i wasn't crying censorship before, but i'm noticing that a lot of my posts disappear when i log out. meaning only i can see them. see, that's sneaky - it means i don't actually know that i'm being censored.
and that i don't know how long i've been being censored for.
listen: i don't want my content on somebody else's channel. that was never my intent. my intent was always to have a feed of content. comments are content.
the cross-link was just incredibly useful.
i've explained this already: i'll be vlogging my comments. yes, it's stupid. but, don't look at me, i'm just adjusting to a stupid system.
but, i'm not just figuring out that the videos are down and the content is evaporated - i'm figuring out that i'm not getting posts through. it's pretty random. and, when something like this is random there are two possible causes:
1) error. which is exceedingly unlikely. this is youtube.
2) active censorship.
i wanted to avoid that conclusion. i really did. but it's unavoidable.
i've been posting comments here for the last several months, hardlinked to google. flip through the page (or the koalas page), open a few links and tell me - how many of the links bring you somewhere other than the comment they're hardcoded to?
it's probably not google, exactly.
google has probably allowed full control over my profile to somebody at some ministry of information.
i'm not sure if my status as a canadian gives me more or less rights, here.
if hillary clinton wanted a lock on the female vote, maybe she shouldn't have spent the better part of the last ten years proving to wall street that she's a war criminal.
it boggles my mind that anybody could look at her foreign policy record and suggest it's an asset. it's the cock-swinging, testosterone-addled, old boys network status quo.
hillary is every bit as rough and tumble and morally bankrupt as any of the other boys that are running.
and, she tried really, really hard to make sure we all understand this.
i don't see somebody that made tough choices.
i see somebody that made a lot of wrong choices - and who won't retreat from those wrong choices, let alone even admit they were even wrong.
gloria steinam is whatever. but, madeline albright's endorsement isn't exactly a gold ticket if you're looking for female voters.
why not just call up thatcher's ghost while you're at it?
hopefully, this is the last time i say this.
hillary has some experience. but it doesn't qualify her for the job so much as it disqualifies her for the job.
you don't just have to have been in the room. you have to have also had good ideas. and, if you were in the room and had bad ideas? that means your experience is evidence that you're a bad choice.
if you're looking to promote a head chemist, and somebody comes in with a long resume that includes a five year stint running a building that burned down three times, that experience is not an asset - it's a reason to disqualify the candidacy.
it's one thing to question why nobody has explained this to her.
it's another thing to point out that she actually needs it explained to her, as though she has no idea of the disastrous (catastrophic, really) long term implications of her department's policies in libya and syria.
ask smiley dmitri about that.
the removal of ghadaffi put russian-amerian relations back decades, and for no good reason.
it was a political stunt to make her look "tough".
you think that deserves a promotion?
i don't. i think it bars her from consideration for future office.
i'm not posting any more about the us election; i'm talking over my head, and trying to apply logic in ways that maybe aren't the best. what i'm saying ought to make sense, anyways. in the end, it might not..
but, i'm going to post a quick summary as to what i understand, first.
1) the banks have abandoned the democrats. they're keeping hillary around, as a contingency plan. but, if they had any intent on really using the democratic party as a vehicle, they would have run after her hard - and we wouldn't be talking about bernie sanders. there may have even be some insiders quietly hoping for a sanders nomination, as it might have been thought easier.
2) they had a lot invested in bush. but, he's getting steamrolled by a push of independents making a run on the party to straight-arm trump through. the biggest tactical error appears to have been bush' refusal to engage in new media. this is the first major evidence that nobody watches network tv anymore.
3) the banks reacted with rubio, but he just ended up splitting the moderate vote and furthering splintering the field. a clash of egos developed over pushing cruz or rubio that has yet to be resolved. but, it's all based on the flawed premise that trump was beating bush on the right. this is actually allowing trump to control the center, as bush fades into obscurity and the banks attach themselves to the unelectable right.
logic suggests that if anybody can clean up the center, they should win. and the obvious choice to do this is bush. but it's not happening, and it seems to be a combination of obviously failed candidates sticking around for far too long (and all thinking they can pull off the same end around) with an outdated media attack by the establishment centrist candidate.
as more and more time goes on, it's becoming clearer and clearer that trump is going to win this - not by controlling the fringes but by controlling the center. and, this is going to hurt turnout for the republicans in the general.
hillary then becomes the establishment candidate - despite being thrown away for the seventh time leading up to it. but, if they wait too long to come to her rescue, she could be out of it herself.
and, then somebody gets assassinated.
logic still says that when the field narrows one last time, bush ought to get a bump - and that it's time for a change in letter.
but, this combination of trump screwing everything up and, quite frankly, incompetence in the establishment could very well blow the whole thing open.
i think we can probably reduce the whole thing to a big choice. if bush steps down, what do they do? do they shower the cash on cruz and forget about hillary altogether? because then trump wins the nomination, and sanders gets a fighting chance, too.
if they cut their losses and go full in on hillary, she wins in a landslide. but, that's plan F - remember.
i'm not sure trump even has to win to get assassinated.
black people don't like jews for the same reason that evangelicals don't like jews - for the precise reason that blacks are disproportionately religious. that's an established thing, and it has little to do with the political positions on the ground. which is a shame. i mean, he had to be a jew, right? i know - i'm blaming the wrong side. but, still.
latinos are less concerned about this because they're catholics and they view protestants and jews as roughly interchangeable heretics.
sanders will do better in latino states than in black states.
1) sanders has an incomparably better record.
