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
Given that this started with a discussion of Brett Devereaux's Fremen Mirage thread I am going to call the sides broadly in favour and broadly against Devereaux's thesis pro-D and anti-D for brevity's sake.
This whole comment is very confusing because Deveraux himself is the contra of the original point being debated, so the anti-D side is the pro Hard Times side etc.
That's accurate, but a big underlying tension to the halftime show drama for a decade now is the degradation of pop music as a common part of American civic religion. When Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake, or Prince played the halftime show it was expected that better than, what, 75% of viewers would enjoy at least some of their music? I don't think an act exists today that hits that kind of penetration. You're either picking oldies, like Bruce Springsteen, or what are ultimately by the standards of pop music up until the 2000s niche acts. Adjusting for population size, Thriller had a penetration of like 25% of the population listening to it; the best selling albums of 2025 like Taylor and Wallen only get to about a fifth of that. Morgan Wallen is notable as a crossover country star with sales so large that he shows up on the "normal" charts, but he's less than half of Shania Twain's penetration at her peak. The top selling acts of today are more like niche styles, where they used to be universal. The highest penetration acts are ten or twenty years out of date, which brings accusations of being stale, the modern acts are loved by 10-20% and hated by 10-20%, and mostly have lyrics that can't be repeated on television. Spanish language being the hack around this.
Growing up I just sort of understood this, I don't know who told me exactly, but in elementary school I thought of it as just a thing you were supposed to do that one listened to Counting Down the Hits with Casey Kasum every weekend to know what was going on in the world, and that not liking what was popular was somehow a bad thing. A Good American was supposed to appreciate Linkin Park, Eminem, Shania Twain, Cher, and Metalllica; at least a little. The county fair could be counted on to get one or two real pop acts every year, and young people went to them whether it was your favorite band or not, because it was a big time pop show in our little town.
I guess I have trouble understanding how anyone is getting worked up about Bad Bunny when Kendrick and Dre were unquestionably "worse" on culture war grounds. I didn't have to explain what was being bleeped out to my parents. Playing foreign rap music was basically how I got around requests for rap when I managed a gym with a "family friendly" mandate on the radio.
Sure, but what I see out there is the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe getting performatively mad at each other, with the Red Tribe acting as though the halftime show was coordinated by some perfidious cabal of Oberlin professors and the Blue Tribe declaring that they are the normal ones. When the reality is that this was coordinated by such evil libtards as Robert Kraft and the Walton family, and that is the agenda that needs to be questioned.
I just don't think you can make a map that really works. There's too many baptists in NYC, too many liberal arts colleges in Indiana. The cultural capital of the country is too mixed up. Texas is the only region that maybe has a strong enough identity to secede, but that would depend (oddly) on future Texan leaders moderating their red tribe culture warring significantly enough to get buy in from the 40% of the state the votes blue. The reverse in California or New England may also work, if they could moderate, but they are far behind Texas in regional identity.
I live in Pennsylvania. If I drive half an hour north or west I'm definitely in Appalachia, if I drive an hour south or two hours east I'm in the heart of the megalopolis. There's no clean line where people would feel happy drawing that line and letting "them" have the rest.
I guess what I'm getting around to is that I don't think there is a future where Red or Blue America can balkanize successfully, rather a future balkanized America would require stronger regional identities which moderate between Blue and Red. The populations are too mixed, and the ambitions that underly the culture war movement are too universal. Red Texas or Blue New England cannot secede, Purple Texas and Purple New England might be able to.
I can't recall a halftime show that impressed me more, particularly. He was definitely a lot better than Kendrick or Dre or Usher, because mercifully I didn't understand the words.
But I think most of the Discourse around this misses the point. The NFL as an organization wants to market more to hispanics at home and abroad, hispanics in America are less bought in to the NFL than whites or blacks, while Mexico and Latin America offer potential for growth. Move that godawful team in Jacksonville to Mexico City one day?
This was a calculated decision to punt on Anglo audiences that the NFL already owns to appeal to hispanics.
There is no American Civil War that can result in balkanization. America has been too unified for too long.
If that is the inevitable result, it will be after decades, if not centuries, of civil wars, plural, which eventually massacre enough people to create clean stable lines.
