FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
No mullahs, no IRGC, no "Death to America".
A minor aside, I often wonder to what extent we should idiomatically translate "Death to X" as "Fuck X" instead. In the same way that an American saying "Fuck Iran" should be translated to a Persian as "Death to Iran" and not "I would like to have intercourse with Iran."
Sometimes it feels like this forum is still stuck in 2020. Woke is over.
The anti-woke have discovered that half of them hated the process of wokeness, and the other half hated the way the process was targeted. On this forum this mostly takes the form of disputes around the Hebrews, elsewhere it revolves around Charlie Kirk or foreign wars.
The US has air superiority.
I think it's really telling that the US has achieved air superiority over Iran instantly, while Russia has as of yet never achieved that level of superiority over Ukraine.
I believe the US certainly has the capability to do it, though.
It's probably not impossible, I'm just saying that when considering scale redundancies and protection need to be included in that calculus.
they're one bad fall or headkick away from brain damage or[...]
I have been insanely blessed to have been doing it as long as I have without being sidelined by a serious injury
I love the result of this typo being the trailing off "I've never suffered brain damage or...anyway..."
I have "let" guys with less experience than me win simply to avoid a situation where one of us would probably get hurt, or to not escalate the intensity to unsafe levels. Most of the time they simply don't have the knowledge to realize how easily they can get hurt. On rarer occasions they lack the self control to rein it in where needed.
So much of it comes down to pride, and lack of communication which is mostly downstream from pride. When I get hurt, it's always ego standing in the way of just saying "Yeah I can't do that" or "Yeah I'm just going to tap here, not from a sub but because my leg is in a weird spot." The problem is removing ego from losing, while still drawing motivation from winning.
Likewise, the worst injuries I've doled out are broken noses. I felt HORRIBLE about that in both cases, but in the grand scheme those are easily recoverable.
I know you're far deeper into it than I am, and it's a different ruleset, but for me my BJJ started to get a lot better when I realized that I didn't want to hurt my partner, and just removed all the moves I deem "too dangerous" or "rude" from my repertoire. I don't do heel hooks, I don't do throat posts, I don't do neck cranks, I don't do anything flying or rolling, I don't slam anybody. I stick to slow, even, cautious application of basics. I give my opponents tons of time to tap because I have the sub sunk. This works so much better for me, because when I try something risky, I double clutch trying to make sure not to hurt my opponent, and then I lose the whole thing. I never get a heel hook because I'm trying to do it too slow. Where a straight ankle, I'm confident my opponent is going to tap to discomfort before they break anything important. I never manage to finish wrestling shots live, because I'm worrying about not slamming my opponent and then I lose it, but I can do slide-bys or arm drags all day. I never finish guillotines with a guard pull, but I can use the position to take the back.
I'm hoping to one day reach a level of confidence where I can reintegrate some of that into my game. I still drill it, but letting go of it live and focusing on things I'm confident in really improved my rolls.
I was speaking more generally regarding the whole war, but in this specific instance "losses greater than zero" very quickly complicate things and expand the operation. Unless the HEU is secretly stored closer to the border than publicly indicated, you're looking at 200+ miles of contested airspace, transporting in and out. Every piece of essential equipment or personnel you lose now needs a backup, which balloons the size of the operation, makes it harder to transport and protect, and increases the number of targets that can be hit. So you need more protection, which increases the footprint to be transported and protected, etc.
I highly doubt that the covert ops community is leaky enough to leak this plan if it were real. There are very obvious and direct consequences to the soldiers involved, I just can't believe that would happen.
That said, there's probably a lot of alpha in finding a way to track the prediction market accounts of actual soldiers, who won't be shy about cashing in. It's likely that in turn global intelligence agencies are keyed into such accounts...which then raises the possibility of using prediction markets to head fake.
The US seems to be able to shoot down most of them. Not all of them. This is an important distinction that doesn't seem well reported anywhere.
