Raining Cash

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4621
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Raining Cash

 I don't know if anyone on here watches the celebrity apprentice, I have to admit it became one of my guilty pleasures when Annie Duke was on there and I have found myself watching this season because I'm a huge Penn Jillette fan. Well last episode they had a fundraising task, one of my favorite types because I find it interesting how people who are millionaires and spend their lives surrounded by millionaires claim "I don't know anyone who is rich"..... really?!? You don't know anyone who can blow $5-$10k on a charity? If I was a celebrity of the stature some of the guest appearances have been I would be embarrassed to brag about giving $5000. It really is priceless comedy.

 

Anyway, Penn didn't bitch about not having rich friends he called in a few big donations, one of which was the Blue Man Group. The Blue Man Group, being The Blue Man Group does everything as a spectacle and when the actors are painted blue they are always in character. Being in character, they refuse to touch money, so someone came up with the brilliant idea of delivering $8000 in $10 bills inside of a few blue balloons and popping them in the middle of the crowd.

 

The result was rather predictable, a third of the people helped collect the money for the charity and the democrats... I mean the other 2/3rds of unknown political affiliation started shoving the money down their pants. It really was rather amusing, especially when Clay Aiken practically got in a wrestling match with a guy who appeared to be obviously homeless. Really Clay? You are worth how many millions and you are going to take $20 out of the hands of a homeless guy? I shall await the next great reality show- "The Ultimate Fighter: D-List Celebrities vs. Homeless Guys"

 

Anyway, Clay flipped out on Penn over how the money was delivered. He kept referring to it as "our money" and how it was "wasted" because the Blue Man Group decided to be the brilliant artists that they are. Penn basically said he didn't care- something to the effect that the money was meant for charity and if someone picked up that money and kept it, he considered that charity. 

 

I side with Penn. It wasn't the teams money, it was the Blue Man Group's money and they can do whatever the heck they want with it. That they decided to give it in a way where only half of the money got to celebrity apprentice charity coffers and the other half goes to the audience, who cares? What do you think? 

 

I think Clay owes the homeless guy a couple bottles of fortified wine. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Penn hosted a hard-hitting,

Penn hosted a hard-hitting, fact finding show called Bullshit! and his magic acts are often coupled with his own uniquely personified vision of the world so, it struck me as kind of strange that he would even be on that show to begin with.  Same with Adam Carolla (who was recently voted off, so I'm told).  Clay Aiken is a miserable little fairy hack that fits the profile of a scuzzy, greedy socialite wart that pathetic financial fuck-ups like Donald Trump love so, his presence makes sense. 

 

The Blue Man Group I never really understood.  Maybe it's because I never saw them do their thing, but I have a few friends that have seen them perform and they tell me it's pretty cool so, I might give them a shot since I'm probably going to Vegas again soon.  Good on Penn for being the only sensible one on that program and the same goes for TBMG for being charitable and creative.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If ur really a huge Penn fan

If ur really a huge Penn fan he has a new site  pennsundayschool.com   It's just a streaming radio show with a twiiter type forum.  I've only listened to one show for something to break the online silence and I wasn't in the mood for music. It was the first show and I hope it gets a little better cuz I love Penn. 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I like Penn until he starts

I like Penn until he starts talking about his Libertarian crap. And I did love his book "God No", especially the story about the former Jew who ate the bacon cheeseburger he ate with him after a show.

But as far as this particular episode, even outside this episode, my attitude is "sure, if it is yours, legally you have the right to do what you want with it"

BUT what you have the legal right to do, and what is moral, are not always consistent. I am not commenting on this episode, just life in general.

I hate it when men in some relationships dictate to their wives or children like they are mere guests because they don't pay the bills. No just because someone pays the bills doesn't mean they have the right to act like a fucking dictator. Yea, you can, sure, from a legal standpoint. But just like my bosses, I have never valued the dicks who simply dictate. I have always valued and gone to bat for the bosses who listen and let me be myself, and have been far more productive under those situations.

"I can do what I want" yea, sure you can, but that doesn't mean I have to value that or never question it.

Libertarians ultimately simply have the same economic view of life as a god does " I can because I can"

I don't care who you are or what you own, if all someone wants to do is say "fuck you I got mine" yea, you can do that, but that doesn't mean I have to value that.