2) sanders' policies will benefit blacks far more than hillary's.
the logical choice is sanders. and smart blacks are right to be befuddled by the polling.
but, there's not any logic in christian jew-hating. it's ancient. it doesn't go away. and, there's little point in wasting resources trying to break through it.
the stuff about clinton being popular amongst blacks due to her record is...can we get some real scrutiny on this?
what are they referencing, exactly? for-profit prisons? three strike laws? the drug war? welfare reform?
obama got something absurd like 97% of the black vote. she can't be too entrenched.
i don't think this is a pro-clinton thing. i think it's an anti-jew thing, and the media is avoiding it for what it is.
and, that's probably exactly what it is - bank propaganda.
but, there's nobody that cruz is going to swing that isn't going to prefer trump. trump is more of an "outsider". he's more of a populist. and, he's more of a moderate, too. trump has him completely dominated on every point.
the only demographic that cruz might swing is the super-hard evangelical right. and, by doing that, he alienates himself.
i know: i'm a canadian. i'm not going to pretend that i understand american conservatism. i don't. it's totally foreign and alien and weird to me.
but there's a point where looney is looney and it's just clear. cruz is an unelectable candidate. when you line cruz and trump up, it's not cruz that looks better - it's trump that looks better.
that carson/kasich/bush split is going to kill all of them, if it doesn't fix itself. carson was never a serious candidate; that almost comes off as a protest vote. and, bush, still, somehow, seems to be losing the serious votes to kasich.
again: they need to work something out, or they're going to nominate trump. and, if they do, that probably means electing hillary.
that 25% split is enough to be competitive if it can coalesce, and the confused media narrative has probably resulted in rubio's vote splitting in half when he pulls out. that's still 30%+ on the moderate side. and, then trump collapses.
but, this collusion needs to hurry up and actually happen.
cruz and trump are both so bad that that sane third could very well abstain, or even vote for hillary.
see, in canada this would be almost a non-issue because everybody has a health card. although it was made one. but, there's no use in going over that demagoguery, because the bill was demagoguery from the beginning. really.
the bill is obviously designed to make it harder for poor people to vote. not black people, exactly. this is a class-based policy, it's just that poverty is racialized. so, the canadian conservatives tossed it at their base - despite the fact that everybody in canada really does have id, because we all have health cards. then, the liberals went after the conservatives for making it harder for people to vote, which is the impression it gave off, because it's what the conservatives were pretending they were doing.
she's not lying; she's been lied to, and she doesn't have the education to work through it.
she doesn't know who malcolm x or huey newton or eldridge cleaver are, and she couldn't tell you karl marx from thomas jefferson. it's not that she doesn't understand that the black panthers were more about class than race, it's that she doesn't know a damned thing about the black panthers at all. she's just pushing forward a scripted presentation of things....
she goes back to these talking points and screams them loudly, because that's the sum total of what she understands about the situation.
it would have been a lot more useful if they had brought out whomever wrote the lines on the teleprompter, instead.
the lesson is not to bother going on her show - it's better to just point out that she's a muppet from a distance.
i've been running a vlog for a few months, now. back in november, i was filming myself walking through downtown detroit - it was just meant to get an ambient concept of my living conditions. i happened to walk by a bar that was playing beat it, in the background. totally accidental. yet, sony claimed the entire video and wouldn't budge on it. i had no desire to fight it, so i just reuploaded with the section cut out.
but, think about the ramifications. suppose you're recording a conversation of you and a friend in a bar, and your camera picks up the radio. it would seem that the rights holder for the song on the radio would take over monetization for the entire video - regardless of how inconsequentially background it is.
there's no algorithm for copyright law. they need to have people involved.
i just quit smoking, but this video has caused me to reconsider. cats are the greatest cancer upon the planet. so, the idea that smoking may eliminate cats from the internet is the best pro-smoking argument that i've heard, yet.
but, seriously: blocking all cats from the internet is a worthwhile goal. i don't even mind spam, much, compared to cats. if somebody could at least figure out a firefox add-on called catblock, we'd be getting somewhere. and that would actually be relatively simple, if we could convince the purveyors of feline idiocy to tag their cancer properly. but, that's not likely, because the people that post pictures of their glorified rodents tend to have absolutely no respect for others.
update: i have less than a year of posts to clear out of youtube.
but, that's just part one of a three or four part process.
it's slow. but necessary. and i need to be clear: i'm done with the youtube comments section, once i'm done.
the koala central command would like to request your help in tracking down our prime fugitive, deathtokoalas.
we have managed to take over her page and will soon have succeeded in erasing all of her comments. our koalas are hard at work in accomplishing this task. however, she, herself, remains at large.
this individual has recently changed her name and identity. she is considered armed with wit and dangerous to communicate with, so please approach (verbally) with caution.
we believe that she will continue to communicate from the following known pseudonyms:
recent polling for bush seems unusually bad - this is south carolina - and i'm not budging. but i want to point out that trump seems to be attracting a lot of independents that may not normally involve themselves in a republican primary. that was an ingredient of obama's win in '08.
bush does need to get a bounce and pretty soon. and, he needs to cut a deal with kasich yesterday.
it's inconceivable how rubio or cruz can win this - they're simply too right wing. as i've pointed out before, it makes trump look moderate in comparison. that's what is happening, and what everybody needs to understand. the field people are seeing is rubio and cruz on the right and trump in the center. so, they're picking trump.
it's insane. it can't possibly sustain itself. americans are stupid, sure, but they're not this bad. they cannot possibly settle on trump as the moderate/centrist republican. it's insane. but, as long as the banks keep pushing these right-wing blowhards (and the field stays split) it's the only outcome.
i remain convinced that kasich and bush are the only serious candidates, and that you can more or less forget about cruz and rubio - they're not serious candidates. they're too right-wing, even for primary voters. but, you can't write off trump the same way. rather, the harder the banks work to push the right (rubio/cruz) instead of the center (bush), the more trump seems certain to win.
the field has narrowed a little. but, it seems like he's not getting through.
if both bush and kasich drop, trump will coast to the win. in landslides.
trump will blow out rubio or cruz, head to head.
but, he'd lose to bush.
stated tersely: it seems like the banks are really fucking this up, and trump is really throwing a wrench in the whole thing. hillary is plan F, and she might not get through, either.
i mean, the root of the problem is not trump. he's an idiot. he shouldn't be running circles around goldman sachs like this. the problem is a terrible analysis by the banks, combined with what looks like nepotism in pushing through cruz.
now, they've got moderates split between bush and rubio, the right split between rubio and cruz and independents and populists coming out in droves for trump. they keep shifting directions and spinning around and falling over trying to react to trump, but it's not due to any brilliance in tactic - it's because he's incoherent.
