but we should vastly expand the legal and social acceptability of mutual combat and "fighting words" defenses to normalize fighting between men.
Same thoughts here. I've defended the concept of dueling in here quite a few times.
“Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.”
― Mike Tyson
And ironically with cell phone cameras everywhere, its actually EASIER to have evidence of whether a given confrontation was in fact 'mutual combat' or not.
We've got a whole generation of kids growing up on the idea that you can antagonize people incessantly and then cry immediate victim if they retaliate... as long as you do it on camera!
I'm reminded of that one guy being let off by a jury after he shot a youtube prankster.
If it were legal to throw hands when confronted like this, you MIGHT avoid it escalating to shooting.
According.
to.
Whom.
So these Hamas rockets that have barely been able to kill anyone leveled an entire hospital during Israeli bombing. Seems like something AIPAC cooked up.
There were ample photographs of the rocket impact site
It didn't even hit the hospital proper. By most appearances, it landed in a parking lot and set a bunch of cars on fire. Even the trees in the immediate surrounding area are still intact.
It was the Gaza side that was alleging it was a mass casualty event at all.
So yes, this absolutely looks like a Hamas rocket flew off course, set things on fire, and Hamas decided to cast blame away from themselves since this would inevitably make them look like idiots.
faceh
2mo ago
High Civilian death tolls according to whom.
I have such a hard time determining anything accurate here b/c both sides have major pressure to lie. And very early on Hamas got caught in an apparently blatant lie about a Rocket hitting a hospital, leading to civilian casualties. Note that Gazan authorities ALSO misstated the number of injured and dead!
So now I have to take all their claims with a veritable pound of salt.
Whoops.
And of course the October 7 event was specifically a bunch of Hamas warriors attacking, massacring and kidnapping civilians. So I'm pretty inclined to say "A pox on both your houses" for the duration of the conflict. Yes, I am aware that U.S. tax dollars and weapons are streaming to the Israeli side of the fight.
Finally, the incidents I CAN generally verify include a dude in the U.S. Setting Jews on Fire and another shooting two unarmed Jewish Embassy staffers.
Don't know of any incidents in the U.S. going the other way.
faceh
2mo ago
Of course, modern pickups are about as fast as sporty cars of the past: a V8 F150 in 2025 gets to 60 in about the same amount of time as a V8 Mustang from 1995. They're not exactly slow, they cruise at highway speeds and pull out no problem.
Can confirm. I've rented pickup trucks for cross-state drives, and when they're hauling nothing and you shift them into "sport" mode, they accelerate effortlessly and will blow doors on most other vehicles that aren't trucks or sports cars.
And since muscle cars are functionally illegal these days, a truck with a giant engine is arguably the only way you can GET that 'performance' for an affordable price.
But you have to be fair and also include repair costs in the delta between owning an efficient sedan vs. a big ol' truck.
That's the big reason I'd prefer to rent them for now rather than own.
faceh
2mo ago
Ding ding ding.
If gambling was a "once in a while, for fun" activity, or people smoked weed in their house and NOWHERE else, or people would only eat McDonalds once a week at most, then we absolutely wouldn't need any kind of laws in place, legalize it all.
But our brains didn't evolve that way, we want to gorge on certain things because in the ancestral environment times of true 'abundance' was rare.
My vice is fuckin' sugar. Right now I'm stuffing my face with candy that has 19 grams of it per serving. I work out like crazy to keep it from making me fat, but I'm well aware its just my caveman brain telling me I need to store up fat for the winter or something.
If we could just accept the basic idea that "willpower isn't enough", then perhaps the next discussion is what the appropriate time and place for things are, and how we should intervene to help those who can't control themselves well enough.
faceh
2mo ago
Gambling is very tricky for me because it doesn't usually create obvious externalities.
Other than being stuck in line while someone buys scratchoffs.
Its unclear what interest I have in whether someone is spending their money 'wisely' or not. There's an argument that someone who would gamble money away would probably do something else stupid with it, like play with options on Robinhood or fall for some crypto rugpulls, so really they might be better off giving up control of their money entirely.
But its increasingly clear to me that I don't WANT to live in a society where gambling is everywhere. I don't like the ads, I hate having the odds splayed across the screen constantly, I'm old enough to remember the time before this was ubiquitous, and sports gambling indeed had a sheen of shame on it.
The one time I went gambling in a Casino was a rush. I see why people get really into it, I felt an urge to return and try my luck for months afterwards.
The optimal amount of gambling in a society is (probably) not zero.
The compromise that seemed to mitigate the harms is to keep legal gambling relegated to certain geographical areas. This makes it easier to keep things restrained or dare I say 'regulated.'
