domain:open.substack.com
HereAndGone
3m ago
Feck it, I'm starting to get interested in this dumb movie now. I've seen some clips of scenes on Youtube (the end fight) and the way Remmick is going after Sammie makes me think this is about cultural appropriation and exploitation; taking the products of black culture (songs, stories) and absorbing that into mainstream/white culture. Remmick literally tells Sammie he wants his songs and stories, and it seems that the memories of the thralls become part of Remmick's memories as well, so it really is "black culture being absorbed into white mainstream society and being altered and taken over as belonging there". White culture is vampiric on the culture of the minorities (black, Hispanic, what have you) and depends on 'fresh blood' to rejuvenate and perpetuate itself.
But why an Irish vampire, specifically? I really do want to know now what the hell the director and/or writer was getting at. You can be a victim yourself and still victimise others? He was frightened at a young age by Michael Flatley? Remmick's Southern accent is a commentary on how the Irish assimilated into American society by imitating those around them and becoming racist and prejudiced in their turn? An ancestor of his was beaten by some Mick in a dance-off and now he's getting revenge?
American jig dancing was a creole form. The word jig refers to a competitive dance in 6/8 time with Irish origins, but in early America “jig dancing” and “Negro dancing” were synonymous terms, used interchangeably to describe the dance step, a style of dancing, the “set dance” format (which combines several different tune changes and steps), and competitive dancing (regardless of the tune or step being performed). Black people who performed jigs, reels, and hornpipes in an African style were called “Negro dancers and musicians” as were white people who adopted the African-American style (or performed their jigs in blackface). The Negro dancer I’m researching is an Irish American named John Diamond, who is known for a series of challenges he danced in the 1840s against an African American jig dancer called Master Juba. These rivals danced the same dance to the same tunes.
SSCReader
11m ago
And if you can persuade more people to vote for the reasons you do, then you potentially affect change. Unfortunately most voters are short termists, so most politicians are short termists.
I did some consultancy work for Reform at the last election, so I have nothing against them per se. I quite like Nigel Farage personally (as politicians go). But I heavily suspect you'll find that even were they to form a government they might not do as much as you'll like about immigration. Even for natural Reform voters the economy featured highly in internal polls. Nigel knows that.
crushedoranges
13m ago
When the floodwaters surprise you it's generally a choice between bad and worse. If we were put in the position of those girls, I doubt we'd have great chances either, but the simple fact that we're adults would greatly improve our probability of survival.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
17m ago
Uchikoshi overall wrote less of it than Kodaka did, but he had a block of routes in the back half of the game where he had free rein to do his own thing. So if you’re willing to tolerate the Kodaka parts to get to the Uchikoshi parts then I’d say it’s still worth it.
Corvos
24m ago
Speaking only for myself, I voted Reform because of the Boriswave and because Sunak clearly signalled he didn’t plan to do anything about it. It had nothing to do with the economy.
John_Doe_Fletcher
anarcho-heretic, Quokkit guy
25m ago
Regarding Uchikoshi works, would you recommend I check it out if I vastly preferred 999/Zero Escape over Danganronpa? It doesn't exactly look subtle.
quiet_NaN
26m ago
Just noticing and then going tit-for-tat. There are some occasions where going tit-for-tat is a good move. I do not think that this is one of them.
Take tariffs. Tit-for-tat is fine, because you can make it explicit that your tariffs are retaliatory.
Contrast with terrorism. If members from group A blow up random members from group B, then there are generally responses which are much more efficient to stop these incidents than members from group B starting to blow up random members from group A (unless you are in Somalia or something -- and even then targeting the murderers would likely be strictly preferable). In fact, retaliation would be likely to increase the rate of incidents.
If Whites start to (more) openly discriminate against non-Whites, then of course the wokes will whine how unfair and racist that is and how the government should put its hands on the scales even more.
Now, if a Republican state was saying "as long as the federal government is openly preferring minority-owned businesses, we will openly prefer any businesses which do not qualify for preferential treatment from the feds", that would be a limited tit-for-tat, like retaliatory tariffs. Sure, the wokes would also whine how incredibly racist that is, but a smarter member of the public would recognize that the goal was to have a level playing field, not to establish the fourth Reich.
Realizing if you don't, you have no future.
Rumors of white genocide have been exaggerated, European-origin DNA will be common in the US population for the foreseeable future. For all the efforts to achieve equality of outcomes, the odds of a white person to make it big are still better than for a black person, which is possibly HBD-related. In the contemporary US, Whites might get a -2 racial malus to both sympathy and government handouts, but that does not make White characters unplayable.
Plenty of groups get treated unfairly, and in most cases, making their victimhood a core part of their identity is actively harmful. Women and men, straights and queers, all sorts of ethnicities, can legitimately claim that sometimes, they are treated unfairly. And that sucks and they should push for a better society, but in most cases they should play the game with the cards they have been dealt, rather than embracing their victimhood.
Telling the multi-ethnic society "your game is so rigged against us, we will not play" and going to raise chickens in some rural white-only community, or emigrating to Hungary does not seem an appropriate response to the present level of disadvantage.
