@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

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

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

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

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

					

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'm not a runner, you'd be better off asking Walterodim or @jdizzler about it.

My impression is that Five hours is roughly just under the cutoff time for most organized marathons to finish and close the course up. So it's basically the max time you can hit and still say you ran a marathon. 5mph for five hours is 25miles, so you really only need to jog part of it to finish in five hours.

It's more interesting than most comments in WW, like my stories about bike rides or open mats.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

The more I think about it, it's probably a cultural failure, the Manhattan institute is a conservative think tank, but its workers and interns are still blue tribe college graduates, who understand that the statement "Israel is a colonial state" is associated with leftist critiques of Israel, which I don't think most normies would understand that way.

I actually think you could use a much more inclusive definition, like some that I'd fail, that I'd agree with more. Like "Imagine a woman close to you was dating a man and considering marrying him, and came to you for advice. Would your advice change if he were Jewish?"

My opinion is that Jews are a sort of "Schrodinger's race" in modern American society. Sometimes they're a separate ethnic group, sometimes they're not. Conviently, it seems to go back and forth depending on whichever interpretation is the best for them. When it's time for the special ethnic groups to get their own special recognition, they of course deserve deep honor and respect for their unique history and culture- they're not one of those shitty bland stale whites who have no culture. But when it comes to break out statistics by ethnic group, they usually blend in with the general "white" category. It would make organizations like the Ivy League or Big Finance look absolutely ridiculous if they had to disclose how importunately higher they were hiring Jews than any other ethnic group.

I was thinking of this reading the WSJ this morning. In the Op-Ed section under Notable and Quotable they cited a Manhattan Institute Poll showing a purported rise in right wing antisemitism:

...A meaningful minority -- 17% -- meets our definition of Anti-Jewish Republicans. A respondent falls into this category if they 1) self-identify as both racist and antisemitic and express Holocaust Denial or describe Israel as a colonial state, or 2) do not self-identify that way but nevertheless hold both of those extreme positions.

The confusing nature of their definition (what purpose does self identification have if it can be skipped?), is used to smuggle in a mild definition to the major heresies. Colonial is at most a totally mild critique of Israel actually. It's mostly a neutral, factual description of the country's history: Israel is a country that grew out of a colonial project. I would actually expect that the word Colonial, a pejorative in leftist faculty circles, is fairly neutral in conversation for a lot of Red Tribers. It mostly has positive associations in New England, the Colonial militias fighting the redcoats, various high school mascots and college sports conferences are the Colonial so and so, the Colonial Inn or the Colonial Diner is just an early American theme restaurant.

I could maybe see saying calling Israel an apartheid state is anti-Israel, though I would still bristle at calling it anti-semitic. But Colonial is a totally neutral definition to most Republicans. Trying to portray that statement as anti-semitic is clearly trying to massage the statistics.

Eh, I'm continuously mystified by girl's taste in celebrity men.

People who snap these days may be more likely to commit modestly confusingly politically motivated murders and try to escape rather than shoot up a kindergarten. For a while the latter was a quick path to notoriety, now the former will get you Fame and fangirls.

I'm going to register that posts like this have no place on this forum. We're not some gang of true crime wine moms out to ruin the lives of random people.

Man, what the fuck is water?

I'm not sure that's true. I don't think soldiers have a higher rate of being paired off than guys the same age that work at Wal Mart, but Walmart doesn't instantly pay their young male workers thousands of dollars extra for getting married.

Soldiers also have higher divorce rates than civilians.

If we made it a national policy to pay everyone thousands extra for getting married, instantly, we'd raise the marriage rate. I'm not sure that's increasing the status of young men, exactly, just paying people to get married.

The military achieves a high marriage rate by legislating benefits for married servicemen.

I'll have to pick up a copy next time I take a weekend trip.

they should kill each other like ants from rival colonies put in a glass jar.

Why? Why would it matter to them?

In my mind what Bannon and Chomsky have in common ideologically is that they are both, by the old Matrix-derived definition, Red Pilled. Both are prone to smugly asking the reader if they think that is air they are breathing.

Their enemies are more in the Blob than in each other, at least until the Blob is defeated.

A couple years back, my patriot news type conspiracy theorist trailer park carpenter helped me take a delivery of a large load of drywall. The delivery driver was a black guy from Chester, who was a black Muslim type conspiracy theorist. They got along famously. Each was telling the other about conspiracy theories they had NEVER HEARD BEFORE. They were loving it. Did you know that they opened the oldest vault and all the saints were black? Did YOU know that Joe Biden is only a fake president, and that really the military took full presidential powers before Trump left office? No shit! Did you know that they're importing immigrants to drive black people, who are the real jews, out of the cities? No way I didn't know that man!

