Every day, jackasses on television say heartless, self-centered, unthinking things the evil and maliciousness of which would compel anyone with a heart and mind to form a good, old fashioned, lynchin’ mob. Unfortunately, since most of these comments concern topics that are not immediately emotionally gripping, they are brushed aside as instances of everyday sensationalism. “No one could really think that,” we tell ourselves, “so it must be a marketing gimmick or ratings ploy.”
Yet when an event such as the Earthquake / Tsunami in Japan occurs, it provides a difference in kind, a deviation from the norm, of such a degree that we pay attention to how our television anchors react to it. It is one thing to sensationalize everyday suffering. But when something happens the magnitude and severity of which actually changes the structure of our world we have an opportunity to remove our veils of emotional estrangement and be genuine.
The upshot of this is that a sociopath like Larry Kudlow can neither understand nor feel emotion. So when shit happens and no one remembers to send him a memo to “Not be a fucking jackass on live television.” we get amazing spectacles such as this:
"The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that."
- Larry Kudlow
Translation: "Sure, 10,000 people are feared dead. But at least the market didn't drop 10,000 points."
This, my friends, is what we call perspective. And we can be thankful that Larry Kudlow remains ever-vigilant, as an agent of empathy and class during these dark times.
10,000 are feared dead, multiple nuclear reactors are close to partial meltdown, and thousands are homeless, stranded amidst a landscape of destruction and chaos in the wake of the largest Earthquake in Japan's history. But the real tragedy, the ultimate suffering, can be found in the victimization of the 37 or so people who still play Final Fantasy XI or XIV.
Due to the continuous earthquakes occurring in the eastern regions of Japan since Mar. 11, 2011, the power companies in Japan have encouraged everyone to cooperate by conserving as much energy as possible as it is feared there will not be enough power supply. Based on the current situation, we have decided to shut down the game servers temporarily, and therefore to suspend services of FINAL FANTASY XIV, FINAL FANTASY XI, and PlayOnline temporarily.
A loss, an absence, a whirlpool of dread for those brave, brave gamers who proudly wade through two of the shittiest, shittiest, MMOs to ever be launched. For the glory of the empire their progress shall abate. Yet perhaps in this loss some hope can be found, in that maybe this will finally shake these individuals out of playing these horrible games for one of which Yoichi Wada actually made a formal apology:
While more than two months have passed since the official launch of FINAL FANTASY XIV service, we deeply regret that the game has yet to achieve the level of enjoyability that FINAL FANTASY fans have come to expect from the franchise, and for this we offer our sincerest of apologies.
He fucking apologized for how terrible the game is, and you asshats are still playing? God, have you fuckers not heard of WoW? Its servers are running just fine and in no danger of destruction from nuclear fallout.
If you actually spend time playing FF XI or XIV? Go sit in a fucking corner while the servers are down and let this news wash over you. I mean, you're waiting to play a game that had such an unstable architecture that a formal apology was made for it. Can you not understand the fallout of such an action? Are you drowning in denial? Ought you not pack up and move on now that your MMO home has been washed away? Is the tsunami of evidence that these games suck not enough to quake your determination to continually float through this seismic gaming fault?
There are times when I start to think that FOX News is a normal news station and we only pay attention to the insane things.
Then on Fox News Sunday they bring Margie Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church on to talk about the Supreme Court ruling that, despite being fuckbars, can continue to be fuckbars. In true crazy-fox news style the did not have anyone one to contest all the fucking retarded shit Phelps had to say.
But that is not enough Big Bad Margie Phelps kicked it up a notch.
QUESTION: So the justices are going to Hell? The President is going to Hell?
PHELPS: Absolutely on the President. That’s a big ten-four. I already answered on the justices. The President is going to be king of the world before this is all said and done and he is most likely the Beast spoken of in the Revelation.
Every now and then I happen upon something that reinvigorates my delight in philosophy. My latest amazing discovery is The Raven Paradox. Here is how it works:
We have a statement, "All Ravens are Black". How would we know if this statement is true? If we use induction, then we found the truth of the universal on observations of particulars. I find one black raven and count that as evidence for the universal. I find a second black raven and this is further evidence. Every black raven I find seems to increase the likelihood of the truth of the universal. However, given one problem of induction, we have to ask how many black ravens must be found in order to prove, absolutely, that all ravens are black. Every black raven is evidence for the universal, but how many ravens are required to establish the truth of the universal? Or, if we don't care about absolutes, then how do we quantify the probability that all ravens are black given, say, 300 black ravens? Short answer: One cannot establish the probability, since the attempts to do so results in an infinite inductive regress.
