Disqus - Latest Comments for Brooklynish

Re: Radiohead’s New Single ‘Burn the Witch’: SPIN’s Impulsive Reviews

Brooklynish — Thu, 05 May 2016 12:12:04 -0000

"Burn The Witch" is not a reference to the fact that Radiohead just discovered the Salem witch trials. It's a role reversal, in which normal not-hurting-anyone citizens turn on the enforcer-of-bogus-"moral"-rules and shut him down. Seems appropriate for the times, if perhaps too sweeping.

EDIT: This track does it for me. :)

Re: Vegan War in Los Angeles

Brooklynish — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:35:05 -0000

Gotta love it when a publication uses a headline that is totally unsupported by any checkable facts or research presented.

But if even one person laid down a death threat, then this would be the headline, because there a lot of people out there who like to imagine vegans to be hypocritical or in the wrong. That way, they might not have to feel so bad about being one of the flesh-eating zombies.

Re: Cafe Gratitude Owners Say They're Getting Death Threats From Vegans

Brooklynish — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:04:28 -0000

I wrote them a respectful note registering disappointment with the decision to move into the flesh business.

By the way, Gracias Madre's food is waaaaaaay overrated—add some texture, for Pete's sake—and the servers at Cafe Gratitude all sound like hippy robots. Very unsettling. At both restaurants, there are a few good items and the rest is meh. But some people don't have the courage to own up to their own failures. Instead they blame everyone else. File the Engelharts in that category.

Re: New Research Says Vegetarian Diets Could Actually Be Worse for the Planet

Brooklynish — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:12:56 -0000

More rationalization from the head-in-the-sand crowd, jiggering the numbers to muddy the waters and continue business as usual. Comparing bacon to lettuce, eggplant, celery, cucumbers, etc., is a ridiculous methodology, intentionally and conveniently choosing a fat-and-calorie-intensive animal protein and the plant material with the least calories. No vegetarians or vegans live on lettuce and the like alone. Compare bacon to something vegan that has similar caloric and nutritional value, and the plant-based material wins by a long shot every time. And let's not forget that when you consume an animal, you effectively consume all the plant material that animal consumed from birth to death. Incredibly misleading "study."

Re: The Daily Show Destroys ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Theory

Brooklynish — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:34:26 -0000

I'm afraid it's you who openly denies reality. Did you watch the part of the video where they note that only 3% of shootings are stopped by a civilian with a gun? And the part where they then go into all the reasons why it's incredibly impractical and fantastical to assume that this number will increase with more guns? Did you even watch the video you're commenting on?

Re: Miley Cyrus Hasn't Decided Whether She Wants to Wear Clothes on the 'SNL' Season Premiere: Watch

Brooklynish — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:33:44 -0000

Cool, let's put you up in front of an anonymous internet crowd and see how you fare. And you can just absorb whatever those idiots say as essential to your self-image.

But honestly what are you talking about? It never ceases to amuse me how the most ignorant people can state their silly opinions with such determined confidence. But that's the Internet for you. Suddenly every ignoramus thinks their poorly-conceived opinions should be heard. Sorry, but not all thoughts and opinions are created equal. The good news is you can learn to complicate your ideas as you get more mature. Good luck.

Re: Miley Cyrus Hasn't Decided Whether She Wants to Wear Clothes on the 'SNL' Season Premiere: Watch

Brooklynish — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:13:03 -0000

A more appropriate criticism of this video is that it's not that funny and is pretty stilted.

It's not up to you to decide who is "yucky" for the rest of the world. (But it IS up to you to try and remove the word "yucky" from your vocabulary.) In fact it's the kind of opinion that you should feel free to keep to yourself, and everyone else will be cool with that. Lastly, if you don't want to be held to unreasonable body standards, and if you want to escape the trap of specific beauty ideals that have been imposed by your culture, you can do it. I know you can. But not with comments like this.

Re: Ten Walls' Homophobic Rant Just Cost Him His Career

Brooklynish — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:56:58 -0000

Hate to break obvious facts to The Black Madonna, but clearly we're all animals. It's just that we should all be compared to animals equally.

