|
What's the documentary about the Aikido (or some sort of Japanese stick fighting) test that only one person passes a year?
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
The Imposter is really good. A man in Spain claims to be a Texas boy missing for 3 years and the family believes him. It spoils everything but an earlier New Yorker article includes a few useful details. Among other things, the documentary talks about a witness being harassed but the article explains that as waiting for them to sober up. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The Imposter is really good. The Imposter is currently on Netflix Instant too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Kvlt! posted:Can anyone reccomend some awesome metal documentaries? Or music docs in general. ulvir posted:Metal: A headbanger's journey does a good job of covering the different subgenres. If you enjoy this, Sam Dunn (the director) did a follow up TV series called Metal Evolution which is an 11 part series that goes through the history of Metal in more detail and chronologically highlights the sub-genres in more detail. Unfortunately, the most fascinating of the Metal sub-genres (Black Metal) didn't get an episode and it's real hole in the whole "History of Metal" tapestry. He wanted to do it, but VH1 (who funded and first aired the series) thought it was too extreme and didn't want to do it. He tried to get a kickstarter going to do it as a 12th episode but it didn't make it's goal. Punk's Not Dead is the Punk equivilant of Headbangers Journey. Looten Plunder fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Kvlt! posted:Can anyone reccomend some awesome metal documentaries? Or music docs in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I think Lemmy is pretty great and its a testament that Lemmy Kilmister is a demigod or something because no man should be able to live after the poo poo he has done to his body, he is literally the personification of Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll (plus a lot of booze). Yeah Lemmy's a bit uneven but it's definitely worthwhile if you're a fan of his and it has some really interesting moments, like him defending his collection of Nazi memorabilia, the interview with the guy who custom makes all his boots, and the bits where him and his son are interviewed together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Has anyone watched Blackfish? Opinions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Oh, and re: metal documentaries, Heavy Metal Parking Lot and The Decline of Western Civilization Part II are absolutely essential.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Oh, and re: metal documentaries, Heavy Metal Parking Lot and The Decline of Western Civilization Part II are absolutely essential. I thought you were being witty and listing documentaries about Iron and Steel etc. But nope!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:Has anyone watched Blackfish? Opinions? Yeah, a few pages back. It's harrowing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, a few pages back. It's harrowing stuff. I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film" When you hear stuff like that without anyone ever elaborating as to why you can be sure it's synonymous with "This thing has a clear point of view and it makes me uncomfortable"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film" I watched a presentation of Blackfish in an academic setting with a Q&A panel afterward, with at least one expert on the subject of whale genetics and whales in captivity, along with the rest of his lab crew (of which I was a part at the time). Parts of this doc are shocking, but it's entirely warranted; the industry and treatment of captive cetaceans is horrifying. I'd have to rewatch the film to be more specific, but we were told that even one of the interviewees who seems relatively good in fact captures wild dolphins somewhere and sells them to Asian marine parks, where they're horribly mistreated. I'm glad Blackfish makes people uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film" What is this grain of salt? That orcas are not as intelligent as the movie makes them out to be? It's just mind boggling that people's mental defences would reach so far but I guess we're still experiencing that kind of anti-scientism with global warming so maybe I should stop being so surprised. Honestly, everyone should watch Blackfish. It's just a really good documentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:Has anyone watched Blackfish? Opinions? Holy crap. Was this really not some attempt at trolling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film" I'm assuming these are SeaWorld employees saying this to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
It really is amazing how many people I've talked to that actually sat down and watched Blackfish, and still they say stuff like "I'm sure it was exaggerated" and "it just seemed really biased against SeaWorld". I dunno, I guess a lot of people have fond memories of going to SeaWorld as a kid and don't want to think that they may have contributed to the torture and imprisonment of an intelligent creature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Tilikum must've done something to deserve to be imprisoned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It really is amazing how many people I've talked to that actually sat down and watched Blackfish, and still they say stuff like "I'm sure it was exaggerated" and "it just seemed really biased against SeaWorld". I dunno, I guess a lot of people have fond memories of going to SeaWorld as a kid and don't want to think that they may have contributed to the torture and imprisonment of an intelligent creature. People in America are basically conditioned to expect their news to be passive and "fair and balanced", ie uncritically be a platform for somebody's sound bites and then play a soundbite from the opposite side with no over editorializing or actual fact-checking. Actively wearing your agenda and narrative on your sleeve but backing it up with facts and eyewitness accounts and actual footage is "biased" and can be safely compartmentalized if not outright ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
