@kevingrr
who said anything about feelings?
while i actually share your optimism and am nowhere near the nihilistic philosophy that carlin is bemoaning in this clip,i also have my eyes wide open.

i realize that the computer i am using to converse with you was due to the exploitation of workers on the other side of the globe.that some 15 year old indonesian worked 16 hours so he/she could buy a bowl of rice and live in an apartment with 20 other people.or that the 5$ pair of nike shorts i am wearing was made by some worker in bangledesh who made 27 cents and sleeps in a tin shack covered with plastic bags.

i live in a country where ones self-worth is directly related to what they can buy.people are judged by what they own.how they look.how they make their living.

when you compare the social attitudes,in regards to community, from 50 years ago to now the radical changes are immense.

this is what carlin was addressing.
that basically your only redeeming social value is your ability to buy useless crap.

argue all you want about which pair of shoes is better,or whats the best toilet paper but dont ever question the system.

carlin is just lamenting the willful ignorance of an american populace that has been brainwashed into believing that they are the center of the universe.

and you are right.there has been improvement,but in other countries.
it is america that is circling the drain.

I'm so torn here. On one hand, I think she deserves all the hate she gets. It's objectively a bad song and the shithead mom just paid her no-talent daughter into fake fame. But at the same time, The death threats are obviously crossing a line and so is the supposed bullying.

It swings both ways. On one hand, I don't think I will ever understand the "quest for fame" that some people strive for. Sure virtually everyone wants to be known and have the respect of their peers. I just can't contemplate being so craving for attention to put myself through something like that. So part of me wants to blame her and her mom for their low sense of self-worth that they have to crave that sort of fame.

But on the other hand. I blame society in general. regardless of whether you like the song or hate her guts, a lot of people put a non-insignificant amount of time and effort into liking or hating her. Why are we so bored that we're willing to like an objectively bad song or spend hours on youtube making hateful comments.

Then of course there's the whole money aspect of things. If all they cared about was getting paid...well obviously the mother's scheme worked. She's set up pretty good and all she had to do was make her daughter a national spectacle.

Is it worth it? Should it be worth it?

I think only two things are certain for me. 1. The mother is a horrible person for putting her kid through that. 2. This is an indictment of the music industry that they're so desperate for anything to sell they resort to the circus acts and freak shows and actual singing ability be damned.

But wait... this is totally different then the original ad. The attractiveness of my balls to other people does not define my self worth or my beauty as a person.

>> ^ponceleon:

I kinda agree, I mean, there's nothing you are going to say to one of these people that is going to convince them that homosexuality is okay, but I guess I just feel like this is an escalation rather than something constructive.
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^ponceleon:
Very funny, but part of me feels it is a bit counterproductive if we are trying to convince the fear-mongered masses of this country that being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a hyper-sexualized insane person.

Why should we try and convince them of this? Plenty of straight, hyper-sexualized "insane" people. I say shake what your god gave you. Haters gonna hate, and I aint gonna try and meet them halfway.


I feel that there isn't really a way to reason with these people. Sure, you might be able to sway some minds in the middle, but I dont think there are any fencesitters in a protest against homosexuality. So maybe it is an escalation, but I don't think there is nothing to be gained from mocking them either. To argue against their position is almost to give them some sort of legitimacy. When we point and laugh we turn it into the childish farce it really is. This might not change minds, but I at least hope it gives some confidence and self worth to those that need it.

does any human really need a house like that?
I'm guessing the owner is a type of a hoarder. Born into money and material possessions and never really saw life as anything different than a process of accumulation. No real sense of self-worth except as measured by their loot. Not really different than the fat crazy person on TLC hoarding cats and McDonald's happy meal containers. It's the same type of mental disorder.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"
Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.

@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."
One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.



Can you please describe the other path you speak of? So far all I've identified from the OWS message is a general upset with wealth disparity, but no coherent or unified solution. It'd be great to hear what they are advocating for. It's the required next step from rallying against something, or this will all go either no where, or somewhere much worse.

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"

Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.



@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."

One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

>> ^chilaxe:

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?

>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.

Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?

And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

Netrunner said: "High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste."

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy. Last-century jobs are increasingly better done by automation or by overseas outsourcing. There are never enough talented 21st century workers.

There are always some people who are 21st century thinkers who are unemployed, but the only reason 'unemployment is high' is because we imported 80 million unskilled workers over the last 40 years. Agreeing to put in place rational border control would be a good start.


Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."

1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.

2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.

But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).
High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.
Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
We should be clear what we're talking about when we say there are problems with unemployment: people don't want to work hard at jobs that the economy actually needs.

Seriously? You think everyone who's unemployed is just being lazy?

The reason my mediocre friend vastly outperformed most of the people I know was because he was doing work that was valued by the economy.
That often involves hard work, but the more people invest themselves into their career, the more rewarding and fun it becomes, and the more they grow as people.


