@Testing123's banner p

Testing123


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 09 14:26:32 UTC

				

User ID: 1831

Testing123


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 09 14:26:32 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1831

And she gets the kiss too - https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ijuzvl8tv8k Later in the episode, the other doctors make fun of Chase (the adult male doctor who did the kissing) but the episode's narrative frames it as a good thing.

I recently watched the Paraguay episode of Parts Unknown, and he said that he was (IIRC) 57, and that he was already the longest living male member of his family in many generations.

Yes! That's it, thank you.

So I am willing to bet that even today Catholics and protestants know that it was mostly political strife. As were the other major Christian schisms and fights. If you look it is very often some inter elite fight.

I can maybe believe that the elites were primarily motivated by real politik, but masses and mobs really did murder each other on the streets throughout the era. I find it hard to believe that their true motives were stuff like decreasing regional tax-kickups to the Holy Roman Emperor.

I'm looking for an online essay, I think from a blog. It was a criticism of the high-speed train in California. It received a lot of pushback in the comments on Hacker News but made a lot of interesting points. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Thanks for this, one of the best Motte posts I've read in awhile, and not just because I read Who's Your Caddy a million years ago and always wanted to go back to it during the Trump era. IIRC, Trump is the first chapter.

I very randomly watched A Time to Kill, a now mostly forgotten film that had some super-hot takes on the culture war back when it came out in 1996. Overall, I liked it a lot and thought it threw out some genuinely interesting moral considerations, but I also found the tone and message... wonky.

The premise - In the Deep South of Alabama (presumably in 1996), two drunk red neck good old boys who liberally say "nigger" and have a Confederate flag on their truck are trawling around town harassing random people. On a whim, they kidnap, rape, torture, and try to murder a 10 year old black girl. She survives, but is left with lots of injuries, including being unable to ever have children.

The rednecks are quickly arrested and everyone in town hopes they'll receive swift justice, but some people aren't so sure they will. Alabama is still considered deeply racist, and apparently a similar case a few years ago saw different perpetrators escape punishment. So the father (Samuel L. Jackson) takes matters into his own hands. While the two suspects are being marched through the local court house on the way to their trial, the father guns them down with an assault rifle, and accidentally wounds a police officer in the process.

The rest of the movie is a courtroom drama where a white lawyer (Matthew McConaughey) defends the father while the local DA (Kevin Spacey) tries to charge him with double first-degree murder. Meanwhile, the brother of one of the suspects tries to get the literal KKK to terrorize the lawyer to sabotage the defense. He's told that there is no KKK in town, but through some contacts, the brother finds the nearest Grand Wizard who then commands the brother to set up a local chapter. Throughout the trial, the KKK launches various terrorist attacks on the town and amasses 100+ members to march through the streets, and gets into violent encounters with pro-father protesters.

To get to the most interesting culture war-y part, I need to SPOIL the plot, so don't read on if you don't want to know what happens in a 25 year old movie.

The Defense mostly fucks up in the trial and it looks like the father is going to be convicted. The biggest problem for the Defense is that the jury is all white and presumed to be racist/unsympathetic. In one scene, the jurors are shown talking about the trial (illegally) the night before its conclusion, and all 12 jurors admit that they will vote guilty (one of whom even refers to the defendant as a "nigger").

Cut to the climactic closing statements of the trial. The DA gives a rousing speech about how he feels sorry for the father given what his daughter went through, but the law is the law, and you can't just murder two men in cold blood because they wronged you. Then McConaughey gives his closing statement: he recounts in gruesome detail every step of the 10 year old girl's kidnapping, torture, and rape, and concludes with... "now imagine if she was white."

The Defense wins the trial. The father is cleared of all charges and goes free. The film's narrative portrays this as an unambiguously good thing.

There's a lot to unpack here, but a few prompts:

  1. Was 1996 Alabama really THAT racist? Would the random average white person in Alabama at that time be considered racist enough by default that they would automatically side against any black defendant? Were there enough real, true, hardcore racists that the KKK could field 100+ protesters at a big racial trial?

  2. How differently, if at all, would such a trial be perceived today?

  3. What is a proper punishment for the father, if any? If I had to give a verdict, I'd say he should be found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison, which is an extremely short sentence for a double murder and maiming of a cop, but warranted given the context. I most certainly wouldn't be comfortable with finding him not guilty, not if we want to have a functional society.

Non-culture war addendum - the movie has an insane amount of contemporary and future movie stars. There's Matthew McConaughey, Samuel L. Jackson, Kevin Spacey, Sandra Bullock, Ashley Judd, Donald Sutherland, Kiefer Sutherland, Kurtwood Smith, Oliver Platt, Chris Cooper, Charles Dutton, and I'm proud of myself for spotting Octavia Spencer as a literal extra.

I agree that relationships have an anti-inductive component (even a significant one), but:

You ask why it's considered cold and demeaning to want something from someone without making an offer in exchange and I reply that the answer is in the question.

