@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

16 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

16 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

It seems very incompatible with the idea that a right winger is high in personal efficacy to say that tax dollars need to be spent, and civil rights abrogated, in order to pay people to "protect" you from scary things.

We can go back and forth all day citing our Mottes and Baileys of shitty men and shitty women. People are absolutely out there willing to blame any woman who gets raped, they do it in every high profile case. Is that the majority or even an important minority of people? Idk, depends on your perspective I guess, and your tolerance of slipperiness of slopes.

Now, I'm not saying the public education system is literally a machine that fucks kids.

List of alleged abusers in the SBC

Wikipedia's page for SBC sex abuse

Jehovah's Witnesses

Virginia Beach megachurch Pastor who had this lovely adventure:

Authorities say Blanchard believed he was talking to an underage girl on social media but was really chatting with an undercover detective. They add that Blanchard drove to a county hotel for a sexual encounter with the young girl and was met by police and handcuffs.

Study finds that 1/250 Australians report being sexually abused by Clergy during their childhood

I won't bother recounting the history of the Catholic church scandals, everyone knows them and honestly I think they get overrated relative to what you see at every other organization.

I've chosen to move counties, keep my child out of public school, and look towards joining a church that shares my values.

Have you considered that you're fleeing the frying pan of fucking machines for the fire of fucking machines?

I've increasingly become blackpilled on the question of pedophilia. It seems like there doesn't exist an organization that doesn't have a child sex abuse problem.

Question for the group:

What size contract, awarded to Musk-related-entities next year by the Trump-II admin, would you consider similarly presumptively corrupt?

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about a guy who made his money largely thanks to government regulations and contracts getting heavily involved in politics.

This and the CA decision seem targeted and corrupt to me, but I'm going to feel even ickier when the Trump admin awards SpaceX a billion dollar contract or tariffs Tesla competitors.

You just come down the escalator, and you fight, and you win, and it's easy. And then you win some more.

Except for, when, you know, you lose. And then you fight to argue that you didn't lose, and you lose that fight too.

Myself. If she'd refused to participate I'd respect the decision and my default is against male participation in combat sports, and athletics generally. I was very anti Caster Semenya, for example. But watching the brief fight it was clear that I was being told something that didn't make any sense.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If she has overwhelming physical advantages, such that they are unfair to allow in competition, then it would show up in her fight with Broadhurst. It doesn't, Broadhurst bullies her around the ring. I've never heard of a hormone that doesn't work against the Irish. That's the most objective evidence we can have about unfairness in boxing: the boxing!

I guess I see your point that we could all refrain from any discussion on the topic absent personal knowledge, but the standard of proof has to place the onus somewhere, and there's significant moral hazard in a "believe all women accusers" standard. It seems morally obvious to me that the requirement should be on the party crying unfairness to offer evidence of unfairness. Given that the record in the ring is mixed at best and offers no clear support for disqualifying Khelif, additional evidence must be offered on that side.

What evidence am I supposed to have if we're not trusting institutions? Am I supposed to go grope her? The evidence I offered was the analysis of the fights she was in, if you want to dispute that evidence it is on you to offer evidence that she is intersex.

This is a good bit of who/whom.

It is. Republican Politicians want one rule of law for the poor, and another for the powerful. I have trouble feeling sympathy for them when they were mistaken about being the powerful.

I remain hopeful, but not optimistic, that Trump's Trials and Tribulations will lead to a future where some portion of the American people coming to a consensus that centering all power in the Imperial Presidency was a Bad Call, that enabling prosecutors to jail any American was a Bad Call, that enabling the National Security state to spy on everyone all the time was a Bad Call. So far, it seems that both Republicans and Democrats have taken the lesson that it means that we need Our Guy in charge. C'est la vie.

Never. If you can't be in the country you love, love the country you're in. It's great when it happened, historically, and we shouldn't go back on them; but it's always violent.

