Parkour level: cat

simon_wang12 · 2 days

The best description of reddit I ever heard was "a group of people brought together by hatred of the same website."

ZzzZombi · 2 days

It would be fine single-player games, but is detrimental to games involving cooperative play.

TF2 did this initially, where new weapons were unlocked with certain numbers of achievements. But even though the new weapons weren't "better," it still lead to massive disruptions in play as people attempted to get them. Half your team would useless because people were trying to kill 1 billion people with a bat, or something similarly stupid.

In Diablo III, this would lead to getting your ass kicked in a dungeon, while your teammates are in town trying to go through a Town Portal 1,000 times so that it casts 1 second sooner, or something like that.

Giving tangible benefits in a multiplayer game, however small, leads to more people farming achievements. Yes, people farm them now, but only the "collector" personality types. If the collector and the powergamers start doing it, that's a big enough slice of the player base to affect how the game plays.

draney5 · 3 days

In my case, and many of my friends, the first time actually goes surprisingly well. If nothing else, you don't have any expectations. So if you get a single laugh, it feels like a victory. It's the second time that gets you. That's when you start learning to hate yourself.

Technically, you can get into standup at any age, assuming you're funny. The problem is that, as you get older, it becomes harder to give up your regular life, and you'll hit a wall. I started fresh out of college and had no debt. If you have a mortgage, car payment, and student loans, you can't afford to quit your real job to spend a week in Wichita for $200. If you're making > $40k at a day job, you're making more than 99% of professional comedians. That doesn't mean you can't do it. But it means that, for most people, it can't be more than a hobby.

But there's no point in worrying about that now. If you get so good that standup conflicts with your real life, that's a great problem to have. But that's going to take years, and in the meantime it's better to focus on the one thing that matters, getting your ass on stage.

Thinkyt · 12 days

The thing I love is that her "messy room" consists nothing but magazines, records, and a fucking banjo. If that woman's quirkiness were any more affected, her farts would sound like indie rock music.

Sproose_Moose · 16 days

Completely unacceptable. As a redditor, this is how I dress when I take pictures with Vinnie Paul.

Sproose_Moose · 16 days

I've got a picture of him eating birthday cake. Does that count?

gakash · 1 month

Let me know if you think this is viable.

I certainly support the idea of reddit comics collaborating, but in terms of viability, here are the potential obstacles.

It's not as simple as editing together youtube clips. The recording quality of most clips is horrible. I know mine is. Shaky camcorder or cell-phone video without direct audio input is fine for industry insiders and even bookers. But to everyone else, it looks like we got our moms to tape our set. Sound quality is uniformly atrocious. It's either filled with echos and background noise or, at best, it's a direct line from the sound board, without micing the audience (meaning you can't hear anyone laugh). The videos on rooftopcomedy.com are about the minimum for professional standup presentation, with a single prosumer-level camera, miced comic and audience. It's still well below what people are used to seeing on Comedy Central, but it's above the typical iphone recording. No amount of editing will fix amateur input.

But the bigger issue is that the vast majority of comics here are open micers, and relatively new ones at that. That's not to say they're bad, or unfunny, or have no potential. But they aren't ready for prime time. There's a reason all of the comics on TV have 5-15 years of experience. There's a level of polish to performing, that a lot of people haven't nailed yet. A video of a faltering open-mic set can come back to haunt you when it comes to looking for professional work. That's not an issue on stuff you post yourself to facebook or twitter, because you can take it down relatively easily. A collaborative project is out of your hands. Again, I'm not trying to shoot down the idea outright, but these are the reasons I personally wouldn't participate.

Instead of doing a reddit special right now, I think more effective use of time is producing decent shows in our respective areas - that draw sizable non-comic audiences - and finding ways to record them well. Until that part is nailed down, a special is putting the cart way before the horse.

Uncoolio · 1 month

And you enjoy yours.

Uncoolio · 1 month

It is, and I've had good luck with it so far. Thank you.

Uncoolio · 1 month

I would have told you if you were willing to show a shred of intellectual virtue. Instead you have provided nothing but insults and lies, and admit you aren't even trying to have real discussion. Suffice it to say it's a field that society awards more prestige than your own, which is why the fact that you look down on me is so precious. I've outlined the conditions under which I will tell you, you can agree to them or fuck off. Until then I have nothing more to say.

photogenicguy · 1 month

I wounder if he had a ridiculously photogenic ultrasound.