 

 

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4621
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah I like Penn's Sunday

 Yeah I like Penn's Sunday School, Penn can get a little boorish when he goes on his tangents but if the topic is good he can be funny as hell. Last week he had Gilbert Gottfried, it was good comedy.

 

The Blue Man Group is definitely worth seeing. The first time I saw them I didn't expect to like it, but they put on a very good show.

 

@Brian

Dictating is against the libertarian philosophy most libertarians I know carry that philosophy in their personal lives. I would never dictate to a girlfriend/wife/friend/kid/employee or anyone. My attitude has always been do what you want, if your goals and mine correlate great, if not we go our separate ways no hard feelings. I'm sure there are a handful of hypocrites out there, but most libertarians I know don't dictate to anyone anywhere.  The idea of being a petty dictator in the office or home is diametrically opposed to the libertarian worldview and imo a real ineffective way to run a business.

 

If businesses stopped with the absurd obsession of making sure everyone works their 40 hours when most people don't actually need to work 40 hours to perform their job, they would save a ton of money. I'm sure everyone has seen a bunch of employees sitting around in a circle jerk because some stupid time clock says they have to be there even though there is no productive work available. I'll bet half the people on this site right now are at work wasting time surfing the net. Not because they are necessarily bad employees, but because it doesn't really take a full workday to do whatever their job is.

 

Imagine what would happen if employers simply gave an employee a project and said "You can go home when this is done" or maybe weekly just said "get this done by Friday at noon, I don't care when you do it" A good portion of people would be able to provide the exact same production in about 2/3rds the amount of time. That's why I hate paying people hourly because when you are paid by the hour the incentive is to take your time. So many people sit around offices twiddling their thumbs, gossiping and generally wasting time. Even though they are not producing anything of value, they still feel like they are working and they still burn out. Plus, ime office gossip is never healthy for morale. People don't sit around talking about how wonderful work is, they bitch. They bitch no matter how nice their job is, or how great their supervisor is, they will focus on whatever negatives exist no matter how small. 

 

Someone who works for six hours then goes home will come back the next day and be able and willing to work harder than someone who does the same work in eight hours sitting around the office with their thumb up their ass. A couple extra hours with friends, family or simply taking care of errands can do wonders for lowering stress which leads to a more productive worker. I have found that many people can be trusted to get work done without being supervised or forced to sit in a location for the sake of being there. I believe that if more businesses were more selective in their hiring and trusted their employees with more responsibility that their profitability and productivity would increase. 

 

Obviously, for some jobs you have to have a set schedule because someone has to be there for the customers such as retail, hospitals or food services. But even there I think the employers who allow a lot of latitude in allowing employees to select their schedule and set up a system where it is easy for employees to swap shifts fare better and probably attract higher quality employees.

 

For some reason, most companies in the US today are obsessed with people working their scheduled hours. I think pay should be as closely tied to production as the practical reality of the industry allows. When people get paid more for producing more/producing faster they are more productive than when their pay is based on the amount of time they work. 

 

Anyway, that is my business philosophy and it works for me. I give employees a job and a deadline and let them worry about the details. Those who can do it get rewarded, those who are incompetent and require a babysitter holding their hand telling them where to go and when are let go. Hardly what I would call dictatorial. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Yeah I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yeah I like Penn's Sunday School, Penn can get a little boorish when he goes on his tangents but if the topic is good he can be funny as hell. Last week he had Gilbert Gottfried, it was good comedy.

 

The Blue Man Group is definitely worth seeing. The first time I saw them I didn't expect to like it, but they put on a very good show.

 

@Brian

Dictating is against the libertarian philosophy most libertarians I know carry that philosophy in their personal lives. I would never dictate to a girlfriend/wife/friend/kid/employee or anyone. My attitude has always been do what you want, if your goals and mine correlate great, if not we go our separate ways no hard feelings. I'm sure there are a handful of hypocrites out there, but most libertarians I know don't dictate to anyone anywhere.  The idea of being a petty dictator in the office or home is diametrically opposed to the libertarian worldview and imo a real ineffective way to run a business.

