FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
I didn't realize it lasted that long either. TIL
I'm less sure. Part of me thinks that if a neoliberal ghoul of a Democrat were in the white house, an HRC or a Cuomo, we would have been bullied by the mass media into ignoring all the dead elderly folks as "within natural seasonal variations" and told that everything was perfectly normal and that any other countries behaving otherwise were panicking and overreacting and that even thinking too much about COVID was racist.
I think it's more fun if we don't allow the decision! Now you have weigh a 50% chance of landing on the wrong team.
WWII American is an easy pick, but WWII Japanese would be terrible.
But then the wars that have more even distributions of forces tend to be worse for everyone involved.
I think I'd pick something pretty antique. One of the Greek city state conflicts, or the a mercenary in one of the sets of Italian wars.
You know, I have a friend who is a born-again virgin, who was of sometimes questionable sexual morality prior to meeting his now-wife. My understanding from him is that she was similar, though I have never talked to her personally about it. They understand this about each other, but other than that they don't speak about it and operate as though they were each other's firsts.
I wouldn't have guessed that would work, but it seems to for them.
The question is can you pick a side. The Pacific was no picnic for the Marines, but it was much worse for the Japs.
Did you recently listen to the new MartyrMade podcast episode on WWI? He makes this point at length, mostly summarizing Junger et al on the topic.
How do you train a longbowman? Start with his grandfather.
There are also a great many people who, after being told that xyz group is on average inferior, will not accept a meritocracy.
Trump has so far been no worse than Biden/Harris, though there's an opportunity to be much better or much worse coming up.
She recently started hooking up with a French postdoc who is cheating on his long-term girlfriend with her...she responded by saying that she "had to" pursue this relationship because she didn't know when she would "feel this way" again and that he was a "special guy".
The West has not fallen. The French are still the French.
I will say I've been shocked to find several relationships, adult successful ones, in my social circle who are the result of long term cheating gone legit. It's not completely unheard of. I'm oddly old fashioned on one point: marriage washes out all prior sins, once you get married whatever ethical lapses you committed in dating no longer matter.
The Enhanced Games appear to be a real thing this time. They've successfully taken a past-his-prime Olympic swimmer who never finished better than 5th in the Olympics, and drugged him up scientifically and taken him to break the 50m record. As a kind of proof of concept.
Which is fascinating to me in that, having been a huge baseball fan and seven years old in 1998, I've been massively cynical about drug use in sports. While there are obvious differences between sports and time periods with open and unconstrained drug use versus tested and hidden drug use, I pretty much assumed that all top level athletes were likely pushing the rules a little bit.
And what we're seeing here is Gkolomeev, who never medaled in the Olympics, drugging up openly and within a short period breaking the record. What this tells us is that swimming in the Olympics is pretty clean. Because otherwise, someone else would have already broken that record, there wouldn't be any margin left for the enhanced games to enhance. Reading about in the WSJ, it didn't even sound like a "crazy" cycle he was on, nothing that would get him good odds in the old T Nation bodybuilder Death Pool. So if just a decent open cycle gets you a world record, then we know there's not a ton of drug use in olympic swimming.
The Enhanced Games might in an empirical sense actually be a great thing for the Olympics, an effective proof that the Olympic athletes remain clean. If the Enhanced Games' break the records, then we know the olympic record is clean. If they don't, it's suspicious.
Though either way I hope the Enhanced Games bring back Tug of War.
A Middle Earth setting that is true to Tolkien lacks an essential element for an MMO: morally grey factions.
40k is the perfect setting for tabletop gaming because there are no good guys, so you don't have any problem running any two races/factions against each other. It's not even hard, from a lore perspective, to come up with reasons why two guard units or marine chapters or demon cults or orc waaaaghs are fighting. Everything is pure gameplay.
In Middle Earth, humans and elves and dwarves can only fight orcs, unless it's a big misunderstanding and huge tragedy that we will mourn for a thousand years. There's no lore-natural PVP aspect. There's limited lore-natural small scale events. Everything is the big stuff.
Depends how specific you think a lot of things are to particular presidents and timing.
Does COVID still happen in 2020? Does Russia still invade Ukraine? What happens in Israel, we don't get the Abraham accords because we don't get Trump so we don't get desperate Hamas launching 10/7; but it's not like everyone would have just sat still in the meantime?
Does a more technically competent president ban or regulate Bitcoin in 2011? Does a bloodier minded president get more entangled with ISIS? What happens with Epstein?
