Bolegium

Cara is the best, and she gets to snoop in scoop's house and talk about poop. Also was I the only one who caught Danielle's 'patch number 2' pun? That at least deserved a groan, the lack of response is egregious and unforgivable. Otherwise, great pod and congrats on >200 of them!

The videos for Clipping tracks are great

Speaking of Enter the Void, by coincidence I finally watched the whole thing last night. I was actually more nauseated by the rest of the movie than by the beginning, and it's a really long movie. Also watched The Host (Gwoemul), and loved it. Planning to see Mother (by Bong Joon-ho), and Irreversible (Gaspar Noe). Slowly getting through my back catalogue of films.

B L A C K I E hasn't been mentioned here I think? (Strobe warning for video) For more relaxing stuff:

Search is also not working for me.

Night Tune by Pol Clarissou. Rockpapershotgun article and video here, with Alice O'Connor. I haven't downloaded it yet, but this looks and sounds similar to a game idea I had a few years ago - a 'walking/sitting-on-public-transport simulator' of a 50 minute trip home at night with a music player.

Howdy jobias, I think I recognise you from theborderhouse blog! Welcome all.

That link is a keeper, thanks Merus.

I'm finally watching Pushing Daisies, only 4 episodes in and I love it. One thought I have is that I think Haven and maybe to a lesser extent Fringe have similarities to Pushing Daisies in the way they treat 'antagonist' characters and conflict. I'm generalising and I haven't seen all the episodes for any of those shows, but most of the 'bad' characters aren't completely evil, they're just people who have different motivations and are still capable of doing 'good'. The 'good' characters are less interested in punishing people or getting 'justice', and more there to help survivors cope, and to solve mysteries to provide understanding and context. The protagonists' power comes primarily from a capacity for great empathy, or some variation of it. The shows' target demographics also seem to lean more towards a female audience rather than a 'standard' male one. Along with everything mentioned previously, the mixture of morbid themes with light-hearted tone and a rejection of cynicism has similarities with Paprika, and Miyazaki's films. I like dark and gritty, but it's also really lovely to see stuff like this and I wish there were more! Also the scene transitions in PD are done so well. Also Lee Pace is dreamy.

I've heard from critics that his sexuality is used as a mid-point plot twist, and that the details of his suicide are sort of glossed over in a bit of text. People I know who have seen the movie seem to like it though.

I just came across this from 1996 that I had no idea existed It's the perfect mix of trip hop beats and shoegaze, and that fucking Scorn drum sample, ten seconds in and i'm already starting to get the shivers. As you can probably tell I love this track, and I expect I will for everything else by Bowery Electric.

I had no idea this existed so thanks for brining it to my attention. On a slight tangent I think Jessica Williams is super really awesome and it would be great if she had her own show, or at least appeared more frequently on other shows. I saw Into the Woods today and quite liked it, was even surprised at how moved I was at some parts. I'm kicking myself for missing a Q&A screening with the Director of Photography Dion Beebe recently, especially since that's my line of work/study.

Yeah the empirical audiophile in me winces every time I see the phrase "burn-in". That MDR-7506(?) should sound the same as any other 7506, if there's a difference after "burning in" it's most likely your own brain adjusting to the frequency response curve of the headphones. At least 'burn in' isn't as ridiculous and offensive to me as $50+ HDMI cables, I have been really tempted in the past to just go into an electronics store and start arguing with a poor salesperson about how fucking wrong that is. Thankfully I don't.

Tekkonkinkreet is pretty accessible to 'western' audiences (and I like it a lot), if twmac is looking for recommendations. I'd presume that's the reason why Satoshi Kon has been seen so much as well, he seems to receive more critical acclaim from western sources, and he drew from western films more than his contemporaries did for sources of inspiration.

That's a fair reading, but my take is different (and perhaps not what the creators intended). If anyone didn't open the spoiler section, id like to post this FILMCRITHULK article about Nightcrawler again: http://badassdigest.com/2015/01/09/film-crit-hulk-smash-nightcrawler-and-why-movies-dont-need-character-arcs/