Re: Nicki MInaj Responds To Video Controversy: 'I'd never condone Nazism in my art'

Brooklynish — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:36:56 -0000

What a terrible song. She calls this 'art'? It's the same old lame posturing, only now it's a 'big-boned (and big-butted, in case you didn't know!) woman,' so that somehow makes it new? The quasi-Nazi imagery is just part of that posturing to persuade regular people that she's powerful and therefore worthy of respect. But with Minaj, every rap is the same substance-less garbage. She claims power -- claiming it is half the battle after all -- but why does she deserve our respect exactly? (I'll raise Childish Gambino as a counterpoint.)

Though pretty disconnected from the real world, that posturing does indirectly reflect some sorry realities, as an in-demand form of escape from the banality most people face every day. When you can't be a star, you latch onto chest-puffing lyrics like this, living vicariously while someone rinses you for your money. People pay for experiences, and one of the experiences hip hop can provide is feeling like you're in charge of something when you're not. Probably more productive to face reality and focus on institutional changes, but hey, that would require more effort and wouldn't line Nicki's pockets. Or her marketing team's.

Re: NASA: Humans Will Prove ‘We Are Not Alone In The Universe’ Within 20 Years

Brooklynish — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:33:31 -0000

Humans are obviously not "alone in the universe." There are billions of awe-inspiring non-human animals on our very own planet. That kind of statement does reflect a regrettable hubris that is particular to us though.

Re: TV presenter causes outrage after posing with lion she killed

Brooklynish — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:14:56 -0000

Here you go, once again: http://www.peta.org/b/thepe...

I think you may need to read this many times to get it through your head, so keep on posting your mindless drivel, and I'll keep replying with this.

Re: TV presenter causes outrage after posing with lion she killed

Brooklynish — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:11:56 -0000

You are the definition of a troll. No interest in real discussion or logic. Maybe you are even hired by some right-wing gun nut organization to be such a troll. It wouldn't surprise anyone. You folks can't win on the merits, so you troll.

Re: TV presenter causes outrage after posing with lion she killed

Brooklynish — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:10:18 -0000

What she does is the very definition of unethical. She stomps on the vital interests of others in order to satisfy a perverse and completely unnecessary desire to kill. She behaves like a horrible person. And so are you by supporting her.

Re: TV presenter causes outrage after posing with lion she killed

Brooklynish — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:08:40 -0000

For no reason? Why don't you actually do some research -- or even get the other side of story -- instead of being a mindless troll? http://www.peta.org/b/thepe...

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:05:00 -0000

I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'ethical.' You're just a kid in a candy store, ignoring the suffering of billions. Time to grow up.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:04:37 -0000

Are you kidding me? You think "the world" is really better off for every human invention, however meaningless yet destructive?

Have you any environmental/ecological awareness? Is it worth inventing plastics if they ultimately help kill the oceans? Have you heard of global warming? Is the internal combustion engine worth inventing, if it leads us down a path of destruction?

Are you aware that the world includes more than just you and yours? Do you think tens of billions of chickens are better off for the invention of battery cages? (Just one example -- we could literally go on and on in this vein.) Or, since maybe you don't want to consider the legitimate interests of non-humans, how about torture devices designed for humans? Humans have been and still are a plague on the other inhabitants of this world.

Christ man. You sound like a cultural automaton, following the widespread gospel of "Consume Without Regard -- Live in Your Comfortable Bubble. Ignore Both the Consequences and the Powerless." Most humans have a stake in that selfish game, defining their identities/beliefs around narrow self-serving goals. Most people on this thread have apparently never actually looked outside it. You can either confine yourself to that comfortable worldview or become something better.

Technology is always a trade off. It inherently involves taking resources from some so that others may do something new. In the vast majority of cases, that "something new" is incredibly worthless, while what's taken away from others could often rightly be called vital.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:51:07 -0000

"We can be much more"? What the hell does that even mean? In broad terms, would it matter how far civilization "advances" if it means the destruction of the planet? No. It's a stupid narrative you and everyone in our culture has been sold. Some people sell it because it lets them essentially do whatever the hell they feel like without regard to many others; others buy it for exactly the same reason. This is just intellectual laziness and selfishness. Let's call a spade a spade and examine our own delusions.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:58:29 -0000

If this comes about at some point in the distant future, then increased empathy could be a positive effect. But there are a lot of potential negatives (and actual negatives, such as the testing that's going on now)...

