I encourage other Hypothica authors to contribute to this series but try and keep it on target with the lessons Hollywood is teaching us. The topic of other Hollywood stupidity is far too broad.
Some time ago I watched Toy Story 3. To avoid spoiling too much I will focus on the parts of the film that are important to this post. It takes place in a world where toys walk and talk when there aren’t any people around. The film follows a party of toys that find themselves in a day care center. The toys in this center are led by a stuffed bear who seperates the toys into a favored group that plays with the older kids and an unfavored group that has to endure the rough treatment of the younger kids.
The film portrays the bear as a villain. But…how fair is that really? SOME toys have to wind up in the younger kids group. And the way the bear handles it (a seniority system) is about as fair as you can get. The system is portrayed as a kind of prison arrangement but…in that position how would YOU enforce the rules?
When I actually think about it I can’t agree with the lesson Toy Story 3 tries to teach.
Folks on Scott Adams blog keep going on about how stupid the HRC campaign must be to not realize how badly they’re screwing up against Trump. But how fair is that really?
First of all, why should they even think they’re screwing up? Their friends in the MSM keep telling them they’re still ahead of Trump.
Second of all they have an excuse for why they’re not doing better against Trump (namely, Sanders).
Third of all…is there anyone on this blog who has seen the various campaign moves and not had Scott explain it to them? Did you agree with Scotts analysis before Scott explained it to you? Im thinking those of us on the SA blog see it differently because Scott has explained it to us, but how fair is that really? Why should the HRC campaign take any notice of Scott?
Which leads me to my fourth point: as of right now we only have Scotts word and track record to tell us that a Trump victory is coming. So far the polls have ranged between Bad News For Trump to Trump Has A Slight Edge. In other words, we still don’t REALLY see signs of an impending Trump victory, do we?
I look at the BBC news website a lot, and one of the big recurring stories on it is an upcoming vote on whether or not Britain should leave the EU. BBC has been pretty relentless in it’s anti-Brexit coverage. I took this at face value until I realized something: the MSM has been doing more or less the same thing to Trump for most of the past year.
That got me wondering; just how IS the Brexit looking over there? Is the British public reacting to it more or less the same way we’re reacting to Trump? Is Brexit heading for a victory in spite of BBC.com?
The nation of Hypothica was once a colony of the nation of Hardcastle. It broke away 240 years ago and has since overshadowed Hardcastle in power and influence, largely by taking in so many immigrants over the years that it has about five times the population. But the culture of Hypothica is still largely based on Hardcastle’s culture
Now a Hardcastle time traveler has gone back 250 years and has changed history so that Hypothica didn’t break away 240 years ago.
When he returns to the present he finds everything much the same as before. Hypothica is still independent (it broke away much later). The rest of the world is much the same as before. The differences are A) Hypothica now has about half the population of Hardcastle and B) Hypothica has a lot more people of Hardcastle ancestry than before.
Our time traveler now comes to you, an important figure in Hardcastle society from 250 years ago, and explains the situation. He asks you to choose between two possible futures. He can undo the change he made, in which case the future Hypothica will dominate the world and will do so more or less with Hardcastles culture but very few of Hypothica’s people will be descended from Hardcastle. Or he can leave the change in place, in which case Hardcastles cultural influence on the world will be much reduced but there will be a lot more people of Hardcastle descent in Hypothica.
Which would you prefer?
For years we’ve been hearing about how the economy has been growing but wages have been stagnant. About people having more and more trouble affording food, transportation and especially rent. We kept hearing about how we couldn’t let this keep going.
We let it keep going, didn’t we?
More than that, we seem to have it in for the working class. From shoving trans bathroom rights down their throats to denying them affordable housing we have been sending them the message that We Hate Them.
At least, that’s the message they’re hearing.
We should have known that, if we did that enough, they would, sooner or later, do something to send that message right back to us. Maybe something stupid.
Well, they’re doing it now, in this election cycle.
We keep trying to tell them that supporting Trump is stupid. That he’s stupid. That making Trump president would make America a laughingstock. And worse.
But the message they hear is: We Hate Trump. They can get even with us by shoving Trump down our throats.
And as for making America a laughingstock that’s not their problem. That’s a problem for the globally minded elites that have been kicking them around all this time. Another reason to vote Trump!
And I can’t say I blame them. Yes, they’re being foolish, but our so-called ‘smart’ way of doing things hasn’t been working for them.
