopefully little to no loss of human life but still plenty of evidence as to the destructive power and effective radius of the weapon? We could then have communicated with the Japanese, told them the area to inspect, and said "surrender or next time we drop the same thing somewhere that you're really not going to want us to."

Maybe that would have worked, but it is a dicey way to play the cards we had in our hand. The Japanese might have read it as a sign of weakness, it would have made for another delay before we could develop more bombs and hopefully end the war (although we already had to bluff that we had plenty to use if it came down to it), etc. So basically, now I am just glad that I have never had to and hopefully never will have to make a decision that has anywhere near the magnitude of those made by the people in charge of that whole situation. Second guessing them decades after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight and information that they didn't have access to seems rather crass.

Personally, I'm wary of any attempt to define a universal morality. As I see it, morality is something a person must subjugate their own ethics to. Any universal moral code would be very scary to me, since it would require people to stop thinking for themselves. This kind of thinking has backfired too many times - just a cursory glance at what happened in the last century alone should be proof enough of that.

>> ^eventualentropy:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rebuilder" title="member since May 7th, 2009" class="profilelink">rebuilder
The main issue is that people have a tendency to give way too much credit to any other given person's views on what's moral and good and what isn't (as you just demonstrated). As harris states in his talk, this does not apply to other realms of knowledge (eg. we have less respect for the 'opinion' of a member of the flat earth society than we do for a physicist).
We could argue semantics about the term objective morality but all we're really trying to do is come up with a working definition so that we can talk about these subjects in a more meaningful way. All Harris is saying is that this definition must relate to the well-being/suffering of conscious creatures. If we can accept that then we can start seeking actual, scientific answers to these questions instead of just having a mish-mash of everyone's random biases.

@rebuilder

The main issue is that people have a tendency to give way too much credit to any other given person's views on what's moral and good and what isn't (as you just demonstrated). As harris states in his talk, this does not apply to other realms of knowledge (eg. we have less respect for the 'opinion' of a member of the flat earth society than we do for a physicist).

We could argue semantics about the term objective morality but all we're really trying to do is come up with a working definition so that we can talk about these subjects in a more meaningful way. All Harris is saying is that this definition must relate to the well-being/suffering of conscious creatures. If we can accept that then we can start seeking actual, scientific answers to these questions instead of just having a mish-mash of everyone's random biases.

I can't believe i just watched the whole thing. Strange but funny and so true.. The whole movie is mish mash of poor family entertainment. I mean, i've watched those classic first three (episodes iv-vi) like half a million times but Phantom Menace is something that if it comes from tv and nothing else is on, i switch to static...it should be called Dennis the Menace, maybe it would then be allright.

Christmas isn't about gifts or religion to me, it's about spending time with family and friends, eating mass quantities of tasty food and getting lots of good gigs. Most of the atheists I know participate in secular Christmas activities, and as far as I can tell, none of them are phased by Christmas trees, Santa Claus or eggnog.

I hate the consumerism, and the pressure on people to buy useless plastic crap they can't afford for people who don't need them. Gift giving should be limited to one modest gift per person, or no gifts at all.

I am also annoyed by Christians who see the word 'Holiday' as some kind of Jewish/Pagan conspiracy to destroy Christmas. No one owns this time of year. Christmas is a mish-mash of many different religious rituals, most of which pre-date Christianity by centuries. As most atheists already know, just about every Christian holiday was co-opted from some earlier religious holiday, and Christmas is no exception.

On a subversive level, I take a secret joy in seeing Christians worship a tree - like a bunch of pagans - every December.

I do not believe, therefore I have nothing to fear.

But I dislike the hypocrisy of the two party system and its candidates.

That's why I hope for an independent upset! That would be a step in a strange direction if an independent actually one a race for once in these mish mash elections. (hint of misguided hopefulness). We all know the likely hood of that happening, because MCCAIN is bad, and OBAMA is good, and NADER is independent.

On a side note which is more important than the above statement. I recently told a family member that State and Church have to be kept separate. this person said to me "Thats dangerous."
I said, "How so?"
To which "It just is..".
Then "You know whats dangerous? Belief in god has dragged this nation into wars, killed millions of people, and has served to do nothing positive for the state. To me most of you religious types are nothing but tyrannical hypocrites. Free your mind from the institution of god, and the true understanding may reveal itself, there is no god, only us. That is why church and state have to be separate, they have to be completely free of each other, to ensure that no decision is made in to the lord, who does not exist.

Do you really think that a god would condone this reality?"

After all that, this person wouldn't talk to me any more. Not only that, but they think that Obama is a sign that the rapture is upon us. They think he is the Antichrist, he does fit that profile of the christian Antichrist. That's what is so fucked up about the belief in god.

See Wikipedia for support to both our positions. To quote the start of the article (which has many signs of the type in my video):

Chinglish (slang) is a portmanteau of the words Chinese and English and refers to either (a) English interspersed with Chinese language errors common to those Chinese persons who are learning English or (b) Chinese interspersed with English, such as used by westernized Chinese (e.g. American-born Chinese) who are not fluent in Chinese and codeswitch English words into speech when they can't think of the correct Chinese word.

Chinglish is not the name of a language, creole language, pidgin, or dialect.

Chinglish is, as I've always known, the language of the American/Canadian-Chinese. It's not really a deficient version of English, but more of a mish-mash of the two languages spoken by people who are fluent in both. Sort of like Frenglish or Spanglish.

"Chin" != Japan.

Engrish I'd say is the more accurate term.

Also, HURRY UP THE CAKES ftw.

Led Zeppelin were far from "Heavy Metal". In fact, if you look at their entire catalog, I doubt that even 33% could be even considered "heavy". Many were acoustic, very introspective. They dabbled in blues, reggae, country/western, folk and a mish-mash of all in between.