Uncoolio · 1 month

I don't hate philosophy, I love philosophy. What I hate pompous assholes who think they get to decide what is and isn't worthy of discussion, and are discouraging and condescending to casual thinkers. I hate bullies in all forms. Because philosophy shouldn't always be a super-serious, exclusivist thing. There's room for thought exercises without direct application. No one is hurt by thinking philosophically about Roger Rabbit for a few minutes as an entertaining diversion. Thought experiments, using philosophical processes, are fun in and of themselves. Not everyone in r/philosophy is a professional philosopher, and it's unfair to say they have no right to initiate philosophical debate because it's not grad school level. It's not like we're going to solve the great existential questions of our time because we occasionally indulge in silly conversations.

Put more bluntly, if you didn't like it, you could have downvoted and moved on. Instead you decided to come in, discourage discussion, act superior and hurl insults. You course of action did nothing to make the discussion better, and much to make it worse. So no, I don't hate philosophy, I hate your elitist interpretation of it. Whether you're into Angry Birds or professional Starcraft, you're still a gamer - and society considers hardcore gamers who shit on casuals to be pathetic losers. Similarly, it considers philosophy snobs to be unworthy of respect. Whether you're into Roger Rabbit or Sartre, if you're making a good-faith effort to think deeply about it, you should be afforded a basic level of philosophical respect. There's nothing wrong with thinking about very serious issues. There's nothing wrong with thinking about silly issues, because those silly issues have the potential to generate serious discussion. There is something wrong with discouraging discussion, because these discussions have no potential to harm, and much to benefit.

You still haven't explained why you need to know my profession, if you aren't planning on making an argument from authority.

Uncoolio · 1 month

Why do you need to know my profession?

Uncoolio · 1 month

I'll tell you when you admit your behavior was stupid and unjust. Until then I'm just going to insult you. As you've shown, the great thing about insults is that you don't have to explain them. I'll quit arguing, since you're not trying, and just mock you for being a naive, arrogant circlejerking academic with a hilariously fragile ego. You call me cliched, when you pulled the "I'm out" on your very second comment? How's that being out going, by the way? You know, since I'm so boring and all, apparently so boring you can't stop responding.

Insulting philosophy majors is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's actually easier than that, it's as easy as getting a philosophy degree. It's only slightly more difficult than getting a philosophy degree, when you're a fish in a barrel. You're most likely swamped with student loan debt you'll never repay. Their aren't enough jobs in your field, and outside of academia you have only menial office skills that anyone can learn. A significant number of people see your entire discipline as a joke, the type of self-indulgent bullshit that could only be pursued by the overprivileged. You try to console yourself by saying that not everyone can be a philosopher, but the lack of opportunities within your field prove you wrong. Even if not everyone can be a philosopher, enough people can that the field is glutted. It's easier than it is important, or job prospects would be better. And if you personally are lucky enough to have a job in your field, we both know that you're just producing a generation that will be just as maladapted as you are. You're the hilariously overconfident guardians of a tiny little pile of shit, that you tell yourself is gold because otherwise you'd collapse under the mediocrity of your achievement. At the end of the day, the most common use of your "education" is arguing about stupid shit on the internet.

Uncoolio · 1 month

Don't spit in my latte.

Uncoolio · 1 month

Do you think insults cannot be true?

This is an argument from ignorance. The fact that insults could be true does not imply any particular insult is necessarily true. Your insult was false - which I am defining as contrary to reality - and you have not denied that. The potential truth value of insults, as a class, is irrelevant. I was charitable in assuming you were attempting a reasoned argument, however poorly. But you now you claim you weren't. If you aren't making an argument, you're unworthy of further response.

You could make your claim true by simple reducing the scope. You could say "If you say X, then a relatively small group of people who have little effect on society at large will think you are stupid." That would be a true insult. But that's not what you're claiming, presumably because you realize how pathetic it sounds.

So now the question is. If you are simply going to hurl lies, and have no intention of making a real argument, why should I bother responding at all? If it's simply about getting the last word in, you can have it. I won't argue with someone who isn't trying. Normally I would try to prove you wrong, but if you aren't making an argument, there is nothing for me to lose.

