@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

c’è aria di frociaggine

13 followers   follows 6 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.


				

User ID: 195

FiveHourMarathon

c’è aria di frociaggine

13 followers   follows 6 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

					

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.


					

User ID: 195

On the one hand, to paraphrase Larry David talking about Asia Argento, they should name the high school after you.

On the other, this is so profoundly unusual that it didn't tell us much about much.

Wait, am I reading this wrong or were you a senior in high school while she was a fully barred lawyer implying that she was at least 23 or 24?

My fuckin' man out here.

Why do you think the Democratic establishment did their best to get Trump as the draw rather than Desantis or someone else younger?

The age attacks against Biden are devastating as it is, if they were launched by a candidate in their 50s or even 60s, they would land much harder. It is flatly disqualifying, and nothing about how Biden has run his white house would disabuse you of that notion. Nonetheless, changing horses midstream was probably always impossible, so the Dems had to do damage control, which meant trying to put him up against Trump. They've succeeded, much good may it do them. We'll see what happens in the debates. If it was DeSantis, Biden wouldn't make it out. Against Trump, it might all be so confusing that it doesn't matter.

That said, I'm reminded a lot of baseball perceptions of age when looking at how people perceive politicians. A lot of times fans will overestimate the age of a player who debuted younger, because they have been aware of him longer, and underestimate the age of a play who debuted older, because they didn't know about him before then. Mike Trout and Aaron Judge are the same age, but Trout is often perceived as older because he won Rookie of the Year at age 20 in 2012, while Judge won Rookie of the Year five years later at 25. Many times I've seen fans online call for a "young kid" from the minors to get a chance over a scuffling vet, and when you look at the numbers the minor leaguer is a year or two older than the major leaguer!

People perceive Biden as old in politics because he's been in politics so long, where Trump (while in the public consciousness longer) only entered politics in earnest in 2016.

I don’t think it’s really coping about being ‘ugly’, looks aren’t negatively correlated with intelligence (and are likely somewhat positively correlated with it given obesity and class etc).

The one doesn't imply the other. Even if most smart women are hotter, on average, there will still be some who aren't. There are ugly smart women, they will be likely to use this as cope. In the same way an ugly dumb woman would claim men don't care about "good hearts" or whatever.

I scored in the top fraction of 1% on the SATs, so I don't think I've ever met a woman who "scored a noticeable margin better" than me, but I have dated several women I consider my intellectual equals...

@ArjinFerman

What I was getting at is more this, that for the average Mottizen there barely exists a dating pool of women smarter than him. Seriously, I feel like I'm about average in horsepower around here, and I've only met maybe a dozen women who obviously verbally intellectually outclassed me. So we're not ever likely to experience that kind of dynamic.

But there exist plenty of women who are substantially smarter than most men, and I've rarely seen that kind of relationship work well. My law school was located very close to another, less prestigious school. The boys who dated "down the hill" were mostly pretty happy with the results. The girls who dated townie guys mostly had these awful dysfunctions around it, where he didn't like to be made to feel inferior, and so would make fun of her for being an egghead and belittle her, and it would go downhill from there. The standard heterosexual dynamic is for the man to be in charge, that falls apart immediately if she is obviously much smarter. Women rarely find being smarter than their man sexy, men perceive this and lash out belittling her achievements, so on and so forth.

That said, I'll repeat that for the people saying this, it is generally cope. I'd expect the average woman to claim to be on the shelf because of her intelligence to lack above average intelligence, in the same way that I expect the average teenager who whines that his classmates don't understand him because he's smarter than they are to actually not be all that extraordinary. Non-measurable things used as self-justification are generally cope. I'm not that interested unless you have receipts for it.

Have you ever dated, seriously, a woman who you felt was objectively smarter than you were? Like, one who would have scored a noticeable margin better than you on the SATs/IQ test or who had an objectively more cognitively demanding and higher prestige job?

This is normally cope, most of the women who say that are 100iq types working no-skill service industry jobs not HYS trained lawyers or C suite executives.

