@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

You can get anything here except red ink

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

You can get anything here except red ink

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

t's a little bit like someone wrote a ficitional story about Jews murdering Christian babies, and drinking their blood, and when understandably people got upset you counter with "Well, do you murder Christian babies and drink their blood?

Isn't this more like the argument had over and over in fantasy and sci-fi circles, where any "greedy race of traders and merchants" (Trek's Ferengi, HP's Goblins) gets called antisemitic, and any violent and stupid race gets called racist against blacks/arabs/whatever? I disagree with it there, I disagree with it here.

I don't really get the obsession on all sides with the ending of the story. It strikes me as pretty milquetoast, neither providing material for a harrowing psychological thriller nor an automatic indictment of character. He used a bad word to talk to a girl who dumped him, that's pretty normal behavior. Hell, my best friend and I used to get drunk and make free online texting numbers just to bother his ex-gfs, when inevitably the new boyfriend would text back threateningly, we would issue a florid challenge to fistfight and then give him an address at an empty house we'd find for sale online in the wrong town. Only two of them were ever dumb enough to actually show up, then text the fake number to call his putative opponent a pussy. It was great fun, normal human behavior.

  • -11

Would have been nice if papa John were on the sub tho

  • -11

...So "they" made him take the Benzos?

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.

Does it get exhausting finding things to get offended by?

No accounting for taste I guess. Both land so far left of the swipe line for me that the comparison is irrelevant, and I typically have pretty loose standards.

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.

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.

My problem with your comment is the idiocy of identity politics evident in it. My comment doesn't blame men for the breakdown of marriages. It points out the characteristic ways that each gender reacts to a marriage that has already broken down.

Babtists in Georgia very much wanted to forbid gays from getting married in California, DOMA, until they lost that battle.

I couldn't find mug shots for all of those with any certainty, but all the faces I could find were Black. Maybe what we're seeing here is... Garden variety racism and wealth? Wouldn't that be funny if we worked our way back around.

For instance, this seems relevant if true.

Yeah. I'd say so. Thank you for including that article. Given what was presented in the article by the prosecution, there is no reason to feel that juries are systematically stanning for Black victims or defendants. That was his headline case, it's shit, I can dismiss the whole argument. To say nothing of his misuse of the word Systemic, if the Right starts redefining words the same way the Left does, we're fucked.

In general the law frowns on jumping from fists to guns as proportional escalation. Getting punched does not entitle you to shoot. This is actually a fairly old-fashioned remnant of an era of masculinity, today violence is treated as an on/off switch, and in that environment it seems totally rational to chickenhawks to say "Well getting punched by a Black man is like, totally super scary and he felt threatened!" When the rational response there, given that he was not restrained from retreating in any way, was to walk away and call the cops.

The "gang sign" and "he said he was from California" bit is also pretty hilarious. Are gang hand signs even a real thing?

To say nothing of carrying concealed in a bar being, on net, a bad idea for this exact reason.

And I’d be wary of saying I’m an extreme prude about this. I grew up in NYC...I’ve walked through much of lower Manhattan at 2am countless times, in my more reckless days by myself, have taken the subway at all hours. I’m not a wide-eyed suburban naïf who crosses the street at the sight of two loitering black men...

Sure, but I'm looking at the comparisons you are drawing, and clearly you and I have a significant gap in perception of something. Perhaps it isn't risk of violence?

In the comment thread above you stated:

Ithaca: Eternal shithole, long has been, long will be. Those who must live there deserve nothing but pity. I’ve heard it’s even worse now, but how that’s possible is beyond me. 100.

I assume Buffalo is also 90-100, it’s not a place you hear great things about. Asheville was nice 7 or 8 years ago, would be a shame if it had deteriorated.

(By this scale San Francisco is 90, Vancouver 40, London is 25, Paris and Berlin 30[...]

Maybe we're talking about different things, and your 100 rating is to do with some aesthetic distaste which I don't even notice. What exactly is your 0-100 based on?