The answer is... sex. The girl gets sex in exchange for sex. I think most people, or at least most men, see that as a fair trade as long as both parties are attracted to one another.

The obvious, but often unstated retort is that men and women value sex differently. Both enjoy it on a physical level, but women tend to attach more emotional significance to the act, while men generally take a more casual approach and seem to desire the purely physical aspect more.

Ok, that's fine. It is what it is. But to wrap back around to one of the overriding aspects of my original post and many of the comments... why is the female perspective on sex not only seen as the default, but the male perspective on sex is seen as immoral, at least to the Reddit crowd? Isn't that what happened to the OP? He made a (very clumsy) sexual offer based on the male perspective of sex, but the girl had the female perspective, and shamed him for his error.

Traditional Judeo-Christian morality had an answer to this discrepancy. But I don't think modern sexual mores do. The sensible approach to me is for people to be aware of both the male and female perspectives on sex, and to exercise empathy in negotiations over sex. The Redditor perspective (which I think you are sympathetic to based on what you're saying, feel free to correct me) is that the female perspective should be privileged, and the male perspective should be punished, even if it's touted innocently and ignorantly.

IMO, Javier Bardem "passes," but now that he mentions it, it is weird that there are no obviously Middle Eastern cast members. The Fremen are all either black, Mediterranean, or mixed race (like Zendaya).

At the risk of sounding like a giga-autist, why does this standard seem to only apply to sex? If OP asked the girl to be a regular tennis partner, no one would accuse him of treating her like a "wall to bounce a ball off of." If he asked her to play video games with him, no one would accuse him of treating her like an "ally NPC."

I don't get why if a guy wants to have sex with a girl but doesn't want a relationship, it's taken to be demeaning and cold, while engaging in any other activity without some sort of grander emotional engagement is fine. Yes, I understand that sex and relationships are traditionally paired, but I also assumed that all but the most trad among us have moved on from that strict coupling in every possible circumstance, especially for college students who are still trying to figure out their dating and sex lives.

I watched both documentaries, and IMO the vast majority of the cult members were unattractive, a few were exceptionally so (I'd rate at 2/10s). The only two attractive girls were redhead sisters, both of whom were very targeted by the cult probably for exactly that reason, with one ending up as CEO and the other as a poster child for relationship success.

Are you me? Errant Signal and Super Bunnyhop are classics, I've watched a bunch of SBH's videos a million times. It's kinda sad that he stopped doing mainstream game review/analyses and did more passion project topics and then everyone stopped watching his videos.

This reminds me that there is a "just kidding, but not really" meme of modern young men idolizing Marcus Aurelius, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, etc. People from hundreds or thousands of years ago who lived in different cultures, spoke different languages, and had unimaginably different lived experiences can be admirable in their ways. No common skin color is required.

I want to look back at the Finnish PM Sanna Marin affair because beneath the luridness, I think there's an interesting political discussion. As I understand it, here's what happened:

Sanna Marin has been the Prime Minister of Finland since 2019. Politically, she's lefty and environmentalist, popular with young people. But outside of Finland, she was only really known for being young (37) and hot. Not "hot for a politician," but objectively straight-up hot for anyone.

In August, a video of Marin partying leaked to the public, seemingly by a dumb friend who put it on a private Instagram page. The video showed Marin being very drunk with her friends in a house, singing and dancing the night away. There was speculation that Marin was on cocaine in the video. She denied it and took a drug test which she passed, but IIRC, it's plausible the drugs would already be out of her system by then.

A few weeks later, another video leaked of Marin at a night club in Helsinki. It shower her dancing with (or arguably, grinding on) a man in a fairly intimate manner. Marin in married with a kid, and the man in the video is not her husband.

About a week later, a picture came out (on Instagram? I'm not sure) of two Instagram models kissing while they flashed the camera. The models, who are friends with Marin, are standing in front of desk in her home that she uses to make official public announcements on tv. Marin admitted that she had them over her house to hang out and sauna when they took the pic.

Throughout the affair, Marin both apologized, but also defended herself on the grounds that she is an ordinary human being who simply likes to party, and that's no one else's business. This culminated in her crying on tv during a speech. A few days ago, Marin was officially cleared of any legal wrongdoing by the Finnish government.

I think Marin's case brings up interesting questions about what we should expect from politicians, specifically, how much we can expect them to avoid engaging in normal but potentially unsavory behavior.

I don't think Marin's defense is without merit. Yes, she's a politician, but she's also a person, and apparently a person who likes to party with her friends. I see no reason why she can't be a good prime minister and occasionally go to night clubs or get drunk with Instagram models. It's also relevant that we are talking about the head of Finland, a minor country of little international importance, so maybe we shouldn't be holding its leadership to such a high standard. If we punish behavior like Marin's too much, we end up with the opposite problem, which IMO is far more prevalent in the US. We end up with Clint Webbs (https://youtube.com/watch?v=EvU3QQH2b2Y [Side note - how do I embed links?]), or rather, a political environment which requires successful politicians to be so bland and boring that it selects for the uncharismatic and psychopathic.

