Sean O'Sullivan

26.5K posts

Sean O'Sullivan

Sean O'Sullivan

@Seano299

Katılım Mart 2013
137 Takip Edilen113 Takipçiler
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@DaytimePubSmell @activity_no @darwintojesus Something that is objective is simply something that is mind-independent/stance-independent. With regards to ethics, the question of objective morals is if there are certain things we universally ought to do that are true independent of our perception or preference.
English
0
0
0
2
Daytime Pub Smell
Daytime Pub Smell@DaytimePubSmell·
Hmm, tricky question to answer comprehensively in a tweet. A key distinction might be "something OUTSIDE ONESELF". Star size, for example, has a value 'out there' to which the value 'in here'🤔👈 might correspond or not, such that disagreements could be resolved (in principle at least). Star BEAUTY, however, would seem solely to have a value 'in here', such that disagreements are unresolvable even in principle.
English
1
0
0
60
Darwin to Jesus
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus·
A plane crashes into your house, your family is dead, you’re devastated. You learn it was a drone, it malfunctioned. Did it do anything wrong? No. But what if it wasn’t a drone, a man was flying it but he lost control, it’s an accident. Did he do something wrong? No. What if he flew it into your house but he lost his mind the day before and was totally nuts. Did he do something wrong? No. But what if he was having a bad day and decided he wanted to kill some people and cause suffering. He was of sound body and mind, knew what he was doing and could have done otherwise. Now did he do something wrong? Absolutely. What changed? The man is understood to be a free acting moral agent. But if morality is subjective… that means what is right and wrong should depend on MY attitudes and preferences, not someone else’s abilities. Yet someone else’s ability directly affects whether we see this act as moral or not, even though nothing else changed. The family is still dead. If you’re a moral subjectivist, how do you explain this?
Darwin to Jesus tweet media
English
80
5
134
7.7K
PhaidREO
PhaidREO@PhaidReo·
@singtoconley It was not self aware. Like. Look we can defend it to its end. but there was nothing "self aware". While obviously the chars are like "eh?", it was a GENUINE page. Its pochita literally existing or existing back. Its played completely straight to the next page (the last ones)
English
3
0
1
289
Singto Conley ☄️
Singto Conley ☄️@singtoconley·
[chainsaw man spoilers] found out a lot of these are meant as slander, or at least that's how people react this meme. did the original page's self aware humor really go over that many people's heads
ᴀɴɢɢʟɪᴏ 🇵🇭@Angglio

English
6
7
200
5.4K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@darwintojesus If the claim is about not believing in God, that's affirmed simply by being stated. I claim to not believe in God, therefore that is sufficient evidence to determine that I do not believe in God. I think you're trying to make a different point and failed miserably.
English
0
0
0
6
Darwin to Jesus
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus·
“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Darwin to Jesus tweet media
English
16
1
34
783
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@atKensai Slavery is objectively wrong though. It's not just that we subjectively dislike it, it is fundamentally wrong and irrational.
English
0
0
0
2
Eduardo Romero
Eduardo Romero@atKensai·
The malicious pilot did something wrong because my internal moral compass (my subjective framework) is built to condemn intentional cruelty by rational agents. I evaluate the man differently than the drone because my subjective preferences specifically target malice, not just accidents or bad weather. The difference between the scenarios isn't dictated by an objective moral law written into the cosmos; it is dictated by the specific nature of human subjective disapproval. Kind of like we humans with our moral compass decided God was wrong about slavery.
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus

A plane crashes into your house, your family is dead, you’re devastated. You learn it was a drone, it malfunctioned. Did it do anything wrong? No. But what if it wasn’t a drone, a man was flying it but he lost control, it’s an accident. Did he do something wrong? No. What if he flew it into your house but he lost his mind the day before and was totally nuts. Did he do something wrong? No. But what if he was having a bad day and decided he wanted to kill some people and cause suffering. He was of sound body and mind, knew what he was doing and could have done otherwise. Now did he do something wrong? Absolutely. What changed? The man is understood to be a free acting moral agent. But if morality is subjective… that means what is right and wrong should depend on MY attitudes and preferences, not someone else’s abilities. Yet someone else’s ability directly affects whether we see this act as moral or not, even though nothing else changed. The family is still dead. If you’re a moral subjectivist, how do you explain this?

English
5
0
2
2.9K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@CTrefugees The point is that your norms are objectively bad and wrong and we have a normative obligation to oppose the imposition and affirmation of those norms whenever we can in favour of more just norms.
English
0
0
0
3
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@CTrefugees We want to eliminate the obsolete and unjustified norms being perpetuated and upheld by the Right. The idea that the Left are against the very idea of "norms" is absurd, considering Social Justice (a normative framework) is a key feature of most current Left-wing movements.
English
1
0
0
11
CTrefugees
CTrefugees@CTrefugees·
No. Outliers are to be understood normatively not statistically. That is to say, a man who is outside a norm either corrects himself according to the rule of the norm, fails, or earns his eccentricity in contrast to the value of the norm practically in publicly structured major important human realities in daily life. What the left wants always to do is to eliminate norms and to replace them with a gray mush norm of people coordinated around managed central power. The purpose is not to accommodate outliers but to use them to destroy the norm.
Stephanie Lepp@stephlepp

Masculine and feminine are two overlapping bell curves. The Right is guilty of forcing everyone into "normal" stereotypes, while the Left is guilty of collapsing two curves into one. A wiser path honors the difference between the curves, while making full room for outliers.