But to pretend the whole idea doesn't have a basis in real relationship dynamics is coming in a little hot.

-- In the end I come down on Tolkien's side in that "argument" because I do think LOTR is a masterpiece, and I don't think it's possible to write a profound work with a satisfying ending in the "realistic" or grimdark model of GRRM. However, I do see his point, and I think it's an interesting thing to consider. In the same way we can read between the lines of Homer and start to think about the society he wrote about and the one he was performing for, we can read between the lines of Tolkien and find insight.

-- I'm planning on rereading them later this year, with my wife. She really wants to read the books now, to score "best tits on a woman to read LOTR" points and because she loved the movies. I'm thinking it feels more like a Fall-Winter book, and I've got a lot in the queue right now to clear out. I'm recommending she reads The Hobbit first, it's a quick fun beach read and she'll find out if she likes Tolkien before committing to the trilogy. Then in September we'll start the trilogy together.

-- I'll defend the adaptations, I actually loved the soundtrack in theaters. The theme notes for the Shire and for Rohan are perfect. The tragedy of Theoden is perfectly captured by the strings. The adaptations are works of art in their own right, it's not an easy work to adapt what with needing actors to speak Elvish. My biggest gripe is probably Gandalf, he's more like Asimov's Mule than he is like Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker but that's hard to film, so he ends up doing this weird stage fight with Saruman where they gesture at each other, which might have been fine had it been much shorter but got goofy by the end.

This ignores increased risk of heart attack and stroke. There's a reason it's the first question insurance companies ask.

Though it is undoubtedly exaggerated, and there is a puritan hatred for any nicotine product as a result.

I watched the full Extended Editions of LoTR in the theater over weekend. It was the first time in years that I have watched them all the way through, and my wife's first time seeing them, ever. We popped edibles in the parking lot and smuggled in a full dinner in her purse for the FOUR HOURS we were in that chair each night three nights in a row. Random disorganized thoughts:

-- This is the first time I've been in a movie theater this year. Last year I attended three movies: I took my dad to a showing of American Graffiti for its fiftieth anniversary, I took my wife to see Barbie and to the Eras Tour movie. Halfway through 2024, I've also seen three movies: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King. So in the past eighteen months, they've convinced me to go to the movies six times, and in that time I've only seen a single new movie (Barbie), plus an "event" film in the Eras Tour. The movie theater business is dying, at a rapid clip, and the cause of its death isn't cost it is competition. Competition from the past. My dad, as many boomers, is under the impression that the problem is that movies cost too much, when he was a kid they were a dollar! Well, from 1960 to today a dollar is $10.59, meaning the difference in price compared to this weekend is $2.41. My wife and I got through the whole trilogy for $78 in tickets, and I ordered a large diet Dr. Pepper (felt like about a liter) for another $21 total, for a total of around $100 on the weekend. Essentially nothing for us, a fancy dinner. No, the problem is that the new movies that come out just aren't compelling enough. The streaming product is that we start a movie, often a movie from some list of "the best [genre] of [decade]" and if we don't like it (like when Elizabethtown was recommended by so many people as a great RomCom, only for me to find it totally unwatchable because Orlando Bloom couldn't do an American accent to save his life) we can stop halfway and try a different one. The only things that pull me into the theater anymore are movies I know I like (LoTR, American Graffiti) or movies that are so important culturally that one ought to see them out of paraseitin (Eras, Barbie). Unless the film industry can figure out how to produce a lot of culturally important events in a hurry, they're dead. Movie theaters are going to look more like amusement parks in density within a decade or two.

-- Going with my lovely wife really felt like an event. It was the same people each night, of course, mostly in the same seats, it felt like clocking in for a shift. It really felt like a moment, I enjoyed that a lot.