Uncoolio · 1 month

you're really boring.

You can think whatever you want. As long as you keep responding I'm interesting enough.

When was I making an argument?

So are you saying you weren't making an argument? Are you willing to admit you were just hurling a childish insult? That's all I want you to say.

Uncoolio · 1 month

You said that the original question was incapable of generating philosophical value. True or False? If you say false, then you agree with my original point - that the question had the potential of generating philosophical value.

If you say true, the following issues still apply.

You continued to participate in the conversation spurred by the question. You claim not to know why you are doing this - which would make your actions irrational. Despite not understanding your own motivation, you maintain it does not stem from character defects such as elitism or being an asshole.

The only plausible explanation is that you felt you could make a contribution which could advance the field of philosophy, a contribution that owes its existence to the question, and grants the question philosophical value. In the moment you first answered, you rendered your original statement false.

Uncoolio · 1 month

Oh, so you can read minds now?

Then prove me wrong. I am a professional in my field. What bearing does the specific field have on the argument, if you weren't planning to attack my credibility with it? Why do you need to know what field I'm in?

Other professionals in my field, as well as a number outside my it nearly all of whom have GEDs and above, believe that the argument that philosophers prefer knowledge to ignorance is plausible, and in any case certainly isn't "stupid." Therefore your statement, essentially saying I will look stupid to any nearly any educated person, is false.

Simply revise your claim to be "If you say this you'll look stupid to a small group of self-proclaimed experts who have no bearing on your life" and I'll agree. I've never argued that I shouldn't look stupid to you. I haven't even argued that I shouldn't look stupid to people like you - philosophy professionals. But in order for your claim to have any weight, you have to answer the question, "Why the fuck should I care?" So far you haven't been able to make that case without vastly overstating the percentage of people that support you. False claims cannot be the basis for a convincing argument.

Uncoolio · 1 month

So explaining why a question has no value has no value? Then why did you do it?

Uncoolio · 1 month

It doesn't matter. Your participation doesn't need to be admitted, it's a matter of fact. As for whether you actually detest it or not, also irrelevant. If you don't, it has value to you. So the result is the same. Either you are irrational, or the question had value.

Uncoolio · 1 month

It's irrelevant, because the only reason you want to know is to continue a bogus argument from authority. Regardless of what I say, your line of attack will be that it disqualifies me from having a valid opinion on this issue.

"Professionals, teachers, anyone with a GED or above ... they all think saying "philosophy mean 'love of wisdom'" sounds stupid."

You made a statement is demonstrably false. When you admit that, I will tell you what I do for a living. Until then, you haven't demonstrated the intellectual integrity to be trusted with my personal information.

Uncoolio · 1 month

I am a professional in my field. I was a teacher before that. All of my friends went to college, as did 90% of the people I work with. They all think you're a pompous dick with your head up your ass. So your statement doesn't line up with reality. Being charitable, you're just incredibly sheltered, and have been in academia to long to realize it's place in the outside world.

But given your previous "arguments" (that's stupid, you're stupid, that's stupid because you're stupid...) I assume you're just making up shit because it serves the insult. Who cares about reality if it gets in the way of feeling superior? We both know society doesn't give a shit about ivory tower academics - if they did you wouldn't be crushed by student loan debt with terrible job prospects. Standup comics wouldn't be able to use "philosophy major" as a punchline.

Due to either ignorance or malice, your statement has no credibility with me.

And even if every person you listed believed the same thing you do - which they don't - they are only a tiny sliver of society at large. A sliver largely worthless to the huge world outside of it.

Uncoolio · 1 month

You admit participation in something you claim to detest, without being able to explain your actions. Does that strike you as something a rational person would do? If something hurts me and I do it anyway, I can't claim to be motivated by reason. The only way to justify my behavior, and be considered rational, is to believe that thing has a value greater than the pain it causes. So either the original question had value to you, or you're not driven by reason.

Uncoolio · 1 month

You've been in school too long if you really think the approval of philosophy grad students is something that anyone outside of academia actually needs or cares about.

Two-Year Club	Rally Monkey Tent number = 2
Verified Email	reddit gold Charter Member
Charter Member

Uncoolio

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login