Yes, it is and that was stupid too.

Just because they've rebooted it doesn't mean they get to do what they want with it. They could reboot Batman to be about a middle aged man having an identity crisis, and yeah, there's some aspect of that to Batman, but that's not really why anyone wants to see Batman.

I never thought it would be anything like the original movies or the tv series, I thought it SHOULD be like those. Just because I know how they're fucking it up doesn't mean I won't criticise it.

If anything we pamper our "little men" too much these days. We have so emasculated males that many have identity crisis issues. All this effeminate to even homosexual tone within society hinders the nature male need to express his masculinity.

Well, if it turns out to be a smart film (not getting up my hopes here), we might get a man vs. machine / free will vs. programming story which would be nice and an acceptable change from Jesus identity crisis Verhoeven did. However, nowadays action movies tend to be less smart if not done by Nolan.
And while I can dig black Robocop, I don't like the suit like look. Dude just seems to wear a helmet, 80's Robocop's face was attached onto a robotic head. Rob Bottin FTW!

Are you serious? These assholes? Sure. I could really need 50K, but Im not sure I'd be willing to risk your life and a riot in the islamic world for it. but sure, I'd have no trouble mocking those racist scum any day. I'd also feel pretty safe afterwards. groups like that are used to living in a world where they are met with nearly universal contempt, and they probably thrive on it. It feeds perfectly into their "Us v Them/Jews brainwashes everyone"-worldview.

Identity crisis.

They're watching Law & Order: Criminal Intent
The episode is called "Identity Crisis"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'girl obsessed with Japanese, Japan, Japanese singing, identity crises' to 'weeaboo, Japan, Japanese singing, identity crisis' - edited by xxovercastxx

As you may have notice, this message is very long. Please take a while and read it a few times, in chunks, before you respond. I ask a lot of questions here so I’d like it you pretended as if you were asking the questions to yourself.

I should have qualified my statement about religions. I meant to clarify that in the Persian and Pre-Rome regions of the world, which were primarily Pagan, a huge majority of the religions didn’t have religious structures that were based around fear, for the most part. Yes, I admit that there was the concept of retribution from the gods but it wasn’t anything to the degree of everlasting punishment. I currently don’t know anything about the religions of the very early Americas (Mayans, etc). It wasn’t until the god concepts became more personalized and more humans that it became more about fear. There is a natural progression in the ideological development in religions that goes from being nothing about humans to being all about humans. Eternal suffering or anything resembling a “hell” is relatively new and came about around the time of monotheistic religions.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

Here is another great question. How much of your belief system is tied to your identity; how much do you identify with it, personally or socially? Meaning, if you came to disbelieve what you now believe, would you know who you are or would you have a sort of identity crisis? If you stopped believing as you do now, do you feel that you would you lose a part of who you are?

You ask a good question in “Maybe it is you who is delusion and I see things as they actually are.” Yes, perhaps I am and perhaps you are and perhaps we both are. So how can we know, how would we find out, what kinds of tests and experiments could we do to illuminate the answer. It isn’t good enough to simply say that we both might be delusional; therefore our views are equally valid. Either one of us is correct and the other is not, or we are both incorrect.
You know, I used to have a dualistic view on the nature of humans. I used to believe in the soul or the spirit as something separate from the body. I used to resonate heavily with the lyrics of Tool and the ideas behind the art of Alex Grey.

I guess my biggest question would stem from this statement that you made
“My faith is that i have a spirit, a soul, a divine spark that is connected to the ALL, the ONE, also known as "the source".”
What makes you think that there is an “ALL”, a “ONE” or “the source” and how do you know that you’re not just fooling yourself? What would it mean if you discovered that it’s probably not true, and that the real explanation for the subjective experiences that you’ve had are far more elegant and interesting than the ideas of spirituality that you currently hold?

To be blunt, I don’t think that you’re thinking this whole notion of an ego through far enough. It sounds like you’re just accepting the ideas as being true without going through the motions of analyzing what the concept implies. The notion of an ego implies several things; one of which is that we as humans are special to the degree that we have egos when, either, other animals don’t, or, other animals are better than us in controlling it. The questions then become, do other animals have egos? If so, how does the ego operate in them? Do other life forms, such as plants or bacteria, also have egos, or does the ego require a certain degree of cognitive function? If the ego does require certain cognitive functions to be noticeable, and since we are extremely closely related to other apes such as chimpanzees, do they also exhibit features of having egos? If they don’t and having an ego is strictly a human feature, what happened during the development of the brain that allowed for the access to what we might call the ego and at this point, do we really believe that the “ego” is actually something that exists outside of the brain? If it doesn’t exist outside of the brain than how can we separate who you perceive as yourself and what you perceive as the “ego”? Are all “ego’s” the same or is it brain dependent with variations depending on brain structure and chemistry? Can you see why I would say that the notion of the ego as something outside of or separate from oneself is inherently egotistical.

The way that you talk about the ego makes it seem mystical and somehow separate from “self”. To me, that sounds like someone trying to escape responsibility. Why not just cut out the middle man and admit that you, not your ego, has the tendency to be possessive, needy, insecure, wishes for self-aggrandizement, etc. The notion that “negative” qualities are part and partial of some sort of external thing that is separate from “you” just seems childish to me, not to mention, completely unsupported by research.

For myself, I suppose that I recoil at the idea of an “ALL”, or “ONE”, or “the source” because it doesn’t really answer any questions. If someone were presenting these ideas to me for the first time, I would immediately start asking questions like “What is it made out of, what kind(s) of particles?” “How does it perpetuate?” “What is the physics of this thing?” “By what mechanism does it connect to everything?” “How does a source not also have its own source?” “What tests and experiments can we do to learn more about this thing?” “What objective information do we have about it?” “Does this thing operate differently between animate and inanimate objects?” “If spirit or soul is inherent in the system, do animals and plants also have a spirit or soul?” “What exactly constitutes as a spirit or soul, what can it be defined by?” “Did “the source” have a beginning or a history?”

