TheDemonRazgriz
No bio...
User ID: 3577
I would argue that “unalived” already looks quite stupid.
I don't know why Vance is "terrifying" (is it because he's Catholic?) rather than "he's a hick with no idea of how to govern" or "he's a blood-sucking capitalist".
An aside, but I still don’t understand this phenomenon either, how he came to be seen by so many people as the image of the “evil right” (as opposed to the “dumb or incompetent right”). My very liberal mom absolutely hates him, almost as much as she hates Trump, and I remember a lot of my lefty friends making offhand comments all through the election about how despicable he was. He’s far from unusual in being pro-life; I can see why pro-choicers hate him but not why they seem to hate him with such passion, or indeed to fear him. Was it just the cat lady comment? I think this image predates that, honestly, but I’m just not sure where it came from or when it started. Was there a particular hit piece or something like that? Maybe it’s his relative youth, it gave the lie to the comforting idea that the right is dying out with the elderly?
Incidentally, my idiosyncratic-but-liberal fiancée actually likes Vance quite a bit, she sees him as flawed but sincerely wanting to help the country. We are Catholic so maybe that helps get over the fear factor, lol. At one point, I think shortly after the VP debate, she even commented— much to my surprise— that she would gladly vote for him over AOC in a hypothetical future election. Although she despises Trump so I’m not sure if he’ll be tainted by association in her mind by the time 2028 rolls around.
Warfare was excellent, something really unique and special in the movie world. It comes very close to being an exact minute-by-minute recreation of the events it depicts and had some unique stylistic choices (most obviously the total lack of a soundtrack) that I think made it tremendously effective. My fiancée and I caught it at the tail end of its theatrical run and both loved it. I would highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject matter/genre.
I disagree quite strongly with this, I think it represents a failure of imagination on your part. Yes, that war was brutal, involved many players, and had a lot of civilian casualties (especially if you include deaths from famine and disease). But it was frankly not that large of a war. Over the entire conflict only a few hundred thousand combatants, at most, were involved across both sides (Wikipedia actually estimates it as less than 100,000 total). Most combat was in the form of skirmishes; daring but small-scale raids; guerilla actions; and cyclical series of atrocities against civilians, reprisals for the atrocities, reprisals for those reprisals, and so on. You have to consider the possibility of much more industrialized warfare between countries with much larger populations with the ability to raise much larger armies. Consider the possibility of a “water war” between not just Sudanese rebel groups and Ethiopia, but between the Ethiopian and Egyptian armies. Or a war involving the likes of Kenya, or Nigeria. These aren’t realistic possibilities in the short term, it’s true, but after another 10 or 20 or 30 years of population growth and industrialization, maybe throw in some unexpected coups or stronger dictatorships… the worst case scenario is much, much worse than the Second Congo War.
And, perhaps more importantly from a Western perspective, the modal “poor African civilian” has a lot more options for migration— and, crucially, awareness of those options— today than at the time of that war. Not to mention the sheer explosion of population. Even another war of the same scale as the Second Congo War would likely trigger a much larger wave of migration to the West today than it did at the time, never mind a war with armies (and often civilian populations) an order of magnitude larger.
Note that these newly massive populations are also youth-heavy, which means a lot of disaffected fighting-age men. Sure, a lot of the time this just leads to civil war, but all it takes is one charismatic dictator to direct that energy into outward aggression and you could have yourself a good old-fashioned war of conquest. Get two of these situations going at once and you could have a catastrophe. A lot has changed in Africa from 2000 to 2025, and a lot is going to change from 2025 to 2050.
I think there’s a fairly enormous, qualitative difference between Musk’s PoE situation and Ackman’s tennis situation. Very much separate from benefits to the tennis tour, etc.
Ackman bought his entry, but once in the tournament he played fairly and was rightfully crushed by the real pros. It’s a tacky thing to do but in the end doesn’t interfere with the status of the tennis players; to some extent the gulf between “real pro” and “competent amateur who paid his way in” is even reinforced by how much they demolished him. And, similarly, it’s clear that Ackman does know how to play tennis, he’s just not operating at the level of the tournament.
Musk wasn’t just paying for entry, he was trying to pass himself off as a “real pro” without the baseline game skills or knowledge to go along with it. As an analogy, imagine if he entered a tennis tournament using a sci-fi exoskeleton that could move his body/limbs to run fast and swing his arms with proper racket form. He’s holding his own in the tournament by making flawless serves and spectacular returns thanks to the super-tennis-suit, but he’s also making clumsy positioning blunders and misunderstanding how the scoring works, because he doesn’t actually know what he’s doing. And he’s simultaneously talking a big game about how great he is at tennis. It’s not merely tacky, it makes him look like a buffoon while also making a mockery of the sport.