the last time i saw something this bad was the liberal party of canada try to beat stephen harper. they couldn't figure it out. people concluded harper was a genius. but, in truth it was the liberals that kept running bad candidates and taking incomprehensible positions. they finally beat him with a little of his own medicine.
it's too late to find the anti-trump. the closest thing in the spectrum is sanders, and you're really better off floating trump a deal than thinking you can buy out sanders.
i still think bush is the guy. and, he got what he needed to get the bounce. but, now he needs to actually convert logic into votes.
and, if he can't?
president donald trump.
take a good look at that.
you want to know another good example of this kind of dynamic?
the soviets v. reagan.
the american right gives reagan credit for ending the cold war. it's of course nonsense. but, they are right in pointing out that reagan caused the soviets to stand down.
it wasn't due to brilliant tactical choices, though. it was precisely the opposite. after decades of rational analysis, game theory, mad and the like, the soviets came up against something they couldn't react to - an irrational actor.
they could no longer predict behaviour with any certainty, because they no longer had any faith in the inherent rationality of their opponent.
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i just want to point out that, in line with what i'm doing to wipe my profile down, i'm removing access to subscriber stats. and, i'd hide the hit counts, too, if i could.
see, the lesson i'm walking away from this with may not be what you're expecting. i learned that my previous approach generated what i'm suggesting is the wrong kind of interest.
what does wrong interest mean?
well, i still have 350 subscribers at the koala profile. there were at most five people (i think less) that followed me to the vlog site. i'm not selling units. these are people that are neither interested in my music nor my opinions. they seem to have really just liked my hair. i'm honestly not exaggerating.
i don't want to generate a group of followers that like my hair. i know that this is a thing that people do, but it's really kind of scary for me to think about. i don't have profiles at flickr or snapshot or whatever is being used nowadays for pictures. instagram? i don't even know what the sites are.
i write essays. i write symphonies. i've recently gotten into the habit of recording myself ranting. but, i don't do modelling - and i really don't want to, either. sorry. it's just not what i want to be selling.
so, by taking that information out altogether, i can avoid these kinds of people and avoid these kinds of conversations.
everybody will tell me i'm wrong. but, if you follow my reasoning, i'm actually right for exactly the reasons they claim i'm wrong. deductions require assumptions. and, if you change your assumptions in certain ways, you can sometimes modify your conclusions without recalculating anything.
i just wanted to make it clear that this was done on purpose, and that i'm hiding the information to reject the issue altogether, rather than to hide what the stats actually are.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
it will be interesting to see whether or not all that pacific moisture can overpower the reduction of solar energy driving the expanded vortex, or if 2016 ends up cooler than 2015 despite the record el nino. we're really caught between two extremes, right now. let's hope the tornado season is less than catastrophic...
i just want to point out that it was at this point that i can trace the beginning of a decrease in my hit count. the changes in youtube have not helped and make it almost impossible to reverse the problem. but, this is the real root cause of the decline.
i talk about this in the vlog for feb 13th. but, it's very disappointing - depressing, really - to truly be cognizant of what has actually happened...
my metrics were consistently increasing up to this point. i peaked at over 3000 hits in october - substantial, and enough to think i'm growing and am breaking through something. yet, by the middle of 2015, my hits were cut down to almost nothing. what happened?
well, it seems as though people were not actually interested in what i was typing. rather, people were interested in my profile picture.
i consciously picked that profile picture because it was a "bad shot" - i was very badly hungover. i liked the irony of this, in juxtaposition to the world of fake media images. it was a kind of fuck you to selfie culture.
but, it became it's own fake media image. i had dozens of comments directed at it. the reaction that was most instructive was to point out that the nature of the commentary fit the picture well - and this is why the hit count increased so much, and i ended up with so many upvotes on my comments. it wasn't that what i said affected anybody, or caused anybody to think about anything. people weren't indicating any kind of actual solidarity. it was merely that people found my picture amusing, and wanted to see it near the top of the comments. it didn't really matter what i was saying, so long as it vaguely fit their preconception of what they imagined i ought to be saying.
other comments, in hindsight, were more illuminating than i realized: suggestions that i look "emo", or "black metal", for example. this was both completely wrong and entirely void of any substance - it was merely extrapolated from the fact that i was hungover. it seems that a false perception of who i am was projected from the image, and it was that false projection that was getting upvoted and generating views.
it also generated negative comments. much of this was at a low level of discourse - crude insults that can be broadly summarized as claims that i was "ugly", and often in ways that forced me to research terms i hadn't seen before. this was annoying, but it wasn't what forced me to change the profile picture.
what forced me to change was the misgendering. you can imagine how that might be irritating. i didn't upload the picture thinking that it made me look "emo" or "metal" or anything of the sort. rather, i thought it just made me look like a hungover female with a overactive gothic dye job. i really didn't need or want this kind of abuse.
so, i changed the profile picture to a more recent shot of me as a blonde with a bit of lipstick. my intent was to prevent me from being misgendered. and, this seems to have worked.
in the process, the false projection of me as "emo" or "metal" or whatever it is that people made out of the black dye job and hungover eyes [in truth, i mostly listen to instrumental music, although i once listened to a lot of socal punk, which is how i dress - tshirts, jeans and minimal makeup] evaporated. as people were more interested in how i looked than what i thought, the attention that i was generating dried up. i also think that my newly unambiguous self-gendering alienated young girls that thought i was cute as much as it alienated dudes that found out that i was actually seriously queer, not just faggy in a metal kind of way.
again: i've never liked metal. i don't even really like rock music, in the broadest sense. the only rock music i've ever liked is some early psych and the anti-rock strains of punk/post-punk and grunge. rock culture has always sickened me. i'm a very bookish nerd. i'd rather hang out in the library.
i have a degree in mathematics. i've studied deep into degrees in physics, computer science and law.
nerd. total. and, not afraid of stating it.
but, that's not what my hungover picture suggested. and, so, everything came crashing down when i changed it....
i don't regret this change, and i would do it again. rather, i think i learned an important lesson. i thought people were actually interested in what i had to say about things - that admittedly surprised me, and i should be less naive about things as i move forward.
