That would be our corporate overlords wanting to keep corn farmers employed. It’s not like we have bottles of it at our table. Companies just put it in everything since it’s cheap, and since we don’t have an effective government that stops capitalism from killing us, it gets put in everything and we die from heart disease.

Critical of sources? Okay, in that case the US isn’t the country that banned the phrase “Tianaman square 1989” from being spoken online. Nor are they the country that will prevent you from owning a house if you say it enough.

That’s China.

And it exists to silence criticism of them killing a bunch of protestors with tanks:

Then running them over with those tanks until their bodies became a bunch of organic paste, so they could wash their remains into the sewers:

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html

(NSFW pictures: mascr014.gif to see what a human body looks like after being crushed by a tank)

There’s more pictures of the dead in that last link - go ahead and be critical of them, seeing as they died fighting for the Democracy you’re now critical of.

Want to be critical? Alright, why do you think the US is the only country that’s capable of bullshit propaganda? It’s so you don’t consider Democracy as viable, rather you’re raised from birth and educated to believe it’s ineffecient. Something I’m sure you fully believe with absolutely zero critical thought. (Despite most of Europe being a dang good example of its effectiveness).

Trumps literally on deaths door and is the #1 suspect in what’s likely the largest conspiracy in US history involving child traffickers and their political protectors.

He’s been in US politics the last 10 years.

He’s run his course. And no one is left to replace him.

He’s also killed millions with his Covid policy. Millions more with USAID defunding. And now likely even more with SNAP and ACA cuts.

He also likely won by cheating, not by popularity.

He’s just about cooked from every angle imaginable and is not long for this world.

The Ken Starr report that lead to Clinton’s impeachment begs to differ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit…Because Starr’s office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.

That report is ten times the size of the 9-11 report btw.

Reading the charges now is hilarious considering Trump is guilty of the same hundreds, possibly thousands of times over.

So you can’t explain or define what genius is, yet judge anyone as an idiot who asks for that context?

Genius and brilliant are synonyms btw. Something pretty obvious.

So unless you want to explain the difference between those two terms, they mean the same thing.

Being pedantic about that doesn’t make you right. It very much implies the opposite. You just look like someone that ate billionaire PR bait, and forgot what reality tastes like.

You are not saving face by refusing to go into the details, you just look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Something you could easily disprove if you did. Because Geniuses can go into those details. Idiots can only pretend.

So makes sense why you look up to Musk so much. You can only pretend to be smart like him.

I reject your claim Musk is a genius.

Prove it to me.

You read two of his biographies, so you should know. (Unless those were both fanfiction he paid someone to write about him.)

Musk has indeed been in close proximity to several large companies and their origins.

But genius is not something achievable through osmosis.

What has he, as a person, done with any skill, to suggest he’s a genius? Aside from osmosis.

Let me drop some really basic logical observations your argument will need to overcome to be truthful:

He’s not a productive man:

• As evidenced by his near average of 100 tweets a day. Confirmed by AI. Which is close to 2 hours a day tweeting, not doing anything of value or skill.
• As also evidenced by his character in Path of Exile, one played in hardcore mode, with the best gear available, that would require nearly 10 hours a day of play to achieve.

There is no difference between this behaviour and a jobless NEET or internet troll. They get shit on for this bevavioir due to how unproductive it is.

It’s just as unproductive when Musk does it.

He’s not an accountable father:

• As evidenced hy his 14 children with 4 different women.

This is literally the punchline of a Jeff Foxworthy “You might be a Redneck if…” Joke.

It’s just as unaccountable of Musk to have this many kids with this many people. He would need to spend a lot of time with each to raise them well, and instead he’s playing video games and tweeting almost all day.

Logically, if Musk actually wanted to go to Mars, it would be a 3 step process:

1. Rocket a person to Mars
2. Terraform and settle Mars
3. Migrate to Mars.

He’s focused on 1, and telling you it’s for the good of Humanity.

But if instead he focused on step 2, he would be fighting climate change right now while developing the tech needed to Terraform Mars, as they are the same tech. That’s what a genius would do.

Instead he’s trying to replace NASA with Space X because money.

He doesn’t use his money to improve society. He just uses it to improve himself while lying to you that it’s for the greater good.

It’s not. And it’s never been.

As evidenced by his Hyper loop being a lie to convince legislators in California to cancel plans for a high speed rail. Something California would now benefit from if not for his interference.

All Musk does with his money is use it to buy PR and good will so he can continue to be someone that uses Twitter and play games all day instead of being a good dad. That’s not genius. That’s greed and stupidity.