Yeah, I’m not surprised by that. I could imagine early-childhood daycare being better than an actively abusive or neglectful mother but that’s about it, and that’s obviously not the situation under discussion here. Before preschool age the kids aren’t even really capable of socializing as such so what plausible benefit could they get from being apart from their families? But that’s what The Science said, so I guess we’ll do it… it really seems more like a fashionable choice than something strongly thought out. Something you do because the other PMC families in town are doing it.
To be fair neither of the two families I know IRL with young children do actually fit this model. One uses daycare part of the week (3 days iirc) but because the mom works part-time. The other is my cousin, whose wife has put her legal career on hold to be a SAHM while their kids are young. So it’s not like it’s totally dominant in the culture. I do find it a strange trend though, and definitely real. Common sense should be enough to tell you that a very young child would benefit from being around its family, versus being one of 10 or 20 kids overseen by essentially a cut-rate nurse, I’d think.
I haven’t seen either in a very, very long time but if memory serves Antz was also more interested in using actual facts about ants to set up its world. Building tunnels and fighting with termites and all that.
I do remember preferring Antz as a kid, or at least I have a stronger memory of it, probably in large part because of the action scenes.
Nowadays even most SAHM’s send their kids to it for some reason or other, I’m not sure why.
My understanding is that this is because studies have been done that show the early socialization outside the home is beneficial for early childhood development in some way. I don’t know the details (not yet quite old enough to be worried about kids beyond a passing interest), and frankly I’m not really convinced about the benefit of getting the kid out of the house earlier than, say, preschool age, but there definitely is some kind of developmental-based backing for why it’s become a Thing.
you stick an eye patch on a kid character, you make it look like your movie is going to be A Moral Lesson And Lecture About The Differently Abled And Inclusion, not a fun sci-fi romp for the kids
I strongly suspect this was a major part of the flop, especially since the very minimal marketing really made it look like “eyepatch kid movie, also with some aliens or something.” Especially when paired with the very generic artstyle… a big draw for Pixar movies was always the excellent animation, this looked like it could’ve been any random direct-to-streaming slop.
The concept of “kid gets accidentally called up to be Earth’s ambassador to aliens” is a good idea, too! Just bring some actual creativity to the art and don’t feel obligated to make it a coming-out allegory or totally centered on him being a weird outcast or whatever (to be fair I don’t know if that last part is true but it’s hard to imagine it isn’t, what with the eyepatch and all). Clearly that’s a huge ask for Disney these days though (and by extension Pixar).
Edit to add: the title of the movie was pretty awful as well. Like who (or what) the hell is “Elio”? It gives you absolutely nothing to work with, nothing about space or aliens or anything. So matching that up with the bland art and the minimal marketing gives no hook at all to actually want to go out and see it.
Is there evidence that this is not because US-based social media actively suppresses pro-Palestinian content?
Admittedly I don’t think anyone has done that study, but honestly I find it very hard to believe. Certainly if they are they’re doing a pretty terrible job: pro-Palestine content dominates pro-Israel content on all US social media, as far as I know.
Anyway, I was doing some quick searching and I believe this is the original study I was remembering: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-The-CCPs-Digital-Charm-Offensive.pdf
I think there was at least one other study done as well, but I couldn’t find it in my cursory Google search. I have an admittedly somewhat vague memory of more graphs comparing the different social media sites in terms of non-China-related political content as well that I didn’t see in this particular Rutgers study, which is entirely China-focused. I also recall reading about this topic in both the mainstream news (likely NYT but I don’t remember) and a fairly detailed substack post, possibly by Jonathan Haidt? If you want I can try harder to find it again later (I’m procrastinating at work at the moment by writing this post so my time is limited) or you can look for yourself. In my opinion the study is convincing in its main point that the TikTok algorithm emphasizes pro-Chinese and de-emphasizes anti-Chinese political content. It is not a blunt promotion/suppression, just a light-touch thumb-on-the-scale approach, but I think it shows willingness to interfere in Chinese-owned US-facing media even in the relatively peaceable geopolitical environment of today.
Honestly, though, the concern of whether the CCP is currently manipulating the algorithm is, in my view, very much secondary to the plain fact that they are capable of mandating such manipulation through their leverage over the company. I don’t think that some sort of naive free market principles (which, as far as I can see, are really the only counterargument to the ban/forced sale) justify exposing our media environment to that kind of risk.