That's one problem with induction, but it is not the paradox. The Raven paradox occurs as a result of the logical equivalence between:
(1) All Ravens are Black (2) All Non-Black things are Non-Ravens
If all ravens are black, then any non-black thing is not a raven. If I find a black raven, that is evidence that all ravens are black. If I find a green apple, that is evidence that all non-black things are non-ravens. But since these two statements are logically equivalent, anything that counts as evidence of (2) is also evidence for (1).
Stated plainly, this green apple is evidence that all ravens are black. I have learned about ravens by examining this apple. If the problem is not immediately apparent, then consider these examples:
(1) "All Ravens are Black" = "All Non-Black things are Non-Ravens" (2) "All Ravens are Green" = "All Non-Green things are Non-Ravens" (3) "All Ravens are Orange" = "All Non-Orange things are Non-Ravens" (4) "All Ravens are Red" = "All Non-Red things are Non-Ravens"
Given the logical equivalence of the above four statements, this blue ball counts as evidence for each. Moreover, this blue ball counts as inductive evidence for a nigh-infinite number of universal statements concerning ravens, sheep, voles, and, hell, even snozberries. "All Snozberries are green" = "All Non-Green things are Non-Snozberries". This blue ball is evidence that "All Non-Green things are Non-Snozberries" since it is neither green nor a snozberry. Therefore, this blue ball is evidence that all snozberries are green!
We tend to feel like induction tells us about the world, that we can discern the truth of universals from observations of particulars. If I find a black raven, and another black raven, and a third black raven, then I feel justified in believing that all ravens are black. If I find 500 or 5,000 black ravens, then I feel even further justified. But as we have seen, the Raven Paradox indicates that inductive evidence for the claim that "All Ravens are Black" is not only ravens, but also balls, soap, and every non-black, non-raven thing. If the sight of one black raven counts as one piece of evidence for the universal "All Ravens are Black", then the sight of this blue ball also counts as one piece of evidence for that universal.
Most people think this situation is problematic and counter-intuitive because, well, it is. But let's say that in order to make your life easier, you just accept the Raven Paradox, because you can't not accept it, and so grant that my blue ball is evidence that all ravens are black. But if you do that, then you've just permitted me to philosophically phuck you. How? Well, I'm glad that you asked.
You think that "All Ravens are Black" is a true statement. Let's say that you want to prove it to me. So, you go find 5,000 black ravens. But I do not think that all ravens are black. Let's say that I think all ravens are magenta. I have never found a magenta raven, but I have found a wealth of non-magenta things that are non-ravens. So, I go find 5,000 non-magenta, non-raven things to count as inductive proof that all ravens are magenta.
Given our inductive evidence, which of us is correct? You have 5,000 black ravens, but I have 5,000 non-magenta non-ravens. You really want to say that your black ravens are better evidence than my non-magenta, non-ravens. But there is no logical basis for making that distinction. You have 5,000 evidence that all ravens are black while I have 5,000 evidence that all ravens are magenta. Since we have each offered equal quantities of evidence, and our evidence conflicts, then it must be the case that both 'All Ravens are Black' and 'All Ravens are Magenta' are false.
Isn't that fucking awesome?! Just think of the argumentative tricks afforded to us by the Raven Paradox and the folly of induction!
You think that all Blue MTG decks are control decks. To inductively prove this claim, you go find 5,000 blue control decks. Well, I shall have none of this! I contend that all blue decks are goblin decks. Now, I've never found a blue goblin deck, but I have found a wealth of non-goblin, non-blue decks. So, I go find 5,000 elf decks. We then meet on the rhetorical battle ground. You offer your 5,000 inductive evidence that all blue decks are control decks. I offer my 5,000 inductive evidence that all blue decks are goblin decks. Oh noes! We each have 5,000 inductive evidence to support our claims! Since we each have equal evidence, it can't be the case that we are both correct. Yet while I have not proven that I am correct...