in the broader scope of things, it doesn't do me any good to get thousands of purely social-media level hits from young girls that are misgendering me (and would be freaked out to actually see me) or guys that i'd never talk to. the truth is that i'd rather have friend-level conversations with those girls and get hit on by those guys (if they're old enough). the reality of everything being backwards was not useful to me in getting an image out. it was, and may unfortunately remain for some time, much more of a hindrance to me.
and, did i even want to get an image out? was i gunning for subscribers and views? the truth is that i didn't ever care. i wanted people to listen to my music. and, neither teenage girls nor metalhead/emo guys are (on average) going to be interested in listening to my blender rock.
moving forwards, i should perhaps target my audience a little bit more carefully. it was maybe pointless to bother posting insults on the emo band's site, as nobody interested in who i am or what i do is going to post there. i should perhaps be focusing more on music that i actually like and less on trends that i do not. my discography channel will deal with this, while my vlog channel will focus more on my ideas and opinions of things.
the reality is that this is all still experimental. there's no understood model. and, in a real sense, i'm trying to accomplish the impossible. i get all of this. but, i've learned a few things along the way and hope that i can apply them.
but, it was the profile pic change that killed me. and, that's a really sad reflection of society - style meant everything, substance meant nothing.
“It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this,” Mr. Bush said.
“Jeb is so wrong; Jeb is absolutely,” Mr. Trump said, before being cut off by boos from the audience. “You’ve got to fight ISIS first,” he added. “You have to knock them off strong.”
trump has clearly not been briefed. and, jeb is right. but, how does jeb find the forum to explain this? and, will it help him if he does?
they kind of have themselves to blame for this, though.
trump has absolutely no idea what he's even saying. there's no use in even debating with him; he just doesn't have enough of a grasp on the issues. educated people can see that. but, in a very real sense? trump is repeating the propaganda that people are supposed to be repeating, which is helping him seem more relatable.
so, there's a deeper problem here. it came up with obama a bit, too - although i'm still not sure what the deal with obama really is. it's an open question as to whether obama was clueless or pretending to be clueless. he seems to have been a very fast learner, if he was really that clueless - he got briefed pretty quick. the military plan was not altered. wolfowitz is basically still running things, has been the whole time. guantanomo is even still kicking. it was all total bullshit.
so, he either did exactly what he was told, or it was all a subtle ploy - and he was basically working from the inside.
see, we think it's reasonable to suggest that kiril is kgb, but we think it's crazy to suggest that obama was cia. but, it's really occam's razor, actually.
trump? no. he's just fucking clueless. and, it's not at all clear he'll snap into line if he wins. so, what happens? change of policies? probably not, actually.
assassination, actually.
and nobody wants that. not really.
it's a lot easier if bush just wins the nomination.
but, in the long run?
the propaganda needs some adjustment. i've been saying this for years. it's not even believable. it hasn't been, the whole time. it's just insulting. and, look at the blowback, now.
might it make more sense to just be honest about it?
this section is going to be expanding in the upcoming weeks to include reading written comments.
i would prefer to write replies to comments. i express myself better in the written form, and just generally prefer communication in that way. but, youtube does not seem to recognize a comment as content and has consequently done everything it can to reduce the level of discourse in the comment section. it's come to the point where i feel that i have so little control that it's not worth bothering with.
so, any comments that i would like to make will be made in this medium instead. or, at least, they will be until google decides to reintegrate a workable comment system into youtube.
but, of course - feel free to comment on my page in writing. i will reciprocate.
it's just that i need to get all of my writing off of other peoples' videos. that's apparently what youtube wants, so it's what it's getting...
Saturday, February 13, 2016
i'd just like to remind people that this is my only twitter profile, and that other twitter profiles (and any and all gaming profiles) belong to somebody else.
detecting a microscopic ripple from a binary star two billion light years away?
forgive me, captain. but, that's an irrational amount of faith to put in the equipment. and, it's a lot of faith to put in peer review, too. it was just a few months ago that they thought they found a tachyon and couldn't figure out the error.
i'm not exactly rejecting anything. i'm just less than impressed by the premise.
imagine skipping a pebble across a pond. you're going to see circular waves expand outwards. so long as nothing interferes with those waves, they should continue indefinitely.
but, it took two billion years for this energy to get to us. pretty smooth sailing, don't you think?
but, they've isolated for every known interference - it can't be anything else that we understand. so, it must be what we were looking for, right?
see, that there is what we call a logical fallacy.
listen: i'm not rejecting the results. i'm just not exactly accepting them, either.
all hail our koala overlords!
Friday, February 12, 2016
bush may not win, but he will get more delegates than trump in the end. wait for it.
now that christie and fiorina are both out, expect to see bush jump by 5-10 points across the polling spectrum.
once that stabilizes a little, expect to see moderate republicans move from trump to bush due to the tea party no longer being seen as an existential threat to the party.
you have to understand that this is the major reason that trump is polling well: he's not a tea party candidate. and, thus, when compared to the hard right candidates like rubio and cruz, trump comes across as a moderate.
that's why trump is hitting bush rather than cruz. he knows who the serious candidate is.
the two serious candidates right now are bush and kasich, and it doesn't seem like kasich has much of a chance right now south of the mason-dixon line.
if big money has it's way, it's going to pick cruz. he's the insider guy. but, the voters don't actually want that kind of social darwinism.
what bush needed was for the field to narrow. and, if he can find a way to force kasich to drop, then he's a walk to the finish line.
i mean, you gotta understand that a big part of what i'm doing right now is saving the comments before they disappear, rather than deleting them.
almost everything on youtube will eventually be deleted. when google+ and youtube were integrated, that didn't matter - the comments remained on google+. even when the video was removed. i would not have moved here, otherwise.
but, now there's a link to "view comments on youtube" that just goes to a 404.
if i don't do this, i will lose all of the comments.
and, so why keep commenting here at all?
like, i need to be clear.
i haven't lost a couple of comments.
i've lost hundreds of threads - many that carried on for months, with dozens of people.
hundreds of pages worth of writing.
hours - days, weeks - of my time.
and, i'm not happy about that.
if you're a heavy user of the comment section on youtube, take a flip through your google+ profile. it's no doubt a bloodbath.
this isn't a safe place to type.
so, it's kind of wrongheaded for you to think i'm destroying my profile.
