Loftwings and Demons

I definitely only expect to get along with a limited number of people since that's just the nature of people, that we don't all get along with each other, and also I am not optimized for getting along with others anyway.

Still, I think I'm rather friendly considering I could get most if not all my socialization needs met as a forest hermit. I don't need to socialize for the most part, and I find it rather difficult, but I nevertheless still enjoy talking to people and find it very worthwhile.

We go on social media for connection or entertainment or to stay informed. The casual +10 in mental damage attached to random posts is the occupational hazard.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cP2EXzhDVH4

Also, since people may use this to try to descredit this video, I am aware of this snopes article regarding the Epstein - Rowling connection but I think it's important to note:

1. The Snopes article as of today issues none of its usual Yes, No, or even Maybe verdicts on whether Rowling was in the Epstein files. The Snopes article sticks to implications rather than stating its conclusions firmly and outright.

2. The Snopes article gets an F in investigative reporting given its complete lack of analysis of the emails in question and Rowling's response to them. The video, on the other hand, gives a detailed analysis of both, as well as supplying additional context.

Snopes is not an arbiter of truth any more than any other source is. The quality of an argument must be based on the evidence it presents and its analysis of that evidence. It must also be based on whether or not an argument is being made.

The video shows that the existing facts on record make the idea that Epstein and Rowling were friends a reasonable one worthy of further scrutiny, and the additional context shows fairly unequivocally that regardless of whether the Epstein connection exists that Rowling is not the staunch defender of (cis) women and (cis) children that she claims to be, and rather is, at the best, an inattentive and passive enabler of some of the most powerful rapists and pedophiles of our day, and at worst, a close personal friend and active enabler of more than one of them.

Also note that since the video presenter is British and the British legal system favors accusers of libel, the note at the beginning is probably for legal purposes.

Humans are obligately social, but that doesn't mean we necessarily do well around other humans. While I'm not as much of a recluse as I used to be, I still typically greatly prefer solitude to just about any social situation. The way I see it, socializing is a game with a bunch of rules that aren't written down and you just have to figure out yourself. Oh, and the rules change depending on who else is playing. And you can't just. Not play.

And this is not me suggesting everyone just be explicit about all their expectations. Because I realize that is not necessarily possible or desirable in all situations.

But I will say. There are some things that really frustrate me about the unspokenness of it all.

While I do have a small number of locked posts, for the most part, everyone can see every post I post here. This is because my blog is not my diary.

In fact my diary largely exists only in my head. I feel this gives its contents maximum security, though it does have the disadvantage of being somewhat unreliable.

In any event, if I put a post on my blog, the purpose is generally for other people to see it, whether it's discussing an interest of mine or political thoughts or even thoughts about myself or my personal life. I think social media is great for sharing thoughts, so I like to take advantage of that. It does unfortunately increase my noticeability, but I feel compelled to share ideas.

Having been a constant lurker at one time, I can sort of understand people who don't like to post anything, even if its not particularly private.

At the same time, because of how social media works, lurkers are often a lot more obvious in these environments due to people making empty accounts to follow others. So it's not pure lurking, because the person being observed knows you are there, which may creep them out.

I think there's a tendency to do one of two politically harmful things: one of which is to mistake self-punishment for politically restorative action, another is to mistake an active choice to remain politically ignorant for avoiding the former.

I think it is important to avoid both of these tendencies. We must guard against the tendency to criticize ourselves merely for the sake of criticism, as if our guilt alone somehow cleanses us of culpability. We must guard against the attempt to expose ourselves to the negative merely for the sake of it, but also against the tendency to avoid the negative and the unpleasant because we assume political futility; because we assume there is no value in knowledge that may be difficult or upsetting for us to confront. Because there is value in that knowledge--confronting that knowledge is the first necessary step to the actions that can heal our world.

The best amount of money for someone to have is enough. Happiness is not independent of money, but it also cannot increase endlessly in correspondence with increasing income. An impoverished person's happiness can benefit greatly from more money, a rich person, not so much. There are so many bizarrely miserable billionnaires in this world.

Well, I finished watching the Murderbot TV show last night. Had to wait until I could watch it without paying Apple money (and without doing anything too hard). I find it interesting to do comparisons between books and their adaptations, which I can do here, since I've read most the Murderbot series now and the adaptation only covers the first book.

