shine-of-asgard:

philosopherking1887:

nikkoliferous:

philosopherking1887:

fuckyeahrichardiii:

philosopherking1887:

fuckyeahrichardiii:

imperiuswrecked:

fuckyeahrichardiii:

“Endgame”???? THAT was the big secret? Laaaaaame.

Alternate titles are:

Avengers: Nebula (You all know she deserves to kill him)

Avengers: Crying and depressed superheros

Avengers: Thank god for Scott Lang

Avengers: Hawkeye spotted

Avengers: for real, fuck Grimace

Avengers: Contracts’ end

Avengers: help us, Carol Danvers and 90s technology, you’re our only hope

Avengers: Clint goes goth

Avengers: Hot Tub Time Machine

Avengers: just at the moment I think I’ve successfully emotionally detached from this hell they give me Tony, hopeless and dying in his sexy tanktop with the battered remains of his helmet sitting there as a metaphor for EVERYTHING, and I’m an emotional mess again

Avengers: Emotional Blackmail

Avengers: Where the fuck is Loki?

Avengers: Who the fuck is Loki?

Avengers: Why the fuck is Loki?

Avengers: Why do you stupid fangirls still care about that pretentious ponce when we are giving you all these patriarchy-approved Macho Macho Men to swoon over? Look, they’re even shedding manly tears of sensitivity, just for you

@philosopherking1887 I almost blocked you with a kneejerk click before I even read your post in full. Damn your manly tears. I used to like Tony, you know? A couple of years ago I’d had lapped this trailer up. Now I honestly don’t give a fuck.

C’mon, you know me better than that. I (used to) love Tony, too, but he’s gotten sucked into the vortex of self-important mediocrity that is the Markus & McFeely/Russo Brothers collaborations.

elenatria:

philosopherking1887:

elenatria:

thesunwillshineonus:

“Taika and I went out for a bowl of pasta before Ragnarok and he said ‘I’m gonna change quite a lot, but I’m not gonna change you.’ And I took that as a huge compliment. I’ve always felt a responsability to both honor the respect in which the character is held but also to try and progress it on.”

I love Tom’s quote so much because it proves all the Taika (“he ruined Loki!!11”) haters wrong.

Nope, it just proves that he’s a liar… or, perhaps more charitably (to his moral character if not his intellect), that he massively misunderstood Loki’s character throughout the previous movies.

@philosopherking1887 please, with sugar on top, get your lovely behind out of my reblogs and stop making me look bad to the OP by reblogging from me. I’ve kept screenshots of the last time you hijacked my posts with your infantile Thor hate so unless you want me to start spreading pamphlets with your non-sensical copy/paste blabbering, keep out of my blog. This is no place for Taika haters, shoo, shoo.

If your sole purpose in life was to get infamous for your obsessive Taika/Thor hate congrats, you achieved that.

Now let REALLY creative people do what they’re best at and you just… keep hating. Won’t get you love or more followers, that’s for sure.

You kept screenshots? Who’s obsessive now? Pamphlets, is it? If I’m already infamous among the Thor*/Ragnarok/TW stan crowd, I’m not sure what that would do other than make you look petty and vindictive. Anonymous asks are off on my blog, so anyone who wants to send hate will have to do it under their own name.

I do not hate Thor. I have never hated Thor. I hate what was done with him in Ragnarok. And I suppose anyone who disagrees with you will look “infantile,” regardless of the quality of their arguments or evidence. Especially if you don’t bother to read it closely enough to figure out what their position actually is.

I don’t know what you mean by “this is no place for Taika haters”; I did not reblog from you, and Tumblr is a place for people with all kinds of opinions. Once you add an opinion to a post, it’s out in the ether, and people can point out the flaws in your reasoning. I will take it under advisement, however, that you are so sensitive to disagreement that you track reblogs of a post you didn’t originate but only added to, from people other than you, and threaten people who disagree with siccing dogpiles of your allies on them. Duly noted.