i'm saving my writing.
i've cleared off the first six months of 2014. and, even with the dozens of threads that i've lost, it's over 280 pages. that suggests i should get over a thousand pages off by the time i'm done - and that i've lost who knows how much.
what i'll say, at least, is that most of what i've lost seems to be related to album discussions rather than politics. i'm not crying persecution or anything. i'm not being targeted. it was just incredible incompetence on the programming side of things, and it's left me with absolutely no confidence in the platform.
again: up until a point in late august, 2015, videos going down did not delete the comments. so, comments could be made safely at youtube with the understanding that they would be archived at google+. with no warning that i received, the products were separated at the snap of a finger and all of the archived comments were deleted. these were comments that the previous system had safely stored in the google+ profiles, even though the videos were down.
the reality is that the separation deleted large amounts of google+ content.
i've been posting hyperlinks at google+ since, waiting for a youtube comment feed to appear. it's not happening. so, i'm cutting my losses and getting out.
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
may 16, 2014
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech Why? I know 4 months but why? deathtokoalas this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted. TheVanillatech +deathtokoalas Still, why..... XD deathtokoalas +TheVanillatech i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups... but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months. i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open. it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation.
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. and, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
human nature. orderly universe. yawn. it's all nonsense.
guy's stuck in the nineteenth century. burkean conservatism rather than neo-liberalism. that's just level two of your typical christian ignorance - and is just as easily debunked.
we live in a world that is chaotic and unpredictable - defined by imperfect causality, probability distributions and thick error bars. newtonianism has always been a caricature. in four hundred years, all we've really learned about how to solve the n-body problem is that the closer you get, the more bodies you have to add - that the entire idea of an n-body problem is naive.
newton should no longer be taught in high school. sure: it's useful for engineers. but, the broader philosophical ramifications are too problematic.
forget it. leave him in the past with aristotle. start the kids off with modern physics.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
so, this is now my vlog page and it's where i'm commenting on current events and shit as well. but, the following page may be of more interest to you.
it won't be of frequent use, but it will be solely focused on my record collection - old music that i've at some point actually bought.
as i'm going through and archiving posts one by one, i'm running across some videos that are set to "private". i cannot access these discussions.
this is different than videos that have been deleted or profiles that have been removed. unfortunately, google fucked this up. before it disentangled youtube from google, those posts could be read on google+ - even if the videos had been deleted. now, they've been removed along with the videos.
part of the reason i moved to youtube was because i liked the integration. part of the reason i'm moving out is that the separation makes the platform useless. as these posts come down, the comments will disappear and become unrecoverable. so, what's the point of making them?
examples of destroyed content:
1) i had a long discussion about punk rock on a video for death. this was permanently destroyed when the video was taken down on copyright infringement.
2) i had a long discussion about language on a video for la dispute. destroyed, in a copyright takedown.
so, why would i continue to use the platform when i know the content will eventually be destroyed?
i'm going to put out a public request that the videos set to private are temporarily republished (and i'm informed of it) so that i can get the conversation out. as the page strips down, these posts set to private will reveal themselves as all that is left.
i'm not going to be able to recover any of this.
another thing that's happening repeatedly is that threads that i muted have evaporated altogether.
as a consequence of all of this, i've actually made the decision to refrain from using the comments section at all. google/youtube does not seem to have the slightest interest in developing the platform as a permanent record. to be frank, i'm not sure what the point of having comments is at all if the author is to lose all their content at the whim of somebody else.
once this page is wiped down, i will be commenting entirely on my own site - and those comments will be sent out solely through rss.
please follow my lead on this. let's decentralize...
i'm not going to pretend that i thought the move to google/youtube would be permanent. but, it's absolutely inconceivable - and totally unacceptable - to have entire conversations disappear like this.
i mean, imagine waking up and finding out that half of your facebook profile had just disappeared because of copyright claims. or that all of the tweets that you made about a specific topic have evaporated.
they had a good idea in integrating. it's not up to me to tell them how to run their network, either. but, the way they separated the two products was a disaster.
i would have never moved here if it wasn't for the integration - i want a feed of my comments. and, i gave them some time to work it out. but it's not being fixed. so, i'm out of here.
the socialization of production renders independence impossible. that's the first fucking page of the book of communism.
see, the results are still early, but it's easy too see what i'm saying.
suppose there were only three candidates: rubio/cruz, trump and one of the others. let's say bush.
the math of just combining everybody is of course perilous. but, it's hard to see how the argument is otherwise. would kasich or christie supporters pick rubio over bush? highly doubtful.
so, given the numbers at 8:11, you'd have:
bush: 41.9 trump: 34.5 rubio: 21.3
once you do that, trump begins to fall apart - because the people that were backing him to block the tea party now have a better candidate. what's left are independents and idiots. and, it doesn't take long for bush to run away with it.
in the end, it may not be bush. it might be kasich. it won't be fiorina or carson. it probably won't be christie. but, it's these people that aren't getting coverage that are the actual serious candidates - so long as most of them drop out.
even if only christie and fiorina drop out and bush and kasich split the difference, it forces the right of the party to make a choice between rubio and cruz in order for one of them to remain competitive.
the comment section in this video is a veritable two-minutes of hate.
ol' dubya has always made me sad more than he's made me angry. it's partly because you could see it coming so clearly. but, something that's even more depressing and even more disturbing is that all three of the major candidates on the republican side (trump, cruz, rubio) make bush look like a kitty kat.
and, they make his brother seem outright electable, in comparison.
let's pick a topical tune at least, guys.
i'm not sure when the primary starts announcing results, but i want to make a few comments about trump. can he actually win?
well, if the republican field doesn't narrow pretty soon, he sure will. but, let's not be confused about what the "lanes" are.
the media keeps putting rubio in the "establishment lane". this is really some kind of hilarious slip-up, indicating that they're viewing their role pretty actively. "establishment" isn't an issue, or a place on the spectrum. it's a source of funding that indicates this guy doesn't care about you.
so, there is no "establishment lane".
there is a "tea party lane". that lane has cruz and rubio in it. they are each other's competition. one will absorb the other. it's also the "goldman sachs lane".
