domain:natesilver.net
MonkeyWithAMachinegun
Dancing to Tom Paine's Bones
21m ago
So did anyone else watch the Stanley Cup?
I'm not sure how the motte skews in terms of sports watchers, but I for one was rooting for the Panthers. For those who don't pay attention to sports, the Stanley Cup is the annual championship for hockey. No I don't mean "US Hockey" or "North American Hockey" I mean hockey. The best players of hockey from around the world come to compete in the National Hockey League (NHL). Americans aren't even a simple majority of hockey players in the NHL, heck we're not even the largest population in the league! That trophy goes to the Canadians, who make up some 40% of the league and have seven teams representing the frozen north in the league. I would have said "leafs" or "canucks" but both of those are actual NHL teams (Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadians respectively). There are also Swedes, Russians, Finns, Czechs, Swiss, Slovaks, Germans, Latvians, Danes, Austrians, Belarussians, Norwegians, and one each from France, the UK, Australia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Slovenia.
Anyway, the Panthers were playing the Edmonton Oilers. I was, as I said, rooting for the Panthers because the Canadians won the Four Nations Face-Off, an NHL-affiliated/sponsored event where four of the most represented nations in the NHL (Canada, Finland, the US, and Sweden) competed against each other. It was an absolute riot. Some of the best hockey I've ever watched, hands down. But the Canadians won in the end (honestly Finland and Sweden never really had a chance, it was always going to be the US v. Canada in the finals). So I wanted the American team (somewhat, as I said it's an international sport) to bring home the cup.
I got my wish. For the second year in a row the Oilers and Panthers faced each other in the finals, and for the second year in a row the Panthers won it all. Many of the Panthers players are... somewhat controversial. Matthew Tkachuk (and to some extent his brother Brady Tkachuk) is considered a dirty player, to the point where he has been termed the "Rat King"--meaning he's a very good, very dirty player. Another player to hold the title Rat King is Tkachuk's teammate, Brad Marchand who has previously licked an opposing player's face just to fuck with his head. Seth Jones transferred from the Blackhawks to the Panthers three months ago, saying it was the "#1 destination to [play playoff hockey]" which was received poorly by fans as it looked like he was just chasing a payday. The controversy extends to the "chirps" or trash-talking on-ice, with this being called the nastiest Stanley Cup final anyone has ever seen. I could go on, but you know what's boring? Listing hockey players being hockey players. You know what's fun?
Watching the Panthers celebrate. Holy shit it is so much fun to watch these guys just goof off. For those not in the know, it is long-established hockey tradition for the winners of the Stanley cup to go on a week-long rager after winning, and the Panthers are doing it in style. With the cup. That's important. The rager occurs with the Stanley Cup for a full 24-hours. This is officially known as the "Players' day with the Cup" and it always, always gets damaged or abused in some way. Which has of course already occurred. In fact it kinda looks like it got shot but oh well. Damaging the cup during the celebration is a tradition as old as the celebration is. The Cup has had several children baptized in it, been shat in (by a baby, allegedly), thrown from a second-story window into a pool, dropped at least once every time it's been awarded, thrown in the ocean, drunk out of (a very serious tradition, the winning team is supposed to drink champagne from it), had cereal eaten out of it, had dogs eat out of it, been thrown in the dishwasher, and has traveled as far afield as an Igloo in the very north of Canada, to Los Angeles, to the White House, to Stockholm, to Red Square, and it even visited Kandahar Afghanistan where it watched over a ball hockey game on concrete in the Afghan desert. It has been drop kicked, dropped into the middle of a frozen canal (because the drop kick didn't clear the other side), left at a photo studio, lost on the side of the road, had the mortgage papers for Madison Square Garden burned in it (which of course led to the Curse of 1940, causing a 54 year win drought for the New York Rangers), had teeth chipped on it, been stolen by angry fans, been dropped in a bonfire, had a Kentucky Derby winning horse eat out of it, been locked in a bar and had every patron drink from it, etc. etc.