Once one gets into nuances like that, it just becomes a question of creating virtuous men. How do we do it? One of the historical methods is by artificially creating hard times fo those experiencing good times in a society. The battle of Waterloo, after all, was won on the playing fields of Eton. We used to call such activities character building.
America's Imperial wars of the past 100 years are best compared against various efforts to control uncontrollable hinterlands which were a constant feature of imperial history among the ancients. The Persians tried to subdue the Scythians, Varus tried to conquer the Germans, Pharaohs seemed to send an army to disappear into the south periodically, a powerful Chinese emperor would try to subdue the steppe. It's always part of the imperial rhythm to try to control economically marginal hinterlands, with mixed success.
I'm sure there's a term in military theory for what I'm talking about, but we're stuck in a thinking about wars that is primarily about peer wars, and we've lost concepts like the raid and the punitive expedition, which were much more common throughout most of history.
When asked who I'm voting for, I tell the joke my father in law gave me from Iran:
I'm voting for Ali Baba, he only has forty thieves.
That often gets me out of the conversation smoothly enough.
If someone is earnestly trying to figure out my politics, I'm honest about them, perhaps choosing to target issue discussions that I think offer favorable ground for my arguments, on which I can sound more intellectually sophisticated or think I can find common ground with my interlocutor, compared to ground where my arguments are weaker or less sophisticated.
Hiding the ball ("Secret ballot innit?" "I never tell anyone who I vote for" "I just moved to town so I wasn't able to register in time..." "What's voting?") is probably the worst thing you can do if your goal is to be diplomatic and get a potentially prejudiced interlocutor to like you, because you're admitting guilt about it, confirming their suspicion that Republicans/Democrats know that their choices are evil and bad and nonetheless revel in mustache-stroking evil deeds. She's likely to think your politics are worse than they are if you aren't willing to even talk about them.
You're much better off being bold and saying what you believe, it's a more attractive quality than cowardice or guilt.
There's a parallel theory that, for example, American soldiers in WWII were comfortable with mechanics because farms were more mechanized in America at the time. They were used to fiddling with engines on tractors and trucks, and were better at performing tasks like that during the war.
I applaud your efforts at cohesive argument.
To have this debate honestly, we need to start by defining a pile of terms before we even start.
What constitutes Good Times? What constitutes Hard Times? What is the expected period over which the cycle should occur?
Then what are Strong Men? What are Weak Men? Hell, what do we mean by "men" exactly? Do we mean the whole testicled population of the state, do we mean "freeborn" or "citizen" men, or do we mean an elite subset of leadership? Because those three groups can all be at different layers of the cycle at the same time, the dynamic can occur internally as well as externally.
But most importantly I think the missing assumption in all this is: how long should an empire last? What is the expected period that can be lengthened or shortened by cultural practices?
A lot of the arguments here hinge on defining terms differently. If we can communicate what we're saying, we can probably reach a consensus. Which ultimately comes more to something like Strong Cultural Practices Produce Strong People, Weak Cultural Practices Produce Weak People.
So I don't think a talented wordcel could fake an Orthodox Jewish conversion with ordinary effort.
I mean, given that the supposed stakes are facing down genocide, I think "ordinary effort" in that case is actually pretty high, and could be executed if necessary. The major impediment to most of us being personal attractiveness as candidates, rather than ability to mouth the necessary platitudes and complete the necessary behavioral modifications. I don't know that I would be able to do it, primarily because I believe in Jesus and secondarily because of the circumcision, but for most that probably isn't an insurmountable set of barriers, and I could certainly imagine being forced to do so in a fantasy universe to go undercover or something. It's not rocket surgery.
Note that the Israeli authorities do not recognize Conservative and Reform conversions.
I'm not talmudic scholar enough to dig into what exactly that means but this article states that:
Israel’s “Law of Return” gives foreign-born Jews, or anyone with a Jewish parent, grandparent or spouse, the automatic right to claim Israeli citizenship. Those who convert to non-Orthodox Judaism in another country have been able to gain Israeli citizenship for decades.
But it does appear that Orthodox is a better bet to guarantee recognition.
So do you think that all google searches, internet queries, LLM queries should be inadmissible in court? Or only those that can plausibly be called legal research?
