Tanista
14hr ago
If they have $100 million, they can create their own brand with slightly different details, so it steals ideas from the existing brand without violating its copyright, and succeed off marketing even if their brand is worse.
Then why did they pay Lucas $4 billion?
I don't deny that this has happened but the examples - e.g. 50 Shades of Grey which was transformed even if the core point of "dark triad alpha loves me" was kept, that Anne Hathaway movie - say something and the fact that studios still pay or overpay for IP does too.
In both cases, the original creator probably ends up with more sales and attention than they would've otherwise, by being credited with inspiring the heavily-marketed release.
I think Lucas prefers the billions he made before Disney could just copy him + the billions he made selling it to them to the honor of being the John Carter to whatever successful series Disney made off his ideas.
Certainly, one could argue that Lucas introduced people to Flash Gordon and Japanese cinema but how many? I was a pretty big SW fan and I don't think I ever watched anything because I was told it inspired SW.
Tanista
14hr ago
A central example of a xenophobe would be someone who dislikes another culture he knows very little about. "I don't understand their language, their food smells strange, their customs are weird, they are probably up to no good and I want them gone."
I don't know that I'd consider an Israeli or Turkish imperialist who hated and feared his neighbors but wasn't ignorant about them a fringe example of a xenophobe.
Tanista
15hr ago
You can't stop anyone from writing a story, especially nowadays. In practice, copyright has a chilling effect.
If there's no money in it you've driven away a lot of people (cynically: the most talented people who would offend writers the most). In a pre-internet world your reach is also going to be functionally miniscule so, except for the love of the game, while do it?
This is true even in fanfiction where Anne McCaffrey's antipathy towards fanfiction blocked it from FFN for years (despite the pro forma disclaimers writers would make). Back in the day you could scare fans trying to write novels in your world off the major sites purely through copyright law (I think Ao3 feels it's on sturdier ground now and has Dragonriders of Pern fics)
Pretty important difference: it prevents Disney from putting $100 million into marketing their own version of Tolkien while he was still writing his.
This is already a known phenomenon with existing IP constraints.
Would Trump be popular if not for the Iran war?
His polling was suffering before because of other errors and his general off-putting and erratic nature.
This is just the bit that Trump loyalists can't really digest or rationalize.
DOGE, despite fulfilling the boomercon dream of putting a real “businessman” in charge of reforming Washington, was fleeting if not an outright failure
DOGE is either, as @aeqno says, an attempt to punish clients of the ancien regime in which case I suppose it could be said to have put them in some pain (until a post-Trump White House restores their position) or it's an attempt to cut the deficit meaningfully.
If it's an attempt to cut the deficit (by $2 trillion according to Elon) it was always retarded populist slop because we know where the budget goes. The Boomercon businessman plan seems to imagine some ruthless guy who will cut other people's social spending while leaving the Boomer and their social spending alone. There's a reason the Paul Ryan fiscal wing is dead: boomer Republicans killed them.
If it didn't work for Ryan, why would it work now? Elon can't cut anything that'd make Trump unpopular and Trump has a) given up on fiscal conservatism and b) not really going to push through laws to fix his position anyway.
This is just the mirror image of the progressive-technocrat plan: people who know their policies are unpopular and so are trying to do an end-run around politics.
My question is - is this all a repudiation of the internet-right’s political project?
As both a formal and practical matter the "internet-right" doesn't have a political project (it's been overrated since the initial claim that Trump won because of memes). Trump has a political project and the internet-right's job is to try to cajole that elephant in the direction they want.
But a stubborn elephant is hard to move. Most people didn't foresee that Trump had such a durable fascination with things like tariffs.
Leicester winning the EPL.
Leicester winning the PL is the sort of saccharine nonsense you expect to see in Ted Lasso or some other American product.
Tanista
5d ago
Why is horror the exception to the theater recession? SW is underperforming right now but another horror movie is overperforming. It's been this way for a while, a lot of the surprise hits are A24/indie-style horror films.
Tanista
6d ago
For many maybe. I think Aella has earned the presumption of sincerity.
I think she means "open relationship"
Tanista
6d ago
If you're top percentile and can trivially attract casual sex from other women, then it has an appeal again even if not everybody will go for it.
In certain subcultures, being in this level means you feel you don't need an open relationship; you can just a) cheat or b) enforce a one-sided/Islamic polyamory model. It certainly doesn't mean "complicate my life by having someone sleep with my wife".
Much more common in the entertainment and athletic fields than the ones Aella frequents so she has that going for her I guess.
Women shouldn't have a say in foreign policy if it's not them who will be sent to die over it.
You don't need to be sent anywhere. For most countries that aren't America or nestled under it or someone else's nuclear umbrella the consequences of bad foreign policy can find you at home.
Bad German foreign policy, for example, let to the widespread rape of German women when the Soviets came to collect.
Tanista
13d ago
I would say gay marriage in the USA. That is when crybulling really really picked up and people started seeing the USA as just a set of ill gotten spoils that needed to be redistributed.
Gay marriage seems to be the least zero-sum of the progressive causes (arguably deliberately selected to be that way) and it's much younger than the drive for racial or class based redistribution.