Ithaca is, has been for decades, and remains as of last year, ten square miles surrounded by reality. I can't imagine anywhere safer, short of a literal shopping mall or something. I wandered around as a kid, as a drunk undergrad, as a law student, as a middle aged tourist. I've never even heard of violence there that wasn't perpetrated between students, or essentially domestic in nature. Buffalo is...just a city? Not particularly upscale, but neither particularly dangerous nor hassling, I felt no sense of risk going out for wings there. San Francisco and NYC I've lived in, I don't know that I felt THAT much difference from Paris or Berlin, certainly Madrid and Barcelona and Luxembourg were worse experiences for me. Paris certainly I had significantly more hassle from street people, but that might be because I am quite obviously not French. I've heard great things about Singapore, though I've never had the pleasure.

I can accept your assessment of Seattle and Portland, I haven't been to either since I was maybe eleven. But then to say SF, which I have visited, is 90% as bad, and Buffalo and Ithaca which I've been to regularly and enjoy, are also "shitholes" and just as bad...I'm a little lost.

To your point...

The ‘red tribe’ often exaggerates problems with urban crime. In Britain, conservatives like to suggest knife crime is a big problem in London (it isn’t, London is one of the safest cities in the West with a 100% murder clearance rate and almost every knife homicide victim is either in a domestic violence situation or a young black man involved in gangs on tough project housing). And the hysteria about NYC, certainly since Giuliani, is very much misplaced.

I agree, the Republican fear of inner city crime suffers from the same 'boy who cried wolf' problem that Democratic accusations of Naziism and racism have suffered from. And when you call Ithaca a horrifying shithole where residents should be pitied, it destroys credibility of accounts of other places.

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

No. It's not. It's ineffective at delivering results. We can tell because identity politics projects fail, consistently, to deliver results.

Yes, and?

Interesting. No accounting for taste I guess.

Wouldn't their recourse be to not nominate Trump?

There were never neutral standards, they were enforced against those who were suspect. Meaning women.

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?

Then turn that into a deep aversion to using their products.

However, we don’t gaslight such men or tell them pretty lies to protect employers’ wonderfulness. Employers don’t care about intelligence or credentials, they can just tell that you have toxic attitudes toward employers and employment, that your employment search is being conducted in bad faith.

Once again, your antiwork crowd would argue that we absolutely do that. The lies are a little different: "If you just work hard at anything you'll get ahead!" "There are plenty of jobs out there in your field, just apply-apply-apply!" "Back in my day..." "Something Something Networking" "Show up early and stay late and be willing to do anything and your boss will notice."

This whole "Compare jobs to dates" schtick suffers from taking what is said in one's own circle and universalizing it. There are still plenty of schmucks running around who think they How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying themselves from the mail room up to the C Suite.

Personally? I have highly limited patience for able-bodied above-average-IQ young American men complaining about lack of either dates or jobs as such in 2023 America. Complain about the quality, or the spiritual fulfillment, or whatever you like, but the opportunities are out there, literally all you have to do is show up at this point. The want-ads are everywhere! Employers tell me they can't find decent workers, women can't find a decent lay, all you have to do is be decent and the world is your oyster.

What level of evidence do you require exactly? Will forum links from users who advocate HBD and then advocate for segregation/expulsion/etc of disfavored groups be sufficient? Or will they get No True Scotsmanned and Hey I Was Only Joking'd and Out of Context'd out of town? Will examples of more public advocates of hbd holding spicier takes in private go? What level of substantiation would lead you to consider this proven for some subset of people using the phrase HBD?

My patience for sitting around waiting for people to admit the obvious is sort of wearing thin when we've all watched Just-Skeptical caterpillars bloom into anti-Semitic butterflies in this meadow. Holocaust denial isn't anti-Semitic was an objection I'm supposed to address one moment, the next Catholic doctrine is the protocols of the... Well you know the rest.

NATO is doing its very best to avoid being a side of the conflict, for now (their explicit words, not mine) so I don't think this tells us much.

It seems such an obvious, and from the perspective of neoliberal elites cost-free, method to achieve the goal that to leave it on the table tells us something about seriousness. The EU accepts that a certain number of migrants from third world countries will arrive each year, and most EU elites seem to view this as a broadly good thing for the countries involved. Why not kill two birds with one stone?