 

If businesses stopped with the absurd obsession of making sure everyone works their 40 hours when most people don't actually need to work 40 hours to perform their job, they would save a ton of money. I'm sure everyone has seen a bunch of employees sitting around in a circle jerk because some stupid time clock says they have to be there even though there is no productive work available. I'll bet half the people on this site right now are at work wasting time surfing the net. Not because they are necessarily bad employees, but because it doesn't really take a full workday to do whatever their job is.

 

Imagine what would happen if employers simply gave an employee a project and said "You can go home when this is done" or maybe weekly just said "get this done by Friday at noon, I don't care when you do it" A good portion of people would be able to provide the exact same production in about 2/3rds the amount of time. That's why I hate paying people hourly because when you are paid by the hour the incentive is to take your time. So many people sit around offices twiddling their thumbs, gossiping and generally wasting time. Even though they are not producing anything of value, they still feel like they are working and they still burn out. Plus, ime office gossip is never healthy for morale. People don't sit around talking about how wonderful work is, they bitch. They bitch no matter how nice their job is, or how great their supervisor is, they will focus on whatever negatives exist no matter how small. 

 

Someone who works for six hours then goes home will come back the next day and be able and willing to work harder than someone who does the same work in eight hours sitting around the office with their thumb up their ass. A couple extra hours with friends, family or simply taking care of errands can do wonders for lowering stress which leads to a more productive worker. I have found that many people can be trusted to get work done without being supervised or forced to sit in a location for the sake of being there. I believe that if more businesses were more selective in their hiring and trusted their employees with more responsibility that their profitability and productivity would increase. 

 

Obviously, for some jobs you have to have a set schedule because someone has to be there for the customers such as retail, hospitals or food services. But even there I think the employers who allow a lot of latitude in allowing employees to select their schedule and set up a system where it is easy for employees to swap shifts fare better and probably attract higher quality employees.

 

For some reason, most companies in the US today are obsessed with people working their scheduled hours. I think pay should be as closely tied to production as the practical reality of the industry allows. When people get paid more for producing more/producing faster they are more productive than when their pay is based on the amount of time they work. 

 

Anyway, that is my business philosophy and it works for me. I give employees a job and a deadline and let them worry about the details. Those who can do it get rewarded, those who are incompetent and require a babysitter holding their hand telling them where to go and when are let go. Hardly what I would call dictatorial. 

WAY TO MISS THE POINT

YOUR ATTITUDE is very simplistic "every man for themselves" "my actions do not affect you". My point is BULL FUCKING SHIT.

My bosses actions affect me my actions affect him. I was merely equating SOME attitudes of SOME men IN SOME families, like SOME bosses can be, I was NOT talking about Penn's personal family life or yours.

I am saying that nothing in life is either/or or as simplistic as people want to make it.

SCRIPT THINKING in any form is a bad idea on any issue because human motivations and and desires and actions are a RANGE not a script.

As with ANY issue in life "just because you can, doesn't mean you always should, nor does it mean just because you can, always makes it moral"

My point is that you suffer from the same simplistic view on life as theists you just focus on economics as if government can be as simplistic as a checkbook. And you also falsely treat private business as if it can never go off the rails.

YOU DO NOT live in a bubble which you falsely think you do and that nothing you do affects other people.

NO ONE lives in a bubble.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4621
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WAY TO MISS

Brian37 wrote:

WAY TO MISS THE POINT

YOUR ATTITUDE is very simplistic "every man for themselves" "my actions do not affect you". My point is BULL FUCKING SHIT.

My bosses actions affect me my actions affect him. I was merely equating SOME attitudes of SOME men IN SOME families, like SOME bosses can be, I was NOT talking about Penn's personal family life or yours.

I am saying that nothing in life is either/or or as simplistic as people want to make it.

SCRIPT THINKING in any form is a bad idea on any issue because human motivations and and desires and actions are a RANGE not a script.

As with ANY issue in life "just because you can, doesn't mean you always should, nor does it mean just because you can, always makes it moral"

My point is that you suffer from the same simplistic view on life as theists you just focus on economics as if government can be as simplistic as a checkbook. And you also falsely treat private business as if it can never go off the rails.

YOU DO NOT live in a bubble which you falsely think you do and that nothing you do affects other people.

NO ONE lives in a bubble.