Then you get into who follows Clinton. When does Mitt Romney run? When does Barack Obama come off the bench?
you're saying that Israel/American Jews built goodwill by pushing Holocaust education in school and anti-Nazi/antisemitism propaganda?
Yes, I'm saying that generations of Jews made specific efforts to denormalize and taboo antisemitism through lobbying and cultural efforts. I don't think this is a controversial statement, or one that requires a conspiratorial reading. I think that's pretty much been the stated goal of many Jewish or holocaust remembrance organizations for decades. The ADL on their website specifically calls out in their page on their history and mission that in the 1950s they:
embark[ed] on a campaign to produce educational and cultural media promoting religious and racial acceptance. In December 1959, in conjunction with ADL's 46th annual meeting, the CBS television network broadcasts "A Salute to the American Theatre," featuring excerpts from Broadway productions on the theme of diversity.
While in the 1960s they used:
Worldwide attention to the capture, trial and execution of Nazi henchman Adolf Eichmann prompts renewed focus on the Holocaust and catalyzes ADL activities to educate about the Holocaust and counter those who deny or diminish it.
And in the 1970s they:
establishe[d] the International Center for Holocaust Studies (now known as the Braun Holocaust Institute-Glick Center for Holocaust Studies) which becomes one of the nation's first formal Holocaust Education programs - pioneering materials for students and educators to understand the Holocaust and apply its lessons to contemporary issues of prejudice and hate.
Later on in the 2000s they will:
ADL joins with the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education and Yad Vashem to launch Echoes and Reflections, a comprehensive multimedia program for teaching about the Holocaust in U.S. schools.
The ADL is just one organization that has worked on this project, but at no point has their goal been conspiratorial or secret: they want to put Holocaust education on curricula, they want to create Holocaust education materials and get them into the hands of teachers and students to produce a world where the vast majority of American students (who are paying any kind of attention) are exposed to these narratives. This built up cultural goodwill over the course of seventy years is being burned over the past three.
What have they now done differently to burn the goodwill?
Pew finds that 53% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 42% before the war. This includes a supermajority of Democrats, 69% up from a narrow 53% majority before the war. But worse, Republicans under 50 now have a 50% unfavorable view of Israel, up from 35% before the war.*
This all happened since 2022. Do you think the media environment changed significantly enough in that time, or immigration altered demographics sufficiently, or some other factor intervened, that across the board Americans left and right turned against Israel? You think it has nothing to do with Israel's behavior, and that Israel could not have made any choices to mitigate that decline? That's a bizarre take given the obvious correlation between Israel's actions in Gaza and the decline in American public opinion on Israel.
You can certainly argue that the emergence of social media, particularly those outside the control of traditional media guardians like Xitter and tiktok, was necessary to publicize what happened in Gaza without censorship; but if nothing was happening in Gaza, there would have been nothing to publicize. Maybe this is all propaganda from Israel's jew-hating enemies, but without the war, the war could not be the site and opportunity for an external maneuver by those enemies. The temporal correlation is way too strong to argue that the conduct of the war has not had a disastrous impact on public opinion around Israel. And saying Israel had no choice about how to conduct the war is absurd.
Now, goodwill exists so it can be used. Were Israel burning goodwill to permanently solve the problem, I may not support their solution, but I could respect the decision. Israel's actions thus far have not solved their problems, they have amounted to mowing the grass.
The most dangerous mechanism on for Israel, though, is one I myself see on this very forum.
After October 7th, plenty of people here were gung-ho for a little genocide/purge. Precious little of the conversation in this thread is focused on Palestine, whereas most of the standout comments focus on Jewish control of Media/Finance/Hollywood and other institutions.
We've had our resident Jew-Posters since before 2023, and I generally either ignored them or argued against them. Now I find myself upvoting them, agreeing with them, when the conversation turns to Palestine. Orthodox Ivy League liberal lawyers in my social circle are horrified finding themselves agreeing with Marjorie Taylor Greene more than they agree with Chuck Schumer, or seeing tweets from Fuentes or quotes from Darryl Cooper and agreeing with them. When Israel makes the antisemites correct about one thing, they risk making people look at the rest of their thoughts. It's a very bad dynamic for the Jewish People.
nor is there anything they could really do differently to mitigate it.
Have they tried?
*Gallup shows similar across the board declines during the war, but in less detail.