As a layman I think David is usually where both more conservative and more skeptical scholars can agree we can start looking for historicity. Some others push it till the Omrides but I think it's hard to argue that the mythicist side wouldn't have used the lack of anything like a stele as an argument so what's good for the goose and all that.
I guess I'm more of a mainstreamer here: things like the Exodus and Patriarchs seem like a total mess historically. Even if you grant there is some historic core you'll never agree on what it is. David's time seems like a good enough point to say the figures in the Bible have slipped out of myth.
I have seen some of Baden's interviews online, and read his Composition of the Pentateuch which is why I picked up the book. It's early days but I tend to lean towards what I think is Baden's own conclusion: there's a lot more explaining things in a more flattering light in David's legend than you'd expect if he didn't exist.
Which makes a good contrast with the show.
Tanista
15d ago
I don't think this would apply to "half of the right" like he said.
The right wing electorate was always the most favorable (a quick glance at Yougov had it ~70% approval). At best you can maybe say that the right wing elite were the ones split on doing what it took to confront the judiciary and activists. But even that doesn't seem to be true anymore. I don't think I've ever heard anyone spit the common cliches and platitudes like Jeremy Hunt and even he suggested simply leaving the ECHR and changing the law
There's always genetic analysis, I suppose.
There'll be internal resistance to it too, going by past evidence on the grounds that it doesn't work perfectly I'm sure.
And, of course, a country will likely feel it easier to reject someone whose citizenship was verified in some speculative way than if you caught them with passports and all.
What's the logic here? Too expensive?
Violation of their human rights to be sent to a potentially unsafe country. For some any country bad enough to deter people from showing up and making asylum claims is too bad to send potential refugees to. Rwanda is either too bad or too expensive for not being bad enough.
Also what happened to "send them back directly where they came from. Don't ask any questions, don't bother with process, just send them back"? There's no way a plane ticket costs more than these hotels.
The home countries may not want to receive them back, assuming they didn't burn all identifying documents. Which they do.
Tanista
19d ago
There are more ideological inputs that went into the modern American left than just Marxism/"tankie" European communism
The liberal meritocratic side of the party may need naive blank slateism more than the communists.
I'm ignorant about Mississippi, but I can only assume that the teacher's unions don't have the power they have in NY and Chicago.
That's not really an easily fixable problem once entrenched. Though the one in Chicago seems to have burned its popularity due to being particularly brazen with Brandon Johnson. On the other hand, they got what they wanted.
Tanista
24d ago
I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that the example you give is not really an example of coordination by men in general but rather coordination of elite men to protect their interests from the interests of non-elite men
The result is a generalizable rule against adultery for all though.
I think you're assuming a much freer situation for elite women (and less class stratification) than they had in many societies for this to be the central threat. If anything men would be more afraid of people of their own class.
Even the phrase "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," addressed to men, suggests that this norm was about regulating the relations among men; the interests of women don't seem to be much of a factor one way or another.
I can hardly disagree given my point. Managing male anxieties over paternity is about managing male relations. But this still shows a concern for other men and didn't apply only to the rich. Throwaway gave a potential Pinkerian reason the elites not that concerned about managing relations in this way.
In those days, elite men married multiple women. Which means there were likely non-elite men who were the Biblical equivalent of incels. How convenient that these bachelors were subject to an order from the Almighty to refrain from making a move on the woman of a high status man.
The Bible isn't actually that bad about this. It's still a generalizable principle. My final, irreversible apostatizing from Islam came when I saw Q33:53:
O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave. But Allah is never shy of the truth. And when you ˹believers˺ ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and theirs. And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.
Yeah, you just can't convince me that this isn't Arab Joseph Smith after this and the Zayd story.
In this case Mohammed has the defense that he also released verses defending the rights of all men where they intersected with his. And the nature of the religion - which allows Muslim male exogamy but not female exogamy and sexual access to slaves and a preference for not enslaving Muslims - were all supposed to work in favor of giving a Muslim man options. I suppose that is another example of a group of men with shared interests setting up rules to benefit them.
I think Deneen just doesn't trust liberal promises. He is quite clear that he thinks liberalism is imperialistic and responds to weaknesses or contradictions in its own ideology or society by demanding more power for itself and its imperatives. The standard for "freedom" is continually pushed back in ways that increase the power of the state.
The anecdote serves his purposes quite well in illustrating all these tendencies.
It's actually a criticism of his book raised by others: this doesn't really augur well for a Benedictine solution, which he gestures towards.
Tanista
25d ago
3 is too general. It's "Therefore we should expect men to continue to do so". My issue is that an inherent lack of in group preference alone can't explain it since past men figured out how to coordinate here.
Tanista
25d ago
Not organize promote the interests of all men as a whole. But to protect against something all men have a reason to protect against.
Tanista
25d ago
I think that because historically male led societies have been brutal to disfavored or enemy men but have general taboos against adultery, presumably cause men don't care if some man dies in a jail cell but care if they might get cucked.
As for child support cucking other men...yes, that would be great. But you can also be called for child support too AFAIK.
As for the Haredi, they're a much larger percentage of Israel's electorate than any conceivable US comparison.
Hey, at least fans can fight over whether Sony's version of the canon is better than Microsoft's. We lost something when the console wars died down.
More options
Context Copy link