WAY TO IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAID

You specifically attributed an attitude to "libertarians" which simply isn't true. You routinely assign views to me that I have specifically stated are not true, and often the exact opposite of what I said. For example, you just claimed I believe that "private business can never go off the rails" in response to a post where I went on at length about how I believe the majority of private businesses in the US are off the rails and how they should consider changing their business model. Really, I should just cut and paste on of your rants about LABELS right here as you seem quite insistent on fitting me into your little label even though I have probably a couple hundred pages on these forums by now explaining my beliefs in detail.

 

I never made a claim that I live in a bubble and I made another recent post in another thread going on at length about how much of an effect I have on people. It becomes tiresome when you decide to assign random beliefs to me when I have repeatedly said the opposite and every time you do I am going to call you out on it. And it is incredibly amusing that you accuse my worldview of being "simplistic" when I routinely back up my claims with long explanations and the raw data I used to come to my conclusion while you studiously avoid addressing any topic in detail, instead relying on broad generalizations.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I, like quite a few others

I, like quite a few others here... have no problem with Libertarians in general -you might say that I'm a 'hands-off' fan of Rich Woods. I love his amazingly adult and laidback character but have a hard time following his show if only because I don't 'listen' and comprehend what I am listening to well-, but the tautological antics of some of their hard-liners can grate on my patience until nothing is left but fine powder.

 

Penn, on the other hand, strikes me as a 'popular acquired taste' -he's an ex-hippie who becomes famous for magic tricks and production values, THEN starts up a show during the early 21st century centered around so-called skepticism. Only... it centers more around his (and Teller's) political and cultural points of view rather than a genuine attempt to promote skepticism after 2-3 seasons. Then he writes a book. Then he hosts reality TV/competition shows. He does all these things that are wrapped up in "shiny" as well as bad language and unsubtle, cheap production values. Who's he trying to appeal to? Midwestern misfits and suburban loudmouths? Every possible archetype of pseudointellectual found in the states?

/shake_head

 

It was funny and original the first 4 or 5 attempts, numbnuts. Now it's a cliche. Penn, I am not disappoint. I am not very angry. I am lost at what kind of appeal a blubberfaced shouter like yourself has.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I, like quite a few

Quote:

I, like quite a few others here... have no problem with Libertarians in general -you might say that I'm a 'hands-off' fan of Rich Woods. I love his amazingly adult and laidback character but have a hard time following his show if only because I don't 'listen' and comprehend what I am listening to well-, but the tautological antics of some of their hard-liners can grate on my patience until nothing is left but fine powder.

 

Penn, on the other hand, strikes me as a 'popular acquired taste' -he's an ex-hippie who becomes famous for magic tricks and production values, THEN starts up a show during the early 21st century centered around so-called skepticism. Only... it centers more around his (and Teller's) political and cultural points of view rather than a genuine attempt to promote skepticism after 2-3 seasons. Then he writes a book. Then he hosts reality TV/competition shows. He does all these things that are wrapped up in "shiny" as well as bad language and unsubtle, cheap production values. Who's he trying to appeal to? Midwestern misfits and suburban loudmouths? Every possible archetype of pseudointellectual found in the states?

/shake_head

 

It was funny and original the first 4 or 5 attempts, numbnuts. Now it's a cliche. Penn, I am not disappoint. I am not very angry. I am lost at what kind of appeal a blubberfaced shouter like yourself has.

 

Penn is the kind of guy you either love or hate, end of story.  He has a lot of good points, but not everything he says is accurate or shit I agree with which is fine.  News flash, by the way, the point of his show was to showcase his and Teller's views, not anyone else's.  I thought that was pretty obvious when both Penn and Teller produced and hand-picked which segments they thought were important TO THEM.  Besides, if you're going to bitch about something so nonsensical like "cheap production values" and "bad language," then have something superior to compare it to because, seriously, their shows were never meant to be anything other than entertainment with a reality check and, again, some of the things Penn says are wrong in my opinion, but I doubt he expects everyone to just blithely go along with his every thought and take it as fact. 

 

So he hosts reality TV shows and wrote a book; who cares?  He started out as a street performer.  His job is to entertain and if he so happens to have good points to bring with him along the way and become outspoken without polluting society like some other unfortunate scumbag celebrity entities, then so be it.  Just bitching for the sake of bitching, it seems.