English
2
4
34
1.3K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@Bonkytheidiot No, it means they actually hate women themselves as an entire group of people, whereas women simply hate the systemic expectations placed on them by men and the ways in which social systems and norms encourage men to treat them as inferior.
English
0
0
2
388
Bonky
Bonky@Bonkytheidiot·
"Women hate men as a system, men hate women as people." I see feminists say this and it's a self-own. If men hate women as people, they're judged individually as people. If women hate men systemically, they're judging men by their sex, which is literally sexism.
English
89
771
8.7K
103.1K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific The idea that "bad movies allow us to appreciate good movies" is a very backhanded way of complimenting bad movies, to the point I'd argue it's not really a compliment at all. It's an affirmation of that which is outside of the norm. Of that which doesn't conform to expectations.
English
0
0
0
4
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific I feel that's like, totally antithetical to what the story has wanted to say in the first place. The idea that one must suffer in order to deserve the fulfilment of their dreams, that "suffering" provides any kind of fulfilment at all, is what it is taking issue with.
English
1
0
0
7
💯 𝕐𝕦𝕥𝕒 💯
💯 𝕐𝕦𝕥𝕒 💯@Yut4rific·
It's genuinely insane to me that people defending this ending are attacking you for wanting the loose plot threads and for the concepts in the story to be narratively consistent and not just cut short for convenience 🤦🏿🤦🏿😭😭😭
English
16
80
1.2K
12.4K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific Incomplete character arcs, incohesive plot lines with loose ends, etc., these all have semiotic value and significance. It's not that it's executed BADLY. It is just executed in a way that you don't enjoy.
English
0
0
0
4
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific I'm not saying it's "subjective" per se, but if we are to engage with art objectively, then we have to engage with the semiotics, not just appeal to a relative standard of "cohesiveness" and talk about being "good" or "bad".
English
1
0
0
5
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@dhdnsoxocnn @DeuceTheUchiha @jojoslyfe21 Themes are what make a work cohesive. If it is thematically consistent, it IS cohesive. Plenty of stories over all of history have utilised things like incoherence and rejection of narrative structure and cohesion specifically in service of the story it is trying to tell.
English
0
0
0
7
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@KumaTor73015247 @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific The use of Chainsaws (which causes people to wrongly assume that Pochita/Denji is the Chainsaw Devil) is meant to, I would suggest, relate Chainsaw Man to indulgent movie violence and lean into a kind of metacommentary around that subject.
English
1
0
0
39
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@KumaTor73015247 @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific All the devils are. It's what defines the devils in the series, each one represents and embodies a specific fear. Pochita is a devil and thus must embody a kind of fear. This facet of the narrative alone clarifies the thematic significance of fear within the story.
English
2
0
0
25
ExhaustedShu
ExhaustedShu@ExhaustedShu·
@GoldenKaos @skullmandible @GosiaGoose @Sbubby_s I don't care about an opinion of a commie I'm sorry. No not all translations are inherently transformative and you can translate Japanese properly without adding chud incel and zoomerspeech in sentences they don't contain them at all
English
3
0
0
156
sbubby_s • スバビー
sbubby_s • スバビー@Sbubby_s·
Anti localizers when I translate うっせぇわ as “Shut the hell up” and not “Noisy (but I’m being very vulgar)(and also using the ending particle wa [spelled “wa” not “ha”] as a sort of “keeping you the fuck out” vibe and NOT as a broadly feminine dialectical stroke)!”
GIF
♥️♠️Nepsuka♦️♣️@Nepsuka

Once you learn a little bit of Japanese you realize a lot of official subtitles is not translated correctly.

日本語
160
1.8K
18.5K
695.4K
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@m_ni_shiochain @satansfjant @polypocketknife There's a reason why Bob can only travel via electrical lines. There is an irony in Twin Peaks as one of the first real TV dramas like the ones today in which it uses a TV drama to comment on the danger of having violent scenes and imagery being pumped straight into our homes.
English
0
0
1
11
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@m_ni_shiochain @satansfjant @polypocketknife I dunno about that, I think part of the themes in Twin Peaks which you could argue can be reactionary is the ways in which it frames TV and movie violence as a kind of social corruption which poisons people's brains.
English
1
0
2
23
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific That's why people simply pointing out the symbolic and thematic significance of the ending are being far more objective about the ending than someone lambasting it as bad for not having a neat, by-the-books ending.
English
1
0
0
12
Sean O'Sullivan
Sean O'Sullivan@Seano299·
@PajaroChocolate @_Tsuj1_ @Yut4rific The desire to get rid of bad movies is, in a way, metaphorical. It presents a highly idealistic worldview which wishes to uses Denji's powers to create an idealistic world, one free of imperfection and uncertainty.
English
1
0
0
13

Keşfet

@DaytimePubSmell @activity_no @darwintojesus @PhaidReo @singtoconley @atKensai @CTrefugees @Bonkytheidiot