Orlion the Platypus

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Orlion the Platypus last won the day on October 12 2016

Orlion the Platypus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,799 Knight Radiant

About Orlion the Platypus

  • Rank
    Secret Agent O
  • Birthday December 11

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,958 profile views
  1. And I can't enter people's houses unless I'm invited in!
  2. I mean, it's far better than previous suggestions (Daniel Radcliffe and Keanu Reeves were the Internet's favorites)
  3. It honestly depends, I think. You pretty much have to come up with something that can meet the mystique of the currently unknown thing. So, in Bojack Horseman, one of the characters always greets an Erica that is offscreen and never seen or heard. Because that's all there is to the gag, revealing Erica or keeping her secret is no big deal. The audience can take it either way. Now take the Kessel Run: something with a lot of mystique. Because it's been part of Star Wars consciousness for so long, revealing it requires a special, exciting revelation with meaning for the core story over all. If what you can provide is...not that... then you shouldn't bother, it's worth more as a mystery.
  4. They should not switch names because control freaks hyperfixated on making everything "sensical" and standardize discourse accordingly must learn to accept that they are not, were not, nor ever will be, the measure of the world. (IoW, they need to be knocked down a few pegs! )
  5. I tend to let other people do the hard work One thing you can look out for going forward (in addition to what was all ready mentioned) are times when Brandon answers questions from fans, either at a signing or a Reddit AMA.
  6. Best to start trying now. People can get upset if they put in a bit of effort to type something on the internets and the response they get is something like: "*You're" One thing you can do is engage with the content of the post as well as include your correction. So something like: "*You're I also find that particular volume of ancient lore shallow and pedantic, though not for the same reasons you mentioned!" The key thing to keep in mind is that people are generally looking for engagement when they post on forums, not editorial services. So if you provide the latter, at least also provide some engagement as well.
  7. Which is funny when he's trying to be subtle about it. Like in Mistborn Era 2. I forget the character, but Wax told Wayne to knock off hitting on her, the implication being see? Brandon is cool with gay people, there's one right there! They'll never have an onpage romance or marriage and ignore that old blog post about gay marriage that he never disavowed... I guess what I'm getting at to get to my latest unpopular Brandon opinion: it'll be a sad day when he goes all Old Man Orson Scott Card on the Culture Wars.
  8. @Condensation It's enjoyable enough. Music is a good part of the structure (though it's not a musical) and the designs of the characters are fun and colorful. It's at its strongest when it is worldbuilding, when it seems to me like an American Ghibli production. But it does have a plot which, though fine, is far more grounded than the fanciful world this takes place in.
  9. Finished watching Bojack Horseman. Will have to finish watching season 3 of Kipo
  10. @Scout_Fox I should amend my single contribution to clarify: objective does not mean ONLY nomnea, Absolute, thethinginitself,etc. Those would certainly be objective, but not the only objective measure (i.e. utilitarianism is an objective standard of morality even though its measure, "what causes the most pleasure", is dynamic and changes based on time, culture and framing). Would Kant disagree with me? The original statement possibly, but he also never stated that nomnea was the only objective standard. Simply that what we can know objectively would be through our senses and rationale, or phenomena. So Kant would say that there are limits to what we can know and how we know it, and by reflecting on those limits we would have an objective understanding of what we do know. Which is connected to, but isn't necessarily, truth. As near as I can tell, only statements can have truth values. So "the truth" might be better framed as "what makes a statement true or false" and there are various methods for that, and the most common interpretation that folks intuitively hold is that the truth of a statement is dependent on how well it matches facts it's describing. So, this complicates matter because 1) facts don't have truth values, facts are facts. 2) a statement's meaning could be hidden in cultural maskings, such that statements like "it's raining cats and dogs" can be considered true.
  11. The Addams Family is mediocre at best.
  12. You guys need to define your terms. You're conflating epistemology with alethiology (nature of knowledge/what can be known vs nature of truth/what can be true). You should also sort out what is meant by "subjective" and "objective". The connotative meanings are being used instead of the philosophical and that will just confuse matters. As a starter and my only contribution to this: objective does not mean "absolute", "nomena" or "thing-as-it-actually-is".
  13. Yeah, that kerfuffle with Apocalypse Guard really messed things up. Hopefully we're back on track before he starts working on Stormlight 5
  14. I read them as they came out and I was always critical of them (not as aggressive as I am now, but still critical. I shall explain). By the second book, I had predicted a good portion of what would end up being the sixth book, even down to saying the events would take place in the sixth book. I have also always pushed against the argument that they encouraged children to read. Because they didn't then and do not now. Honestly, if it wasn't for the combination of cultural and capitalist forces that it enjoys now, it probably would be like the Chronicles of Narnia now. Not obscure and forgotten, but we wouldn't feel the need to push against it publically.
  15. Me? Watching cartoons? Never!