Who mugs somebody by punching them? I guess it's not impossible, and maybe if by mugging we mean something more like purse snatching, but every mugger I've ever heard of had a knife at least. At which point we're out of the universe of stuff I was even remotely talking about, if someone pulls a knife on you that's an obvious deadly threat.
Israel is getting our support because Zionists who consider Israel the most important country in the world relentlessly lobby for Israel, and have been doing so for decades, sometimes smearing opponents as antisemites.
This is a point I've brought up privately to Jewish friends of mine: Israel is burning through goodwill that they and their parents and their grandparents have spent decades building in the American public. When I came through public school, I studied the Holocaust more often than any single event outside of the Declaration of Independence and the Walking Purchase. I read at least three full books in the curriculum that I can remember: Night, Numer the Stars, and of course The Diary of Anne Frank. There might have been more that I'm forgetting.
Making sure that every American public school student learned that the Holocaust was the worst most uniquely horrible thing that ever happened in human history, often taught with questionable historicity (shoutout @SecureSignals), was a project of lobbying by Jewish groups. Making antisemitism into the worst, stupidest, lowest class, most unacceptable prejudice was a project of lobbying. Making Nazi gangs into the world's worst villains that don't need to be humanized in Sons of Anarchy or Breaking Bad wasn't an accident, nor was it a project of a few weeks. Making Nazi into a swear word and Hitler into secular-Satan was a project of decades.
This was what gave the Jews a special exception from the liberal world order in Israel for decades, what allowed them freedom of action. And now it seems to me that they've pissed a lot of it away on a few years of mowing the Gazan grass.
I was gonna mention this, but I don't actually know how and when these are worn
It's just a tight fitting stretchy shirt for grappling, it gets caught minimally, while also giving you more friction than bare skin. I'll probably pick up a couple this year, but up until now I've gotten along ok in a regular athletic material long sleeve shirt. Partly because the aesthetic on most rashguards is disgustingly stupid, and it clearly has no use outside bjj.
I also sweat like a whore in church, so my game has somewhat developed around being very slippery.
Good rule for western wear (though I think you gotta discount jeans, unless worn conspicuously high and tight),
Jeans are generally free, though degree of stitching also plays a part. I'm mostly thinking in my own closet of denim shirt, large belt buckle, cowboy hat, roper boots; they all have their own score. The stetson is obviously tough to begin with, I'll wear it occasionally to stay dry in the rain or snow anyway, but it takes up all available points. The belt buckle is a fun detail with a normal outfit, the boots just look like plain leather shoes normally, combine them and I look like I'm going line dancing or I'm running for Congress in Texas.
I absorbed more or less the opposite rule for cycling kit at a formative age; there's no reason not to wear a t-shirt over trishorts or bibs but I feel goofy as hell doing it. My dad did some amateur racing in the 80s, so maybe I got it from him.
I suspect the difference is "at a formative age" you were cycling. I was not, I'm coming at it sucking at it in middle age, and I feel like a full kit wanker if I'm struggling up a hill in my neighborhood dressed like a serious cyclist (to a non-cyclist eye). Idk, I'll probably get over it for the big ride next time, by mile 40 I'm just moving through the world like a selfish ghost anyway.
Done something different regarding October 7, somehow. This is the hardest one, it’s like saying “why not simply prevent 9/11?”
I'll note, with minimal Monday Morning Quarterbacking as I said this 10/8, Israel did not have to invade and level the Gaza strip, which made Palestine front page news again. They could have used targeted strikes against individuals, and diplomatic leverage following the attacks, to normalize relations with more Arab nations and destroy Hamas' global funding base.
This strategy worked extraordinarily well against Hezbollah and Iran and in Qatar, none of those interventions created significant backlash, and the civilian casualties were never obviously photogenic enough to harm Israel internationally (despite murdering a Qatari cop/soldier/whatever along with a bunch of kids elsewhere).
Now maybe they're able to get the Abraham Accords back on line now, but we'll have to see. If nothing else, Hamas created significant space for the Palestine dead enders, who were about to be permanently sold out by the gulf states and made more or less irrelevant permanently.
Fistfights on concrete are more likely to be lethal than fistfights on grass or dirt tracks
Does anyone have even a bad study or effort showing this to be true, or are we just operating off intuition? People fall on concrete all the time, it is very rarely fatal. At what level of fatal risk are we comfortable considering a shove or a haymaker a deadly attack?
