theCircusWeakman
No bio...
User ID: 2239
theCircusWeakman
1yr ago
theCircusWeakman
1yr ago
I looked at the complaint, which you can read for yourself here. It is 120 pages long, with 505 paragraphs. The Unz article is discussed in only four of those paragraphs, and is only mentioned on three pages. The Petitioner's actual briefs at the Supreme Court level don't appear to cite the article at all.
The guardian article also lists four Amicus briefs as containing references to the Unz article. My impression was always that amicus briefs can be submitted by any random group that claims an interest in the outcome of the litigation. Scotusblog lists a huge number of amicus briefs in this case.
Clearly, the plaintiffs did not "rely on this single article." This looks like an attempt by the Guardian to tar the plaintiffs by association based on an extremely tenuous connection to a controversial figure.
theCircusWeakman
2yr ago
You may be thinking of this SSC article. This was an entry in the "Adversarial Collaboration Contest" Scott hosted a few years ago.
Sensitivity and Sexual satisfaction
There is a highly plausible mechanism by which circumcision could reduce sexual sensitivity: the foreskin is highly innervated (20,000 nerve endings is often repeated, but this appears to be a case of citogenesis and is likely far too high), produces lubrication for the penis, and is sensitive to light touch. Several studies demonstrate that the foreskin is more sensitive to certain forms of nonsexual stimulation than other parts of the penis. The glans itself does not change in sensitivity from circumcision.
Sexual satisfaction, particularly in sexually active heterosexual men, seems to be unchanged with adult circumcision. During studies of adult circumcision for HIV prevention, in which large numbers of men were randomized to receive circumcision at the time of the study or after, sexual satisfaction of did not significantly differ between the two groups. On the other hand, a South Korean study of men circumcised as adults (as has become traditional there) found decreased pleasure from masturbation after circumcision. It is certainly possible that both these things are true – that masturbation is impaired by adult circumcision while intercourse is not. It is also possible that the Korean study (retrospective, smaller than the African studies, and with much higher rates of scarring than are observed in the US) was unrepresentative. There are two European studies which are frequently cited: cohort studies look at circumcised and uncircumcised men in Denmark and Belgium. However, circumcision is quite rare in these countries, and the majority of the circumcisions in the study groups were performed to correct problems such as phimosis. They are thus comparing men who had penile problems requiring surgical correction to men who did not; it is therefore unclear why they are frequently cited in discussions of elective circumcision.
No available studies actually measure sensitivity to sexual stimulation, which is of course an important topic – but one requiring consummate professionalism on the part of the researcher. We are left waiting for such a study, but in the meantime may reasonably fear that there is some decrease in at least masturbatory pleasure due to circumcision even though the evidence for this is weak. The evidence does not support any change in sexual pleasure otherwise.
Infant circumcision may be different than adult circumcision, in addition. If circumcision eliminates important nerves, due to brain plasticity infants are likely better able than adults to reassign the portions of the brain processing the foreskin to other areas of the penis. A large survey of circumcised and uncircumcised men in the US (where infant circumcision is the most common) found similar sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men. The uncircumcised men appear to have had slightly higher incidences of sexual dysfunction. Also of interest, circumcised men appear to have an easier time obtaining oral sex, which may relate to subtle aspects of class or may have to do with the perceived cleanliness of circumcised penis.
theCircusWeakman
2yr ago
There's some clever ones this year. I like "Uncle Xom's Tabbin" and "Why did it have to be Snake."
theCircusWeakman
2yr ago
Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup - 0.30 Tournament: The Motte Clan
I know there are some fans of classic roguelikes in this community; I've seen references to Cataclysm DDA and Dwarf Fortress both here and as a lurker during the reddit years. In my opinion, Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup is one of the most enjoyable, user-friendly and well-polished examples of the genre, with enough depth and difficulty to challenge roguelike veterans but enough quality-of-life features to make it fun and rewarding for beginners. But one of the best and most unique features is the possibility of online play in your web browser through official servers, with semi-annual tournaments marking the release of new updates! You can spectate and chat in other players' games, fight "ghosts" of other players' slain characters, and--most importantly--compete for high scores or for a number of "challenge banners." I've played in tournaments in the past, and I strongly recommend it for anyone who likes this type of game. Instructions for how to play online
So I thought I would gauge the interest in forming a clan to compete in the upcoming tournament, which runs from 20:00 UTC today, May 5, through May 21. (But if you're interested, you can join a clan anytime between now and next Friday, May 12). Joining a clan is simple and fairly informal: instructions.
You don't have to be an advanced player, or even to have played at all; it's fun just to help each other learn the game, discuss strategy and tactics, etc. I also don't expect any particular time commitment (the great thing about roguelikes is you can play for a few minutes at a time, quit whenever you like, and when you come back the game will put you right back where you left off). If you're interested in playing and think you can manage a couple hours or more over the next two weeks, you're welcome to join. Even two or three players would make a viable clan, but more is merrier!
The tradition is to give the team a name with a terrible pun. Because quokkas are a type of enemy in this game (for some reason), and in honor of our mascot, I have chosen "QuokkaRoundTheClock" as the tentative clan name. (I realize it's awful, and I'm open to better suggestions!) You can join by adding "# TEAMCAPTAIN theCircusWeakman" to the top of your RC file. Let me know below (or in a DM) if you want to join and what your player name is, so I can add you as a team member!