I've been thinking a lot about this in a BJJ context, because I've been trying to decide if my habit of self-mocking is obnoxious or not. I'm generally down on myself, I'm a middle aged white belt, and a particularly ungraceful one at that. So I tend to lose more than I win when I go against people who have more experience. But every now and then I catch something, and I nearly always blurt out something self-denigrating, like "oh you let me get away with that one" or "you just got bored of sitting in my half guard so you let me sweep" or "guess you let me work a little too long" or "even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes" after I tap someone.
And this is reflexive on my part, not thought out. I don't hit a kimura trap sweep and think consciously "I should apologize;" I just blurt it out because it's obvious that I only got lucky or I only got it because he let me get it, I want him to know that I don't think I'm better than him and that he doesn't have to make a point of getting me back. And I want him to know that I respect him because I don't want him ripping a sub on me or hitting me with a twister or something.
BJJ functions that way because not only can someone hurt you, there's so much trust involved in them not hurting you. But it's far from perfect, there's always dicks who roll like they have a chip on their shoulder. I've found I can't really roll with the teenage competitive kids at this point, because it's vinegar and baking soda: I don't want to lose to a skinny young whelp, they don't want to lose to a fat old man. We both take things too far and I end up getting hurt.
There's another little guy, about my age, who constantly rips dirty subs, and I don't roll with him much, or when I do I really focus on not giving him any space to breathe and play super conservative. And if he wasn't so aggressive, I'd let a guy like that work, I'd focus on working new things and on good technique and on not using my weight advantage too much, but he's so close to snapping one of my knee ligaments that I just suffocate him and no one has any fun because I'm not gonna give him any chances.
And that's the nature of things that so many people don't consider: mutual respect isn't about who will win the fight, it's about recognizing that in the immortal words of Patrick Swayze "nobody ever won a fight." Even if you know you can win, you can still get hurt in the process (like Tyr losing his hand), or the underdog can get lucky (like Pierre shooting Dolokhov in their duel). The threat of violence is costly for all involved, even the winners.
This is a really good way to put it. I've bemoaned the culture of dressing down before, but I never thought about it in these terms. We used to aspire to acting with respect, to courtliness; now we aspire to be so important that we can act with disrespect.
I asked DeepSeek. I think "common understanding of a term" is a pretty good use case for LLMs at the moment. You are flatly incorrect.
In the context of war, "no quarter" means that no mercy will be given—defeated enemies will be killed rather than taken prisoner.
The phrase comes from the practice of "giving quarter," which refers to a victor sparing the life of a captured enemy and holding them as a prisoner of war. To declare "no quarter" is to announce that surrender will not be accepted; the enemy is to be fought to the death.
Key aspects:
· Legal status: Granting no quarter is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions (specifically Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention and Article 40 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions), as it violates the principle that captured combatants are entitled to humane treatment. · Historical usage: In earlier naval warfare, a "no quarter" flag (such as a solid red flag or the Jolly Roger) signaled that the crew would fight without accepting surrender.
Though it does say
Common expression: Outside of warfare, the phrase is used metaphorically to mean showing no mercy or leniency in a competition, argument, or struggle.
Even leaving aside the moral concerns, it's a grave sin to kill a man trying to surrender, it also is the opposite of the theory that you kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice falls apart, because you're telling the Iranian troops in advance that surrender (unconditional or not) is pointless, they're going to be killed either way. It also pretty much entitles the enemy against whom you have declared No Quarter to kill your men if they are captured (see eg the Battle of the Crater).
It's something that looks tough on a BJJ rash guard but is a definitional war crime.
So has that been meaningfully isolated F this point or are we still just guessing?
Transition is a natural extension of a rigid view of gender. "Men are strong and tough and physical and confident, I'm not any of those things, I must not be a man."
Autists are uncomfortable with grey areas that everyone understands intuitively, like that it is feminine to like makeup but that not liking makeup doesn't make one not a woman.
What are your best War podcasts? I'm looking to Monitor the Situation, but all the podcasts I normally listen to are entirely too biased, either engaging in TDS, engaging in performative anti-TDS, or Israel blaming/defending to degrees I find distasteful. I want real conflict examination.
I like war nerd and ACOUP's content but I'm not going to pay for the Patreon to get a podcast, for context. I like the modern war institute podcast, but they don't release enough.