 

If you want to see Penn talk off the record about issues, people, etc., then go on Youtube and check out his now dead series called "Pennsays."  It's just him in front of his camera talking with no cheap thrills, "shinies" or what other aspects of media that rub you the wrong way.  I'll get you started: www.youtube.com/user/pennsays/videos 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:Penn is

Sage_Override wrote:
Penn is the kind of guy you either love or hate, end of story.

He's the kind of person I tire of hearing everyone talk about. Does that count? There's a million of 'em out there.

Quote:
Besides, if you're going to bitch about something so nonsensical like "cheap production values" and "bad language," then have something superior to compare it to

James Randi. You made it too fucking easy. Plenty of other well-published skeptics that focus more on substance than sensationalism, I imagine. Eye-wink

Quote:
because, seriously, their shows were never meant to be anything other than entertainment with a reality check and, again, some of the things Penn says are wrong in my opinion, but I doubt he expects everyone to just blithely go along with his every thought and take it as fact.

Oh... so he's a the Noam Chomsky of circus clowns, then?

 

Quote:
Just bitching for the sake of bitching, it seems.

An interesting and provokative statement. As hard as it is for you to wrap your head around... I'm at that 'phase of life' that amounts to being cocky, overconfident and firebranded towards pointless shit I consider to be an insult to my intelligence. What people think about "entertainment" means little or nothing, to me. 

 I suspect you know some of this already, so I'm a bit lost on the condescending dismissal. There was a point, yeah?

Quote:
If you want to see Penn talk off the record about issues, people, etc.

"No mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

I'll ask again, because I do easily confuse when exposed to other people's intentions: there was a point to this post, yes? Or... you're attempting to get a rise out of me, yeah? I'm thinking there's a reason here, but I can't find it. You basically repeated everything I stated in my last post than threw in some childish jabs on top. I don't mind, at all... I'm simply baffled atm.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:He's the kind of

Quote:
He's the kind of person I tire of hearing everyone talk about. Does that count? There's a million of 'em out there.

 

He's not mentioned that often actually.  Just more bullshit on your end.

 

Quote:
James Randi. You made it too fucking easy. Plenty of other well-published skeptics that focus more on substance than sensationalism, I imagine.

 

Gee, what a coincidence since Penn has had him on his Bullshit! show multiple times.  They share the same views as painful as that may be for you to comprehend.  Penn respects the hell out of Randi, but you'd just side-step that little tidbit, wouldn't you?

 

Quote:
Oh... so he's a the Noam Chomsky of circus clowns, then?

 

...yeah, in your screwed up mind, he's whatever you want him to be apparently.

 

Quote:

An interesting and provokative statement. As hard as it is for you to wrap your head around... I'm at that 'phase of life' that amounts to being cocky, overconfident and firebranded towards pointless shit I consider to be an insult to my intelligence. What people think about "entertainment" means little or nothing, to me. 

 I suspect you know some of this already, so I'm a bit lost on the condescending dismissal. There was a point, yeah?

 

You're at that phase in your life where it's easier to be a sociopathic prick that excels at acting like a snarky douche when there's no need half the time.  Then you get your jollies by seeing people like me call you out on your insipid behaviors and try to turn it around and make it seem like I'm the dick.  I know you're a lonesome shit stain on the economic and social ladder of life and that this is your only outlet for amusement, but please try to refrain from developing a troll crush on me because my fragile heart can't take it, man. 

 

Quote:

"No mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

I'll ask again, because I do easily confuse when exposed to other people's intentions: there was a point to this post, yes? Or... you're attempting to get a rise out of me, yeah? I'm thinking there's a reason here, but I can't find it. You basically repeated everything I stated in my last post than threw in some childish jabs on top. I don't mind, at all... I'm simply baffled atm.

 

More snoring emoticons; how precious.  Your actions are as predictable as a horny pedophile outside an elementary school.  You never see any point to any post, yeah?  Only your reply means anything, yeah?  Yeah??  Am I saying "yeah" enough because maybe I'm not being cultural enough for you, either.  Just covering my bases.  I also noticed no fallacy attacks!  Is my big boy finally growing up?  I think you finally drank all that milk I air mailed to your house because this is definitely progress, albeit small, but remember that old saying; the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step!   

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
/snicker I knew you'd come

/snicker

I knew you'd come through eventually Laughing out loud

Can we play a game of chess, now?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Alright Sage, "Penn Says".