Sorry for the relatively terse response here, I'm (trying to) intentionally keep my reply short since I don't think this topic is worth my time any more, and I don't wish to 'waste' any one else's time either. Killing humans to reduce ecological damage is unnecessary, we have countless other ways of mitigating the effects of human behaviour (transportation, education, laws, social engineering, etc.) that are less ethically problematic. We have far fewer ways of mitigating the effects of animal behaviour. The "rabbit proof fence" was constructed in Australia during 1901-1907 as a non lethal method of pest control and was unsuccessful. If there are non-lethal methods of pest control that are ecologically justifiable i'm all for it. There are methods like the 'sterile insect technique' that are non lethal and effective. I don't think constructing a scenario where humans on the whole are incapable to be reasoned with so the only option is lethal reduction of the population is meaningful w/r/t the discussion about ethics, a scenario can just as easily and meaninglessly be constructed where animals are able to communicate and reason with humans and can be persuaded rather than killed. Obviously my views on what is ethical will depend on the specific circumstances of a situation and will be different for hypothetical realities. I'm trying to discuss the details of our actual reality and what would be most ethical in these circumstances. Humouring the question anyway (and modifying it to be more realistic), if there were groups of people that could not be dissuaded from deliberately harming the environment (e.g. for religious reasons), instead of killing them, I and apparently many others think the rest of human society has the capacity and obligation to 'balance' out the damage caused by 'others' through other non lethal means instead (for example proportionally consuming less resources, planting more trees in response to deforestation etc.). I think tycho's definition of speciesism (and sexism and racism) seem different from the one I have. I don't think the 'sexes' are fundamentally equal and deserve the same rights, I think females should be prioritised over men for reproductive rights. I support affirmative action for under-represented minorities to the 'detriment' (vomit) of other groups. I don't think I'm being arbitrary, prejudiced, or seeing false differences (like the ridiculous notion that certain races are less 'intelligent' or whatever than others purely due to 'race' itself and not as a result of culture or a biased view of what constitutes intelligence), thus I don't consider myself (wilfully) sexist or racist as they are usually defined. For the same reasons, I don't consider myself speciesist. If I have different views about different organisms or 'classes' of organisms I am basing these beliefs on reasonable and empirically justifiable differences, not a prejudiced belief in arbitrary or meaningless differences. Put simply I think the capacity for humans to communicate and reason with each other (as well as countless other factors) privileges our species over others, and allows for avenues of interactions that for example are ethical in the human context, but arguably not ethical when applied to non-human animals, and vice versa. As conditions change, I am open to changing my views on ethics if necessary. My final point is that it's really unfair and unwarranted for implications (e.g. from CollegeBaby) that one 'side' of the people engaging in this topic are doing so in bad faith, to force the 'vegan side' to contradict themselves by constructing elaborate and unreasonable conundrums, and to get people to concede that eating hamburgers is fine. I get that these kind of arguments happen a lot, but at least in this topic if there have been arguments made in bad faith and unfairly constructed ethical dilemmas designed to force a contradiction (and now unjustified comparisons with gamergate), it's been mostly from tycho. The whole premise of murdering humans being the same as murdering animals is something I disagree with for reasons i've stated previously, maybe in some imagined scenario proposed by tycho they can be reasonably equated, but that's only relevant to that hypothetical circumstance. My concerns about biodiversity and what constitutes ethical human actions are not based on hypothetical or uncommon situations. My reason for discussing biodiversity in a topic about the ethics of eating animals was in response to the claim that all killing of animals is unethical, and to provide examples of situations were I believe killing should not be considered unethical or at least not condemned. I am not trying to argue that therefore eating meat is right. For me this topic has been interesting for the discussions about biodiversity and the complex interactions of a global ecology, for the unique first hand perspectives provided by people with experience in food production, and for the dietary recommendations and advice for affordable and nutritious vegan food. Thanks for that. I don't have anything more to say that hasn't already been said multiple times and have no interest in continuing this topic with the current climate of discussion. Sorry that this "short" response turned out to be so long again.

This video might get lost in this topic, but it's relevant to shitty family situations, as well as being a really interesting lecture about game design from two of the greats. (relevant section around the 4 minute mark getting into detail around 9 minutes, first minute has no audio) I had no idea what Harvey Smith's life was like growing up, and after hearing about it I had so much empathy, and just found it amazing and inspiring. There's this 'newer' article on RPS that covers some of the same areas, with extra discussion about Dishonored. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/17/unmasked-dishonoreds-harvey-smith/ There's also Harvey's semi-autobiographical fiction novel "Big Jack is Dead" that deals with family issues, and that i've been wanting to read for a while. Sorry for the semi-derail into the "Harvey Smith-worship topic", I just remember coming across the video years ago and feeling an incredible amount of kinship and not feeling like I was alone, hopefully it'll be of help to others too.

So I just heard about Michiko to Hatchin, and it sounds great (bonus syntheticgerbil and Twig thumbs of approval) and I really want to watch it! I haven't watched any anime in ages, I think the last I saw was The Wind Rises and Kick-Heart. Also all the talk about GiTS in the movie thread has convinced me to give Arise a shot. Even if it's not great, it's still cyberpunk, brain hacking, what is reality, bad ass female lead, cool sounding buzzword, post-human society, cyborg, cyberbrain, cyberpunk-noir, cyberblaaaaargh... wear shades at night Steve "Vape" Gaynor in a trench coat I asked for this.