I don't believe there is actual evidence that getting into fights leads to better outcomes for the kids in any measurable way,
gestures broadly The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We're in the middle of a society wide experiment in kids not getting into fights, and we sit on the internet and bemoan the effeminacy of our world.
while there is strong evidence it leads to troublesome discussions, accidental injuries, and scrutiny. So there's all the incentive to push people not to cause problems.
What discussions, what scrutiny? As for accidental injuries, you can't live your life never taking a risk of anything.
The reason why "respectable" men don't beat up street harassers isn't just because of the legal risk, but because you might very well end up losing.
This is true, but have you ever seen a small bird chasing a red tailed hawk out in the woods? It happens all the time. Why? Surely, in a Pokemon style fight to the death, the hawk would win nine times out of ten, right? But, the hawk has to do this every day, probably a couple times a day, the smaller bird only once. If the hawk gets into fights every time it wants to eat, he will eventually lose. The same with the street harasser. If he wants to spend all day harassing, if there's no risk of violence he's fine. If there is any risk of violence against him, it becomes untenable, because he will get unlucky eventually.
And what if a woman is walking alone?
How is it any different than if she walks alone now?
I grew up with a dozen or so outdoor cats at our house all the time, and another group down at the shop. I'd never seen a mouse in my life.
When I moved out, we had a mouse problem. I was literally flabbergasted. My first thought was guess I have to get a cat? Then I thought, well I guess there is such a thing as a mousetrap? Or poison?
It was such a weirdly embarrassing thing to realize I didn't know.
we're forced to choose between "law-abiding people must accept victimization by physically-tougher criminals" and "one can defend oneself with lethal force against criminals".
I'm not sure we are. Currently, I'm already victimized by both the physically tougher and the physically weaker miscreants, until they cross the line where I can shoot them I don't really have any right to defend myself from obnoxious behavior.
I should be clear: I'm all for self defense, I have a permit to carry (though I rarely carry), and I strongly believe in SYG against deadly threats. The only argument I'm having here is whether a punch or other light physical assault is automatically a deadly threat which justifies deadly self defense. The answer is no, and it's not just no, it's no and saying yes deeply undermines the fundamental basis of human civilization.
What's the likelihood of serious injury if you fall on concrete?
This doesn't pass the smell test. Fistfights declined in barrooms, and in cities as well as in the newly urbanized areas.
What obnoxious behavior do we see today that would be fixable by violence from random citizens?
Street harassment generally, but all forms of obnoxious public behavior which are performed with the full knowledge that if a citizen hits you, it's a huge headache even if everyone ultimately agrees you were at fault.
It used to be well understood that a bum or a vagrant or a drunk catcalling your wife or girlfriend or daughter or sister was ample justification for you, as a man of honor, to smack him good and hard. Bums and vagrants and drunks learned to keep their mouths shut. Now they feel no need to restrain themselves, no citizen is going to risk a felony arrest, becoming a felon over it. Or a civil lawsuit that will drain their bank account.
The problem with this being that if one is already a felon, or broke, the threat is much less, so you are free to act. We live in a society where a huge number of punishments used to keep people in line, things like credit scores and bankruptcy and even felony convictions, matter far more to one tier of citizens than they do to another. The result is to enable the worst parts of society while restraining the best parts.
This goes back to so many things that we talk about on themotte. Why do women feel no need of a man for protection? Because it's not like the average PMC male offers much protection anyway. Why do men feel so helpless? Because they are forced to endure obnoxious behavior without helping themselves.
How can we bemoan the loss of honor, while this thread is full of criticism of honor cultures and the violence they lead to?
- Prev
 - Next
 
			
Lockdowns went from unimaginable to obvious thanks to large efforts from powerful media machines. Without claiming lockdowns were pushed as part of an anti-Trump agenda, or that Covid deaths were fake, we can say in retrospect with certainty that Covid deaths were below the level at which we as a society could have ignored the bodies if media wanted them ignored.
A hypothetical Hillary or Cuomo admin does the math and decides the marginal deaths are no big deal compared to the cost of lockdowns, and they lean on the American media. They tell social media companies that any effort to spread pro-lockdown propaganda will be considered inciting panic and will lead to the government acting against the social media companies in a regulatory capacity. They lean on the news media to keep the story on how we all need to keep going to main street small businesses to keep the economy humming. They focus on masks or ivermectin or some other bullshit to stop the spread.
The fact that no one talks about the dead people anymore indicates that we could have ignored them at the time.
More options
Context Copy link