07mk
29m ago
I don't think "optimal" needs such an asterisk. That's encoded in the word itself. I think the beauty in the phrase is in how it obscures; it is, on its face, offensive in a way that gets cleared up when the reader or listener slows down and considers what "optimal" actually means and how that challenges the black-and-white thinking that tends to be typical in discussions relating to things that are almost universally considered "good" or "bad."
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
32m ago
It's the "doesn't owe you femininity" of the art world.
I kinda think that's just true though! The artwork doesn't owe you anything. In fact, it's a good exercise to ask yourself what you owe to the artwork.
Walter Kaufmann said of Kierkegaard, "there's no other author in world literature who gives me such a strong impression that my soul has been placed on the scales, and found wanting". I think that's what great art should aim to do. There's something fundamentally anxiety-inducing about it.
Of course, if the work serves literally no purpose whatsoever, aesthetic or otherwise, then yes, by definition we would have to question what the point of making it in the first place was. But it's actually quite hard to find a work that meets that criteria; maybe impossible. You know, even something like Joseph Kosuth's "Art as Idea as Idea" where he would print placards with dictionary entries on them and hang them up in an otherwise empty room... even something like this produces an aesthetic experience. It has its own kind of texture, it induces its own kind of perception. It's more subtle but it's there if you can grab onto it. He probably didn't even want that work to induce a "classical" kind of aesthetic experience, and yet it does, because it's inescapable.
Ever notice that, especially evident with how the Western world interacts with other Kodaka VNs, that 'how the presentation will be perceived' is a central element of every ambiguous-gender character
Well, that's a result of the fanbase being largely tumblrites.
I've loved Danganronpa ever since SDR2 first released in English but I never really interacted with the community, so I was surprised to see what a big tumblr/fujo following it had. I suppose it was a result of Danganronpa being relatively "gender neutral", and having some pretty boys like Nagito to latch onto. Although I was even more surprised that the fujo contingent showed up for Hundred Line as well, because that one is much more unabashedly targeted at a straight male audience.
Which one?
I want Hiruko to step on me!
V'ehx is close though, god damn they did her dirty by giving her such a short route...
SSCReader
39m ago
But white people don't have the power to enable it
The people with power are mostly white. Ergo white people DO have that ability. Not necessarily ALL white people (though see below). If a subset of white people is the problem, then that is an intra-racial issue.
As for the other I'll refer to my previous answer. White (all voters really) voters repeatedly show they rank the economy over limiting immigration. So if limiting immigration and spending billions deporting immigrants hurts the economy (and even Trump agrees it will) then they have different goals both of which cannot be fulfilled and repeatedly they show by flip-flopping that they prize an economy that makes them wealthier over really limiting immigration.
If white voters in the US REALLY wanted to limit immigration above all else they do actually have the power to do so. They just have to repeatedly vote for the people who want to do so, even when the economy is bad. Instead of flip-flopping. But there aren't enough people who do that. It isn't that they don't have the power it is that when it comes down to it they have other priorities. That they don't doesn't mean they can't.
Again compare to Brexit. The Tories (or a subset of them) were the ones mainly driving Brexit. Boris gets rewarded by becoming PM, but then as the economy starts to struggle as Brexit headwinds kick in, they vote out the Tories. The lesson politicians correctly take from that is that giving people what they say they want should be secondary to maintaining a strong economy, because a weak economy means they lose power no matter what else they deliver. Short term politicians are driven by short term voters. And most voters are short term.
This isn't a lack of power, it's a lack of cohesion. Too many voters prize economic wellbeing over anything else. Doesn't matter if in opinion polls say they want less immigration with a 90% majority. What matters is how many of them will stick to that in face of a poor economy. If every single white person voted for a Republican every 4 years come rain or shine, recession or boom they have the power to curb immigration. But to date they do not. It ISN'T a power issue at all. They have the power, they just use that power for other things they value more.
I'm also not sure what you mean by advanced racism in the first place, but hopefully my answer here has helped clarify?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
41m ago
Once upon a time, having a beard or long hair meant Something, and usually meant being a leftist/liberal. Even by the early 2000s when I was in college, facial hair was still coded as an academic/liberal kind of thing. Outside the university, anyone who had either was definitely left-of-center.
This seems like total nonsense to me. Maybe it’s just because I grew up immersed in the metalhead subculture, but I can think of a massive number of guys with beards and long hair from the 90’s and 00’s who were not remotely associated with academics or leftist politics. The guys from Pantera, for example, were all extremely working-class Southerners, and their politics ranged from generic tits-and-beer centrism (the Abbott brothers) to generic Southern conservatism (Rex Brown) to basically White Nationalism (Phil Anselmo).
I agree that they signaled “not a middle-class guy with a full-time white-collar job”, but past that I don’t think there was much of a political connotation at that time, nor even a couple of decades before that. (Nobody would have mistaken Waylon Jennings for a college professor either.)