I'll be checking this thread every few hours, in case anyone wants to join or has any questions!
theCircusWeakman
2yr ago
I second the recommendation for Aberlour "A'bunadh," with the caveat that it's bottled at cask strength (over 60% ABV iirc) and can be pretty harsh without water or ice. Here are a few other whiskies I've enjoyed over the past year or so:
Port Charlotte "Heavily Peated" 10 - This Islay is probably my current favorite whisky, and it's comparable in price to the 10-year offerings from Ardbeg and Laphraoig. The smoke is assertive, but not overpowering; as you gradually acclimate to it, the underlying sweetness and complexity becomes more accessible. I've found notes of marzipan, cookie dough, and citrus alongside funkier flavors like seaweed and clay.
Bunnahabhain 12 - An unpeated Islay whisky. One of the most unique whiskies I've tasted, with notes of red apples, tobacco, leather, milk chocolate and musty old books. Another, very different, unpeated Islay worth trying is Bruichladdich's "The Classic Laddie," a salty, cereal, honeyed dram with "bass notes" of raisin and tennis ball rubber.
Kilchoman "Sanaig" - I remember being struck by how rich and intense the smell of this whisky was the moment I opened the bottle. A thick layer of nutty smoke over sweet cut grass notes--it makes me think of a big barn full of hay.
Arran 10 - Hits the palate with a simple, classic butterscotch flavor, but soon develops into bold fruit notes, mainly peaches and tropical fruits, before finishing dry and woody. Very impressive and complex for a 10-year-old unpeated whisky.
Highland Park Cask Strength - Like the A'bunadh, this is over 60% and is not at all "smooth." But underneath the ethanol burn there are intense and interesting floral and mineral notes with a background of tangy, fusile smokiness like a freshly-burnt-out match. The ornate bottle design may or may not appeal to you--I think it's well-executed, even though Highland Park's "Viking" branding generally makes me roll my eyes.
Other good choices include Ardbeg "Uigeadail," Ledaig 10, Laphraoig Cask Strength, Benriach "The Smoky Twelve," and blended malts like Johnny Walker Green Label and anything by Compass Box.
Also, before you spend big bucks on scotch (or any spirit), it pays to invest in appropriate glassware. Tumblers are fine if you only drink with ice, but most single malts are made to be drunk near room temperature. A tulip-shaped glass like a glencairn or snifter is ideal; fill the glass up to its widest point, to expose the highest possible surface area of the spirit to the air inside the glass. This intensifies the aroma, which is just as important as the taste for appreciating whisky. Roll the liquor around the glass before nosing so the "legs" stick to the sides of the glass, further increasing the exposed surface area. With the right glass you can savor a whisky for ten or fifteen minutes before you've even tasted it.
Culture war stories involving the legacy of the Confederacy--and Confederate heroes like Lee in particular--are always troubling to me, in part perhaps because, as a Southerner, I don't know myself what to make of that legacy. The existence of the whole Confederate movement is so inextricably bound up with the crime of slavery that celebrating the heroes of the movement seems, on its face, indefensible. I am probably more "woke" than the average Mottizen when it comes to American race issues; I believe HBD is a worse explanation for persistent black underachievement than the lingering effect of centuries of cultural disruption under slavery combined with decades of further disruption under racist post-Civil-War legislation (although neither explanation is fully satisfactory). I would find it shocking if the current problems with American black culture weren't primarily due to the uniquely extreme oppression blacks faced for so many generations. We can debate whether or not the South would have abandoned slavery on its own initiative without it being forced to do so by the Union's victory in the Civil War, but I don't see how one could deny that the intent of the founders of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery in perpetuity (mostly for the benefit of wealthy plantation owners, rather than working white Southerners). When people, on the Motte or elsewhere, castigate the Confederates as racist losers who picked a stupid fight in furtherance of an execrable cause, I can't find a good reason for disagreeing with them.
And yet I do disagree with them--I do admire Lee, and for some reason I'm proud of the South and of the Confederacy. I can't explain it rationally. I like that, despite being ill-equipped and outnumbered 2-1, the South held out for over four years in a hot war with a technologically superior foe. I'm glad we didn't just roll over to the North's demands, but made the Yankees fight for it. I even take a perverse and morbid pride in the fact we killed more of them than they killed of us.
What's even more confusing is that, for most of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, it seemed like it was fine to like the Confederacy. Pop-culture protagonists in books, movies, TV shows, comic strips, etc., could be Confederate soldiers or open Confederate sympathizers and still be beloved by post-war Americans, North and South. American society didn't seem interested in condemning pro-Confederate Southerners as "traitors" or excoriating them as "racists"--even though the charges were as just then as they are now. I feel like the attitude of Americans, a few decades after the Civil War, might be summed up in this picture. At best, people on both sides seemed willing to put the dark past behind them and settle into a mutual civility. At worst, it seemed like non-Southerners viewed Southern pride and loyalty to the rebel cause as a sort of quaint, harmless expression of regional patriotism.
The vitriol towards Confederates I see in stories like this and in some of the comments here seems new. I can't say that those commenters are wrong--I share their reasons for disliking the Confederacy, although something (maybe just the loyalty of my Southern blood) prevents me from reacting with the same level of antipathy. I just wonder what happened to the truce that seemed to have once reigned in this particular culture war.
More options
Context Copy link