@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 curious to probe why we have all chosen to use primarily left-coded examples, when the same examples on the right abound. The identitarian rot runs so deep in our culture that everything is infected.

Only half of self identified evangelicals attend church weekly. Two thirds of evangelicals have premarital sex. There's no expectation that one's activities must justify one's self-identification.

The universe of Tradwife and conservative girl influencers and followers seems to consist of women who claim tradition as an identity, while rarely being willing to commit to actual values when it requires sacrifice.

Country music has been infected by poseurs, self identified "country boys" who grew up nowhere near a farm. Men who make up their lack of masculinity with a leather clad pickup truck. People who buy hunting themed stuff, but never hunt. There's no expectation that one must do something to earn credibility.

And most confusing to me, men who talk about supporting the troops and honoring the troops and loving the troops, and never tried to serve.

We have financial analysts who self-identify as blue collar, and day laborers who self identify as entrepreneurs. The poison is so deep in the American system, that I don't know how we get it out anymore.

It's easy to see the flaws in one's opponents, it's hard to see them in one's allies, it's near to impossible to self examine.

I think robbers know perfectly well what they're doing and are evaluating risk and reward for their crimes, perhaps with skewed analysis of risk but they're still making an assessment.

More than that, most thieves can make a moral analysis of why what they did was acceptable, perhaps even righteous. It will be skewed, absurd, even ridiculous, but they can do it. When they say I didn't do nuthin, the [wrong] is implied.

I stole from the store, but insurance will cover it. Or it's a big corporation so it doesn't count, they'll never know the difference. I stole from my employer, but he underpays me so I deserved it. Sure, I robbed that woman in the street, but she has more than me and I gotta eat.

The thief understands cause and effect and morality, they simply find a warped enough reasoning to justify their actions.

"Multiple intelligences" strikes me as something of a motte-and-bailey argument. No one disputes that some people are bad at maths and good at music, or shape-rotators but not wordcels.

My attitude towards claims of different forms of intelligence is that it is obviously true on its face, but that one can safely assume that when one is talking to someone claiming that they have a "different" form of intelligence than the ones that can be measured they probably don't rate highly in any form of intelligence.

Other forms of intelligence have their observable markers. The person with great emotional intelligence has a ton of friends, is a great salesman, can start a conversation with anyone off the street. The person with great spiritual intelligence is one who is always moral, a holy man who always does the right thing and knows the right thing to do, a saint. Someone with artistic talent produces art. I've known men who could barely read, but possessed some kind of innate mechanical ability to fix anything. People who truly possess these talents are quick to acknowledge that they are dumb, their talents and the rewards thereof provide the recompense for their stupidity.

By contrast, you have the person who loudly proclaims their emotional intelligence, such a person almost certainly lacks emotional intelligence as that is not a very emotionally intelligent thing to say to people. The person who talks about their intense charisma but has no friends, or the person who speaks of their spirituality but is a bad person. Or the worst of the worst: street smarts, common sense. The number of abject failures who crow about their common sense is a clear indictment of the concept, if it exists it clearly has limited value! And as a country bumpkin, I was eternally treated in my younger years to college friends telling me I lacked "street smarts," which always amounted to some kind of useless local knowledge at best, and just urban myths at worst.

I can say that different forms of intelligence exist from personal experience, in that I consistently rate much higher on any classic test that measures intelligence than I function in day to day life, I overperform on tests. I'm a mediocre mechanic, even though I would trounce anyone at the dealership in an LSAT; and I could never cut hair even if my IQ qualifies me for the job. But when one claims all the forms of intelligence that can't be measured, and has no evidence to back it up, it's easy to dismiss them as a liar.

At one of our local courthouses a kid fresh out of law school applied to be a judicial clerk. For those of you unfamiliar, a judicial clerk is a mix of an assistant to the judge, and doing the judge's actual job for him, with the percentages varying with the judge and the clerk. Most of the judicial opinions that form the law of the land are written primarily not by judges in black robes but by anonymous clerks whose names are nowhere in the text.

This guy claimed all kinds of mental disabilities along those lines (ADHD and the gang), and before he even started the job, during the application process he was pointing to various accommodations he would need to function within the role of judicial clerk. He would need extra time on assignments, he claimed to be incapable of following speech and taking notes without a laptop or of engaging in live debate because he couldn't process speech fast enough or something.

To even ask for these things reflects an entire misunderstanding of how work works, of the whole idea of a professional. You don't get extra time on assignments, the assignments exist and you get them done. If you don't complete the work necessary in your allotted hours, you have to finish it outside of your allotted hours. If your allotted hours produce less work than the average worker, you are less valuable than the average worker. At no point in the application process did this young man seem to think of the problem as "I'm going to need to work more hours" but always in terms of "You're going to have to go easy on me." I know it's the government, but still, there's not even the illusion of caring about productivity or value for a dollar.

And what offends me most is to lead with it proudly! As @FtttG says below, Hyprocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. One ought to at least have the decency to be ashamed of being a slow worker, or disabled, and hide it until after one is hired in a cushy government sinecure from which one cannot practically speaking be fired.