“angrymadsygin replied to your post “Some Nietzsche quotes that express my thoughts on The Tumblr Consensus”

@philosopherking1887​ What about those who refuse to determinedly adopt anything and keep their thoughts to themselves? Those who sift everything and keep only what they wish to? Those who hover about like a silent blimp? Is there an answer? Just wondering. I told you some time ago that I dislike reading philosophy because I find it subjective, that’s why I’m asking. You are learned in this field and I wanted to know if you read something about that kind of person.

@angrymadsygin this criticism is certainly not aimed at “those who refuse to determinedly adopt anything” and “who sift everything and keep only what they wish to.” There is definitely a philosophical term for people who continually weigh considerations and never come down on one side of an issue or the other: Pyrrhonian skeptics. A common interpretation of this late Hellenistic school is that they had a quasi-dogmatic policy of avoiding “dogmatism,” which is to say, of suspending judgment on every question and ginning up arguments on both sides of any issue until they achieved “equipollence,” i.e., until the considerations on each side appeared to have equal weight. The goal of this policy, according to this interpretation, was ataraxia, non-disturbance or peace of mind: if you never commit yourself to a position, you won’t be bothered about working to defend it, and you won’t be troubled by arguments or evidence that appear to show that you are wrong. However, the Pyrrhonian skeptics themselves (including their most prolific spokesman, Sextus Empiricus) denied that this was a policy, and said that suspension of judgment was simply the natural result of continued inquiry and ataraxia a fortunate side effect. The name itself, skeptikos, means “thoughtful, inquisitive [person]” and is derived from the verb skeptesthai, “to consider, reflect, look into.” I am a fan of the Pyrrhonian skeptics; I think they were cool. Clearly I am not one, however, because I do have strong opinions and I express them… but I make sure that I am always able to defend them with reasons. And I also (try to) remain open to changing my view when presented with sufficient reason to do so.

The people I was criticizing in the post you replied to are the people who unthinkingly parrot a party line and/or defend that party line with half-baked “arguments” that are easily pulled apart and debunked with just a slightly closer look at the issue in question. Obviously, I was talking about the person in the post I’d just reblogged who claimed – with no evidence other than the things Thor* says in Ragnarok (or that Taika Waititi has said in interviews) and in direct contradiction to what we saw in previous movies – that Loki has been trying to kill Thor for their whole lives and enjoys hurting and betraying Thor, and Thor showed the patience of a saint in putting up with him for so long. (So much for “show, don’t tell,” right? Apparently the things Thor*, TR, and TW just tell people take precedence over the things they’ve been shown for 3 movies.) I’m talking about the post that claims that Taika Waititi characterizes Thor and Loki much better than Joss Whedon because Waititi has a better understanding of Norse mythology and Whedon sees everything through the lens of Christianity, while Waititi remains unsullied by the influence of Christian culture (indigeneity fetishism, anyone?). I’m talking about the post that says “honestly the only way to explain joss’s loki is to say he was strung out on torture and space meth the whole time” when yes that is actually the explanation Joss was telegraphing (well, maybe not the space meth part, but Loki has definitely been through some shit). I’m talking about the post with a gif of Steve saying “son of a gun” next to a gif of Steve saying “son of a bitch” that claims that this shows the difference between Whedon’s inept good ol’ boy from Kansas characterization of Steve and actual Brooklyn army vet Steve… when the second gif is from Age of Ultron, which was *written by Joss Whedon*. And I’m talking about the people who thoughtlessly reblog these posts without disputing these claims even in the tags, thereby endorsing the view that they’re seeing coming from everyone else around them.