Otherwise, every single business out there tries to inject some gambling aspect into their products and services to capture some of those sweet addict dollars.
And all THAT said, I'm also not in favor of having police raids on grandma for running a BINGO game out of her backyard.
Yes.
My point is he records everything and has a clear counterparty rather than just spitting predictions with no skin in the game and crowing that he was right when a few of them land.
But Fuentes ain't predicting black swans either. "Israel and Iran will try to hurt each other" is a generally reliable prediction at its base.
And once you've been given the information "Hamas just killed a bunch of Israeli Civilians, in Israel" there's a few straightforward guesses from there RE: Israeli response.
I'll say there's zero chance I would have correctly predicted the Pager operation, even in the broad "Mossad wipes out Hezbollah's entire command in a single attack" strokes.
But "Hezbollah gets decimated by Israeli espionage" is not a wild, out there guess by any means.
If Fuentes was specific enough to say "The U.S. drops bunker busters on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities" as a likely outcome I'd start to give him credit.
faceh
2mo ago
I'm wondering if this sort of approach only 'recently' became possible by the advent of, say, AI-enhanced guidance systems that can recognize a target via visual cues alone so doesn't need a human in the loop to, say, lase the target or steer it in.
At the risk of sounding, I dunno, petty? Did Fuentes put any money on the line, did he find someone to take the other side of his position, reduce the bet to fairly specific terms, and have someone willing to judge who won by a given deadline?
Bryan Caplan puts money on all of the bets he makes and chronicles them in a wiki he maintains. He's got a great record against some very smart people.
There's specific lose conditions, plus incentives to be accurate/not bullshit.
Fuentes also didn't put any specific confidence estimates on those bets, so he can always walk back the ones that were off base if he wants "oh that was a long shot anyway." Well you never said if you thought it was a 10% chance of a 90% chance, so I guess you can retroactively change that belief.
This is how pundits operate. Throwing a bunch of vague predictions against a wall, phrased to feel specific and of course they never let someone take up the other side of the position who can then call them out later.
Like when I was talking about how Tariffs would play out I really tried to be specific enough that I can be judged wrong and lay out a strict 'I was wrong' scenario.
Speaking of, looks like the time is ticking down for some more 'permanent' deals to be worked out in the next month or I'll have missed the mark on the most recent extension.
Edit: And I'm still confident (80% to be specific) that they get it done soon. 20% is reserved b/c we're in a time where crazy events can happen in short time frames.
EU is allegedly pretty close:
As is India:
faceh
2mo ago
(~260 feet vs max disclosed bunker depth of 200, though that figure might be misdirection)
Chatter on twitter is that they targeted some existing ventilation shafts (Yes, straight up Star Wars/Top Gun style) to increase the effective depth on the bombs.
Some more speculative chatter is noticing that we allegedly dropped 6 bombs on Fordow... but there are only three (3) visible entry holes. So it is also possible that they dropped a second set of bombs through the first set's entry holes specifically to ensure the kill.
faceh
2mo ago
At a certain point, this market is not going to clear. We have reached that point.
Yeah.
One thing about the sexual marketplace for women. They're both an inelastic good... AND there's a fixed supply.
The supply can't increase very quickly, and heterosexual men will still have high demand for them even as the price creeps up.
Now we've got a large portion of women who have effectively set a 'price floor' for themselves that is above what many men are able to provide, and in many cases what men are willing to provide, given that many of the options on offer are also 'damaged goods.'
Throw in the evolutionary pressure on men to reproduce and there's just huge amounts of underserved demand.
The market is trying to provide substitute goods like porn, prostitutes, AI girlfriends, but I think the problem is that a good woman is a 'package' or 'bundle' of goods in one.
And most women now want to provide only a couple of those goods/services while still demanding the complete package on the other side.
faceh
2mo ago
Can't lie. At least part of my animus is from getting stuck behind people buying like 12 scratch-off tickets at a time, and oftentimes trying to claim winnings at the same time.
In my state you don't even have to scratch them off, the cashier has a machine they can scan the ticket on and tell you if you won or not.
At that point, where's any of the fun?
I know these folks would probably just find a way to get their jollies elsewhere, but seeing how gambling has penetrated every aspect of society now, I really do want to put this genie back in its bottle.
faceh
2mo ago
I feel pretty similar about Gambling.
Adults should be allowed to gamble.
But there should be some friction in order to participate, so I'd like to remove e.g. scratch-off cards at convenience stores and force all casinos into specifically designated areas.
faceh
2mo ago
I had a reply to something about "progressive women having the most to offer over homemakers; they have degrees in journalism" which illuminates the issue perfectly- they think they have more to offer, but are only useful as an artifact of law- completely useless otherwise.