-- Comparing the female leads and their plots, Eowyn aged much better than Arwen. Eowyn's story is handled perfectly, Hall of Fame Not Like the Other Girls. She doesn't hulk out, she's not as strong as the lads, she struggles and barely hangs on, her triumph is based on a mix of luck, courage, and legalistic interpretations of prophecy. Just perfectly handled. Arwen, on the other hand, fell flat for me. Victim of her own success: while Tolkien pretty much originated most of the modern system of "races" in every fantasy universe, he was a stoic proper Catholic and viewed human-elf relations as something that might happen a couple times an Age; his hornier progeny have basically agreed that if we can make halves with anything, we will, all the time. So the Human-Elf romance thing just didn't hit that hard for me, though watching it again I did think about how Elrond had seen his brother go down that path. I wonder to what extent it's how common it all is in fantasy, and to what extent this just maps onto interracial marriages in our reality. In Tolkien's day they were mostly pretty rare, and a big deal. Today, it just isn't enough to carry a plot, interracial relationship plots are actually on my "banned plots" list next to "WWII resistance" and "Ivy League NYC Jew/WASP drowns in ennui" which I refuse to read a book about.

-- It's interesting to me how GRRM's argument with Tolkien stays stuck in my head, seeing the film has me thinking those same thoughts:

Tolkien, of all the authors I mentioned earlier, had an impact on me, but Tolkien is right up there at the top. I yield to no one in my admiration for The Lord of the Rings – I re-read it every few years. It’s one of the great books of the 20th century, but that doesn’t mean that I think it’s perfect. I keep wanting to argue with Professor Tolkien through the years about certain aspects of it.

He did what he wanted to do very brilliantly, I’ve said this before, but… I look at the end and it says Aragorn is the king and he says, ‘And Aragorn ruled wisely and well for 100 years’ or something. It’s easy to write that sentence. But I want to know what was his tax policy, and what did he do when famine struck the land? And what did he do with all those Orcs? A lot of Orcs left over. They weren’t all killed, they ran away into the mountains. Sauron fell down, but you see all the Orcs running away. Did Aragorn carry out a policy of systematic Orc genocide? Did he send his knights out into the hills to kill all the Orcs? Even the little baby Orcs? Or was there Orc rehabilitation going on. Trying to teach the Orcs to be good citizens. And if the Orcs were the result of Elves… could Orcs and Elves intermarry?”

GRRM has stated that a lot of the inspiration for ASOIAF/AGOT was an attempt to correct or explore Tolkien. What happens the day after the true king takes the throne? What does Aragorn's Tax Policy look like? AGOT opens post RoTK: Ned Stark and Bobbie Baratheon were the heroic kids who overthrew the wicked king, and then what happens? At his best, ASOIAF does provide interesting views and answers and insight into those questions. Characters like Rob Stark and Tyrion Lannister are fantastic explorations of fantasy tropes. But his ultimate failure is simple: he can't land the plane. He can't write the last book. Until he manages to bring the whole thing home, he loses by default.

But watching all three films, in three nights, I kept asking myself the same questions. Why were the tactics practiced in Gondor so uniformly AWFUL? What was the idea when they launched a cavalry charge at a fortification? How exactly were the Orcs kept out of the Shire? Where was Denethor getting all those tomatoes? What do trade routes look like, there are lots of ports but it isn't clear what's on the other side? What did existing power-centers in Gondor do with Aragorn, who has little administrative experience at a city scale? I get it, GRRM, I get it.

-- I vibed with Theoden a lot more in my 30s, and Faramir a lot less. At 12, idk Faramir just made sense to me, I recognized the under-appreciated son immediately. This time, I thought Faramir was kinda whiny and annoying, remaining under Denethor's command even as he's sent to cavalry charge a wall was...just too stupid for me to respect him as a character. How was there no Gondorian alternative government or opposition? Theoden, I got. I didn't really appreciate reading or watching as a teen, the way guilt must feel on him, knowing he let Rohan fall into destruction, and the redemption he finds in Pellenor Fields.

-- The Uruk Hai are overrated Tomato Cans, they can't win a war to save their lives. We see Uruks get killed by everyone who steps to them. In general the film's violence is perfectly choreographed, I loved watching it, but it felt like every cut showed either Bad Guys Killing Good Guys or Good Guys Killing Bad Guys, rarely or never both at the same time. I didn't count, but it felt like 90% of the scenes in Helm's Deep or outside Minas Tirith one side is clearly winning locally. This was overdone aggressively in the Ride of the Rohirrim, it felt like I watched more of them die than they said they had on hand.