I mean the correct answer, if you own a car and live 50 meters from a car wash, is that you neither walk nor drive to the car wash, you drive somewhere else and pull through the car wash on your way out or back when it happens to be empty.
In this article, he mentioned a police chief that fought desegregation attempts in his town with clever tactics. As you might have guessed, the only difference in the outcome was that he's not vilified by history textbooks today, he still lost.
Isn't that kind of like condemning every Confederate or Wehrmacht general, or hell condemning Hannibal and Napoleon, in that they ultimately were on the losing side?
Yeah, I don't think I really see the Waitress Scale existing from what you've said, or I don't agree with you about where things fit on that scale.
When I hear "Billionaire marries waitress" I hear something very different from a schoolteacher.
Proper Orthodox conversion would work too, but a sham one probably won't - they are not born yesterday and all the tricks that can be tried had been already tried.
Maybe I'm overly confident, but I assume any Mottizen would have the verbal skill to appear sincere and comprehend the necessary information, if sufficiently determined. Leaving aside that a lot of us might be so wildly personally unpleasant that we would be rejected on other grounds.
He was well known enough for his name and activities to be a punchline in 30 Rock and for his name and appearance and attitudes to be parodied in Entourage which I suppose were higher concept than like, NCIS or Friends but not exactly esoteric knowledge.
Harvey Weinstein was extremely well known before the accusations themselves.
You're probably not going to find one without tracing ancestral roots and learning the relevant language. You're not really looking for someone that wants you, nobody does assuming you aren't working and have no assets. You're looking for someone who can't turn you away.
If you have any Jewish ancestors, you might be able to gin up Aliyah to Israel. In some cases I've heard stories of people pulling it off despite not being halachically Jewish, just having a Jewish grandfather or something like that. I'm not sure you have enough runway to convert convincingly in that time.
Before engaging in this, can we get a clear definition for what you consider "waitress" jobs versus what you consider "girlboss" jobs? Or what attributes we are putting in each category? What are we actually talking about here? I just feel like everyone is going in circles about what "waitress" and "girlboss" and "prefer" even means.
I think the original tweet makes some sense without reference to marriage, if an elite man might choose to fuck a waitress without marrying her, she is still competing for his attention. She's like a spoiler in a playoff race: she's not gonna win the championship, but she might keep you from winning it.
Why wouldn't it be? Notes to oneself aren't privileged. If I keep a notebook it isn't privileged. If I ask you a question it isn't privileged. My lawyer, my priest, and my wife are privileged; we do so to protect those certain relationships. Why do we want to extend this to LLMs?
What you're looking for, I guess, is something like why would it be probative to talk about someone's LLM history? Would it be more prejudicial than probative to admit them as evidence? But that's very different from privilege.
I'm starting The Stand next (I watched the old miniseries in pieces a dozen times on SciFi cable growing up), and my exposure to King's writing is limited to IT, Salem's Lot, The Shining, and some short stories. So I might change my mind on that front, and I'm open to being convinced otherwise on any count.
But IT is probably his most iconic work, which is most emblematic of his overall output, and his contribution to culture more broadly. Pennywise was well known to me even before reading the book or seeing the films, where I don't feel like I could reference Trashcan Man or Randall Flagg or Mother Abigail in a conversation. I could definitely expect everyone to get a joke about the sewer clown, even if they haven't actually consumed IT. If you ask a room full of people about IT they'll tell you it's that clown in the sewers that eats children, if you ask about The Stand you'll get less.
Stephen King is mostly famous as a horror writer, though he pumps out a lot of other material as well, and IT is a monster book. Where The Stand might not even be top-5 in apocalypse books off the top of my head, IT is near the top of monster books and influenced every monster that came after. IT is closer thematically to Carrie and The Shining than The Stand is, in my mind.
Also I just looked it up, just by book sales, IT is King's best selling novel, with twice as many copies as The Stand. I've seen copies of IT being read by people in real life, but never copies of The Stand.
So yeah, the clown stands alone, IT is it, the magnum opus.
You WILL be blinded by the glare of my 10mm gold Cuban chain
I love the term because whenever I see one, I just picture it on an old Miami Cuban dude in a straw fedora and a linen shirt.
- Prev
- Next

Huh. Maybe I'm the idiot.
More options
Context Copy link