George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
The things you lean on / are things that don't last
User ID: 107
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
11hr ago
If we're doing quotes, I recall a line of Umberto Eco's in an essay in his Travels in Hyperreality (1986):
"While the mass media seem to act as a thermometer, reporting a rise in temperature, they are actually part of the fuel that keeps the furnace going."
Right side, bottom of the page, 90 or something.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
That kind of "all of the above" and "none of the above" is generally seen as bad assessment.
For various reasons, but the former because if you can dismiss even one as wrong you can guess that "all of the above" isn't correct even if you're not sure of some others. It's like wasting a distractor. It adds unnecessary noise. Likewise if "none of the above" is correct, you know what the student knows is wrong but you don't know if they know what is right.
Often enough people who have no idea about item-response theory, test analysis, teat validity, or test reliability are involved in test creation and they end up making extremely bad tests.
Edit: That's "test validity" but I'll leave it for humor's sake.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
That's not really how "they explain it." In fact they don't explain it. Bond remains Bond throughout the series. His one wife (Traci) was seen married and murdered in the one Lazenby film, then in the subsequent film Connery is out for vengeance for her murder. Later, in a different film, Roger Moore lays flowers on Traci's grave. And then even later in License to Kill Dalton is said to have been "married once, but that was a long time ago" (notably this is said by Felix Leiter, played by an actor who played the same character for both Moore and Dalton, though only in Dalton's second film--in his first, Leiter was played by someone else.) There's no explanation. For stupid reasons they played around with the double oh seven moniker in the most recent (and final) Bond film, but that's another issue.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
I believe there's a typo here unless you have two wives.
This tweet begins with something that you cut off: (edit: possibly inadvertently)
4o conspiracy I thought of:
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
2d ago
That's interesting, because with "pay homage" I've also heard it "pay HAH-midge." But in all other contexts I've heard it as "Oh-MAHJ." The dictionary suggests both can be correct?
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3d ago
In *guu, chokki paah" (janken, the Japanese version, used I sometimes believe to make every decision of import throughout Japanese history) the order is actually "rock (guu) scissors (chokki) , paper (pahh, or the outstretched hand)"
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3d ago
Wait you pronounce the h in homage, brother? I never have. But I can remember many instances where I spoke a word that I had only ever seen written down and was immediately ridiculed.
If you don't, presumably you don't say "A honest man?"
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
3d ago
They're probably thinking of leery.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
4d ago
It depends. On the guy, on his own self worth. You may be underestimating a certain type of male willingness to buy into the male toxicity rhetoric.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
4d ago
I don't think he would necessarily have just wholesale accepted that he was the character Robert, no, of course not, any more than a boy watching Marvel films thinks he's really Thor. I'm saying that reading the worst (or at least very bad) version of his behavior fictionalized in this way, then having it become a viral piece where the male (to whom he may feel is being pattern-matched) is nearly universally mocked as icky, would probably not cause him to whistle while he worked.
This could be true regardless of whether his own acquaintances knew he was the inspiration. (Though he may have suspected in a paranoid way that they might have.)
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
5d ago
Agreed
You're right. And also you have no idea. There is an emotional weight to guilt and self-hatred that has exactly nothing to do with the perceptions of people one actually knows.
Would anyone have cared? Probably not. But then no one generally cares about anyone else anyway. But if you see a reflection of the worst version of yourself --and alas, this is the version that is the only one that most of us (it's a well-known trope that to get a famous person to respond to you, you call them out as unsympathetically as possible... whereas if you simply praise them you'll be ignored) live and die by.
Rationally, sure, yes, nothing wrong with your well-made point. Alas.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
8d ago
The original Shōgun was released in 1980 when Japan's technology was putting it on the international scene. The bubble wouldn't inflate for another six years but it was no longer "just" a former enemy that Americans could crack camera jokes about. It was still very foreign, but had an edge. Still you made sure you put the san after anjin(pilot) when you addressed Richard Chamberlain's character.The perspective was that of a stranger in a strange land.
Meanwhile the remake was right in the midst of woke. The white man was an unrepentant degenerate capitalist and had zero qualities as protagonist other than courage. His moral code is seen as corrupt. The Japanese translator Mariko is now a fighter (a physical, naginata-wielding fighter) and arguably the real main character. Her emotional backstory that now is tied to another woman instead of a foreign Japanese honor culture. Strangeness and the darker sides of Japanese culture were buried (or at least deemphasized) in favor of beautiful setpieces. Catholicism is still denigrated but protestantism gets no reprieve in anyone's mind as it perhaps arguably did in the first.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
10d ago
Well that just makes you a friend. Possibly from your perspective you're more of a sounding board, but I've learned that's how many women communicate. Wait till you've been married 20 years.
Seriously though, a good listener is gold, worth many treasure troves. So good for you, though it must seem tedious.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
11d ago
The urge to suggest that this is solely a female type behavior is strong, but misguided. Probably this kind of swooning (over a caddish rake in this case) is more common in females but again I'm not even sure of that. Plenty of dudes leave committed wives after years because they met a hottie who pushes the right buttons. Trade the wife in for a younger model, as my wise aunt used to say. Women are perhaps pulled in the same foolish direction for different reasons--i.e. not mostly sexual. Women often have more lovey emotional reasons. This doesn't make it stupid. True, it's wrong and probably to some degree self-destructive. But I've seen a woman in a terrible bizarre relationship that at the time seemed so volatile that her life was arguably on the edge of ruin--only to, years later, now married to a different (stable) guy, state without irony that the bizarre relationship in question (now long over) was one of her fondest, most cherished memories of that particular time period. And yes this is a strikingly beautiful woman.
I personally think that the "gay best friend" role (as you put it) is an important role for every man to experience at least once, and it speaks well of you that any woman is willing to trust you with her inner emotional life. Although if you have designs on her yes, it will be a singularly awful experience for you. Once is probably quite enough though.
My view is that you should keep your eyes open, learn as much as possible about yourself and her during this period, and file the information away as one of life's oddities. Women and men can both turn emotionally on a dime, especially (though not only) when young. Not everyone, of course. Some of us are made of more solid stuff.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
12d ago
Funnily I responded to that thread! In my mind you were still training up but my mind was wrong. Good stuff.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
13d ago
Remind me, did you ever complete the Murph? I could probably search your post history but I feel asking is the old fashioned way.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14d ago
Probably it's unfair of me to attach different expectations of posting to mods, but I do, and it's always discouraging to read mods generalizing about a Motte Ethos. You'd know the rules better than I.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14d ago
I think whether I agree or not is irrelevant. I often generalize about the ethos of Der Motte in general and suspect by and large I'm not off by far. But maybe I am. Maybe we're all capable of surprising one another. Maybe there's no Motte hivemind, and we're not so very predictable. I'd like to think so. And the best modding I've seen keeps this hope alive.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14d ago
True. But this is after the initial confrontation, where Sidious has murdered at least two jedi and shown clearly his darkside self. Yes from a public/filtered perspective it's dubious.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14d ago
Moderator, mod thyself.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14d ago
Point of clarity: When Windu and the Dying Squad of Jedi arrived, they went to arrest the chancellor, not assassinate him. Thus the "I AM the senate" line, and Windu's "Not yet" (bzzzzzzzzwang ignition of lightsaber).
It was Yoda who went in with the intention of actually offing Sidious, who by then had been proven a sith lord.
Unless you're typing out the news as reported by the legacy Coruscant media, in which case yes, the masses can be tricked.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
15d ago
Considerably higher up on the thigh.
I chuckled.
More options
Context Copy link