He could, even now, solve the world’s problems with his wealth. He literally asked for a plan to solve world hunger, and when presented with one that could have done it for like 8 Billion a year, he refused. Then purchased Twitter for 5 times that amount. Because he wanted to be popular.

Yet solving Wolrd hunger would make him worshipped by the people he fed. More popular than anyone. Families would praise his name. And communities would erect statues for him. This is something he certainly wants, yet his way of achieving that goal is to spend even more than 8 billion on PR to convince you he’s a genius.

That’s not very genius like behavior. It’s still just stupid and greedy.

Imagine, for a moment, you’re a Trillionaire. What would you do with that money? Solve the world’s problems? Help your family? Help your friends? That’s what 90% 9f people say when asked.

And Musk does none of that. Just plays games, shit posts on the internet, and convinces you through biographies and large well paid PR teams that he knows what he’s doing and should be worshipped.

His wealth, unquestionably, would be better used if it was in the hands of thousands instead of his. He wants you to think he deserves it, that he’s a genius. When the most casual look at his approaches to problems immediately reveals he’s not. He just a wad of unspent money that wants to use it to take credit for other people’s work instead of fixing the planet.

Time to prove why you think that makes him a genius.

I’ve worked for him by the way. He’s not a genius. He just has good PR to make you think he is.

Dude. You aren’t even talking about Musk. You are entirely talking about what his well paid PR team has made you think of him.

The dude hasn’t done fuck of shit. Just used his money to help others build shit he never bothered to acquire the skills for. Reusable Rockets? That was Tom Mueller you should be thanking. Not the person writing his paycheck. That could be literally anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller

Musk uses his money exclusively to get his name on things to take credit for other people’s work. Tesla, PayPal, Space X, now Twitter / X. All the same. Musk lacks any actual talent or work ethic. He just has money to attach his name to those that do, and money to pay PR teams to make his image appear as someone that has skills to create instead of wealth to take all the credit from those that do.

IF you want to respect someone that has enough wealth to solve almost all of the major problems in the world but uses it instead to purchase a social media platform to shit on others and warp elections, then you go right ahead. But don’t expect anyone else with a sense of reality to agree with you.

Yes, absolutley without question we can. And it wouldn’t even take that much resources.

The most recent wide scale study that was done was focused entirely on the world’s “needs” being satisfied in addition to basic resources like food and water.

The conclusion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493

Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.

Strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such, but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production should be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries.

With this approach, good lives can be achieved for all without requiring large increases in total global throughput and output.

They’re all wrong. Xavier is a masterpiece that will give you mind worms that never leave (in the best way possible)

You do realize you were adding to that hell right? Just because you hate Mormons doesn’t mean you should be saying that publically 12 times in a day. Twitter is hell because racists are there doing the same, likely about Mormons just as much as Jews.

Just because you aren’t racist doesn’t mean the hate you are spreading needs to be spread. Hate Mormons on your own time, or hate the religion, not those practicing it.

But fuck Charlie Kirk. He’s one guy and his death unquestionable makes the world a better place. But he was a shit head by his own actions, and most Mormons I’ve met are just as gullible as anyone else getting taken advantage of by an organized religion.

Just saying, it’s hard to find places online, and even harder when you go in hot. Don’t go in hot. Maybe Bluesky would treat you better. Their starter packs actually are great ways to find niche communities. The surface level Bluesky is where most of those flurries are. Below that there’s actually quite a bit of righteously enjoyable counter culture. Just don’t go in hatin.

Fuck it. Believe me or don’t.

I made a documentary that got C&Dd by Netflix. It was about Orson Welles and the final movie he made in '71 that didn’t get finished until 2021 (by Netflix).

In researching Welles, I discovered a rediculous amount of information about him that is not at all publically known.

His children?

One daughter lives in New York. Another in Sedona.

But there’s also the two he had out of wedlock in secret. (Both of which have documentaries about them)

And then I discovered his fifth child.

Sasha Welles. Who he had with his mistress Oja Kodar during the making of his last film. The kid is almost 100% his, but might not be Kodar’s as he basically had sex with her whole family.

But that’s not what this comment is about.

It’s about the movie he filmed but never finished editing, “The Otherside of the Wind” and starred Oja Kodar.

It’s now on Netflix, and while it did receive some nice critical reviews. Very few people came to look at it as close as I have. (And the others that have kinda sorta agree with what I’m about to say).

The closest (for the most part) was Peter Bogdonavich, who said the movie was a perfect book end for Welles career - a movie that matched his creativity with Citizen Kane.

But, the movie was actually much more than that. Much much more. (At least imo.)

Orson wanted this film to be finished more than anything. He even begged Peter Bognonovich to finish it in case he died. Something Bogdonavich actually tried to do well into the 2000’s!