Here's my thoughts:

My initial impression from the trailer that they made the PresAux team seem like way over-the-top commune hippies was unfortunately quite correct. This annoyed me because it was so unnecessary. All the PresAux team are scientists and none of them have any combat experience, so there's no need to 'explain' why they need Murderbot's help with giant creatures trying to eat them or people trying to murder them.

I did enjoy the Sanctuary Moon additions, though. A tv show is the perfect format to depict a fake tv serial.

I don't think LeeBeeBee was a particularly necessary addition, but I'm not surprised she was added since she creates an extra element of tension in the show, particularly since they often tried to actively avoid interpersonal tension between the PresAux crew.

There was *alot* of body horror in the show. Like I was not expecting that much body horror. Did not enjoy that part lol.

I did find the show's use profanity amusing, though.

I don't remember all the book details to be sure about everywhere the tv show deviates from the book but I do know that the show has a number of deviations, one of the most noticeable being whenever it shifts to 3rd person perspective. The book is told from 100% first person perspective. I personally liked the 3rd person additions and thought they helped the show.

The standout characters in both the book and show besides Murderbot are Mensah and Gurathin. The black nail polish for Gurathin was a nice touch. The actor did a great job portraying the character.

Now I want to talk a bit about the themes here regarding the corporations, workers, and slavery. The show expands on the Corporation Rim stuff in a way that's in line with how it's portrayed in the books. Which is to say, it portrays the corporations as evil while avoiding any kind of class-consciousness.

Now, that may be a bit of a controversial statement, so I'll elaborate.

Neither the indentured workers nor the enslaved bots outside Murderbot are portrayed particularly sympathetically in either the book All Systems Red or the show, and they certainly aren't portrayed to advance any thematic call for liberation of workers, even enslaved workers.

Preservation is portrayed as good because it is a place where slavery doesn't happen, but it's not working to liberate slaves any more than the Jedi are in Star Wars. And just like how Qui-Gon upholds the legitimacy of slavery in Star Wars by purchasing Anakin from Watto, PresAux upholds the legitimacy of slavery by purchasing Murderbot from the corporation. These sci-fi stories have more regressive politics than what came out of the Civil War, where former slaves successfully fought for chattel slavery to be abolished.

The message in this show, as in the books, is that the system is inevitable, the system is undefeatable, and nothing you can do can change it. It's political nihilism dressed up as anti-capitalistic messaging. I don't think this was necessarily intentional by Martha Wells, but I do think it's why Apple found this particular story such an attractive one for adaptation. Like Severance, it gives the appearance of anti-corporate messaging that actually reinforces the beliefs and behaviors that allow corporations to continue doing what they currently do.

Corporations are also emphasized to be rational actors that would never intentionally do anything that jeopardizes the corporation's profits in both the books and show which is just not true in real life. Additionally, corporations are also shown as necessarily losing money getting people killed which is far from being a given in real life.

So, I thought it was a fun show. Just nothing revolutionary.

I think one big question whenever anyone like me talks about abolishing copyright is how to make sure that people who create works that would currently be placed under copyright would be compensated.

I want to first say that copyright does not exist to ensure fair compensation for creators. In the extremely unlikely situation that should happen to occur, it is, contrary to popular belief, an exception, a bizarre fluke. No, the rule is that copyright, in the vast majority of cases, serves as one of two things:

1. A lottery ticket to dangle above the poor. A way to get a larger mass of support for the laws underlying copyright besides the support of their primary beneficiaries.

2. A way for the primary beneficiaries of copyright, corporate suits who have never had an original thought in their life, to steal the rightful income of creators.

This is why I believe that copyright is worse for creators than having nothing at all.

Nevertheless, I do think there is something better than both copyright and not having any special incentives for creators. A system based on compensating digital works per copy viewed or downloaded. Note I didn't say 'bought'.

Because this system would compensate creators even if the work wasn't bought. Now, even in a system like this, some digital copies might go uncompensated. One can imagine scenarios where that would be possible. However, gone would be the days where someone else takes your work, sells it or gives it away for free, you find out, but aren't able to ever recoup that income. Instead, this system would compensate you for those works as well. At the same time, the other person would also be compensated for their advertising and distribution work. And thus, the pirate of today is tomorrow's (free to you!) advertiser and distributor.

Now, obviously, this system would require extensive logging technology. However, that technology largely already exists--activity counters and social media--it's mostly a matter then of modifying some specifics for that software and building the social and legal framework required to make a system like this work.

Any system created by humans can be changed by humans.