This meant that carrying a hypothetical gay gene wouldn't depress your fertility all that much, since the overwhelming influence of the default social script would still push you towards having the standard 1-3 children surviving into adulthood.
I've always thought this was a contradiction to a genetic explanation of homosexuality. Either it isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be (like, you can have hetero sex you'd just maybe prefer not to), or it isn't genetic.
Because as explained by most homosexuals I've met, it's obligate, not preferential. Which, in virtually any society the majority of people had options to avoid breeding if they really didn't want to. Joining the navy and dying young, monasteries, that sort of thing. Their fertility rate would have been significantly depressed, even if not to zero, such that it would have been pretty much bred out. Or alternatively, it has been bred out over time and humans used to ALL have the gay gene.
The evidence here points towards a primarily behavioral or environmental explanation, with possible genetic confounders.
At any rate, my point is really that the "Right vs Left TFR" argument is retarded because leftist children of leftist parents aren't really necessary to liberalism. Aella's parents by all accounts raised her in an extremely right wing religious household, and she is herself. Out of church attending teenagers, 60% will not attend church at 29. Retention, not tfr, is the problem on the right.
98th overall, but only in the 60s in technical.
Interesting test. Probably my weakest question was http errors.
Rogan is a stand up comedian, 1/8 professional comedians are probably Jewish.
I have a long effortpost I need to get around to about the political things you see in a 1968 Playboy that are vastly more radical than you see today.
The West Bank is a bantustan, on the South African model.
Look at this map and tell me it's a real viable country
It's so shot through with barriers, roadblocks, checkpoints, and settlements that a Palestinian cannot travel freely within the state. There is no future in which this area can become a country, particularly as Israel intends to continue to control all imports and foreign policy.
The West Bank is a fakakta country that exists so that Palestinians can belong somewhere else.
The modern online dating market is nothing like the concept of free love that was extremely common and important within progressive circles. Maybe on Fetlife or whatever the modern equivalent is. Read Stranger in a Strange Land some time. That's what progressives in the 60s pictured as the enlightened future.
It failed. Young couples today are, if anything, more jealous and possessive than they were in my grandmother's day.
This is what I mean by a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. It's circular reasoning. You don't even know what progressives aimed for but assume that it must be pretty much what we have today because progressives always get what they wanted so this must be it.
The long arc of morality doesn't mean for every topic, but in general progressive movements do tend to win out over more conservative ones. They win out so strong that you don't even think about it much anymore, at least for these examples of the US.
So, the mother of all Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies?
Where's the Free Love that was as or more popular in progressive circles in the 1960s than full racial equality?
Evangelicals have high birth rates, but also low retention rates into adulthood.
Gays have lower fertility than straights, so surely we will have no gays at all within a few generations!
I notice that you didn't answer the question. Are you ashamed of your answer, even within this august body?
Dizzy, do you believe that apartheid ethnostates are morally acceptable in the present age, or do you believe that all lawful residents within a country's borders are entitled to equal rights and equal treatment under the law? (Note that this is not a question about immigration, or a question about birthright citizenship)
The expectation of any such observation, or critique, being advocacy / defense is one reason I've avoided commenting much on the Iran conflict...
I agree it's intensely frustrating, particularly as each side seems to have arrogated to itself the right to just say whatever bullshit and it doesn't matter, while assuming that any statement by the other side is deeply symbolic of their evil.
- Prev
- Next

What worries me about is to what extent Russia can prop up Iranian anti-ship capabilities cheaply. It would be very much in Russia's interests to keep the strait closed as long as possible, it harms their enemies and helps Russia. Every air defense capability sent to the gulf is one not sent to Ukraine. Buying Russian oil and propping up Russia becomes the lesser evil compared to surrendering to Iran. They don't need to give the Mullahs the bomb or supply their whole war effort, just keep a trickle of drones and missiles coming in to prevent a total degradation of Iranian launch capabilities. Keep Hormuz' legs crossed, and the more both sides destroy more oil infrastructure the more the price premium Russian oil will demand for months or years afterward.
More options
Context Copy link