Coincidentally, I just linked the trailer for Whiplash to a friend (who is a classically trained musician, and aspiring musical educator). Somehow it had slipped my mind to do so earlier. It looks like i'll be seeing it a third time if it's still in cinemas next week. It's been interesting seeing the responses from people, especially the ones i've seen the movie with, for example my mum being an apologist for JK Simmons' character (not surprising, but still infuriating, and maybe a bit cathartic). Also returning to Birdman now that there's a bit of distance and i've read a few more critiques of it, it's superficiality is more obvious to me now. It's still impeccably crafted and brilliantly acted though.

I thought that was directed at my line of questioning. Sorry if i'm asking the same qeustions you get all the time from people telling you that veganism is wrong. I don't think outlandishly constructed thought experiments with arbitrarily limited options are very useful for deriving practical ethical principles from either. I hope my questions didn't come across that way, and I tried to choose circumstances that I think are relatively common and mundane. My intent was not to force any contradiction or 'win' a debate, but rather to provide examples for the reasons why I think the ethics of killing animals is not an absolute. Just so I am clear, I DO think killing animals is unethical, but I also think there are many(?) common scenarios where killing animals IS ethical (or at least not unethical if that distinction needs to be made). Aside - I was tempted to go on a lengthy post about cannibalism, but realised that wouldn't amount to much more than intellectual masturbation, and i've done plenty of that already.

Is Arise any good? Twig's "all right" sounds more like a shrug than confirmation that it will blow me away. Rinko Kikuchi (Pacific Rim) seems pretty popular in fancasting for the Major. If race wasn't an issue (vomit) Emily Blunt would be cool seeing how badass and muscular she was in Edge of Tomorrow, which funnily enough is another semi-whitewashed adaptation

Fliping this around, would killing invasive species of animals that are ecologically damaging (e.g. rabbits and cats in Australia) be ethically right? I would argue yes, since unlike most humans, you can't ask a rabbit to restrict their diet or move to a location that is more ecologically sustainable. Minimising suffering is an understandable criteria for ethical behaviour, my question then is would anaesthetised killing be therefore fine? I'm hesitant to answer that definitively or to draw conclusions about ethics from it. If killing animals for 'food' is wrong does that mean it would be right for human intervention to prevent omnivorous animals from killing prey? Ultimately the heuristics that I find most useful and tenable for constructing ethical guidelines are based on a consideration of the ecological effects of human (or animal) behaviour, rather than arguing from the position that 'animals' and 'humans' have fundamentally equal rights. Humans are a predatory species with no higher predators, or competitive rival species. The only way to mitigate the damage we cause is through systemic self regulation (such as consuming less meat as an entire species), or catastrophe. I'm open to the (very unlikely) possibility of a future scenario where some other animal instead of humans are the main source of ecological damage, and would be 'fine' with killing if that was the only solution.

$2 a day? Could you share your secrets please. I'm broke and starving most of the time

I think it's important to point out that excluding meat from your diet and finding plant based substitutes for nutrients isn't always the most ecologically friendly/sustainable thing to do, if you take into account the ecological costs of importing a certain plant produce may in some cases outweigh the costs of a meat produce that is local. I just want to point out that it's a bit more complicated than 'meat is always bad environmentally speaking' (although yeah, pretty much). Entomophagy (an insectivorous diet) has been shown to be more ecologically sustainable and having high nutritional density. Technically it's still meat but I think many people have different ethical/cultural views about insects compared to other animals.

I was under the impression that the non-legality of cannabis has hindered a lot of potential research into its effects and possible medical uses, at least in Australia. My brother has severe epilepsy which hasn't responded to any of the medication he's been prescribed for the past 19 years. The story about the 5 year old girl is amazing, but what would be better is if proper scientific research on marijuana was even allowed to take place. Strictly speaking, 'Schedule 9' drugs may be used for research purposes in Australia, but we're still lagging behind countries like the US and UK when it comes to actual clinical trials because anti-cannabis views are so entrenched amongst many politicians. The intersection between the criminal justice-prison industrial complex, racism, poverty, and whole bunch of other stuff, makes for a good argument for decriminalisation. But if I'm being realistic with my expectations (and by that I mean pessimistic), I think the political focus will just shift to some other thing that can be exploited to preserve the fucked up status quo of our societies if cannabis does become legal. It also boggles my mind that much of 'mainstream' US politics is so strongly anti-'gun control' whilst simultaneously being pro-'cannabis prohibition'. (If this gets spun off into a separate topic about gun control, i'm blaming Zeus )