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:56:11 -0000

Well, you could label anything inevitable and use that unsupported claim as self-evident justification. "Oh, it's inevitable that humans will ruin their environment. So might as well get on with it!" We should be learning greater responsibility, not less, and understand our weaknesses -- a fondness for jumping off technological cliffs without really considering/understanding the consequences is one of them -- so that we can avoid the usual pitfalls.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:22:32 -0000

How is it right to build technology that could strip agency away from literally billions of animals, human or otherwise, so that some vague and unnecessary benefits might marginally make certain tasks easier in the future? We should all know how this would be used in regard to other animals -- cruelly, wrongly, basically indiscriminately -- with vague sentiments like these being used as 'justification.' We can't just ignore all the negative potential of a development and focus solely on some far out sci-fi wet-dream.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:17:12 -0000

Seems like you're putting the cart way in front of the horse, so to speak... And not actually looking at the grand scheme of things. For one, you seem not to be considering non-human animals, which is a major factor here.

Being able to control a wheelchair with one's brain -- which, by the way, is not what these researchers are trying to do, and could be figured out without this kind of experimentation -- would be fine, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Humans being able to control the behaviors of others, however, is potentially a massive disaster for individuals and us all. We have a terrible history of extreme mistreatment of others conveniently deemed to be outside the power structure or marginalized within it, just because we can. And yes, it is ongoing. 10 billion animals a year are tortured and terminated on factory farms each year so humans can have an unnecessary protein source.

Look at what this might be used for and ask yourself: what do you think we'll actually do with this? This type of technology will absolutely be used unethically -- in fact, it already is being used unethically in this Harvard lab.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:03:36 -0000

Varuka, un-self-aware people make for the most boring and repetitive conversationalists. What's more, they're often unjustifiably arrogant, making them even harder to stand.

My arguments haven't had an ounce of unjustified emotion. You haven't actually made any arguments yet... Are you afraid of doing the hard thinking? Afraid of considering all sides of an issue, not just the ones you've been told are important by your culture? Of considering the consequences and perspectives that might prohibit you from simply doing whatever you like?

Look, knowing the word 'troglodyte' (if not how to use it properly) doesn't exempt you from the moniker. So far all you've done is demonstrate intellectual laziness, if not outright inferiority. Smart people don't tend argue for unequal rights and/or consideration based solely on intellectual inferiority. It's only might-makes-right troglodytes (like you?) who would seriously suggest it's ok to take vital interests away from others to satisfy the mere curiosities of some.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:59:21 -0000

It's basically completely wrong. So yes, it should be completely dismissed.

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:28:31 -0000

I'm right here :)

(you know, in Brooklyn)

Re: Harvard creates brain-to-brain interface, allows humans to control other animals with thoughts alone

Brooklynish — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:26:21 -0000

Yeah... Going to be a little blunt with you, and hopefully it's not taken as a polemic.

This just seems like a silly sci-fi fantasy, apart from whether or not it's actually feasible. In what world does it make any sense for humans to live forever? Just because it sounds cool on the surface? Sounding cool is a pretty worthless attribute when considering the most basic interests of all involved... Simply put, it'd be 'progress' only for some, at the extreme expense of all other animals (and many, many human animals, no doubt). It's not a path we should walk down, even if possible. 100% unjustified to be pursuing that future.

Also, saying, 'Eh, I don't know if I care about that' isn't a real argument against what I wrote, and makes me question whether you've yet developed a justifiable framework for assessing ethical issues in general. No problem if you haven't -- there's always time.

Lastly, calling my comments 'freaking out' is a bit unjustified, no? I'm responding with facts/reason to what's happening right now in a lab at Harvard, which has potential to happen in many more places if such technology/practices are refined further.

My friend, make precision, facts, and reason your friends. :)