I used to struggle with this in law school, the idea of extra time or drugs to help someone focus on legal work strikes me as absurd in a professional school that is explicitly preparing the majority of its students to function through billable hours. It seemed obvious to me that it was good to provide help to kids who needed it in elementary school, but that it should stop by professional school. I didn't recognize how slippery the slope was. Standards must be standardized, or they are useless. People we pretended were good at one level always trickle down to the next level and demand we pretend they are good at that too.

This young man is now shipwrecked, with a professional degree and probably a great deal of debt, and no real way to make money at it except by conning others into "accommodating" him. Left to his own devices, as the mythical solo practitioner with a shingle out, he will need to work absurd hours to achieve a livable income. Working for others, he will be fired repeatedly, or barely tolerated for fear of a lawsuit. That's no kind of life. And I don't know how you pull someone out of it.

We're well past the point of "a bunch of kids in colleges," this is now at the point of taking over the workplace.

Mandatory public education seems like a big Chesterton's Fence.

I think I asked this question here a couple of years ago

I think I answered this question before. Both of these are good quality, made in USA, I've owned the products for a while with no issues.

Los Angeles Apparel makes a lot of good stuff. These are my preferred casual pants. They get stretch from the weave rather than from spandex. They also make good thick sweatpants, if anything they are too thick to be comfortable in some cases.

Alternatively, American Giant makes superlatively good, if comparatively overpriced sweatpants.

There's rumors that Maduro is negotiating an exit plan with immunity for family and elections to follow. If Trump takes it, he's a genius compared to who we've had lately.

But if he's really smart, he'll keep Maduro on hand. Just in case.

I don't care if it's done ironically, I find it unpleasant to look at. It's ugly to me. Simple as.

I might still do it once or twice, but compared to a reasonable open mat where in two hours I can spend an hour rolling?

Anyone who sticks to requiring some strict set of criteria from a partner wants to die alone. Trying to debate him without addressing his real motivations and goals is a waste of time. Arguing with him about the odds is telling him: your method is going to be very effective at achieving your goals.

I know many people who would disagree.

I mean sure, but still written by a boomer and part of a series starting in 1996.

I don't really see the difference between "Trump is personally bloodthirsty" and "Trump hires and empowers bloodthirsty people and does nothing to stop them." Those are functionally equivalent states.

We can play a bit of "If Only The Czar Knew..." but that only works until the Czar ought to know. If Hegseth and his makeup studio are out of the Pentagon by March, then we can go back to the Donald the Dove bit. At the very least, a scapegoat must be found, for decency's sake.

The question I am left with is, however, what if Shagbark got his wish and found a cheap, "beautifully depressed" minor city with a magical bar full of ... Mottizens! Would this actually work or would most of us, being Turbo Autists, shut down in public and let this drunken HippyCath dominate the space? Would there be verbal equivalents of AAQCs or would it all devolve into drunken shouting before anyone got to their second section heading?

If we're doing this I have numerous suggestions in my neck of the woods. There's a lot of tiny cheap old towns where you can buy a home, have a car, and walk to a church and a bar.

The verbal equivalent of an AAQC is the bon mot, the line that everyone remembers and repeats back to each other for years afterward, until it becomes part of speech.

Now I'm not saying that Shagbark's club would look like Café Central. It probably would look like a bunch of weirdos sitting around nursing beers and cheap cocktails while pontificating loudly on subjects they were not qualified to take a 201 class in.

The vast majority of people at the Cafe Central were weirdos sitting around nursing beers and cheap cocktails and we've never heard of them. For every Freud and Herzl and Stalin and Hitler, there were fifty losers whose manifestos wound up lining a parrot cage. One of the important things you realize when you read the biographies of revolutionaries, is that it's really hard to tell the serious ones from the unserious ones until suddenly it is very obvious. The Bolsheviks embodied every stereotype of the LARPing coffee shop revolutionary, the thugs who use Socialism as a cover for robbing banks, the burnouts who just hate their parents, the grifters trying to avoid getting a real job, etc. Then suddenly they took over Russia. And I don't think it's something you can predict in advance, some people rise to the occasion and others turn out to be failures. Sam Adams was far more important than John before the Revolution, afterward Sam was an afterthought until he became a beer. Jesus may not even have been the most important Messiah running around Judea in 33, he turned out to be the most important man to ever live.

These kinds of environments are important because they support a huge petri dish of ideas and thinkers, and most of them will be unimportant but some will be earth shattering.

Uh, bitch, prices are high. Time on market is low. There's LOTS of buyers. It's a seller's market. If developers aren't building (and indeed they aren't) it's not a lack of prospective buyers causing it.

This is heart of the problem with the article: if there is indeed a mortgage drought preventing people from buying houses, house prices should be falling, not rising. Basic Econ 101 stuff.

Not necessarily. If more people are buying with cash, you can have both rising prices and people unable to get mortgages. And many, many more people are buying with cash. Either because they are older and have assets in hand, or because they are using OPM to invest in housing, or because they are just wealthier. Cash offers have become very common around here, to the point where even people who are using a mortgage can't put a mortgage contingency in the offer if they want to get the house.