Elections are by their nature a contested environment not just between the individual candidates, but as Tom Scott touches upon in this video on electronic voting, between the candidates, their respective voters, and those administering the election. You seem to be approaching this issue as though it were a criminal trial where the election must be presumed legitimate unless proved otherwise in a court of law, but that's not how this works. You need to understand that the purpose of an election is not to produce a "true" or "accurate" result. It is to produce a clear result that the candidates (and their voters) can accept as legitimate, including the ones who lost. [some spelling corrections]

So one side gets a Heckler's Veto until they are convinced of the legitimacy of the election? If they're upset enough, then the government needs to alter procedures until they are satisfied? No evidence is required, merely a sense of disquiet among some portion of voters? What procedural changes would produce a "legitimate" election for those people?

Did you ever clerk? Going after a judge's clerk is what provoked this more than anything else. Clerk is an anonymous job, judges treat them like their children or their pets but no one outside the courthouse is or should ever be aware of anything they do. Any judge is going to go incandescent with rage at that point. Attacking a kid just out of law school who has zero impact on the proceedings directionally, is just so downright evil and unnecessary that he's going to get slapped down for it.

As we prepare to celebrate the single most important event in history, I want to celebrate some positive things in the culture war arenas rather than focusing on the negative.

Item: the NFL is so often an arena of the worst of inarguably Toxic Masculinity, full of murderers playboy plastic surgery victims and whoremongers, all beating each other into early onset alzheimers. But the Philadelphia Eagles' pro-bowl bound best offensive line in the damn business made a Christmas album to raise money for charity, and it is an example of pure masculine excellence.

Seriously, watch that documentary, it's seven minutes long and it is all fantastic. Just three of the biggest, baddest sons of bitches in the world, drinking heavily, laughing their asses off, and working on their singing voices. Jordan Mailata, who could play Goliath with zero special effects, croons like he's Bing fuckin' Crosby out here. Jason Kelce, a multi-millionaire world champion, is wearing his favorite Christmas sweater: a women's sweater he got at a thrift store (seriously, how big was this woman? Kelce is 295 lbs!) and ranting about how much he loves it. Lane Johnson, who looks like he's cosplaying as [CueBall from Pokemon](https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Roughneck_(Trainer_class)#::text=A%20Roughneck%20(Japanese%3A%20%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AD%E3%83%B3%E3%83%98%E3%83%83%E3%82%BA,%2C%20Eevee!%2C%20Punk%20Guys.), is working hard at hitting all the notes.

This is what ideal masculinity looks like. Strong, big, tough, accomplished men who are hanging out, talking trash, singing, playing for a good cause, humble but striving to do their best at every task. Giving props to each other, and to the experts they brought in to help them. If one day I want to show my son the ideal of masculinity, this is it.

Seriously, hometown bias but still, how can you hate this Eagles team? Jalen Hurts answers every interview question "We're just taking it one week at a time." The offensive line is making a Christmas album for children's charity, the wide receivers are all Batman no Robins, while the cornerbacks stand up for each other. Most lovable NFL team I've ever had the pleasure of watching. In the wildest dreams of DelCo drunks, if this becomes the new NFL dynasty, we have to assume it represents a moral improvement for our country over the Brady-Belichek Patriots era right?

Item: every week we have a new Woke-Bait or Woke-bation media property to complain about, forcing diversity where it doesn't belong. I want to take the day before Wigilia to call out a perfect example of trans-inclusivity done right: the TikTok classic Girls by The Dare. Listen to the whole thing if you don't know it, it's like two minutes with no solos.

The lyrics to the first verse run through a list of types of girls the singer wants to bone:

I like tall girls, small girls

Girls with dicks, call girls

Girls who get naked on the 'Gram

That's just brilliant. The trans inclusive clause "Girls with dicks" comes right in line with tall, small, call, and instathots. Treated as perfectly normal! Girls with dicks are girls, the singer is (ridiculously, libidinously) heterosexual, girls with dicks are girls so he likes them. At the same time, they are included in a list right before the perfect perverted poetry of:

They say I'm too fucking horny

Wanna put me in a cage

I'll probably fuck a hole, in the wall, the guy before made!

and another list made up of pregnant girls, Catholic girls, and kinky girls; this all winks at the idea that girls with dicks are something of an acquired taste, that real heterosexual manly libidinous Dionysians like the singer might like it, but others might not. And that's fine, more for him!