Maybe it’s a relatively small issue, but I have been immensely disappointed in the Trump II admin’s handling of the TikTok ban (which is to say, stonewalling it seemingly at all costs).
For one, the bill has remarkably plain text which they are openly violating. I’m open to hearing examples if people here think I’m wrong about this, but I think this is qualitatively different from most of the “Imperial Presidency” actions taken by Bush and Obama (and Trump I, and Biden). To my knowledge those situations generally relied on Congress abdicating its authority to the President or to the executive branch. For example all of the 21st century’s military escapades and undeclared wars, often described as being in defiance of Congressional authority, are actually operating with explicit approval in the form of the post-9/11 AUMF. Congress could repeal it at any time and reclaim its war-making authority, it simply chooses not to. Much the same for all the myriad powers now granted to federal agencies. In this case the executive is quite nakedly saying “this law has been passed, but we don’t like it, so we won’t enforce it.” This is not a power the branch is supposed to have.
Second is the way in which this came about. Trump had campaigned as a China hawk and, iirc, publicly supported the bill until an 11th-hour turnaround which was conveniently timed after an influx of campaign funds tied to Chinese business interests. This is, at best, not a good look.
And finally I just disagree with the substance. TikTok should be banned in the US, or at least sold to US owners. All the innate problems with algorithmic social media feeds, which are frankly bad enough on their own, are massively amplified when the company which owns and operates the algorithm is beholden to an explicitly hostile foreign power. There’s already pretty incontrovertible evidence that TikTok is tuned to mildly promote divisive content and to mildly suppress content critical of China (e.g. higher rates of Palestinian-related content but lower rates of Uyghur-related content versus similar social media apps, among others). The algorithm could trivially be tuned further in the event that Chinese-US relations deteriorate further, or just if the company’s state handlers want to. I don’t see a reason why we should need to accept that risk.
I think you might be right about this one, at least in a broad way. Interestingly I think “midget rights” is/was catching on more in Britain than in the U.S., although it may have died down. As a specific example I recall watching the last season of Derry Girls with my girlfriend a few years ago and there was a midget reporter (or news anchor, or something like that, I think) whose midget-ness went completely unremarked upon by the characters, to a really implausible extent that took us out of the episode in a sort of “are we really not going to address this?” kind of way. I’m certain there were at least one or two other British TV shows from that period that did a similar thing but I can’t recall them off my head. I don’t think this particular version of woke casting ever caught on at all in American media and I suspect it died down in Britain as well, although I’m not sufficiently keyed in to the British media scene to say that for sure. I hadn’t thought about this in some time so I’m curious if any Brits (or anglophiles) here can weigh in.
As an aside, did “we”, so to speak, ever settle on a politically correct word for “midget”? I’m positive midget is considered rude but it frankly feels like the least bad way to say it, and is what I would probably choose in most cases in real life. “Little person” is ridiculously patronizing… maybe “dwarf”? That still feels weird to me, but introspecting maybe it’s what I would choose in woke company.
many vegans wouldn't consider me vegan because I eat oysters and honey
I can see how honey is at least arguably vegan-compatible, but why oysters? I guess they’re not exactly intelligent but they have nerves and such. Sincerely curious, if you’d care to elaborate.
In my opinion the true blackpill for the anti-immigration hardliners is the bipartisan refusal by the government to actually enforce E-Verify, which quite literally is already on the books (relatedly the floated exception for illegal immigrants employed in agriculture and hospitality). A crackdown on illegal immigration which refuses to penalize employers for hiring illegal immigrants is a completely unserious attempt at a crackdown. The administration seems to be optimizing for flashy headline-grabbing deportation raids while avoiding anything that might actually disrupt the status quo.
Yes, yes it does, and yes they are. Although they use the longer em-dash (often also shown as a double hyphen -- like this -- but LLMs will use the full long dash), rather than the single hyphen like you just did. I suspect it comes from the large volume of newspaper and magazine writing in the training data, since that's the place I most often see em-dashes (other than my own writing, damn it).
If memory serves it was kind of both, the "young Midwest mayor" angle made him look like the kind of reasonable centrist type the Democrats were searching for in the general and the "first gay president" angle gave him energy within the party. So the combination was very appealing in the early primary season. I think you're right that the Democratic electorate at the time was too focused on the "we absolutely must beat Trump, and we need a super-electable back-to-normalcy candidate to do so" to vote for a gay candidate as the primaries went on. But his rise within the party, before that point, was definitely very much helped by his being gay.