there is a "trump lane". he pays his own tolls. and, he's ringing his own bells, too.
then there is the "moderate lane" and just about everybody else is in it.
in order to beat trump, what the republican party needs pretty soon is to have the race narrowed down to a candidate from each of these lanes. the media gets this part right. but it seems to want to put rubio in the moderate lane, thereby actually making trump the most moderate candidate. which is horribly fucked up. but, what's really going on here?
my guess is that they wanted to initially go with rubio, but cruz pulled some strings. or his wife did. so cruz took his place as the bankers' darling. but, rubio is still on the pay roll. so, rather than throw him away, they're floating him as a "moderate".
despite the reality that he's off the spectrum.
it's cruz' wife that will need to take the blame when this whole thing collapses and trump pulls away by cementing moderate support, which rejects rubio as too extreme. because, that's what they're trying to do: run cruz on the right and rubio in the centre. but they're both on the lunatic fringe, in terms of policies. leaving trump as the least insane option.
so, can the rest of the field pull together? my money is on bush. the top three in new hampshire are going to be the same as in iowa, but it doesn't matter - it's whomever comes in fourth that really matters, and who needs to convince everybody else to step down.
if they can walk into the next primary with a reduced four candidate field, trump will bleed to the moderate and it's just a matter of time before the moderate eventually catches up - forcing the right to pick between rubio and cruz. and, then it's a two-way race - with trump reduced to irrelevancy under the challenge of a united party.
but, if they keep the field split, then that vote never coalesces and trump wins by default - because he's less scary than rubio or cruz.
whatever happens, i think it needs to be acknowledged that trump has irreversibly altered the nature of american politics.
the attack ads against him paint him as somebody that essentially has no political ideology. and, he doesn't seem to be really upset about it. and, voters don't seem to be, either.
this idea that money runs politics has been well understood by everybody for a long time. but, candidates reject these accusations as slurs.
trump seems to actually take pride in it. and, nobody seems to really be outraged or shocked by it. it's hard to see how that gets put back in the tube, now that it's out.
the solution to problems created by drugs is of course more drugs.
it's those lobby groups. they're crafty.
streaming media sites like spotify are not the future of independent music. rather, what i'm doing at this very moment - telling you to buy a couple of my records or to stop wasting my time, to fuck off and to stop following me on the internet - is the future of independent music.
as consumers, you have a choice to keep art alive. if you choose not to do this, the era of art as an accessible product for middle class consumption will end. the era of consumption will end, altogether.
this is the future that the internet is leading us towards:
Music is banned in Khomeini's Iran On the grounds that it stimulates the brain We've done him one better in the land of coke & honey using music to put people's brains to sleep
Ever wonder why commercial radio's so bad? It's 'cause someone upstairs wants it that way If the Doors or John Lennon were getting started now The industry wouldn't sign 'em in a million years
So what do we get GOVERNMENT MUSIC Christian censorship and taxed blank tapes Shoppers strung out on our false hopes Will flock to obey
i've got a start on wiping the old deathtokoalas profile. the videos are all gone. the truth is that it's going to be a while.
the documentary that they're "debunking" is obviously flat out ridiculous. the fact that this could even get published is astounding. but, i mean, we're talking about a country where over 90% of people are theists. it's a level of gullibility that should only seem shocking outside of context.
but, i've never seen this argument presented to me in terms of architecture magic in the first place. meaning that i'm kind of taking this as tearing down a strawman. i mean, it's great that you've "debunked" the claims that aliens made the pyramids via levitating rocks. that's a relief. really. but, it was hardly the go-to argument in the first place.
i haven't finished watching this, yet. but i do hope that it at least mentions the elijah story. it's the comparative mythology that this discussion needs to be centered around, not outlandish and easily debunked claims about hauling rocks around.
i know i said i'd be quiet about tactics regarding the americana part of this, and i am going to be quiet, and you should thank me for being quiet. but, the foreign policy thing?
there's not a democrat in the country that is really excited about carrying on the obama foreign policy. it's actually laughable that clinton sees her time as secretary as some kind of asset. she was an absolute disaster, and it should be spun around as a weapon against her.
nobody wants continuity in foreign policy. throwing the neo-cons that obama brought in out on their ear is a great idea, and people will be highly receptive to it. this is actually something you can use in your favour: do we want four more years of bush-obama neo-con foreign policy, or do we want a new approach?
everybody wants a new approach. you'll even swing conservatives in the general, on this.
see, it's kind of a shame. because i actually kind of wish the old hillary was actually a candidate. even the old hillary was well to my right, granted. but, it's pretty lonely out here. and, i know i need to compromise in making voting decisions.
i legitimately could have voted for the old hillary. not the new one, though.
if she manages to win this thing, you could see historically low levels of turnout - if a third party doesn't appear in the vacuum. it could take turnout well under 50%.
deathtokoalas +D'Ascoyne well, i suppose that very few people intentionally give themselves strokes by overdosing on cocaine.
D'Ascoyne +deathtokoalas Didn't you watch the video? It wasn't a drug overdose! She fell and injured her neck during a photo shoot.
deathtokoalas +D'Ascoyne i bet she had mono in high school, too.
i think we need to dispel with this notion that marco rubio has any idea what he's doing.
actually, my initial impression is that the guy in the van is drunk and the people on the street are doing everything they can to get him out of the car - especially after the first smash.
i mean, if you watched somebody you know get into a car while shitfaced and then proceed to ram into a basically parked car? you'd rush the car like that, too. you might even punch the guy in the head to knock him out.
this is completely irrelevant.
what's next, beyonce? a concept record about the iraq war? or, to be more precise: a celebration of capitalist excess, with random and disconnected images from the iraq war?
i can see it. booty dancing through abu ghraib. bdsm to the beat, baby. waterboarding made real, baby. plus, interspersed sexy images of guantanamo. shameless, sure. but, how many records can it sell?
there is no imagery in this video except the imagery of bourgeois excess.
but, i'm not really particularly upset. obviously, i think i'm presenting a valid opinion, and it should be contemplated. but, am i having a hard time understanding why this is a poor product for google to sell to advertisers? i'm not.
