"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
It's Minimoni, hence it's by definition awesome. :D
I can highly recommend not watching this either:
It's Minimoni ja Movie: Okashi na Daibouken (featuring Takahashi Ai) - Parutu One!
Link to video
Bonus: Jankenpyon
Link to video
Why do they keep jutting their chins forward like that? Is it like that horrible song Whip My Hair except it's in Japanese and called Jut My Chin?
For a serious reply:
The white guy in that video is Ken Shimura, a famous Japanese comedian in his role as Baka Tono (the idiot feudal lord). He joined the girl group Mini Moni (a subgroup of the famous girl group Morning Musume, featuring only their tiniest members) in this song that revolves (like almost all of Mini Moni's songs) around a giant pun. The pun in this song is a word play between Aiin, a catch phrase that Shimura established and can translate to either "tally" or "habitual drink(er)", and Ai, which means love (because they're so lovely and cute, I'd assume). They're jutting their chins forward like that because they're pretending to be idiot feudal princesses or something like that.
The puns in the movie link I've posted can easily be made out by looking at the translation and Jankenpyon is a pun on jan-ken-pon (rock paper scissors). Pyon is onomatopoea for a jump (like boing). It is also sometimes used to express a kind of whobbling motion that is associated with trancy states in Japanese culture (a female character who's in trance would f.e. often end their sentences in -pyon for comical effect). At the same time it is associated with bunnies (they hop a lot), hence the rock-paper-scissors playing bunny in that video.
In the 80ies -pyon was also commonly used by girls as a suffix to sound cuter (bunny association). That's probably why they're dressed in 80ies style in the beginning.
The milk/cow in that video comes most likely from a pun at Kyung Pyon, a kind of sweet in bunny form made from condensed milk (because Mini Moni love sweets). Their space ship looks strangely similar to Kyung Pyon btw.
The reason why they are dressed as bunny astronauts in the very beginning is because "the man in the moon" is really "the hare in the moon" in Japanese culture, so bunnies are strongly associated with the moon/space.
See, all that weirdness can actually make sense, if you just investigate a little. xD
I apologize if any of this isn't accurate. I tried my best.
Imagine a world without war, poverty, misery, viruses, spam, scam, annoying ads etc. A world without money.
As long as you understand that any pseudodocumentary created by the zeitgeist movement is pure BS.
If you want a very thorough, well-researched and well-sourced debunking of their first movie, check here: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist
Zeitgeist takes a look at things from a very unique, but limited point of view. It can really open your eyes and be very educating, as long as you don't blindly believe everything they say, just because it sounds like it could make sense. Opposing views often make just as much sense.
The problem with debunkings of anything is that it's perfectly possible to "debunk" something using credible sources, even if what you debunk is actually completely true. Debunkings are just collections of counter-evidence.
Zeitgeist takes a look at things from a very unique, but limited point of view. It can really open your eyes and be very educating, as long as you don't blindly believe everything they say, just because it sounds like it could make sense. Opposing views often make just as much sense.
The problem with debunkings of anything is that it's perfectly possible to "debunk" something using credible sources, even if what you debunk is actually completely true. Debunkings are just collections of counter-evidence.
The Occam's Razor principle applies surprisingly often with these types of things. If someone makes an extraordinary claim and someone else says "there's actually a pretty simple explanation for that", the simpler explanation very often tends to be the true explanation (or very close to it). At the very least, there's no reason to believe the extraordinary claim until more convincing evidence is presented, studied, tested and accepted by the worldwide community of researchers of the pertinent field.
There's nothing wrong with presenting hypotheses, even very wild ones. It becomes wrong when you present the hypothesis as the truth and start convincing people of it (especially if to do that you need to imply a worldwide conspiracy among the experts in the field to keep quiet about and deny the subject).
Actually, a possible explanation for why the Occam's Razor principle works is because simple ideas are more likely to get accepted by the average human being, thus they spread easier through our social networks and get more easily accepted as truth. It doesn't mean this world has to be simple, it just means that science is likely to approximate the actual truth in minimalistic steps rather than by following totally wild theories. Simple ideas don't have to be more true from an objective point of view, they're just more likely to find broad acceptance. The concept of truth is just a way to sync up our understanding of the world and I don't know that objective (from a non-human perspective) truth actually exists. Whenever we make claims about this world, they are so inseperatebly linked to our "humanly biased" perception of it that I see truth as something very relative. It may very well be entirely constructed.
Edit:
@Warp: I essentially agree with everything you've said below. The only point at which I start to disagree is when the concept of truth comes into play. Yes, it is more reasonable to make less random assumptions and it's more useful for us. But I disagree that we can find out absolute truths about reality using that principle. Absolute truth is only certain to exist within abstract systems, but there won't ever be any sort of guarantee that they correspond with actual reality. There can only be reassurance (by experiment) that they correspond with human experience.
When it comes to conspiracies etc I'm interested in all points of view, but I never believe in any of them. I felt my doubts about whether actual truth exists were very relevant to that, so I brought that up. I agree that applying the Occam's Razor principle is most useful, but not to find out the actual and objective truth about anything. I agree it's not reasonable to randomly assume any conspiracy to be true, but I think it's not reasonable either to completely rule out the possibility, just because it seems unlikely.
As for your example, I'd take
3) I don't know.
(of course I'd still consider 2 to be much more likely than 1)
3 is not a useful conclusion at all, but the only way not to make any false assumptions and to stay open-minded in the long run.
Science is imo more concerned with making useful conclusions and with finding out "what works" than with finding out the actual truth about things. The latter is pretty much impossible.
Warp wrote:
Also, in practice, the simpler explanations have usually proven to be more correct than the complicated ones.
This might be nit-picking, but they haven't proven to be more correct, there's only overwhelming evidence for it. The difference between a proof and evidence is that a proof makes the claim about something being true, thus ruling out contradicting explanations. I don't consider repeated experiments to be a valid source of truth. They cannot prove anything, just provide further evidence, just make something more likely. But even with that, one has to be very careful. F.e. it's important to ask if all paramaters have been sufficiently varied during repetitions of the experiment. (This can help make alternative explanations less likely. Changing some random parameters can cause an experiment to stop bringing the expected results, if the proposed explanation was wrong.)
A human bias can never be ruled out because that's a parameter we aren't able to vary. So I'm very careful with claims of something actually being true.
Actually, a possible explanation for why the Occam's Razor principle works is because simple ideas are more likely to get accepted by the average human being, thus they spread easier through our social networks and get more easily accepted as truth.
That's not what is meant by the Occam's Razor principle.
What it means, especially in a scientific context, is that if there are two (or more) possible explanations for a phenomenon, the explanation that makes less assumptions (but still manages to explain the phenomenon) is preferable for the simple reason that the extra assumptions made by the more complicated explanation are unneeded and unjustified. There's no reason to make those extra assumptions. It's not a question of the simpler explanation "becoming the truth through general acceptance".
Also, in practice, the simpler explanations have usually proven to be more correct than the complicated ones. In other words, when an unknown phenomenon is studied further, tests are performed and verified, it more often happens that the simpler explanation was right (or at least significantly closer to the truth).
Example: Suppose you arrive at your home, and you see a muddy shoeprint on the floor. You hypothesize two possible explanations:
1) A ghost made it.
2) A member of your family made it.
Which one of those two explanations makes more assumptions (about the workings of the universe in general)? Is there any reason to believe the first explanation, when the second one is completely valid? (Moreover, the second explanation is testable, the first one isn't.)
he claims it was done with rerecording, savestates and frame advances, I would be surprised if it was possible. also the run seems quite sloppy and the so called commentary makes no sense. I smell a troll