If you follow the upvote/downvote patterns you’ll notice that a fair chunk of the motte’s lurkers are pretty stereotypical internet right-wingers these days, of the type who are likely to read “I’m a trans woman” and instantly downvote. And/or the type who are wont to react with instant negativity to anyone saying that “the straight man dating world/heterosexual relations aren’t that bad, actually”. Sad but true.
Edit: plus some good old-fashioned identity elements. The straight men lurking the motte presumably didn’t take kindly to a queer person talking about them from outside their Lived Experience.
I agree with this. Climbing the ladder within the organized Democratic Party these days requires one to play the woke/SJW game. Anyone ambitious enough to climb rapidly (and therefore become a young national-level politician) simply must adopt those postures to make the ascent, regardless of whether they’re really a true believer or not. The party infrastructure does not encourage moderates at the “young climber” level.
Recall that Pete himself gained national-party energy during the Democratic primaries not because of any of his policy positions (which were all pretty reasonable as far as I remember, I think he would’ve been an “OK” president, certainly better than senile Biden…) but because he would have been the First Gay President. So even their one young moderate star came into his role not because of his beliefs but in spite of them, through identity politics.
Despite the utterly bizarre attempt by Biden and Harris to declare the "Equal Rights Amendment" passed (how was he not called an attempted dictator for that?)
It’s still amusing to me how little attention was paid to this, all around. It seemed like even the right wing thought it was so totally unserious as to not be worth any reaction whatsoever. I would love to hear an insider perspective of what the hell actually happened behind the scenes there.
I’ve occasionally used ChatGPT as a glorified search engine to help find specific building codes, or to make suggestions for specific things like a roof cap suited for a certain CFM. It’s pretty effective, better than google for the kind of case where you know what you’re looking for but can’t remember where to find it. You just need to make sure to double-check what it’s saying, of course.
Do we know for sure that the recent Liverpool one was an “attack”? Is there a known or accused motive? I admittedly have not paid much attention to the story but my first impression when it happened was that he might’ve just been very drunk.
till my death I will point to elevatorgate as the crystallization of feminism+racism+mental issues in the social justice caucus
What is "elevatorgate"?
If i were a US rival i'd be buying up lots of farmland around US military bases and industry
China has indeed been doing that.
I would give a strong endorsement to The War Zone (twz.com), although they’re more news than analysis, really, and so maybe not quite what you’re looking for. A lot of defense industry news and more technical articles as well. They do have their biases (in the current conflicts that’s fairly strongly pro-Ukraine and mildly pro-Israel, if memory serves) but they generally keep them in check and provide very detailed and thorough reporting. I’ve been reading them for a long while now and they rarely disappoint. In the early days of the Ukraine war they were probably the single best source for a picture of what was going on, even breaking some events first at times, and they’ve built up a good level of access to officials and industry types (especially considering they’re an independent outfit) to get interesting stories.
- Prev
- Next
I would give a slightly unusual but wholehearted recommendation to start with Gundam 00 (my personal favorite of the franchise, and probably one of my favorite anime series in general).
It is fully standalone, so you don’t need to worry about Gundam continuity— while you’ll inevitably miss some of the thematic callbacks to the overarching franchise, the only one that really matters for understanding 00 is that the timeline is pointedly set in terms of “A.D.” time (where other continuities are given alternative labels like being set in “the year 0079 U.C.”), meaning it is supposed to be set in the future of the real world as opposed to a more vague sci-fi future; this is thematically relevant in that the show is really trying to say something about the structure of the world and about the trajectory and nature of humanity. Having been made in the mid-00s a lot of the themes and morals are, in my opinion, notably prescient and are still relevant today.
Without spoiling anything, I think the reason I like the show so much is that it’s one of fairly few anime (or any pop-cultural media really) that you can watch with your “literary analysis brain” engaged and actually get a payoff for it. Damn near every creative decision, plot development, and character arc is meaningful and analyze-able in a way that connects to the central themes and plot. For example this is the reason why my fiancee, who very rarely likes mecha anime, thoroughly loved it— there was always something to talk about after every episode, often something meaty too. I’d caution that it is a bit of a slow burn, but this is deliberate and the pace does pick up as it goes on. It’s definitely not a perfect show, there is filler (although less than in a lot of similar shows, and there’s never an outright wasted episode) and there were some production issues that do show at times, but never anything bad enough to really drag the show down.
Very strong recommendation as an anime in and of itself, regardless of being a Gundam series really.
More options
Context Copy link