-- Fanghorn is FDR, Eomer is De Gaulle, Osgiliath is Verdun and Denethor is Petain, Saruman is a Quisling, the ringbearers trip to Valinor is soldiers accepting their PTSD scarred alcoholic buddies fading into irrelevance. Tolkien rejected Allegory, which is why it's so easy and appealing to map allegories to his work.

-- We loved this movie in the boy scouts, and watching it now it's so obvious that it's a movie about going hiking with your friends. The core key element is Frodo and Sam hiking the distance of the Appalachian Trail. Frodo and Sam were just so fucking good at walking! It makes me think of how, reading War and Peace I thought about Napoleon, and his famous forced marches, and how up until relatively recently, walking really fast (especially as a group) was a top tier military skill. Only since WWI and WWII has walking really fast been rendered pretty much irrelevant. The film constantly features people running when they should be walking, sprinting when they should be jogging, to give the impression of pace. But the reality of traveling that far, carrying weapons, would have been more like A Walk in the Woods than anything else, just trying to keep moving over absurd distances. Makes me want to listen to an audiobook of LoTR while I walk every night for a year or however long it would take.

-- It's sad to me that the media made since the trilogy has been so bad I don't even want to watch it. I might get around to finding somewhere to stream the 2hr cut of all three Hobbit movies. But my wife commented: if they want to make this diverse, why not just make the people from different places be different races? Rohan calls for aid and people turn up from all over, make some of them Arabs or whatever. Make a TV show out of the Blue Wizards that we know piss-all about and how they kept the Chinese out of the war. There's so many stories to tell! Why fuck up the ones we actually got?

-- This has to be the number one fantasy film of all time, collectively, right? Nothing else comes close in my mind. They did such a good job on the adaptation, there are so many Easter Eggs in the acting and the dialogue that people who read the Silmarillion will pick up on, but for the most part none of it gets in the way of someone like my wife enjoying the show.

It always strikes me as silly in that there's no causal explanation, no indication that Thomas or Alito would have voted differently on anything but-for gifts/wives/whatever.

Where does public opinion, or if you are cynical the media manipulation thereof, and other genuine cultural bonds come into your theory of alliances?

Did Helen's face launch a thousand ships because the technical terms of Tyndaerus forced them to, or because being seen to break that oath (whether technically or in the spirit of it) would have done irreparable harm to their ability to rule? To be seen dishonored and cowardly would have destroyed the esteem of their subjects, and lead to their destruction.

Your model seems to be more or less a map-style RTS, with leadership having full autonomy to do whatever they choose within the constraints of their physical ability to do so. It is one where the peaceful, or simply cow-like, public is told who to go to war with and does not resist overly hard. This is not always a clear dynamic.

It seems to me like a major constraint, not just in a modern democracy but throughout history, has been public opinion at home. The public is often bloodthirsty and ready to fight, refusing to abandon those they feel are friends and brothers.

This is less of an issue for making an alliance than it is for refusing to make one. NATO could be abolished along with all other legal alliances among the Anglo states, no British PM would survive refusing to come to the aid of Canada/USA/Australia/NZ if one were seriously attacked.

So it seems like there's a separate category of cultural or natural alliance, that is built less on paper than it is by ongoing natural or planned cultural exchange and cultural depictions. They can be influenced by political leaders, but they are not their creatures. In general I think it is rare for political leaders to face significant opposition to forming alliances with distasteful countries, but more common for a public to get whipped into a war frenzy by aggressive media.

These cultural alliances can form absent a formal alliance, or in concert with a formal alliance, but their terms are less clear. The technical language of an alliance is unimportant compared to the spirit of it, and how that can empower a "War Party" at home against a hesitant or peacenik government, can enable enemies of the regime to rally the public behind the idea that the government is behaving dishonorably.