Anyway, how are the Panthers celebrating? By drinking themselves silly for a week straight. Here's team captain Barkov dragging Marchand out of a club. Marchand borrowed a fan's jersey, and then paid $200 cash to keep it (technically less than the value of the jersey but the fan certainly didn't mind). Here's Barkov almost catching a face-full from a smoke machine. Barkov and several team members visited a neighbor by prior arrangement at 5am to show him the Stanley Cup, Marchand has been thanking every team that traded or cut a player that ended up on the Panthers, and here's him giving an incredibly touching (no really) rationale for his instagram stories. Marchand has an odd fixation with Dairy Queen (well not so odd) and so served a bunch of blizzards to fans. No seriously, he really likes DQ. No, he really likes DQ, to the tune of $38000. The team (with cup in tow) visited a strip club, and presumably ran up a huge bill. I know a lot of this is Brad Marchand but he's the Rat King, and he is as hated on the ice as he is beloved off it. Here's Marchand biting teammate Uvis Balinskis' nipple. Here's the team riding down the street in a golf cart with the Stanley. Barkov celebrating with arena employees. Panthers and the Cup celebrating to the Pink Pony Club remix.
I could keep spamming reddit links but I think I've gotten my point across. It's just an absolute joy to watch these guys celebrate getting what they battled for, and I really do mean battled. Matthew Tkachuk had a sports hernia and torn adductor on the same side, Barkov had a gash in his hand that needed sutures, which tore out twice, and Reinhart (who scored 4 of the 5 goals in the cinching Game 6) was coming off a Grade 2 MCL sprain.
This got a lot longer than I intended, so I'll end it here with a simple note. I can't wait for next season.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
27m ago
I agree. Now explain how it is more rational to believe instead that "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
38m ago
You would consider you new preferences and habits to be unambiguously superior to before, yes? If so, where is the aforementioned trade-off?
A physically-fit person exercises and eats vegetables and meat rather than ice cream by the tubful. They think that fitness is better than the pleasures of a sedentary life and a nutritionally-poor but flavor-rich diet. They sacrifice the joys of the one to gain the joys of the other, no? I sacrifice things I want, and even some things I want very, very badly, for a chance at things that are better. I sacrifice these things because I believe they are contrary to the will of God, no matter how much they please me, and no matter how much I want them. I could even argue that they are actually permitted, through this loophole or that shaky argument, but that would be rationalization and self-deception. So I have to let them go.
It would, yes. If the word of Christ really is the Way and the Truth and the Light, Christians ought to be far less complacent in their efforts to spread the gospel than they currently are. Should you not rout the disbelievers, those who lead souls astray with false idols and apathetic impiety? Should you not hate the heretics, those who twist revelation into abomination? Your predecessors certainly did, so what changed?
No Christian who has ever lived has succeeded in emulating Christ, in living without sin and in doing perfectly as Christ would do. All Christians stumble and fail, because they are human. Given that we know that all Christians fail to execute Christianity perfectly, it stands to reason that different Christians in different times fail in different ways. Some Christians fail by lacking mercy; others fail by lacking courage, some by lacking love, some by lacking faith. It behooves us to determine which failures we each are prone to and to make a special effort to guard ourselves against the failures we are weak to.
Suffice to say, my personal weaknesses do not include a deficit of hatred. The hard part for me is "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you," and "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," so that is the part I must fortify. Further, Christianity cannot be spread by the sword. That doesn't mean the sword is useless, or that we are required to be pacifists; it means that we must recognize that the ends we can achieve through the tools of this mortal world are strictly limited. Evil, sin, impiety and false idols have always existed and will always exist so long as this present world remains; you cannot kill your way to a Heaven on earth, nor achieve a Heaven on earth by any other means. If we fight, we fight for the mortal aims of upholding justice, defending the innocent, and breaking the power of ascendant evil, and we do so with the understanding that our means must be as limited as our ends. If that compromises our victory or our survival, so be it; Christians have been martyred before and will be martyred again, and our God has promised to wipe every tear from our eyes.
Probably many who called themselves Christians in the past went too far, and were lacking in mercy. Certainly many who call themselves Christians now seem to have gone too far and abandoned everything but mercy, and are lacking in courage, zeal and righteousness. None have us have ever been perfect; many of us have been good enough for the challenges facing them.
I think the Christianity you practice is actually quite different to the old sort, at least in practical implementation. For one, the demons of the earth who possessed the insane, swapped babies with changelings, communed with witches, and who many good Christians thought actually, literally existed have seemingly vanished.
I am skeptical that changelings ever existed, and that witches ever actually communed with the devil. The Old Testament itself condemns empty superstitions:
He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is used as fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!” They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, “Half of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”
...And that was thousands of years before science and the cell-phone camera. Nor is atheism a novel development; there have been atheists as far back as we have writing. Nothing about the basic questions has ever really changed. "Many Christians" believing in changelings or witches makes no difference to me; I do aim to follow "Many Christians", but rather Christ.