Yeah.
I really don't know how to get it through to a woman's status-seeking brain that all degrees are not created equal, and indeed some credentials are just fake all the way through. A degree in agricultural science from a state university can genuinely be more useful and impressive than a finance degree from an Ivy league, let alone a political science degree from an Ivy.
And worse, some of the most important roles in society don't come with a fancy piece of paper declaring them such.
Dealing with that will require tackling the education-managerial complex- it's a feedback loop, where the same women who benefited from the initial windfall are now in charge of expanding the problem.
Yep. But it sure looks like the early '90s was the one point in time we had the ability to adjust course as a nation... and most of the adjustments were in the wrong direction, it just wouldn't be clear until 2010 or so.
faceh
2mo ago
Football is really interesting on the play-to-play strategic level. Its absolutely the most 'war-like' of the sports out there.
But the sport is also so heavily optimized its like there's no room for anything but like two workable strategies. Team composition doesn't change much. And if your QB sucks then you're probably not going very far.
And while I enjoy MMA, its exactly like you said. IN the cage, there's no team. Sure they're off to the side coaching, but its not quite as beautiful as watching the coordinated ice ballet playing out at high speed.
Actually, that is one 'con' with hockey. Plays happen so goddamn fast that you can't realize how much just happened until its over.
Hockey teams can't rely solely on one strong player like sometimes happens in baskebtall, but you can optimize your team's skill stack in a few different ways for success.
We saw that with the last two Cup finals, Florida fielding a team with tons of grit and a deep roster of talent, Edmonton with some elite scoring talent that can skate circles around everyone, and each side trying to find the best matchups for its lines. Florida seems to have perfected the science of shutting down McDrai by game 3.
I don't just watch for the fights, to be clear, but the fact that fights are an integral part of the sport does elevate it.
Its hard to explain, snobs might say that its just ungenteel and not sportsmanlike, making hockey a 'low class' sport, but I have to agree, the fact that on-ice disputes can be settled by dropping gloves then and there absolutely elevates the sport. Trash talk is cheap. For the low, low price of five minutes in time-out, you can check a dude's ego or remind them to stop messing with the goalie, keeping some of the 'unwritten' rules of the sport intact.
I'm old enough to remember the chest-thumping that happened when Trump dropped a MOAB on ISIS (we do love our acronyms, don't we folks?).
Also when he iced Soleimani.
And when they spent like a week celebrating that dog that helped kill an ISIS leader.
He damn well knows that inflicting a black eye on international opponents without getting your own people killed plays well.
Even OBAMA knew this, hence the fanfare around taking out Bin Laden.
And he's also making a number of his opponents run cover for Iran directly.
faceh
2mo ago
I've been a Panthers fan since literally day one. I grew up going to games at least, eh, once a month? 30 years of waiting, a few false hopes, and now we're cruising along as THE team to beat. Surreal. Last year felt like a dream I could wake up from any minute. This year finally makes it all feel real. Can't lie, I would like us to pull off the three-peat and then maybe ease off a bit to let some other teams (not from Canada) have a shot once again.
I'm not really a fan of the 'dirty play' side of things... but at the same time, hockey traditionally gets way more rough than virtually any other sport out there, so you have to let things play out a bit. One guy roughs up your guy, you rough him back. Your star player(s) are targets, so there is a strategic element of protecting them from aggression. As you noted, players get injuries that would get them pulled in most sports, but they slap some bandages on and get back to it.
The one thing I do wish were more honored was "Don't screw with the goalie." Personally I think they should increase the size of the crease by 50% and generally forbid players who don't have puck possession from entering. Or give the goalie a gun.
I would have gone over to the Parade today, but got stuff to do as an adult. Most of my family is out there, though. Its truly great how the league is generally not very stodgy about (non-illegal) player conduct during the off-season, and they let the cup (well, the copy of it that is designated for this purpose) just go with them to celebrate everything.
The sport has truly spoiled me, I can't really get into any other league. I like College Football for sheer chaos, but where else do you get THIS mix of constrained brutality, teamwork, camaraderie, international rivalry, generally gentlemanly behavior during the off-season, and sheer spectacle?
Greatest spectator sport imaginable. It is barely even close.
faceh
2mo ago
You're absolutely on point that the early 90's was clearly not a stable equilibrium, as it still led us to where we are.
But, no joke, the change that I think screwed us in a few different ways was The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993.
This made it FAR simpler for the average citizen to get student loans regardless of financial situation or the academic path they chose... or the economic viability of their major.
You can flipping SEE THE INFLECTION POINT when student loans became way more common and thus more people attended college on loans.