I don't think it's wrong to expect that kind of journalism to be honest. As Mill pointed out you can't fully understand an argument until you've heard both sides point of view. As for Blackfish, some of the claims in the doc did seem slightly, you know, fishy. There's that one bit where they claim that aggressive behaviour is passed on through genes (or something basically to that effect.) Is that really how these things work? Don't genetics only carry information related to physical characteristics, not ones related to attitudes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I don't think it's wrong to expect that kind of journalism to be honest. As Mill pointed out you can't fully understand an argument until you've heard both sides point of view. Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember when DNA and aggression were discussed and in what context. I thought they were arguing the opposite, that Tilikum's traumatic experiences made him aggressive and dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Also Sea World refused point-blank to be interviewed for Blackfish or to provide any sort of counterpoint despite being contacted by the film-makers multiple times, so even if you wanted to have them dedicate screen time to talking heads from Sea World in the name of fairness Sea World wasn't going to have anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember when DNA and aggression were discussed and in what context. I thought they were arguing the opposite, that Tilikum's traumatic experiences made him aggressive and dangerous. He's right, the argument does pop up. They make the argument that having him be a breeding animal for other orcas is dangerous because of his history of aggression. It's something that made me raise an eyebrow but it is such a small detail that it really doesn't matter one way or another. Other than that, some subjects require bias to an extent. Like genocides, war victims or other victims of systemic violence, I strongly believe that animal suffering is definitely one of those things where the other side's opinion or claims don't matter as much as those of the side that's suffering. Though I think people should always stick to good science(look at the whole 'animal testing isn't necessary' in Earthlings. Technically, it isn't, but a lot more people are going to die without it) NeilPerry fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Blackfish did even have one of the interviewed former trainers be one who advocated for the Sea World position. And, as mentioned, Sea World itself declined to present its own point of view on the film. A lot of the facts presented in the film are pretty unambiguous, they are true or not true. For instance, the trainers interviewed make it clear that Sea World did not provide them with any information or film about previous incidents or attacks involving the orcas. That is either true or untrue, it doesn't leave room for subjective interpretation, and if true, is pretty damning in and of itself concerning Sea World's interest in safety or protecting its employees and whales.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
smurf1788 posted:I watched it but IDk. I keep hearing everyone say " Take it with a grain of salt" or it's a "shock film" IMHO those things are said by people who want to take Susie and Johnny to sea world without feeling like poo poo. Even assuming it's slanted and you don't mind the whales getting hosed over, sea world is a lovely corporation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:He's right, the argument does pop up. They make the argument that having him be a breeding animal for other orcas is dangerous because of his history of aggression. The critical detail is the insane proportion of animals who are descended from Tilikum, I can't remember the exact number but it was at least half of Sea World's orcas and a large portion of all orcas in captivity- and from what I can gather it's regarded as a prize line so that trend is likely to continue. When one wale has a genetic imprint that huge, behavioral issues are a definite concern, unless someone's managed to do a research piece demonstrating the line is okay and no undesirable traits are destroying the gene pool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 02:08
|
|
ME
|
Don't dog breeds get selected and conditioned for certain behavioural characteristics as well as physical ones? If so it shouldn't it be possible for such traits to be passed on in other animals?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Don't dog breeds get selected and conditioned for certain behavioural characteristics as well as physical ones? If so it shouldn't it be possible for such traits to be passed on in other animals? Yes, same with all domesticated animals, but I'd imagine a more intelligent social animal like a killer whale has much more complex behaviour than a dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Yes, same with all domesticated animals, but I'd imagine a more intelligent social animal like a killer whale has much more complex behaviour than a dog. Not as important as you'd think- social animals are actually easier to train. A dumb enough animal has trouble putting together "do trick" and "get food". A smart enough animal not only puts the parts together "whoa, I did a trick and that got me food", but might even improvise "if I do the trick faster will I get more food?", and social animals can learn from observing others. The bigger factor is that you need more generations to solidify a trait, or Li'l Til is only half murderer. But these sorts of breeders tend to favor the worst traits. In particular, it's precisely because Tilikum is hard to show that he's allowed to be with the females so much. As the docu demonstrates, the females often attack and bully (unfamiliar, penned-in) males. The breeding pool therefore comes to be dominated by the whales that don't show well, and you now have a business reliant on show whales who's own self-interest promotes whales that don't show well. If you need other reasons, limited gene pool compared to wild, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Kvlt! posted:Can anyone reccomend some awesome metal documentaries? Or music docs in general. This is from a page ago, but I really enjoyed Iron Maiden: Flight 666. There's not much of a story to it other than Maiden touring around the world, but they seem like fun guys and it was a lot of fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Don't dog breeds get selected and conditioned for certain behavioural characteristics as well as physical ones? If so it shouldn't it be possible for such traits to be passed on in other animals?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I've read a lot of articles and books that say the same is true for humans - that genes affect our personality more strongly than our upbringing. If you find that view challenging, the genes to predispose us toward certain behaviors are very easy to breed for. It may still take later environmental factors to realize that predisposition. Insert thousands of philosophy doctoral students who need to say something controversial to get attention for their thesis, so engage semantic drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
How can you tell where the effects of genes ends and the effect of environmental factors begin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:How can you tell where the effects of genes ends and the effect of environmental factors begin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:How can you tell where the effects of genes ends and the effect of environmental factors begin? If anyone could honestly answer that question they would win the Nobel, get killed or be elected president..