As to the view that philosophy is “subjective”: it is, like most things, a blend of subjectivity and objectivity. Unlike empirical sciences, philosophy doesn’t rest on experimental data that can be quantified – and that which is measurable or quantifiable is, these days, the paradigm of objectivity… to the extent that you can give just about anything an aura of objectivity if you put some numbers in. Numbers are only objective if everyone knows exactly what’s being measured and how. But philosophy is NOT, contrary to the picture in the popular imagination, simply a matter of some mystical guru types – or white men speaking from the authority of their whiteness and maleness – pronouncing some unsupported doctrines and expecting other people to take their word for it.

What sets philosophy apart from, e.g., religion, or ideology, or just plain making shit up, is that philosophers present reasons for their views: they defend them with arguments and with appeals to some commonly available evidence, such as general observations about everyday life, or history, or human nature. If you disagree with the philosopher’s conclusion, it’s then on you, the reader/interlocutor, to determine what part of the argument didn’t work. Was the reasoning invalid – i.e., did the conclusion not follow logically from the premises – or was one of the premises false? Figuring out what you think was wrong with the argument makes disagreement more than just a matter of people shouting contrary views at each other. If you can show that the argument was invalid, you force the philosopher (or their followers) to rethink the conclusion; maybe they can come up with a valid argument, but it puts the onus back on them to produce one. If you can point to empirical evidence that one of the premises is false, again, they need to rethink the conclusion. Often the disagreement is on a premise that is utterly unprovable: something about the basic nature of humanity or of the universe (is the universe basically rational, intelligible, orderly or irrational, unintelligible, chaotic? are human beings basically good or basically evil? does the good life consist in dedicating oneself to relieving the suffering of others, or in creating something by which one will be remembered?). These very fundamental premises may rightly be called “subjective,” because they might ultimately boil down to a very general feeling, reflecting one’s own character and/or needs (Nietzsche and William James, my philosophical heroes, both emphasize that point). But it’s still helpful to distinguish the disputants’ common ground from the points on which they can’t be reconciled. This giving and demanding of reasons, the effort to find common ground and maybe even come to agreement on the basis of logic and evidence, is the objective component of philosophy.

foundlingmother replied to your post “foundlingmother: philosopherking1887: iamanartichoke: Friendly…”

@philosopherking1887​ Well, I do say “participated in”, and that’s supposed to point to Thor’s actions on Jotunheim. That’s a much bigger part for me than the fact that Thor’s enriched by all the stolen gold. It’s those actions I want acknowledged more than anything. I don’t think it’s good to wallow in the crimes of the past, but I think it’s good to acknowledge them, which people aggressively avoid doing, insisting they possess no privilege.

In fact, I’m kind of confused why you got what you did from my post… do you mind telling me? I think I’m pretty clear about being critical of the cover up of past crimes, and never say anything about redistribution or the personal responsibility of those who benefit beyond the fact that we should be critical of those who think uncritically and deny that history did bias the results in a certain direction.

That doesn’t assume that we must forever lash ourselves to these crimes we are unwittingly the benefactors of, or set things right by giving away the shirts on our backs, only that the first step towards any sort of compensation, forward-thinking or otherwise, must be acknowledgement of the crimes of our ancestors.

I suppose my actual opinion, summarized, is that white people alive today need to accept responsibility, not admit guilt, for the crimes of our ancestors and work towards a better future not by undoing the crime (as you say, this is impossible), but through that forward-thinking compensation. So I’m not sure we disagree in principle, though our particular ideas of what forward-thinking compensation looks like might differ.

I thought I should get this discussion off poor @iamanartichoke‘s post because it was getting pretty long (sorry for spamming!). And it’s about to get longer.

@foundlingmother there were a couple things in your original comment that made me think you were ascribing guilt to the descendants of conquerors simply in virtue of their descent and inheritance, not in virtue of their refusal to acknowledge it or attempt to make amends. First: “I don’t think Thor’s at Hela or Odin’s level whatsoever, but he’s the crown prince of an imperial power. He did benefit from and participate (unknowingly) in this imperialism.” When you said “participate (unknowingly),” it wasn’t clear that you meant Thor’s invasion of Jotunheim. That could certainly be construed as unknowing participation if he didn’t think of ‘keeping the Jotuns down’ (to paraphrase Randy Newman) as a perpetuation of oppression, but just a strategic necessity, given their (presumed) warlike nature. The “unknowingly” made me think you were talking about just the wealth and power he inherited, rather than something he did knowingly and voluntarily… but given your clarification, I can see that it could mean something he did without knowing that it fell under a certain description. (Sorry if that came out jargony; I may have lost the ability to think in non-philosophers’ terms.)