Think about it. Trump has spent his whole life rich. No doubt hes exploited a lot of workers getting even richer. No doubt he’s been On The Inside in the course of getting richer.
So how, exactly, has everyone identified him as an outsider and the working man’s hero?
Scott Adams, on his blog, claims it’s because Trump is a master persuader. Replace ‘persuader’ with ‘salesman’ and I agree with that statement.
But am I the only one who thinks maybe there’s more to it than that?
That maybe it’s not JUST Trump who is setting him up to be president?
That maybe the GOP establishment is in on it and has been all along?
That they’ve just been pretending to try to sabotoage Trump’s presidency bid?
That thought occurred to me when I read a headline somewhere about the GOP establishment starting to warm to Trump.
I have no evidence, of course, but it fits. The GOP establishments ‘efforts’ to get rid of Trump have, at this point, made him stronger, more popular and seem like a real outsider. And they’re coming around to him now, when the ‘victorious outsider’ meme is bound to stick even if they embrace him wholeheartedly.
I recently saw this story on the web:
The tldr version: it is now possible to grow food plants in almost factory-like conditions. Soon city centers will become agricultural hubs.
So what do we need nature for?
Sounds harsh but we can all agree that, once this becomes widespread, that thought will occur to millions of people all over the world.
It’s hard enough to get people to put nature over money and their favorite toys today when we still need a functioning natural environment to survive. But what happens in the future, when society can cope even if there isnt a single tree or wild animal left in the world?
My guess: it may take a while but eventually the folks running society will brainwash everyone into saying ‘to hell with nature, just give me an iPhone, a VR headset and a car and I dont care if you torch the redwoods to do it’.
You may object that, even if we dont need it, nature is precious and we should preserve it. I hear you. But I don’t think that will be enough in the future. I think people growing up with less and less nature and more and more instant technological gratification in their lives will value technology more and more.
I recently heard that they sent some mice in orbit for two weeks. And they came back with damaged health. And this has raised questions about the feasibility of space travel.
We’ve been sending animals and people up into space for…what? Fifty years? Sixty? Am I to understand that, on no previous occasion, we studied the health effects of being in space for two weeks?
Anyone else think maybe they got this story wrong?
EDIT: Sorry, it didn’t occur to me at first that this was a story folks wouldn’t have heard about. Heres a link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mice-space-showed-liver-damage-two-weeks-192102137.html
People like to say that science is not the enemy of religion. The effort for co-existence is a good one but the truth is there is a fundamental design element in science that will forever put it at odds with religion.
Why do people get sick? Why were you born with your characteristics and not some other, better characteristics? Where did we come from? To a religious person ‘God’ is a perfectly acceptable answer to these questions, but not to a scientist. Sometimes that is a good thing. Modern medecine is possible because science didnt accept ‘God’ as the answer to the first question. We havent made much use so far from answering the second question but were close enough that we can envision a future where we do.
But it also means science is geared towards taking God out of the equation.
If the second coming took place right now the scientists of the world would start trying to find an explanation for it. And Im sure that, sooner or later, they would come up with one (assuming they had time). Perhaps theyd say Jesus was an alien or extra-dimensional being or something.
That may sound silly but, really, thats the sort of thing science has been trying to do all along. What evidence is there for Gods existence? We have no way of knowing. For centuries science has been trying to explain everything around us in ways that dont involve God, so it should come as no surprise to us that they’ve come close enough to success that a lot of people are nonbeleivers. But how much of the evidence of Gods existence have they explained away?
Science has given us a lot. That makes it hard to doubt or ignore.
Last post I blogged about one reason for anti-religious sentiment going around (LGBT opposition). Today I will post about a different but related reason: conservatism.
400 years ago the church branded Galileo a heretic and put him under house arrest for saying the Earth moves around the sun. This is one of the more famous and ridiculous-sounding examples of religion standing in the way of progress, but it has company. Ive heard of religion being put up as a barrier to abolition, abortion, evolution, desegregation, divorce, LGBT rights, environmentalism, wealth redistribution, (some) media and feminism and Im sure there are some Ive missed. If you’re in favor of all or even most of those things you could very well think of religion as The Enemy.
One would think that religion learned its lesson in the Galileo debacle, that lesson being: dont pick fights you dont have to. Before you pick a fight make sure you’re interpretting Gods word correctly. But as some of the items on my list show it hasnt. One can, for example, understand the hard line against divorce, but where in the Bible does it say you shouldnt protect the land? And even in the case of divorce Im sure God doesnt really mean for battered wives to stay with their husbands.