Weiss' resume isn't that deep, in terms of running a major television news corp. For comparison, the equivalent guy at Fox News started on O'Reilly before Weiss was out of college. She had a roughly ten year career in print journalism, and founded a modestly successful substack. By that standard, she's about as qualified as Scott Alexander to run CBS news. There's a ton of gentiles with resumes that stack up against hers. And frankly if there aren't, that seems to be giving the game away to SS to begin with, doesn't it?

Another point in Weiss's favor is that she courts controversy -- and this being media, that's usually a good thing. Hell, when was the last time anyone talked about CBS this much?

CBS news affiliates mostly cover local news. Becoming purely ideological may or may not be a good approach there.

If in order to discuss Capitalism I'm going to have to defend the most ignorant thing you've ever seen on Twitter referring to Capitalism, we're already lost.

Capitalism as a system is defined economically by the investment profit motive, by taking investment capital and putting it to work to earn more capital, which will be invested again to earn more capital, and so on and so forth to eternity.

This is distinct from Feudalism, from Mecantilism, etc.

Until we can successfully imagine something beyond Capitalism, there is no way to imagine a worldview that privileges other terminal values than profit.

Is politics actually just Kabuki theater to the elites?

Yes

But I don't think the shock at this case is based in a good model of who Bannon and Chomsky are. Bannon has always been, or had pretensions of being, a real serious intellectual, who reads widely within academic texts, which means reading a lot of leftists any time since, what, Aquinas? Steve Bannon has definitely read and admires Noam Chomsky's work. Bannon has expressed his admiration and desire to imitate Lenin, you think he'd draw the line at Chomsky?

Chomsky and Bannon share a lot of analytical agreements about the nature of the political establishment, and about American foreign policy over the past hundred years. Their disagreements are actually a lot more minor than the disagreements between either and other Epstein buddies like Larry Summers or Bill Gates. If the guest list at that party was Bannon, Chomsky, Summers, Gates, Clinton, and Epstein; it's pretty obvious that Chomsky and Bannon would get along better together than with anyone else at the party.

Rather I think twitter turbolibs who are surprised about Chomsky and Bannon getting along are shocked because they haven't read Chomsky and just think of him as a harmless mascot of the generic academic left, not the hardened anti-establishment freak that he is; and they haven't read Bannon and assume he's just a MTG or Boebert style airhead, not the hardened anti-establishment freak that he is.

I actually do think there is significant room to blame white stakeholders for pulling up the ladder behind them. The most significant part of the support for affirmative action has always been from existing stakeholders, who want to reduce competition.

A lot of online rightists find it insane that any white people support affirmative action. White students are evenly split on affirmative action, despite being its putative victims. This support only increases as one reaches more selective schools, where affirmative action is harshest in action. Why is this? Because a liberal white student at Harvard Law, like the Manson family, believes so firmly and mystically in his own superiority that no white loss in a racial conflict can rattle him. He believes in his superiority as a talented white kid as firmly as he believes in gravity. He is one of the Great and the Good, his talent got him here, giving tithes to those inferior to him will only enhance his stature. After all, if I'm a white kid with a 165 LSAT who can't get into a T14, every 160 LSAT Black kid who gets in is a spot that could have been mine, I coulda been a contenda if only things were different. But if I already got in, if I'm confident that my 179 LSAT is such that I always will get in to whatever I want, then I'd rather a less qualified kid got in than a more qualified one. If you're trying to get into a class of 800, ever non-merit spot is a spot you lose, I go from having 800 chances to get in to 600 chances to get in. If I'm already in a class of 800, every non-merit spot is a kid who isn't competing with me anymore for the top spot, I go from competing to be 1/800 to competing to be 1/600. Let the Blacks push out the whites and the Asians, the Blacks won't be able to compete with me anyway. If we're all at a firm together, my pedigree and my talent are worth more the fewer people exist with my pedigree and my talent. Affirmative action at top schools is a way to narrow the field of actual competitors from that school.

Imagine as a model an elite selective law school where 800 new students are admitted every year. First 400 students are admitted on "pure merit" for LSAT scores, the top scorers are brought in automatically. Then those 400 students vote on the rules used to choose the other 400 students. The 400 students admitted on merit have no real interest in the other 400 students being admitted on merit. The kid with a 179 LSAT doesn't benefit from making sure that the kid with a 172 LSAT makes it in. The kid with a 172 is quite likely to compete with him in class for the top spots, the gap in ability isn't that large. But if he votes to admit kids on affirmative action grounds with a 160 LSAT, those kids aren't likely to compete with him. The same applies for any situation where incumbents are choosing the rules for those coming after him.