The other thing that pointed me toward that reading was this: Black Panther avoids insulting white viewers to the extent it would be appropriate to do so. … The wrongdoings of white people exist on the periphery, but they are not the focus. If Ragnarok’s critique weren’t so muddled, it would have been a critique of white imperialists. It would have been a condemnation of erasing history and the uncritical thinking that allows people who benefit to rationalize their relative good fortune.” It seemed that you were collapsing the categories of “imperialist” and “descendant who benefits.” Of course, the distinction isn’t all that clean when imperialism survives in the form of globalized capitalism… but there are white people in the global north whose primary fault is ignorance of the conditions that allow them to enjoy their cheap consumer goods, and who may or may not be in a position to do anything about it directly, so it doesn’t quite seem accurate to call them “imperialists.” As to Black Panther, I think it was pretty clear about the wrongdoings of white people: they are the necessary background condition of the dilemma that T’Challa and Wakanda find themselves in. The issue of what white people should do to correct the harms of past imperialism and continuing neo-imperialism is incredibly complicated, and it wasn’t the what-if question that Black Panther was interested in exploring as a piece of speculative fiction.

Perhaps I was being uncharitable in my reading of your comment… I do come into the issue with some annoyance at a certain strain of rhetoric on the Left that dwells ad nauseam on white guilt. They often make it sound as if they think white people are inherently morally worse than people of color – which is a particular instance of the general principle that members of oppressed groups are inherently morally better than members of privileged groups, but one that appears to trump all other instances of the principle. There often seems to be a mythic narrative at play in the background according to which oppression was invented by white people (i.e., Europeans) in the 15th century, and before that everything was hunky dory. There also seems to be the implicit assumption that the reason non-white people didn’t end up conquering the rest of the world was out of some sort of morally virtuous restraint… which ignores the amount of brutal conquering that did go on in every part of the world long before the modern era. So I can see why some white people end up feeling like the Left is blaming them for being alive, and why they end up feeling defensive. That isn’t enough to put me off my commitment to realizing racial equality, and it doesn’t justify the defensive white people in ceasing to be allies, but I can also see where it’s coming from. But of course that’s just my “white fragility,” isn’t it…? Oy.

Oh, and then there were the white people on Facebook saying they thought Killmonger was right. And I’m like… so you’re saying you’re in favor of arming all the non-white people with incredibly advanced weapons and just letting them have at it? Don’t get me wrong, I think they have some very real grievances against white people in general. But I also don’t believe in the inherent goodness of the oppressed, and I don’t believe that arming them indiscriminately would result in the overthrow of all unjust systems, the institution of just ones, and the punishment of those responsible for oppression in proportion to their level of responsibility. Also, most of the time I don’t want to die violently, and I suspect my white friends on Facebook don’t either, so I’m pretty sure all the “Killmonger was right” stuff was just social justice posturing/point-scoring. And no, my saying that doesn’t mean that I think brown people are evil and violent; it means I think they’re people (which goes to your point, @musclesandhammering). Arming oppressed white people doesn’t usually end well, either; look at the French Revolution. Achieving justice needs to involve cooperation between the (erstwhile) oppressors and oppressed, with the latter presenting their grievances and the former voluntarily divesting themselves of their undue advantages, not just turning over all power to the injured party and letting them wreak revenge.

… and now I’m gonna get a bunch of hate and “No wonder you didn’t like Ragnarok, you’re a racist colonizer.” Oh well.