The reason he wanted it finished? No one knows. But I have a theory, and that’s what my doc was about.

The theory:

Orson Welles created The Otherside of the Wind as a sequel / spiritual successor to Citizen Kane. Except instead of a story about a media magnate based off William Randolph Hearst, The Otherside of the Wind is about a filmmaker based off of Orson Welles.

Basically, Orson Welles made an autobiography of himself and his struggles to be the first Independant filmmaker in the style of his masterpiece Citizen Kane, and then died before telling anyone.

You can watch it on Netflix right now too. The Otherside of the Wind.

So. Every interview he gives about the movie. Literally every single one (I’ve seen 13 or so) he lies about the meaning of what the “Wind” in the title of the film means. In one interview, it’s about the duality of Men and Women. In another, it’s about art and commerce. In another, it just sounds good.

He was an artistic guy. And was known to tell lies and grandiose stories for attention. But at the end of his career, Orson was literally operating on another level. Want to know who coined the term “visual essay?” It was Orson Welles in his documentary F is for Fake. Where he basically makes the first YouTube video (in 1974) about art forgery and art. Which is what F is for Fake is about: faking art.

He has a monologue in that movie. One about a beautiful Church in England built in the old eclesiastic style. And one built by an anonymous architect over 20 years. He wonders at the thought of making something so grand, and never putting your name on it. Something those who appreciate architecture would love, even if they’re biased against the architect.

At this point in his career, Orson was making commercials and getting drunk while doing it. All to raise funds to finish his films. But despite being THE GUY who made Citizen Kane, Othello, Chimes at Midnight, etc, he just got an endless raft of shit from Hollywood for being in these commercials. In one of his many lunches with Bogdanovich, he muses about removing his name from his next movie, so Hollywood might appreciate it as a film instead of crapping on it because of his name.

So he makes Wind. People point out the story of the filmmaker in it kinda resembles him. He denies it. Eventually saying it’s inspired by him. And being a Welles movie, it also has a unique meta narrative. A movie within a movie. As it’s literally about a filmmaker trying to finish his last film, but he tragically passes before it’s completed. Which is what ended up literally happening to Welles and this movie. He died before he could make it. So his unfinished film due to his passing was about a filmmaker having an unfinished film due to his passing.

Great coincidence. And one that attracted me to this story. But it COULD just be a coincidence right? Maybe Otherside just HAPPENS to parralel Welles life through Kanes narrative structure.

Except what I discovered about the title of the film. He never gave a straight answer about it. And that bothered me. Anytime he played coy, it was for a reason.

And it got me looking at the name “The Otherside of the Wind” in a new way. What if the name wasn’t a metaphor at all? He was certainly known for them. (Cough Chimes at Midnight) But, what if this name that really sounded like a metaphor was just a literal, practical name?

The Otherside of the Wind has a movie within a movie. As you watch the film, the filmmaker in it screens his new movie to friends and execs to different results. Eventually you see parts of that movie. The ending to The Otherside of the Wind is also the ending of that movie.

It ends with a woman walking onto a dusty Hollywood set built in the desert. Props of flimsy buildings sway in the wind, as she wanders through them. Eventually the wind picks up and knocks over all the props.

“The Otherside of the Wind” ENDS with a strong WIND blowing down props in a dusty storm.

So if that’s the WIND part of the title, what would the OTHERSIDE of that BE?

Well, the very FIRST shot of Citizen Kane has a cold wind in a snow storm opening up the gates to Kanes mansion.

The otherside of that wind, is the wind in the final shot of “The Otherside of the Wind.”

The movie is named after the first shot in Citizen Kane. And is about literally being the final shot of Welles career.

One that will likely never be noticed, as he made sure to tell no one. Just to make sure they would watch that movie without a bias towards him. Instead the whole point of the movie basically got lost. Because by the time it was finished 50 years later, not many were left who could fit the pieces together.

In the interviews I did, I talked with many people who worked with him as part of VISTOW. A group that thanklessly helped Orson make his movies. Many who went on to have large careers in Hollywood or Academia.

VISTOW stands for “Volunteers in Service to Orson Welles.”

And I’ll be damned if I didn’t say I’m envious of those in that group. Despite the horror stories.

Consider this very condensed rant about this topic that probably only 5 other people on the planet know my service to Orson Welles.

The Otherside of the Wind needs to be looked at as follow up to Citizen Kane, not as the final movie in Welles career.

If you watch the movie on Netflix, I encourage you to do so through this lense. (But be warned, the first 10 minutes are rough, as intended).

Okay. So this is going to sound weird. Not a book recommendation - but rather a video game.