For a young white man applying to school, trying to get a job, trying to make partner, affirmative action harms him. For an old white man who already made partner, affirmative action helps him maintain his power, no young up-and-comers are coming for his crown because he makes sure that the lower levels are full of undeserving sycophantic incompetents. As corrupt leaders choose unqualified lackeys and promote them above their competence level, knowing that the lackeys will be forced to remain loyal to the leader because they can't survive on their own, so incumbents elevate diversity picks knowing that they won't threaten the current leadership, and will remain loyal to the institutions, because they owe their success to those leaders and institutions and values.

We saw this dynamic play out in the Democratic party over the past ten years. An emphasis on affirmative action in their choice of candidates left them with a thin bench, and allowed Joe Biden to become President. Joe Biden was always incompetent, but he had tenure, and by supporting minority candidates he protected himself against the rise of anyone ambitious and competent enough to supplant him. We didn't see ambitious young whites rising in the Democratic party, we saw affirmative action picks everywhere, and as a result in 2020 we wound up with the only half-competent white guy in the race winning, despite his being older than cable television. Nor would Joe have lasted as long as he did in the presidency with a competent vice president breathing down his neck.

Stunting the rise of competent competitors benefits boomer incumbents, protects them from being pushed out on an ice floe when they should be.

It's amazing how bad humans are at understanding probabilities. The existence of some successful white men doesn't mean there is no widespread discrimination against white men, any more than the existence of successful black women tells us that racism against blacks is fake.

Affirmative action's impact is by its nature stochastic, but as the old Democratic campaign line goes when you are out of work the unemployment rate is 100% for you. It's not that every white man makes 20% less, it's that some percentage of white men will be unable to get a job or a promotion or a project completed, while the rest move through their lives normally. If I'm at a law firm that commits itself to diversity in the partner ranks, it's not that I'll be paid less because I'm white when I'm an associate, or paid less if I make partner, it's that when I come up for partner I might draw the short straw and be up as the same time as a black guy or an Asian girl and get shafted.

Ellison was going to pick someone with pro-Israel credentials, and almost certainly someone Jewish.

Why is this almost certain? There's no shortage of Christians with pro-Israel credentials.

We'll see how I look by 40. I've tried buzzing it down to a 2 a few times, and I have an odd shaped head, I feel like I look like a baby, and also like I shouldn't hang out too close to a synagogue.

I have family abroad in a country with iffy relations with the United States, so I've always joked that if I had to do a runner I'd show up at my uncle's doorstep, and hopefully have squirreled enough money away from whatever white collar crime has caused me to flee the country that I'll be able to open an American theme hamburger restaurant.

What will come after post-modernity?

We first have to answer what comes after Capitalism. Capitalism is universal solvent, it slowly melted through every ethnic or ideological or traditional or religious barrier that tried to hold it back. It ate ethnicity, it ate religion, it ate nationalism, it ate gender, it ate the narrative of progress itself.

It will not be possible for a new narrative to assert itself until it first slays Capitalism.

And even within our science fiction, we can imagine the end of the world more easily than the end of Capitalism.

Thought of our discussion of this recurring trope reading Eig's Ali:

By the time he was seven or eight, Cassius was the leader of a pack of boys ever on the lookout for action. Odessa would look through the screen door and see her eldest son standing on the concrete porch, like a politician on a platform, addressing his youthful followers about what he had planned for them.

The problem here would be that alimony is based on the income of the partners, not any expected inheritance. Assume for this hypothetical that I am "Worth" $200k/yr after taxes.

Scenario A) I work for a law firm where I am payed $200k/yr after taxes, I live on $100k and save the rest.

Scenario B) I work for the family business, I receive a salary of $100k/yr after taxes, I save nothing, the rest remains within the family and either benefits me indirectly or will come to me as inheritance eventually.

If Mrs. FiveHour left me, alimony and property settlement would be calculated based on my income and assets. Under Scenario A, that would be based on $200k/yr in income plus splitting the savings. Under Scenario B, it would be based on $100k/yr and there are no savings to split. A divorcing spouse can't reach speculative inheritance.

The "trick" is in trusting my folks to manage the money for me for decades before I see it.

Child support is a little different, as it ought to be.

Wow, that's a solid stat pull. I'm genuinely surprised by it.

I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig headed fool.

I notice, you are prejudiced, he is acting out his insecurities through violent bigotry.

I'm going to register that I think this is a troll post, the quality is so low that I have trouble believing in it. Numbers pop up only for one side, ethnicity and religion are conflated in different ways for different groups, hatreds are elided at random.