So I'd suggest this has a number of impacts:
-
Women start attending college more often. Which has them burn more of their most fertile years, and the added debt load makes them less appealing as partners and less able to support kids.
-
Men start accruing more debt too, which stunts their personal wealth acquisition in their 20's and thus makes them less appealing to women... and just less able to support a partner/kids in general.
-
Obviously this allows economically nonviable majors like "Women's studies" to grow, which has some clear downstream impacts.
-
Probably causes women's standards to rise, they wouldn't accept a partner without a degree if they have one.
-
Of course turned College into the 'default' life path rather than hopping into a career and getting married as the best practice for advancing socially.
So putting us back to the status-quo ante of 1990, and NOT expanding access to loans for college, we might be able to avoid the worst excesses of Feminism entering the mainstream. I dunno.
1994 also saw The Gender Equity in Education Act which made it actual policy to push for more education programs geared towards women, and might be attributable to the general decline in male performance in school, which would then play into the college issue.
And the 1994 Violence Against Women Act which I'm definitely not saying was a bad idea, but might have shifted incentives that led to, e.g. the eventual MeToo movement.
faceh
2mo ago
Dependsssss because in some of those environments, the wealthy men just stack up as many wives as they can afford and the less wealthy guys have go out and steal their brides from abroad or something.
Yep.
I've always loved edgy subversive humor... that wasn't entirely built on malicious intent. Check out Doug Stanhope for the purest example.
Early 2010s was a mecca for that, from Newgrounds to early Youtube to 4chan's heyday. Although 4chan went way too malicious, imho. SomethingAwful was never my jam BECAUSE it thrived on the malice.
Sam is like a fucking Coelacanth from that era. Just perfectly preserved and managed to 'come back' from near extinction.
faceh
2mo ago
Economic incentives shift the paradigm for men, too.
Simple example, if you owned a family farm, popping out a ton of kids was helpful IF ONLY for the cheap labor that couldn't easily unionize.
But if you have a job as a doctor, lawyer, finance bro, whatever, ESPECIALLY if you're living in a small, expensive apartment in a high COL area, the prospect seems irrational up front. No need for extra hands, and definitely have to worry about feeding those extra mouths.
You may want kids, eventually, but you want sex NOW, so hey, why not shack up with as many women as possible then find 'the one' when you're economically established.
faceh
2mo ago
Yeah, sending the bombers, training the pilots, providing support services and maintenance and okaying their use, but denying any role in the outcome because "well WE didn't fly the planes" is patently silly.
If there are two guys having a shootout and you go over to one of them, hand him a gun, hand him the bullets, help him load the magazine, give him a few tips on marksmanship, and point out where the other guy is hiding, the other guy could pretty rightfully consider you an enemy combatant at that point.
But I dunno how many layers of obsfuscation are required before it becomes a wash.
"We sold the bombers and training to this other country, who then lent them to the belligerent country, and it just so happened that this other country has access to our satellite network to help with targeting, but we didn't tell 'em to do anything with that" is probably the furthest you can get without being obviously culpable.
And that's only because the intermediary country does have the option to just not do the thing you're hoping they do.
While I think there are real concerns about what happens to the GOP Post-Trump, yeah, the Dem's issues are structural and the alliances they've forged by being maximally divisive on sex, on race, on religion, on class, and on age too, I guess, mean there's no way to please each of these disparate groups.
In fact, the post-Trump era might be harder on the Dems because opposition to Trump was like the one thing that united them!
Dems can't run another stodgy White Guy for President. I mean, they can, Biden proved that the party can get everyone in line and on task if needed, but it is impossible to imagine the guy who has the political juice to win the primaries at this point.
Likewise, Dem leadership is ossified and they've hamstrung any new blood from acquiring much power. AOC is popular but she's also been ground down by the party machine. Pelosi et al. will grip the reins of power right up until their dying breath. Trump, by elevating Vance, is giving the 'new Generation' a generous toehold on power which they can use to climb up.
David Hogg was stupid about it, but he had the right idea that there needs to be enough of a shakeup that young upstarts can compete for influence in the party and identify talented candidates. Kinda how Obama got into power (which, ironically, was probably what prompted the party to lock down that issue so Hillary could win next time).
On top of that, I don't see any possible way the Dems can attract young male voters back. They've gone way too far out on the "men are inherently evil" limb. Can't reel that back in without pissing off the unmarried white female demographic that is their backbone. But any guy who looks and sees how they force any popular young Democrat male through a struggle session, like with Harry Sisson, will balk at anything they say. There's NOTHING to offer them.
Whomever they nominate, it'll either annoy their base, or it'll alienate the median voter.
And all this is before we talk about how the extreme progressive wings are demanding concessions constantly.
More options
Context Copy link