On the other hand, maybe our politicians should be held to a standard of being above reproach. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with getting wasted at a club, but maybe it's a sign of immaturity? Or carelessness? Especially for a 37 year old with a kid? Especially for someone who is in an important position, like... if I had to choose a heart surgeon to operate on me, all else equal, I'd prefer one who doesn't get regularly drunk in clubs. I most certainly wouldn't want the president of the United States or Germany or the UK or a very important country in such a position. Finland isn't super important, but it's still a country.

(Also, though this is somewhat tangential, I think Marin's conduct in the video where she is dancing with the guy doesn't quite constitute cheating, but it crosses a line and shows a moral error, assuming she's in a standard monogamous relationship.)

I'm split between the two positions, but leaning toward, "if you're a politician of a small country, it's ok to party a little, but don't do it too much, and for god's sake, don't let videos of you partying leak."

The game works best in unexpected moments of chaos. Like, you and the squad will be running to the next objective when suddenly an enemy horde side swipes you out of nowhere, so you start sprinting away with lazers flying over head, and you dive into cover, and you start fumbling with stratagems to get an eagle cluster out there but the fucking arrows are weird, and then a robot gets around your cover and you have to switch back to your weapons and you start shooting wildly and then your idiot friend died and he's calling for a reinforce but fuck fuck fuck youre barely surviving. Stuff like that.

To clarify, by "literal virgin (despite being 21 years old)", I meant to convey:

  • "virgin" is sometimes used colloquially and insultingly online to just mean "awkward around women", but in this case the guy is a "literal" virgin.

  • I mentioned 21 years old because it is an unusual age to still be a virgin and highlights likely social awkwardness, I didn't mean to imply any moral failing on his part for that.

I bought Disco Elysium in 2019, immediately loved it, thought it was the funniest game I've ever played with fantastic writing. After about eight hours, the second area opened up, and I hit a wall. I was very fatigued by all the tangents and inner monologuing and not super interesting politicking, and so I got bored and stopped.

Two weeks ago, I gave DE another shot, and the exact same thing happened. I played slightly longer, but yet again hit a point where it was all too much and felt like a chore.

Is it worth me pushing through? Or should I just read a summary online?

Can you elaborate your thoughts on the Internet Historian? I though the Hbomber video convincingly demonstrated that he committed plagiarism, albeit not as badly as the other subjects in the video.

Seriously. Go to the Philippines or Thailand or almost anywhere somewhat touristy in Central America, and this guy is guaranteed to get a decent looking girl. He can even try Eastern Europe if he’s willing to deal with a higher rate of rejection.

For anyone who is having trouble remembering how they know the name ‘Tommy Tallirico’, it might be from co-hosting Electric Playground on G4 way back in the day.

I don't know about "most" serial killers, but IIRC, a lot of the most high-profile ones were big in the 1970s and early 80s, and then serial killing went into decline. Like school shootings, it seemed to be partially driven by social contagion.

Related - I think someone posted on the SSC subreddit that the the vast majority of the most popular celebrities (as measured by social media followers) were musicians, as opposed to actors, athletes, or any other entertainers. People generally seem to like music more than any other entertainment.

Is it men loving Asian women? Or is it women loving Asian men? Big difference. Why do they not reveal gendered racial statistics like OkCupid did?

They don't give gender/racial breakdown, but they do have most viewed categories by gender which are surprisingly similar (Japanese is the second most popular category for women???).

Why is "teen" a taboo subject?

Because, whether rightly or wrongly, it's considered pedophilia-adjacent by some. Porn Hub banned its unverified amateurs because it was accused of hosting a lot of underage porn. It probably had very little actually child porn, but quite a bit of jail bait underage porn.

I keep seeing this take in discussions, and I just don't get it.

Yes, the killer messes up in the beginning and he makes a few mistakes throughout the film (shooting the nails into the guy, getting caught in the Florida house, snagging the janitor's key). But the killer ultimately succeeds in everything. He kills everyone he wants to kill. He doesn't die or get caught or get grievously injured. And he repeatedly shows cold blooded efficiency, like when he killed Tilda Swinton or the Florida guy. Based on his wealth and reputation, he has probably successfully pulled off dozens of assassinations in the past.

So the killer is not a try-hard buffoon. He really is an expert assassin, but as he admits in the opening monologue, he isn't a genius, so he makes some mistakes along the way.

As for the ending, I think the textual read is that assassinating a billionaire would bring too much police attention and risk, so better just to threaten the guy. I'm guessing there is also some sort of subtext about the billionaire boss surviving while his contractor/employees all died, hence the killer monologuing that he's now part of the masses being exploited by the few, rather than vice versa.