the reason i'm not yelling and screaming - and others might - is that i understand what the platform is. i understand that i'm the product. and, i don't begrudge the platform for rejecting the content.
it's still available for viewing. that's more important to me. and, maybe if enough people watch the video and think about it then there will come a day when it will no longer be considered poor content to sell to advertisers.
but, you want proof i'm edgy? actually edgy? i can't monetize a substantial number of these. and, i'm not going to pretend i'm confused about it.
again...
given the historical circumstances regarding the current state of electronic music, i do not want to come down on this too hard. but, i have to be blunt. it's great that some of the bigger promoters are trying to look around to find some kind of artistic counterweight to the blunt artlessness of modern dance music. but, if what you're presenting is this? then, i won't blame the kids for walking out and muttering "this is boring" under their breath. because, they're right.
this has a time and place. namely at 4:00 am, when you're winding down. or, if you insist on billing it, in a hippie/psych pit.
it doesn't make sense to bill this as a headliner in a dance club. and, it's dangerous. because you're not really opening anything up. rather, you're erecting a brick wall.
so, this video is obviously just a shell to get people to watch the episode where trump becomes president. i haven't seen it - i guess that was after i tuned out, some time in the 90s. but, i'm sure they went to town with it. and, if anything is going to sink this nincompoop, it might just be that.
so, well done. and, good thinking. that's using your head, mindchop. applauds.
but, the truth is that there's actually a wide assortment of things that i remember (from just the early days) that fit into the farmville type category, where they're foreshadowing a dystopian future in ways that are eerily predictive. i'd have to sit down and think about it. or, maybe watch them all from start to finish (now, that would be a mindfuck). but, if this was done slowly and methodically, rather than to just get a point out? i suspect it would be really profound, actually.
i don't have a tv. and, that might be a part of jeb's problem - the fact that so few people watch tv, nowadays. but, let me say this: this is the most media coverage of him that i've seen since his campaign started.
i actually had to check the other day to see if he was even still running. and, i think that might be what we're really seeing, here. this might be the first example of a campaign that died due to focusing almost solely on traditional media.
he might be all over cnn, nbc, fox - i'd never see it.
and, let's be clear, here: i never thought i'd say a bush is the preferable candidate. but, look at the alternatives. if this is a "republican cycle", and we're stuck with that outcome, i'd rather him than anybody else. he's an ass, but at least he's not insane.
so, you know: sorry to burst your dot-com bubble, but you need to hit the interwebs, jeb.
you see this term moderate thrown around.
rubio is not a moderate. total outlaws on abortion is not moderate. total. moderate. #!.
jeb is really the only moderate in the field. and, if he can't compete then what that says is that the party has rejected moderates.
hadn't heard this in a while.
mildly stoked.
absolutely.
what america needs is more gridlock, more obfuscation and more stasis. none of these "deals".
think about it. a deal is co-operation. co-operation is practically communism. it's unamerican to have deals.
the real america is about the hobbessian condition of decentralized anarchy, where everybody fights everybody else until nobody is left standing. did our forefathers cut deals with the indians? no - we killed them. that's america.
so, to hell with any new deals. let's tear down the rest of the old ones. and, let's be left with just one deal - a raw deal: a social contract directly with goldman sachs, with president cruz as the lesser half of a governing team that ensures it: no new deals!.
i will support the first candidate that promises to pass absolutely no legislation.
i was initially thinking that getting saetia back together might be interesting, as i bet they'd be able to build on all that potential they had if they could approach it with a bit more maturity.
and, i listened to this...
and, i thought "what is this trash?".
WHAT HAVE I DONE
and, i realized: it doesn't say saetia.
and, i couldn't care less about this than i do.
in darkness, and alone, i quietly closed the tab and carried on.
just another thing.
i've changed the profile to allow for my birth date, which is 1981, to be public. that's not an error. i am actually 35 years old. really.
i'm entirely aware that i literally look half of my age. or, let me rephrase that. i look precisely like a fashionable (and single) 35 year old woman - but i can very easily be mistaken for an unruly-looking 17 year-old boy. is that really particularly unusual?
while i acknowledge that there are some advantages to looking young, especially considering that i do not at all act my age, i also need to point out that i'm at the age where a significant generation gap exists. i'm not 17 years old. i'm 35 years old. i identify as generation x (people born from 1965-1985). that might be your parents' generation. and, i'm consequently a little bit leery about being hit on by 17 year-olds. or 25 year-olds, for that matter. of either gender.
and it does happen. which is why i'm pointing this out.
so, yeah. i'm old. we don't need to draw attention to it. but, it would be nice if we all realize it. if you see me out or about, just understand that i'm there to see the show and nothing more.
no: i don't want to hang out with a bunch of kids. i'm friendly. sure. but, no.
no: i don't want to get hit on by kids.
and, no: i'm not going to hit on children.
but, when you center your life around music as much as i have, you don't grow out of it. it's a lifelong thing. i'll be continuing to attend small shows when i'm 50, so long as i don't get bounced. not for the people, and not for the scene. just for the tunes.
this message will self-deconstruct....
it's not just an internet/distance thing. don't be embarassed if you thought i was in my 20s or younger. i get it all the time.
when i went to see jimmy chamberlain a few months ago, i ended up having a smoke outside with a kid from in the bar. i could see he was in his late teens. i ended up giving him a pumpkins lesson (he was there to see the sax player). but, his jaw just dropped when i told him my age - because it opened up a generation gap. he thought he was talking to a peer, at first. then, he felt like he was talking to an adult, and that changed his entire perspective of the situation. he visibly didn't like the idea of "smoking an adult".
then there's the kid in the unit upstairs. he seems to be in high school. and, it took him over two years for him to realize i wasn't in his age group. he seemed offended that i was keeping my distance. he kept obviously waiting for me to ask him to come hang out. but, i hardly want to hang out with the high school kid upstairs. it's just that he had no idea, right. he can't be more than 18, but he interpreted me as in his peer group; the feeling was not at all mutual - i immediately interpreted him as a kid. a few months ago, i gave him a link to my bandcamp site and i think he finally figured it out, because he's seemed more cognizant, since.