But that's not the cause of unemployment. People should be free to pursue whatever kind of career they want to. Some people may just chase whatever has the highest salary, but most will probably go for something they enjoy working on, so long as the pay is decent. In a bad labor market with high unemployment, you don't have those options. You get PhD's applying to work at McDonald's to pay the bills, and getting turned down because they're overqualified (or they're just not hiring!).

High unemployment represents a huge chunk of useful labor potential going to waste, not some mass outbreak of people deciding to take a break from working.

Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either.

@chilaxe except those people probably exist in a community that values them and gives them credit for the work they do and looks out for each other and have parents that put in place boundaries and consequences for bad behaviour and praise for good work done. And a feeling of love. They also feel a sense of pride in the small amount that they and their communities have, and will work to support and maintain that.

I'm not saying it's to do with how much you do or don't have, but more so that these kids come from families where the parents do not give support, respect or a feeling of self worth, so they feel like shit in themselves. Then they get no support or encouragement from their local community, so they feel no attachment or connection with their community, and so do shit like this because they feel like they don't belong that they are ostracised by the community etc.

Again, I'm not in anyway supporting or excusing what these thugs did, what I am saying is that this 'fucking take everything away from them and lock them all up' mentality is so wrong.

It's been shown time and f*cking time again, you give kids, adolescents, hell even adults, a feeling of accomplishment in a job, a feeling of connection with a community, a feeling of contribution to things at large and you end up with far happier people who, in turn, have a far greater respect for themselves and other people and their property.

Look back up the chain a bit before just cutting off the wrecking ball.

I think a lot of Shyamalan's problems are that he's focused on a different aspect of the movie than most people are.

Let's look at Signs. That was really the first one, I think, that generated widespread disdain. Signs, IMO, was a good story but a bad movie.

Most people talking about Signs would focus on how stupid it is that aliens would invade a planet that's "infested" with water, if you will, when they themselves are water soluble. They would also talk about how unbelievable the aliens were on screen. The "twist" at the end was also way more predictable than 6th Sense and Unbreakable. I'm not saying these aren't valid criticisms; they absolutely detract from the movie as a whole (and ultimately ruined it for me).

But the underlying story about faith, doubt, destiny, self-worth and discovery is wonderful. This is where I think Shyamalan really shines -- in telling stories about characters who learn/discover things about themselves. This is also what I suspect he is focusing on, sometimes to the point of tunnel-vision. He ends up serving a gourmet meal on a cracked plate and a lot of people spend so much time staring at the crack that they forget to taste the food.

I loved The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable is my favorite film specifically because of the underlying story of destiny and self-discovery. It also happens that I really enjoy both the subtle and not-subtle comic book references, so the surface story appeals to me as well. Signs was a misstep but The Village was a move back in the right direction. Lady in the Water was more like Signs; a good beneath a crappy veneer.

Since then his movies have been fairly ordinary, uninteresting, routine Hollywood affairs. I haven't seen any of them.

More than anything, I think it's become popular to dislike him and his movies. Nobody had a bad thing to say about Sixth Sense until Signs came out and all the sudden everyone claimed to have never liked any of his films.

I wish he would go back to doing what he is really good at but also fix the distractions. Serve us our meals on plates that are worthy of the food they're carrying.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'short film, parking, self worth, world peace, dmv in a bar, smile, happy, hugh, newman' to 'short film, parking, self worth, world peace, dmv in a bar, smile, happy, hugh newman' - edited by xxovercastxx

Cake guy was a complete douche, most others weren't scientific. I kinda don't like her setup. Her un-dolled look seems to be a homeless bag lady. Even plain women who at least DRESS like they have some self-worth never pay for drinks.

this thread got tldr.

here's my 2 cents. an over abundance of advertising is damaging. not just for how it portrays women, not just for impressionable girls and boys who are possibly likely to grow up with a skewed sense of identity and self worth. it's just damaging. to everyone. to cultures. to the psyche. it's too much. and it's constant.

women are intelligent and can think for themselves. i'm not falling for the "you don't look like kim kardashian?!? get your fat ass some slim fast and some loreal, dye your hair, wear this underwear, smell this way, use this roller ball crunch machine you fat fucking ugly cow" ads. and neither is my daughter (so far). because we are not at all exposed to it consistently.

know what it takes to brainwash someone? a few hours a day of content and a peer group who agrees with said content. that's it. period. so you take 10 elementary school kids who watch television 2 or 3 hours a day and have them all hang out together 8 hours a day at school. eventually you will get a generation who eat doritos and snack cakes and think that their bodies and their make up and their shaving cream represent them. thats not just damaging to women. its damaging to culture. period. my complaints are not as feminist, but as a human being. enough is enough already. can we please quit buying sooo much stupid shit already?!?!??