That's how you do inclusion! Don't force it, don't try to make it "nice," acknowledge perversion for perversion and celebrate perversion as perversion! Don't force it down everybody else's throats, force it down the throats of other consenting adults!

Give me all your favorite examples of things that are just done right! Ideally things that aren't culture-war combatants, but things that do CW stuff right.

Some days I feel like my shadow's casting me Some days the sun don't shine Sometimes I wonder what tomorrow's gonna bring When I think about my dirty life and times One day I came to a fork in the road Folks, I just couldn't go where I was told Now they'll hunt me down and hang me for my crimes If I tell about my dirty life and times I had someone 'til she went out for a stroll Should have run after her It's hard to find a girl with a heart of gold When you're living in a four-letter world And if she won't love me then her sister will She's from Say-one-thing-and-mean-another's-ville And she can't seem to make up her mind When she hears about my dirty life and times

Are the ideological motivations of spree killers politically relevant, or are they irrelevant?

Irrelevant. Certainly irrelevant in the sense that as little attention should be paid to them as possible. We shouldn't know the names or manifestos of people who murder children. It encourages child murder.

I hold that belief personally, but even if I didn't: I'd still defer to the actual parents of the actual Christian school kids murdered and say that if they want to keep the manifesto out of the press to protect their own sanity, then that deference seems fitting and proper. If they said that they wanted it out there, they could post it themselves on a website and there ain't shit the Blue Tribe can do about it. The motivating force behind this isn't some nebulous cabal of NYT editorial staff, it's the actual parents of the actual children.

Either way, I don't really think this is a serious, chronic problem. Paranoid schizo blue tribers tell me that black and trans people are murdered in the streets by racists, paranoid schizo red tribers tell me that white kids are regularly beaten to death in inner city school districts by bloodthirsty gangs of migrants. The issue such as it is seems to be immune to media bias, red tribers are just as likely to imagine political violence as blue tribers. Whose manifesto gets the most airtime seems less related to media bias than to how effectively they broadcast that manifesto prior to the shooting, if the trans whatever had livestreamed the shootings then it would be out there regardless of copyright.

If anything, I more associate talking about motivations with Red Tribe speakers post-shooting, the Blue Tribe mainstream just wants to keep the focus on guns guns guns. Who cares why he did it when it offers me an opportunity to take away someone's constitutional rights?

Yet this very forum had multiple posters saying things like "No self respecting man could vote for Kamala after picturing her kneeling under a mahogany desk." It might be stupid but it's an active line of attack against Kamala and her supporters.

So... No elected Republicans, nobody who is part of mainstream conservative politics. Just to be clear.

I always found the decision to write the Slate article rather weird. It felt like grabbing the spotlight for herself. If I were her*, if the story features the guy as a creep, then it clearly isn't my story. After all, he wasn't a creep. It's a weird reflex insecure people carry to show their whole ass under broad accusations, like people getting upset at someone being called dumb or ugly because it is mean to dumb or ugly people, as though anyone who isn't wildly insecure would group themselves under the categories "dumb" or "ugly."

In the final analysis it's a fairly innocuous story structure, the kind of thing that happens every day on every college campus across the country. While certain details made it identifiable to those close with Nowicki, Roupenien did change many details; Nowicki's argument is that Roupenien did not change enough of them. The interesting thing about the story is the internal monologue of the hypo-agentic and anhedonic protagonist, not any particular plot point lifted from Nowicki's life or not, which most anyone would understand bore only a vague similarity to any real person. She could easily have said to the handful of people who would have identified her "Hey that's not how I remember it, I've never even met this writer" and moved on with her life. Instead she chose to make the whole incident the first Google result under her name, taking it to the whole public, not just to those who knew her then and remembered these details, but to everyone she would meet in the future. That's an...odd...response to the supposed invasion of your privacy. Taking what would have been a private fun fact and making it into the first thing any new employer, romantic partner, etc will learn about you.