so, it's not just you. it's everybody. online. in real life. it's just how i look. and, in fact, it runs in the family - it's those finnish bottleneck genes. everybody from finland is like this.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
if you like the pictures i am posting, i will block you and repost the pictures.
fuck off.
i want zero user interaction on this site. it's a read-only cv.
i just can't figure out how to disable likes.
fucking creeps.
go jerk off somewhere else.
this is historical documentation. that's all.
i'm not actually posting pictures from five years ago. rather, i'm
removing pictures from the last five years. but, there's a process to
ensure the transition remains documented on the timeline, which now
exists in the form of a read-only cv.
i'll be done in a day or two. i will actively continue to update the cv. i will not actively be posting here.
listen: this is better than most of the "new" techno that i've heard over the last fifteen years. which is not to reduce the entire century to this dj set, so much as it is to point out that it's a little better - and actually encourage it, as the miniscule level of progress out of the abyss of absolute trash that it represents. this appears to be very trendy and whatnot. so, i don't want to come down on it too hard, lest i encourage a dubstep revival.
but, even, so...the truth is that this is what it would sound like if somebody took the 90s and watered it down to it's most basic level. and produced it with a hard beat. this is acid again, i guess.
and, i know that every other artform stagnated in the 90s, so techno shouldn't be any different, right? it's not fair to hold it to a different set of standards based on arbitrary projections created by the feeling that history was over, and there was nothing but future ahead of us. but, there was a lot of mental baggage attached to it, dammit.
i'm not bitter. really. i'm not coming down too hard. or not trying to. i see what the alternative is. really. it's just a little frustrating when "forward-thinking" means "could have been released in 1993".
in 2016, futuristic means not 80s.
seriously.
retro means 80s.
futuristic means 90s.
it's total artistic stagnation. fukuyama may have been wrong about equality, but he seems to have been right about music.
it's been 1995 for twenty years.
and, that's an entire life time, now, for some people that are old enough to get into clubs.
maybe my alter-reality will help break it open a little. give it a kickstart on an alternate evolution.
i can appreciate long periods of sparse music if they have some purpose, but this is really just monotonous. worse than that, it's unabashedly hipster. take the intro, for example. blatant emulation of glass jar by gang gang dance - spliced with what sounds like autechre samples. and, it just spurns on and on from there with no aim or purpose.
it has the atmosphere of idm, sure. but, the construction is truly every bit as stupid as any other disco/club music i've ever heard.
and, what's with the audience? just a lot of poseurs. they're there to be seen; they don't care what they're listening to.
i mean, you got me there for a minute. nibbled.
but, no. it's just more brainless dance music for zombie drug addicts.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
ok, so i'm going to comment on this, finally.
basically, i think the entire thing - as tends to happen on the internet - has been outrageously misunderstood. this, basically, is the reason i stopped reading my facebook feed. something gets misunderstood, and it gets shared in the wrong context. then, it gets shared a million times in the wrong context. the number of people that bother to do research or think about it is basically zero. so, the end result is not that millions of people are brought to some higher understanding, but that millions of people are badly confused. it's a great example of how the internet has amplified the fact that we're all thoughtless cretins (even while providing us with the tools to transcend it).
what i think they were trying to do was create a franchise. it was less about mcdonalds suing burger king, and more about opening up a starbucks on every corner. what they were trying to do was create a "* reacts" video for just about anything you could imagine, and have it all use the same format.
so, they have their existing reacts franchises. what they wanted to do was allow that concept to explode by allowing others to use what they actually have trademarked - their logos, their music and the other aspects of their format that make them unique. so, you'd have somebody in the north doing "inuit react", somebody in russia doing "russians react", somebody in africa doing "zulus react" & etc - all in the relevant languages, for the relevant markets, and all being fast-food type franchise spin-offs of the copyrighted burger.
there are reasons to criticize this. but, what has gone viral is just factually wrong. yet again. can somebody drop me a line when they can find something viral that isn't factually wrong?
the error was that those few seconds of the video where he talks about copyright, and which really have almost nothing to do with the actual idea expressed in the video, should have been completely edited out. not because they're horrible; because they should have known that people would be too fucking stupid to get their heads around it.
every single one of these thug barbarians is white.
it's just more proof that you can't let white people near civilization, or they'll burn it down.
so, i'm actually partly through clearing out the page. i'm going to be moving posts to an appspot site, where i can properly format them - facebook is useless, in terms of spreading information. it's still useful for concerts. and drive-by postings. but, i'm hoping all this changes.
the platform just sucks. it's the developers. it was never great, but it was workable for a while around 2012. they've removed the things that once made it usable.
for example, now you can't even tell the algorithm which posts to highlight. so, when i post things to this page, i have no control over how it's presented. that's entirely unacceptable to me. so, i'm not even sure i want to reduce the page to a cv. i'll have to see.
but, this will be my last regular post here. i've been saying this for a long time, but i'm finally actually almost cleared. the post will not be up long.
i just want to drop my perspective of the american election before i go quiet.
i've been waiting for the establishment to put down a candidate that will defeat clinton, and at this point this seems unlikely. remember: clinton is not the establishment candidate. that is why she lost in 2008 - the establishment rejected her. which is not to say she is anti-establishment, either.
stated tersely: clinton would love to be the establishment. she's spent her whole life trying to become the establishment. she happily produces establishment talking points. she takes their money, even. but, they will never let her win. they will never bring her inside.
even THEY think she's fake.
what we've seen develop is that the establishment has abandoned the democrats. well, it's been eight years. time to rotate. predictably. they're giving clinton some cash, but it's a kind of contingency plan in case things go wrong. what is more accurate is that they seem to be abandoning her. the banks are actually probably rooting for sanders - not because they want him to win, but because they see him as an easier candidate to beat. there's a lot of disinformation out there about this.
the money is firmly on the republican side. and, that is where the smart bets are.
i think it's clear that i'd be rooting for sanders. but, i'm going to go with:
whoever comes out of the republican field will almost certainly win.
that's the real election.
again: i'm concluding that the fact that there has been no big money candidate sent to beat clinton means that there is no big money behind the democrats; rather, the big money is allowing sanders to openly run amok. it seems like a bankers' consensus to elect a republican.