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Well, I've heard that scientists study twins who were raised apart to see just how similar they turned out. Those studies could provide the answers. The problem is it's all interpretation. Someone can always come along and say there are hidden biological factors unaccounted for, like epigenetics. Then a philosopher will make an argument about free will, and some statistics or heaven forbid quantum mechanics to back it up. Not accusing anyone but in general, if someone doesn't see the problems with a statement like the above, you should really check out more of the statistics-themed docus available from the collector sites in the OP. I'd also toss in a book recommend, Leonard Mlodinow's Drunkard's Walk. Not really a docu but here's the man speaking, if you want that in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAt27VwavJ8 Mlodinow's Drunkard's Walk (or equivalent stat training) should be required reading before children can become legal adults. Is there a good, scathing documentary on the research industry in that vein? Something specifically about how there's such a massive system where people are required to generate novel research regardless of whether or not they actually have anything to say. Not that I'm wholly cynical about research, but I can't think of any major projects outside of pure science journals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:The problem is it's all interpretation. Someone can always come along and say there are hidden biological factors unaccounted for, like epigenetics. Then a philosopher will make an argument about free will, and some statistics or heaven forbid quantum mechanics to back it up. Not accusing anyone but in general, if someone doesn't see the problems with a statement like the above, you should really check out more of the statistics-themed docus available from the collector sites in the OP. I'd also toss in a book recommend, Leonard Mlodinow's Drunkard's Walk. Not really a docu but here's the man speaking, if you want that in video form: I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace spent a fair amount of time talking about scientists in the 70s researching the 'balance of nature' which they had managed to convince themselves was a thing that existed despite there being no evidence for it and a lot against it. They talked specifically about an isolated island (I think) where they studied the wolf and deer populations and rather than them reaching some natural balance as the scientists assumed, they fluctuated wildly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace spent a fair amount of time talking about scientists in the 70s researching the 'balance of nature' which they had managed to convince themselves was a thing that existed despite there being no evidence for it and a lot against it. They talked specifically about an isolated island (I think) where they studied the wolf and deer populations and rather than them reaching some natural balance as the scientists assumed, they fluctuated wildly. Suggestions in line with this might be appreciated. Kneejerked at the Ayn Rand but it looks like the documentary is going somewhere with it. It can be hard to find good criticisms of the scientific processes thanks to tinfoils and idealists. In general I'm not really looking for things about failed scientific revolutions because I'm already familiar with Thomas Kuhn and the postmodernists*, which encapsulates a lot of the usual philosophical arguments. I'd rather have more facts and figures and detailed pictures of who influenced what for a particular paper, or issue. *Regarding postmodern/relativist interpretations of his work, Kuhn was once quoted as saying, "I am not a Kuhnian!". This is worth reading up on for anyone who wants to know more about (failed) scientific revolutions. I'm not so sure Kuhn's defense was successful, but that's a whole other thing. e: I guess some of the "big oil" and climate docus have bits of what I want, but I'd rather if the research was covered in more detail. And yes I do read research papers. revdrkevind fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Suggestions in line with this might be appreciated. Kneejerked at the Ayn Rand but it looks like the documentary is going somewhere with it. It can be hard to find good criticisms of the scientific processes thanks to tinfoils and idealists. All Watched Over... is great and definitely worth a watch. The Ayn Rand bit in the beginning is really getting at how she influenced a whole generation of silicon valley and wall street elite into thinking the market was a machine that could be perfectly stabilized, when in reality the bubble busts and other financial crises have proven that wrong. The next two parts get into cybernetics, ecology, genetics and more with a pretty critical eye.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
mod sassinator posted:All Watched Over... is great and definitely worth a watch. Definitely in line with what I was looking for, with lots of pointers to actual research. Plus I love how it's made in the old BBC style and oddly perfectly meshed with modern music. Makes me want to look up more Radiophonic Workshop. Since it's the area I've studied the most I was a bit jarred by the characterization of Dawkins as a monster who says we're all robots, but it's very in line with this series speaking about how research is received on a large scale, and admittedly that's all most people see. It was striking though that Dawkins was put right up against massacres in Africa, as Dawkins was born in Africa, and has very strong words against the atrocities there. But saying that Dawkins resurrected the soul and devalues the here and now is hard to excuse, even with the caveat above. This seems to come only from a naive reading of The Selfish Gene, I think because the larger career of Dawkins contains a possible resolution to the crisis the documentary wants to leave us with. Ironically, Dawkins published The Magic of Reality that same year partly in order to combat this image. Overall quite enjoyable, very eye-opening, and has quite a bit of good research. Recommended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:15
|
|