To me it is perfectly legitimate to write a story like Cat Person, in which you hear about a scenario and then imagine how you would feel if you were in that scenario. I'd imagine that is one of the most common ways that authors create stories, they hear about a scenario and then they insert themselves into it, how would I feel how would I react what would have made me do something like that. From Lord of the Flies to For Whom the Bell Tolls to The Killer Angels. It's.a long tradition. Jean Ross' Family still takes the time to critique the classic musical Cabaret every time there is a big production of it, "Our Grandmother Wasn't a Whore!" is always good for one or two headlines in a few midwit newspapers; the controversy is the primary reason anyone ever talks about Jean Ross anymore, which lead me to read more about her fascinating life. Seizing the controversy for oneself is seizing a slice of fame from a great work for oneself.

For what it's worth, regardless of the (dead) author's or most people's interpretation of Cat Person, I found it a very strong and interesting work of fiction. Not so much as a critique of men along the lines of "the guy was a creep all along" or whatever, but as a critique of the female protagonist's mindset. The way she drifts in and out of wanting to be involved in any of this, but lets herself get swept along for lack of any better ideas, the way she gets distanced from her friends and peer group by her relationship with this older man, is a genuine warning to girls. The kind of warning my mother gave to both me and my sister when we reached early teenage years: Never Go On A Mercy Date. Don't date people who you aren't super into. If you end up doing too much with them, that will be upsetting; if you reject them anyway you are only making it worse after stringing them further along. You think you are doing them a favor by giving them a little bit of you, but this will only make them angrier when they can't have all of you. You think they should be happy you spent time with them at all, they get angry that you won't spend more time with them. "Whore" is how that transaction inevitably ends. ((I mostly followed this advice, but not always as well as I should have.))

It comes back to the generalized advice I give to all young people: the optimal relationship states are Happily Married, and Slutting it Up. You should always be aiming to remain at one of those poles, the spots in the middle are hazardous, that's where people get hurt because they are emotionally depending on something that has no substance to it. If you're not married, or on the path to getting married, no commitment, no dependency, you don't make any decisions in your life with them in mind.

*I can't, of course, speak to what the viral story about your life experience must actually be like. The largest audience a short story or poem written by a former love ever found was a creative writing class; I'm lucky to have avoided sleeping with good writers, or I'm lucky to be so boring my story would never catch on.

Why did you pick homicides with Rifles? My pre-condition was that homicides with long guns are essentially irrelevant in the USA. Just seems silly, I would equally place homicides with rifles as among the things people get too conspicuously upset over as compared to their statistical relevance.

You cite the fatality rate of handgun shots, and that one punch can kill. The article you link cites 80 deaths between 2007 and 2017 in England, so around eight deaths a year from single punches. I'm having trouble finding how many fights involving punches there are per year in England, but there are about two million crimes against the person per year. That seems like a relevant pool to draw those eight deaths out of.

I'm not sure "always trust that a violent assailant is going to carefully calibrate their violence level" is a Schelling point that doesn't lead to greater tragedy in the long term.

I understand where this seems super rational if in your life you are never the subject of violence. But if you have been, you realize that the vast majority of fights do not end in deaths, or even in serious injuries or concussions, they end in a few bruises and a lot of adrenaline. There are about 200,000 Aggravated Assaults with fists etc in the US every year, that does not count the probable-majority of fistfights that end in no charges or lesser charges. ((I have been in a few fights, probably "lost" them all, none resulted in charges filed against anyone, I don't know how to parse that beyond anecdote to be honest)) There were 26,000 total homicides, including justifiable ones, and the vast majority of those were committed with firearms. The numbers are just entirely off.