The relevant part of your argument seems to be that previous Christians were very much not Materialists, but then I am very much not a Materialist either. Even though the the demons are silent and the miracles have ceased, I take the reality of their respective sources as an axiom, and shape my life accordingly.
But I have a hunch that the sort of casual superstition that past Christians practiced may have been vital (or at least a factor) in avoiding the exact sort of secularization that modernity hath wrought, at least among the common folk. Us gentry might be able to satisfy ourselves with philosophies of the Good, but many don't see the point of belief when there's nothing concrete in it for them.
And this is the crux, one might say. I am not advocating a philosophy of the Good. Sin is very real in the most concrete sense, and its lethal effects can be directly observed. If you let it have its way in your life, it can and will erode your substance until little that is human remains. It was not hard to observe the process in my own life, and it is trivial to observe it doing so in the lives of others.
Nor does it seem to me that the superstitions have ever gone away. At every point through the few centuries of the modern era, superstition has remained as strong and ubiquitous a force as it ever was; only the details have changed, not the mechanism. Science is now dominant, so our superstitions tend to be built out of technobabble, rather than legends and folktales; in both cases, they are built from the available pool of loose information. Humans don't seem to change; we are as we ever have been. There is nothing "concrete" in current beliefs; there is practical knowledge kept honest by constant feedback from reality, with precision both sufficient for and equal to the tools available to implement it, and then there is superstition expanding to fill what space remains. That's the way it's always been, and my bet is that it is the way it will always be, no matter how long we last.
Gaashk
39m ago
I hadn't heard that, but unless the baby is born in late spring or summer, a woman in America is expected to return to work within three months of giving birth. If she breaks her contract by resigning mid year, that isn't great for her record, though teaching tends towards chronic shortage, so she's likely to find another job sometime anyway.
Okay, so women get unfair perks in the name of ending sexism. We talk about that a lot here. I don't see that having a lot to do with whether or not men can get a date.
the argument would be 'if women are attracted to men who have higher social status, money, property, etc., than they have, and we've created a society which makes women better off than men (at the expense of men), then women will not find the men the society has made worse off attractive and therefore more men cannot get dates and women will only be satisfied with a continuously shrinking pool of men'
Why do you think the 90s legal mores will be a stable equilibrium this time?
Griggs v. Duke power was in 1971. Price Waterhouse v Cooper was in 1989. The 90s saw the CRA of 1991 which put into statute bad court decisions around disparate impact and mixed-motivation being enough to show discrimination under the law. VAWA was in 1994. At best, the 90s were the last hurrah before social institutions had decayed to the point where they could no longer provide guiderails to the radical legal environment which had been created over the last two or so decades. And even if that's not true, there was a reason why these were passed in the early 90s and it's because the 80s wasn't a stable equilibrium either nor was the 70s or 60s or 50s. The legal environment had been pretty bad on this front for pretty long, but it wasn't until social conventions, communities, and institutions decayed to the point they could no longer provide sufficient guardrails that we saw the significant effects of them.
I was only cognizant near the end of the 90s so I don't have much experience with what they were like. When I speak to young people now in the real world about these topics, many of them have views which are similar to how you describe them on all sides of the divide. When I see others discussing the topic on this forum, it just comes off as older people who caught the last train out of the station before the power went off and they're on the right side of the bell curve on top of it. They really do not have a clue how bad it is out there for a whole lot of people.
In the past, older generations thought pairing off the younger generations into prosocial relationships was near the most important thing they could do for their children. Now, the best on offer appears to be "look 'em in the eye and give 'em a firm handshake" boomerisms directed almost entirely at males and general denial about the reality the younger generation is describing to them.
Unions exist solely for extracting rent in the form of above market wages from through the use of various coercive techniques. That's literally their entire point. Similarly, guilds and trades apprenticeships restrict supply to drive up wages through regulatory capture.
I always say it and I'll say it again. Trades are easy. It doesn't take years to learn to wire up a house or install some plumbing. A novice with zero experience and a copy of the code could do it all perfectly, though he'd be a bit slow. But make it so only another plumbing master can grant access to the masters club, and tons of bs hurdles and hazing will suddenly be in the way.
More options
Context Copy link