Alright Sage, "Penn Says". (Again) I don't know what started you off on that tangent, and if you could... somehow, summon more of that "Fuck you! That's my name" energy, I'll do every sexual favor in the book for you (well... maybe hire someone else for the job on loanshark money) and prostrate before your very feet. Besides the baffling take on the show, I'm even more lost on what the fuck concept you were trying to convey to me. Here's the thing...

Bullshit!, isn't even about Penn's views. Of, if they are... he changed his mind on a lot of them since then. For starters... he has lost a good bit of weight despite his vehement decrial of weight loss programing and self-help related snake oil. I doubt he's bullimic or (irony intentional) become anorexic... so what the fuck changed for him to go from SCREAMING, BLOATED WANNABE USED CAR SALESMAN to mild-mannered, polite and welcoming approach on "Penn says" with a deflated figure? I'm thinking the supposed disagreement between our posts is less than previously imagined. The fabricated outrage on Showtime was merely that... fabricated outrage. A person can see enough of this on tv, newspapers, radio, etc that they won't miss much by changing the channel and telling their goofy friends to shut up about it. So, again... it seems I was dead-on about that show being the 'shallow end' of premium channel entertainment. If I had to guess, I would say his executive producers and production managers had several times the 'influence' over the show's content than he did. So... I'm a little lost on the "violent agreement" in this thread. When it comes to "truth in advertising", I'm thinking this one show would have been better-named "Got Steam?" and your tirade amounts to "Fuck you! You're already behind the times on that one subject."

Is the joke on me, so far? Am I way off-base? Did I deface your favorite childhood role model or something? You just fucking with me on the last two posts, right?

As I've... suggested and probably demonstrated that I'm probably the biggest social daftard on the entire site, and even if I'm not... I sure as fuck feel like one on many of the threads here. Again, mind cluing me in on 'what I don't get' with regards to this exchange?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Kapkao wrote: Alright

Quote:
Kapkao wrote: Alright Sage, "Penn Says". (Again) I don't know what started you off on that tangent, and if you could... somehow, summon more of that "Fuck you! That's my name" energy, I'll do every sexual favor in the book for you (well... maybe hire someone else for the job on loanshark money) and prostrate before your very feet. Besides the baffling take on the show, I'm even more lost on what the fuck concept you were trying to convey to me. Here's the thing...

 

Why did I bring up that segment on Youtube?  Well, two reasons:  The first was to respond to this...

 

Quote:

Kapkao wrote: Penn, on the other hand, strikes me as a 'popular acquired taste' -he's an ex-hippie who becomes famous for magic tricks and production values, THEN starts up a show during the early 21st century centered around so-called skepticism. Only... it centers more around his (and Teller's) political and cultural points of view rather than a genuine attempt to promote skepticism after 2-3 seasons. Then he writes a book. Then he hosts reality TV/competition shows. He does all these things that are wrapped up in "shiny" as well as bad language and unsubtle, cheap production values. Who's he trying to appeal to? Midwestern misfits and suburban loudmouths? Every possible archetype of pseudointellectual found in the states?

 

The second was to show you Penn outside of his entertaining mold which is what you don't see much of; it's just him talking without any script or flashy crap.  His opinions, his life, his family, celebrities he admires, etc.  You don't like his views, that's fine, I don't really care, but I like a lot of what he says whether or not it's too loud, too obnoxious or whatever to your sensitive ears.  As long as he gets his point across, what does it matter?   If he's onto something, why bastardize it just because he says it in a way that seems to "offend" you?  Sometimes he's off base and other times he isn't.  He isn't a role model to me or a hero; I just respect his outspoken demeanor.     

 

 

Quote:
Sage_Override wrote: Penn is the kind of guy you either love or hate, end of story.  He has a lot of good points, but not everything he says is accurate or shit I agree with which is fine.  News flash, by the way, the point of his show was to showcase his and Teller's views, not anyone else's.  I thought that was pretty obvious when both Penn and Teller produced and hand-picked which segments they thought were important TO THEM.

 

So, you fire back with this shit which has no documented proof as to your claims that he is relying on weight loss programs, self-help, blah blah blah-dee-blah...