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
48m ago
I think the reason that most institutions didn’t actually stand up against it is that most of them had been infected with nihilistic thinking decades ago, maybe centuries. The idea that nothing really mattered and nothing is really true left the traditional institutions with no footing with which to push back. The churches had long been ecumenical institutions that often hold to nothing as essential to Christianity. They’ve fallen to the point that many of them no longer hold things like the Trinity, Solus Christus, or the need for genuine repentance as essential. Fewer hold that the Bible defines sin or the proper way to live. So from the position that nothing is true or matters, how do you assert that something is wrong?
Academics has been nihilistic and post-rational for about the same amount of time. It’s no longer a search for truth, it’s an opinion laundering operation with a bunch of job training programs attached. How does a professor defend against demands from the woke? He can’t point to facts, he’s long since abandoned them. An institution that cannot defend a definition of woman is not going to stand for much of anything.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
51m ago
Oh look, he already deleted his post.
Gaashk
54m ago
The new Sanderson novel, Isles of the Emberdark. It is, of course, not very sophisticated or thoughty, but is a fun little adventure.
PokerPirate
1hr ago
I've noticed the growth of a certain type of middle-aged-white-guy-dad who has a shortly trimmed beard and short hair. This is the style that requires the least maintenance (trim beard once/week, cut hair once every 2-3 months), and so seems to be popular amongst the very practical.
2rafa
1hr ago
I think among the under-25s beards are less cool again (admittedly, I’m not really tuned in to late zoomer discourse) and have certain “millennial soy” connotations for the more online crowd.
Long hair for men comes in and out every few years, it shifts within generations. The early age of millennial cultural ascension (2006-2010ish) often had the men in quite close cropped hair, see early Glee for examples, or alternately the Justin Bieber / emo origin flop across the eyes. By the early 2010s that had largely been replaced by either the side part or the man-bun, which surely counts as long hair. Even the zoomers have already had multiple male hairstyle trends, including the ‘90s DiCaprio center part, the mullet etc.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
Ok, well one of my red flags is "this person judges people maximally uncharitably based on one liners in their profile". So if something filters out those people, that's a great thing for me! The point isn't to get dates, it's to get dates whom you actually like.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1hr ago
Started the Annihilation Score which only supports the conclusion so far. Maybe it will get better, but starting it I found it a bit hard to sympathize with Mo so far. We'll see how it goes.
Annihilation Score was the last one I read. I was not terribly impressed with it, and since I didn't think Rhesus Chart was all that great, either, I saw no reason to keep going.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
I can't imagine giving someone dating advice that consists of "list all your fringe interests that won't impress women at best and turn them off at worst and plug away for years with little success in the hopes of attracting your one true love".
Nobody is giving that advice. They are saying "if you like something, it's fine to put it in your profile", because they believe (correctly imo) that those who are put off by that are people you don't want to date anyway. There's no need to obsessively list everything which might be a red flag for someone somewhere, the point is to just be yourself and not worry about those who don't like that.
PokerPirate
1hr ago
particularly obnoxious violations (like, saying "obviously we all know that [woke position] is wrong...")
I find OPs framing to be even more obnoxious than your quote because it buries the assumption of agreement until mid-post and never makes it explicit. So I was expecting to read a very different type of post, and was unhappy when I realized what was going on. At least when someone starts off "obviously we all know..." you know where they're coming from and can read/skip accordingly.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
But it is adding extra meaning, is my point. "Optimal" does not carry an asterisk that says "given other constraints not mentioned here", you have to add those constraints if you intend to communicate them. As far as beauty goes that's subjective, but IMO obscuring meaning precludes beauty. The point of communication is to be clear first and foremost, and "the optimal amount of fraud is not zero" isn't clear (as proved by the very fact that this discussion is taking place).
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
They aren't at all synonymous imo (nor are the two you cited, for that matter). That bit of elision significantly changes the meaning of each variant.
gattsuru
1hr ago
His distinction:
But the power to decline to enforce a statute just isn’t the same thing as the dispensing power; the former does nothing to alter the potential liability that those who violate the statute might face; the latter at least purports to render them formally immune.
Seems both threadbare and tremendously wrong, though. The various and length delays to the ACA's individual and employer mandate were not only retrospective, nor accompanied by anyone panicking that they could face future liability had the government changed its mind afterward. The DACA authorizations left specific people immune to civil litigation even well after a different President was elected specifically on the matter of changing the rule, and courts stayed those changes!
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
I just don't think that there's a loss here. Profile space is not scarce, so if you're worried that someone will find it a dealbteaker then put it in. It's better to go on zero dates than on one date which goes nowhere.
Yes, sure. I am absolutely willing to believe that the government covered up one or more of these things. But not on the basis of one guy listing his favorite coincidences. If the only reason you encounter a data point is because someone picked it for you, it’s not evidence. It’s trivia. It’s an excuse to repeat whatever you already believe, maybe feel a bit clever about it.
What’s the expected fatality rate for training? Is there historical data? Previous spikes whenever a U.S. ally fights some terrorists? Who knows? Who the fuck cares? Some guy on the Internet said special forces “tend to” do this, so it must be real.
More options
Context Copy link