I think you understand my point. My problem with subjectively believing something is true is that it’s more susceptible to not going far enough in scrutiny. It is much easier to subjectively believe something that feels good or feels right and not go any further than that. Very few subjective beliefs translate into objective or rational understandings of nature; it’s very easy to get it wrong. Subjective beliefs are as prone to fallibility as humans are to irrational thinking.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
hmmmm..
i disagree with your statement that only the monotheistic religion control by fear.
buddhism (yes..buddhism) shinto,mayan,toltec,arminianism,zoroastriasm..the list is legion and they ALL have punishment/reward doctrine.each at varying degrees but its in there.

i do enjoy hearing an atheists perspective on how my faith translates.
very..analytical of you my friend.
suffice to say my faith is born from personal revelation and has been an ongoing revelation since i was 14.
nothing i have encountered or experienced has taken away from this revelation,in fact it has strengthened it.
could i be delusional?
i guess its possible.
or maybe it is you who are delusional and i see things as they actually are.
not trying to be an ass,just pointing out the subjective nature of this particular polemic.

i guess..in its most simplest of terms.
my faith is that i have a spirit,a soul,a divine spark that is connected to the ALL,the ONE,also known as "the source".
freud believed that the ego WAS who you were.i could not disagree with that more.
the ego is who you THINK you are.predicated and perpetrated by those who are close to you.
we cant help that.it is very human.
so around 12 yrs old we start to have a sense of self.this self understands the world and how he/she interacts with it by rules set by his/her parents.
as we grow older so does the circle of influence i.e:friends,lovers,teachers etc etc.
think about this for a second because i am expressing a very huge idea in a very short amount of time and glossing over all the implications of said idea.

my philosophy..or my faith if you will,views the ego as my "false" self.
the ego wishes only to validate itself (thats why mass marketing is very VERY effective).
the ego wishes to perpetuate its own existence by way of constant feed-back.
the ego gets jealous and possesive.
the ego gets insecure and needy.
the ego has demands...and desires...which seek only for self aggrandizement.
now societal roles consisting of compassion and empathy will,and can,curb the destructive nature of the ego (think your teenage years and just how self centered you were to give you an idea of ego gone wild)

through my faith and discipline i am quite aware of my ego and have suppressed it to the point where it no longer manipulates my thinking nor my emotions.
so i have no urge nor a desire to be perceived as "correct" because to me that is irrelevant.
(though i do prefer to be "corrected" if i misstate something).
i do not experience jealousy,nor envy.
but i do experience pride.
i do not allow anothers limited perception of me based on their own subjective reasoning influence how i feel about who i am.
i am open and honest because my faith is that we are all connected with the divine and to lie,steal or cheat you is to be doing to myself also.
i do not judge anothers faith or lack of it because that is THEIR path and the only time i ever feel the need to intercede is when it flows into my domain and affects me in some way.

even as i write these words,which to me seem pretty articulate and clear,i know that you will understand them based solely on..well..your understanding.
i do not say that as a slight but rather a statement.
trying to convey complex thought patterns by way of text can be so..limiting.

everything i do or say i do so with spirit in mind.
sometimes i fail..sometimes i succeed.
i am human.
with a spirit! ziiiiing!
anyways..
i really do enjoy our conversations.
you are a pleasure my friend.
namaste.
(look that word up btw..its a great word)

Britsh people write good (better?)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/loser-britains-identity-crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_card_(United_Kingdom)

Biometrics in the patriot act:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/biometric

This bill has sponsors in the senate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html

__________________
If you read those links you would know that biometrics aren't needed to prevent illegals working here in the USA.
So the government is not quite telling the truth.
However it will make it harder for hoods to steal checkbooks when their id card doesn't match their fingerprints. No doubt the fingerprint machine will have handcuffs built in.

If you are a true korean like you say, prove it by writing your blogs in said language. Traitor!

JK! Great first bloggety blog, legacy! I do relate with a lot of the things you mentioned, even though I was born in America. The generational gap is hard enough to deal with, and then we have to also grapple with a bit of an identity crisis, culture clash, stupid bigotry, prejudice and stereotyping, etc. etc. I think we have a lot to talk about with our experiences of being asian minorities in America.

^ aww.

He's bound to have an identity crisis before his 1st birthday. Frankenbutt, Frankie, Plucky Tim... I'm sure I'm missing something.

I can see a montage now of the rascal working out and getting in shape for his future rematch with the raccoon.

Inspired! m15m is right about losing the 'right wing' imo, although I've never personally seen a left winger as out of control as mushroom.

I think the big push to the right has left the right on the fringe and the left in the center, and of course you sound a helluva lot crazier when arguing from the fringe than from the center. Of course this centrist shift for the Dems has given them somewhat of an identity crisis, leaving them open to charges of spinelessness from both opponents and allies.

...oops, tangent, sorry.....

Anyway, it's clear from mushrooms comment to Dag that he has a major Christ complex. [2 weeks of not getting to vote on videos! = Nailed to a cross] So, a two week ban is probably the best thing he could have hoped for. I'm sure he is sopping up the victim pity over at FreeRepublic as we speak.

Indeed. Viral has an identity crisis. Is there a Meme chan for internet memes of the grass roots variety to distinguish them from intentional/planed viral advertising?

Oh, those wacky Japanese with their post-WWII identity crisis...