 

Quote:
Kapkao wrote: Bullshit!, isn't even about Penn's views. Of, if they are... he changed his mind on a lot of them since then. For starters... he has lost a good bit of weight despite his vehement decrial of weight loss programing and self-help related snake oil. I doubt he's bullimic or (irony intentional) become anorexic... so what the fuck changed for him to go from SCREAMING, BLOATED WANNABE USED CAR SALESMAN to mild-mannered, polite and welcoming approach on "Penn says" with a deflated figure?

 

I guess celebrities aren't allowed to alter their thinking or lose weight now according to you or ditch their on-camera persona for a few minutes a week to talk straight to people.  What's the world coming to?!?  Regardless, you're just spouting nonsense; business as usual.  Even if all that crap you flung WERE true, what part of "he's an ENTERTAINER" do you not get?  He has a weekly magic act in Vegas and doing tricks for the audience has been his first love since before you and I were born.  If he decides to make shows every so often that provoke your thought processes without saturating the media market with commercials and billboards everywhere like a cock starved whore from Guatemala, then let him.  I enjoy his shows.  That's it, case closed.

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote: The

Sage_Override wrote:

The second was to show you Penn outside of his entertaining mold which is what you don't see much of; it's just him talking without any script or flashy crap.  His opinions, his life, his family, celebrities he admires, etc.  You don't like his views, that's fine, I don't really care, but I like a lot of what he says whether or not it's too loud, too obnoxious or whatever to your sensitive ears.  As long as he gets his point across, what does it matter?   If he's onto something, why bastardize it just because he says it in a way that seems to you? Sometimes he's off base and other times he isn't.  He isn't a role model to me or a hero; I just respect his outspoken demeanor. 

KK. "Outspoken". I don't care for fake or phony or pretentious. I haze ZERO love of "fabricated", scripted talk. I don't care for people wearing a metaphorical 'mask' when they jump on stage to express their views, emotions, knowledge, etc even if it means the "life" or "death" of a televised program in a world of "sink or swim" cable programming. At best, you could defend his self-portrayal as "acting", which it probably is. Penn definitely wears the 'mask' when he expresses himself on premium cable. So the complaint about 'sensationalism' remains unchallenged and very firmly held. And the thing is... no matter how much you weasel in nonsequiturs and ad homs I don't think anyone can actually defend the morality of substance-free sensationalism as a valid means of expression outside of promoting an idea or (worse still) an ideal "to the ignorant masses". First off... everyone has you beat to the punch already. Second off, it makes you a hypocrite a la Penn's complaints of Jown Edwards Goofy Ballet-Dancing Fortune Teller™. He's complaining about something he does all the time on the show, ffs!

And then he videotapes himself and uploads to youtube as an entirely different person. "...you don't get a vote[...] That's all I'm saying, jesus fucking christ"

Well said, Penn. Of course, since I watched his first few seasons of bullshit!, i get "a vote".

Quote:
(a fuckton of pointless and caustic personal attacks, nonsequiturs, garbage in general

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4621
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 You do realize you two are

 You do realize you two are arguing about a show titled "Bullshit", I'm at a loss as to why anyone would expect a show titled bullshit to be anything other than bullshit. And it seems rather pointless to criticize a show titled bullshit for being bullshit.... what did you expect? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Kapkao wrote: KK.

Quote:

Kapkao wrote: KK. "Outspoken". I don't care for fake or phony or pretentious. I haze ZERO love of "fabricated", scripted talk. I don't care for people wearing a metaphorical 'mask' when they jump on stage to express their views, emotions, knowledge, etc even if it means the "life" or blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ignoring everything that I don't fully comprehend, dismissing rational thought, being an arrogant fuck wad, throwing out terminology to sound thoughtful without fully grasping their meaning and then, fuck it, I'll just toss in a random picture expressing my droll resentment for everything except my narrow views."

 

Was that what you were trying to say?  No?  Maybe I'M the one that's just too damn confused and missed the point that YOU were trying to make, but I did do my best.  I'm sorry, maybe I'll get it next time.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: You do

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You do realize you two are arguing about a show titled "Bullshit", I'm at a loss as to why anyone would expect a show titled bullshit to be anything other than bullshit. And it seems rather pointless to criticize a show titled bullshit for being bullshit.... what did you expect? 

The show's title invalidates my opinions because it's "pointless"? kk.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)