The USA and UK are the classic example. But I think the USA and Japan provide an interesting hypothetical. The US was probably more firmly committed to defending Japan from aggression in 1954 than it is in 2024, but the American public is probably more interested in or committed to defending Japan from aggression in 2024 than it would have been in 1954. Because the Japanese are widely perceived as a brother people, their video games and film and literature and food are core to modern American pop culture, Ohtani is the Dodgers unquestioned star. The American people would be easy to rally to help Japan under attack. This is an unpredictable element in the story, how the public reacts, and how they can be manipulated into reacting.

My bete noire:

I don't care if you make Charlemagne black and George Washington gay, but I will go nuts when I see characters in media be absolutely jacked and shredded and we never see them work out. Like we see every fucking aspect of his life in The Bear, we never see even a hint of gym time, dude is yoked.

I'd love if you could elaborate on that sentence, I'm curious.

What year did blockbuster movie and primetime tv casting in Hollywood peak in terms of racial accuracy of casting?

I was thinking about it. Just as we reached the point where we wouldn't use scotch tape to create Asians, we hit the point where we randomly cast characters as the wrong race for fun.

Finished Isherwood's Berlin Stories. It's fascinating how much his writing improves over the course of the volume, Norris is such a rudimentary character, Sally Bowles is electric and iconic, and Otto Nowak is fascinating. Throughout the book you can feel him improving.

This week I'm hoping to finish War and Peace before I leave for a trip, where I'll try to finish Path Lit By Lightning and maybe start something else.

My dad is 43 years older than me, and they weren't married all that long beforehand. So you can look at my posting history and determine what level of autism risk you're comfortable with.

I would say like, now-ish is time to get cracking on it. Any good strategy is going to take years, so you need to give yourself as much runway as possible.

What you need is some kind of pull up bar. With a place to do pull ups and a place to do dips, download Jeff Cavalier's ab app and you can build a great upper body.

Somehow, it seems like most people like the slop that's produced?

I truly don't understand why one would consume like, 90% of popular YouTube content. To the point where people who extravagantly complain about the ads confuse me, because I'm just like ok stop using it?

But clearly there's a market for Mr Beast to the point where his chocolate bars wind up at the local grocery store? So there must be millions of people out there who like stuff so totally orthogonal to what I consume on YouTube that of course the stuff I consume is going to be kinda hidden.

I would highly doubt both. The modal convert, especially a Jewish one, married a Catholic and is converting to make their future mother in law happy. They'll be exactly as Catholic, maybe a little less or a little more, than their spouse.

Trad Cath converts are a tiny minority that you'll have to explain to most people you try to talk to about it.

Define "in shape" for your purposes.

Beyond bodyweight stuff or improvised equipment; running is free.

I'm just going to register my schadenfreude at Sailer, BAP, et Al. This is probably a prime good usage of "but I didn't think they would eat MY face" meme, n'est pas?

Jewish HBDers, racists, etc send the message that my Aunt Hilda was 100% right about niggers, and probably correct in a limited way about 'Ricans too; but then they do this dance as to why she was completely wrong about Kikes.

But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

I feel similarly when people tell me that HBD is obviously true, because "evolution didn't stop at the neck;" then are shocked Pikachu when people start dusting off the conniving greedy Jew stereotype and say "no no no we were just talking about IQ!" Maybe, but before iq tests were invented the differences you purport to notice existed, why can't other metrics exist even if we haven't found how to measure them yet?

God I hope she's not stupid enough to apologize.

USA Beats Pakistan in Cricket

In another episode of: Humans are not video game character sheets, you can be smart and athletic

Team USA player Saurabh Netravalkar has a day job at Oracle. You can be smart and athletic, you just have to choose to be.

What a fuckin' hero. I need the movie about the Miracle on Ice remade, shot for shot, about this, including the legendary pre-game speech. That's the diversity we need, Hollywood.

It's impossible to avoid, every gym bro wants to point it out so fucking bad.

Yes but you get that pushback from the same Dems wherever you crack down on illegal immigrants. It's only policies designed to prevent people from employing illegals that get pushback from republicans.