Thought it’s about as non-fiction of a game as you can get. And it even talks about creative tools and the philosophy of what inspires creators.

Its called: “The Beginners Guide”

You can find it on Steam, and it’s about 2 hours long. It is basically a narrator walking you through some video games he liked playing from a certain artist that disappeared. He just analyzes the decisions the artist made in the game and why before moving you, the player, to another game from that artist.

Most of the gameplay is very limited. Just walking and looking. Almost like you’re going through a museum that itself is a work of art being described to you by someone who appreciates it.

There’s a couple of clever twists, but when it comes to finding yourself creatively again, it certainly helped me.

Admittedly I’m a writer, but trying new experiences is what gets me creatively working again. This one certainly did it for me, and thought I’d at least recommend the same.

For what? For when it shut down from fraud like Mt. Gox? Hasn’t happened yet.

Almost like it takes TIME before fraud infects a system of trade to the point legal action is needed.

You seriously think someone started “Magic the Gathering Online Exchange” to scam people from Crypto? You must, so explain it to me.

Fraud needs a motive.

What’s the motive to start a fraudulent Bitcoin exchange as a Magic the Gathering card trading site first?

Enlighten me.

My dude. That’s like saying, “look up the history of Wallstreet” implying the MOMENT it was active, it was full of scams.

MT. Gox SLOWLY became a site to trade crypto as if it were a security. Just like Wallstreet. When that started working and became valuable, then the scams started.

The fact it worked for CRYPTO at all was by complete ACCIDENT too. As proven by the REAL FULL name of Mt Gox: “Magic the Gathering Online eXchange.”

You wanna believe there were devious plans to scam Bitcoin at MtGox from the beginning despite it originally being a place to trade Magic Cards?

There’s also basics economics. Bitcoin was worth less than a dollar at that point. Who is going to create complex technical scams for pennies?

No one. That’s why the scams started when the pennies turned into dollars. Crime is only going to Crime when there’s profit to be made.

Except no, because Bitcoin started in 2009. What OP said above is 100% accurate. Others that were interested in early crypto and lived through it like me experienced the same. The scams didn’t start until crypto had value a couple years in.

Don’t worry, they’re absolutely stupid enough to practice CRISPR to the point where their kids are inbreeding within a generation because their CRISPR fixed genetics made them all too biologically similar to create effectively genetically diverse offspring.

Techno fuedalism is still fuedalism. So that means idiots all at the top.

Not in law school 😂

But as an American, how is money coming from a political donation legally protected free speech?

Since I’m not a lawyer, and I assume you are, please walk me through how that concept, legally, makes more sense than a bullet coming from a gun being considered free speech in a “Prove me Wrong” tour about gun violence.

Honestly, no antogonization intended, I would earnestly love to hear an actual lawyers take on the differences between these two concepts.

Because from my perspective: both are genuinely poorly reasoned when it comes to the first amendment and free speech, yet one is actually legal.

Would love to know why that is.

Better still:

Mr Kirk was on his “Prove me Wrong” tour.

And the assassin chose to prove Mr Kirk wrong in a way words couldn’t.

However - If spending money can legally be protected as “free speech” in the US, then what other actions could be considered “free speech” and therefore is protected under the first amendment?

If Mr Kirk was openly asking to be proven wrong, then couldn’t the assassins bullet be protected under free speech as a clear (but violent) answer to that question?

The blood shooting from Mr. Kirks neck alone was not good enough evidence to determine if the shooter hit what he was targeting. Great work FBI. At this rate, you’ll soon be able to confirm the shooter used a gun.

The same reason opiod companies paid doctors to promote their opiods: legitamacy.

• Opiods were marketed as a wonder-drug painkiller.
• Then a bunch of doctors got kickbacks for writing prescriptions for opiods.
• This made them seem popular, at least enough that a large majority of the US then started getting prescribed and asking for opiods.

Instead it created the opioid crisis that still has addicts suffering to this day.

• AI is being marketed as a wonder tool for film.
• A bunch of animation studios are getting kickbacks to use AI.
• The goal is to make AI seem legitamate and popular. The animation studios work will be used to hide how terrible the AI is at doing their job. However, their work, and any of it’s results, will likely be credited to the AI, not them. Which is why they’re being paid well. It’s the same as the kickback for the doctors.

Basically, the studio is being paid to pretend that the AI they use is as talented as them. It’s not, but they’re clearly getting paid to animate a movie that AI is already taking credit for.

At the end, Sam Altman will use the movie to promote the abilities of AI, when in reality AI can’t make that kind of movie without 30 million and an actual animation studio to do the work.

AI will seem more legitimate. People will use it more despite never getting the results advertised. Mission accomplished.