Now, if strong evidence were presented that he showed the gun, threatened Washington with it, and then Washington came at him anyway, I would take his side. Threatening with the firearm is probably a proportional escalation, and if he continues after the firearm is shown than you are justified in using lethal force because he clearly intends to. Rittenhouse was in that situation, because the group escalated against him despite his firearm he clearly had to use it. But using the firearm against him when he is several feet away from you, against merely being punched, is not reasonable.

I'm really not seeing this one. "Shut up" as bad language is third grader stuff. We get the "Women are irrational" "Women are vapid" "women are stupid whores" stuff constantly, normally with a citation to some bitter internet blog like it's an academic mathematical proof.

Are any of those dudes really going to feel stifled by being told to shut up? Is that consensus even modestly likely to be built? Are any of our local bitter singles going to say "Ohh, I was told to shut up by another commenter, guess themotte isn't the place to talk about this..."*

The consensus building rule does need to be weighted by what side the actual consensus is on. We're much more likely to be driving away posters with giant screeds about how women are responsible for all the world's problems than my learned friend in argument @FarNearEverywhere is to drive anyone away.

you link the article like it’s authoritative, when it never is

So let's speculate wildly instead! She's being kidnapped!

When I lived in a public university accommodation, RA’s would never physically restrain an inebriated student because they forgot their ID.

She wasn't an RA, she was working security at the desk. The specific job of those people at my school was to prevent you from getting in without an ID. Typically via controlling the lock on the door.

I get that it's a goofy story we shouldn't even be talking about, and that your political enemies are trying to make hay out of it, but I don't see why we have to make up facts and ignore context.

It seems odd to write a massive post about Democratic infighting and barely mention Gaza.

Support for Israel among Dems is underwater. It's also declining among Republicans. 71% of Democrats under 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel.

Democrats have nonetheless failed to offer any coherent policy against Israel, even now when they can do so irresponsibly. Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war (which he has since hopefully concluded). Democrats have failed to speak to their base's concerns, and abandoned their principles.

It cost Dems in 2024, and if they can't get out of it, it will cost them in 2026.

I'm curious, Mottizens: what speed would you drive at in perfect conditions (straight, flat, sunny, minimal traffic), in a 70 mph interstate?

Assuming that I'm confident that there are no cops, and I'm driving a good sports car, and I'm in the mood? I'd probably touch 130mph, carry 95-100mph.

Summer of Covid, when I was driving back and forth on an empty PA turnpike in a drop top twin turbo A4 quattro, I would consistently take it up to a daily triple, and just zip through the handful of cars on the road like they were standing still. When you're going 120 and they're going 80, it's like dodging obstacles at 40, it's fun.

On the other hand, if I'm in a more quotidian car and I'm just trying to get somewhere, probably in the 80-85mph range? That's normally a pretty comfortable speed, and I'm not too worried about getting pulled over, and really you have to hold 100 for an hour or more to see much benefit on travel time on the highway, and at that point it's kinda stressful.

Pretty much no other cultural group other than northern Europeans think like this. The pro-outgroup bias is insane.

This is such an odd meme online. The world is full of people who have a pro-outgroup bias, and probably always has been. In-group, out-group, far-group dynamics are not exclusive to Europeans. Asians who prefer whites, Africans and Arabs who prefer European institutions, so on and so forth. I recall seeing a nice little chart passed around from a study "Proving" that liberal whites are unique compared to other ethnic groups in America...without even trying to break down those ethnic groups by politics.

Moore is just another Charlie Manson type racist, who assumes that he is different from everyone else and special and will be spared in Helter Skelter. He can't defeat the Republicans he hates himself, but he can enlist the blacks and the women to do it for him, and at the end of the process the grateful blacks and women will turn to Moore for leadership.

Homosexuality and gender transition are definitely illegal in Algeria. It's not an Iran situation where Persians are weirdly fine with transition as a solution to Homosexuality.

It's not technically impossible that it's a birth certificate identity fraud or Balls-at-twelve situation, but I'm pretty comfortable putting the onus on those looking to disqualify. The assumption should be that someone who was born as female is female.

None of which changes the outcome of the Carini fight.