Mortgages are a tool to allow people to afford a home without saving for decades. If they aren't available at a competitive price point, then people can't afford a home unless they save for decades first. This is generally considered Not Good for the economy for a variety of reasons, and certainly precludes widespread homeownership for young people.

You seem to assume that only one thing can be wrong at a time, but this is America in 2025, everything can be wrong at the same time.

Trump might have had very little to do with the double strike while still not being a "Weekend at Biden."

Assuming that this occurred, until he fires the people involved, the buck stops with Trump. I'm fairly willing to believe that Trump might literally either not understand or not go into enough detail to care about the laws of war, but he employs several people whose job it is to keep him from tripping over his own dick. If all those people did not prevent him from doing this, or did this without his knowledge, he can fire them, or he can own their actions as his own.

the argument being used currently by the Trump admin is one of poor victims who aren't responsible for their own drug additions, and they need to be protected from the "terrorists" who provide the druggies the goods they want.

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.

There's an interesting strain of Latin American thought that goes something like: America blames us for the drug gangs, when we're stuck with the drug gangs because of American demand for cocaine.

Adam Unikowsky posted about it, yesterday

Brief note for any aspiring substackers here: please don't insert vaguely related AI slop in between paragraphs. It greatly reduces the odds I'll read your stuff.

The funniest outcome here is that Texas creates a whole pile of slightly-pink districts to try to stretch the Republican butter over as much toast as possible, and a truly bad midterm causes Texas to elect more Democrats than they thought they would. And one day the reverse in California leads the state that gave us Nixon and Reagan back to the Republican fold.

I am not sure what "one thing" do you mean, but it does not matter...

It doesn't matter, it can be anything. Lie about the weather, about inflation, about what is a woman, about crime, about race, about massacring civilians in refugee camps. Whenever you intentionally create a situation where you are obviously wrong and your enemies are obviously right, you lose credibility and they gain credibility. Whenever you lie and your detractors tell the truth, you become seen as less trustworthy and they become seen as more trustworthy.

When you hand your opponents a golden opportunity to be publicly right about something, you are making a mistake. The Democrats saw this with the trannies, allowing the Republicans to be right about something so easy and so obvious increased Republican credibility and reduced Democratic credibility. Republicans saw this during the end of the Bush administration when they were trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't disasters, they looked into it and they aren't disasters. Lying to the public is dangerous. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

This is the core idea of Yarvin's Antiversity, a truth machine that will contain only facts, and break the power of the Cathedral by being more credible than the Cathedral.

When Israel lies about civilian casualties in Gaza, and antisemites tell the truth, it increases the credibility of Israel's most insane and deadly detractors. This is more dangerous for Israel than it is for an American political party, because Israel's existence is far more tenuous than the existence of one of the two American political parties. Jewish organizations in America spent decades working to make sure that any mention of Da Joos turned you into a pariah and a laughingstock, Israel has spent the last few years causing nice liberals to give MTG and Candace Owens a hearing on some issues. That's, like, really bad and stuff, for Israel.

Look at Connor McGregor attempt to fight The Mountain from Game of Thrones.

I realize it's my youtube algo, but it's funny because like three videos suggested next to it are "LMAO DUMBASS BODYBUILDER GETS MOGGED BY TINY BJJ BLACKBELT"

For demo purposes, it is hard to override the male instinct to 'play nice' with women so as not to inadvertently hurt them.

I was explaining to one of the girls I train with that we (all the male white belts) are all terrified of rolling with her, because there's no winning. If I win and tap her too quickly, I'm a dick who's trying to stunt on a girl. If I lose and she taps me, I just got beat by a girl. The winning move is to use very little strength and perfect technique string together a really technically compelling flow roll. I'm being called on to do this more by my coaches ("We need someone experienced to roll with Sydney because she's new, roll with FiveHour!") and while I'm getting better at it I kinda hate it. What I've started doing is closing my eyes and rolling by pure feel to try to develop better instincts.

I think part of it is that we just need to acknowledge that for self defense purposes, we are mostly talking about different things.

Exactly. It wouldn't be surprising to see a mixed up extremist who loved Nick Fuentes and also fucked trannies and loved Luigi and communism or whatever. Another Ernst Roehm or Skorzeny.

But then on the flip side you have Russia, again, where the frontier was where they sent malefactors for centuries, and things got worse.

So...1996 or maybe 2005?

Almost all of the things described in the original essay are not normal! India is poorly described as an honor culture. It is not like Afghanistan, even if we have regions that are closer to those norms. It would be like coming up with some kind of term for the honor culture in the Appalachians, and using that to draw sweeping conclusions about the rest of the States. Or using SF fent zombies as examples of the average American.

There's a weird thing in America where we understand that out of 330mm Americans, there are at least like seven or eight distinct cultures that it would be ridiculous to draw parallels across, and then you take a place like India or China with four times as many people and assume they're all the same.