@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

17 followers   follows 6 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

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

FiveHourMarathon

Wawa Nationalist

17 followers   follows 6 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

					

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

I've met, had lunch, and argued about politics and baseball with Akhil Reed Amar. He's a better American than you.

The anti-Iran "alliance" here is presumably capable of blockading Iran's ports just as well.

Everyone is capable of blockading oil traffic, but when you live there it's holding a gun to your own leg because nobody wants to deal with a series of giant oil spills just off your coastline.

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

The IRGC is operating on the theory that the gulf is cowardly and the USA has ADHD. They may yet be proven right, but their target selection reflects a preference for efficient soft targets not precise political punishment.

What politician's career has been ruined? Trump was president when the lockdowns and masks were at their height, he is back in office. What businessman has faced consequences? The closest I can get is maybe Cuomo, but that was mostly other stuff and general distaste for him personally.

Various heterodox figures were predicting obscene consequences from vaccine deaths. They still have followings as large if not larger.

Fauci is a million years old, in a functioning society the same guy in power during AIDS shouldn't have been in charge six years ago anyway.

Note that the few ships traveling through the strait are currently using a small area near the Iranian coastline.

I have strong suspicions that the non Iranian ships doing so have made "donations" to appropriate Iranian parties for safe passage.

This is a crisis I've faced personally, as I've reached middle age and become a local curmudgeon.

I use marijuana products, and I'm in favor of legalization in general.

But I was driving by my old high school and the gas station across the street was advertising, with a HUGE banner outside, for Delta-8 Gummies. And I'm quite a fan of taking an edible with my wife when I have an evening I want to enjoy at home, but...there are kids there? And especially for a semi-legal product like Delta-8, are the Dinergoth or pakistani cashiers going to check IDs for a product that they don't legally need to check IDs on? And for teenagers that are buying something they need to hide from their parents, are they going to use it responsibly, or are they going to take it in the parking lot and drive home getting high as they go?

And I caused a big stink with the local police and the town meetings until they put enough pressure on the owners to stop selling it.

I'm fine with people getting high, but you should need to put in some effort. Go to a weird head shop downtown in the city, speak to some shady people, feel a little naughty and a little guilty. But don't sell it to kids! And don't sell it to kids casually, on the way home from track, where I used to stop and get a hot chocolate or a gatorade after practice.

I'm becoming less libertarian when I see the frictionless world we're headed for with so many vices.

It's odd how no one has suffered any public consequences for being wrong. Neither the people promoting lockdowns, nor the people fear-mongering on vaccine deaths, have been vindicated by time; but neither group has been chastened in their views, instead sharpening their arguments to refight the last war when the next comes around.

Which, when I read And The Band Played On and recognized so many names, I realized was how we got the retarded policies we did during COVID: the public health apparatus was refighting GRID/HIV-AIDS, and most of the policies implemented were policies that they wish they would have implemented in the early days of GRID.

Ok that's bizarre, I got the link off of Bing of the sexiest JC girl on page 1, and it was to an arabic language shopping website, and now the link ended up on an article I've never seen before. Weird.

Does anyone actually like this?

I don't. It is increasingly absurdist levels of unaesthetic.

But I suspect it's just an extreme form of in-group availability signaling. By getting these surgeries, you signal to males in your in-group that you am available to them sexually. Males in your in-group start to associate those signals with sexual availability and eroticize them, consciously or subconsciously. Traits or choices that aren't inherently attractive become attractive because they signal sexual availability.

A lot of women's aesthetic choices make sense in that context. All female sexual attractiveness in the moment is a combination of how physically attractive she is and how sexually available she seems to be. Men are drawn to women that are hot, first and foremost, but also to women they think will sleep with them.

The phenomenon of Mar-A-Lago face isn't telling us that the women in TrumpWorld are or aren't hot or how they value naturalness, it's telling us that they are broadly speaking sluts.

Personally, Mrs. FiveHour ironically bought a set of Juicy Couture sweats on Poshmark, and I think they're the hottest thing on her, because I associate a Juicy Couture tracksuit in my brain with the "hot" girls from high school. There's nothing inherently sexy about the Juicy Couture tracksuit, it's shapeless and lumpy, I find it sexy because I associate it with girls that advertised themselves as sexually available in the hallways.

Mar-a-Lago face is a signal to men in such circles, whether it's literally within conservative Mar-a-Lago circles or it's just rich people more generally, that you put out. And even if a woman isn't actually interested in sleeping around, the possibility drives male attention.

I agree that most women would prefer not to have that, but in the grainy truth of reality, I know women with worse marriages than that, who would do well to trade their current husbands who don't have sex with them for a rich gay husband who doesn't have sex with them.

At any rate, when I ran a straw poll the most common number of marriageable prospects reported by Mottizens was 1 or 2. (Reinforcing that I am some mix of immensely lucky and a slut with low standards) He only needs to find one woman into the idea out of the whole vast universe of people.

We should, but I don't know how to weight it, as an American big L Liberal, because I don't know if that deal was ever considered credibly on the table, or if it was just a salami slice to Ukrainian subjugation. Also, Crimea is a concern, as it ruins the contiguous map of Ukraine, it's a dagger through the heart of Ukraine.

Nationalists all want France's Frontières naturelles de la France, the mountain ranges rivers and seas that form France's modern boundaries, that create a contiguous country without strong external threats. Few countries resemble such things naturally, they require something like the Napoleonic wars to produce.

Presumably financial and familial support outside of sex and romance.

A lot of women won't get the latter in any case.

Bias disclosure: I am not convinced of the sacred uniqueness of the Ukrainian people, and think they probably should have stayed part of Russia after the fall of the USSR.

The problem with any national border is that it wants to be a bunch of things at the same time. Administratively convenient, contiguous, following clear natural boundaries, and containing all the X on one side and all the Y on the other. This can only be achieved by violence.

This war could be the violent birth of a real Ukrainian nation.

But redrawing boundaries and announcing they are not sacrosanct is equally fraught with danger.

It's also an extremely common trope of nationalists from Magyars to Israelis to seek larger borders.

They'd prefer, even more, a future with more Ukrainians in a larger Ukraine, and they might not be averse to reeducating misguided Russian-speakers, or expelling them. Certainly, they aren't going to accept reduction of their borders.

and for most of his second term.

Homeboy, we're not even halfway through the second term, and we've committed to at least two acts of war (I'll spot you bombing Yemen).

...seeing as the anti-war Dems have never trusted—and will never trust—Trump in the first place.

Which is my point, betraying your base to appeal to your enemies by turning on Israel won't work, because your enemies won't trust you anyway.

It's also very possible that Iran's left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, given the break down in Iranian government communications created by this situation.

The new head of the Jalisco New Generation cartel is a United States Citizen born in California.

MAGA is bringing foreign jobs home. U-S-A, U-S-A.

The underlying tension is the definition of "The Nation" that is being protected or promoted through these wars.

Attalus III deeded his kingdom to Rome in his will, knowing that inevitably Rome would subsume his kingdom regardless, and this avoided violence and death in his population. He protected his population, and while initially they weren't Roman citizens, their descendants likely became citizens later. I don't have the classicist juice to be able to trace Pergamese(?) families through time, but maybe it's been done. Maybe, genetically, those families were better off over time, with more and better off descendants as a result?

The modern Nationalist view, on the other hand, is that cultural extinction as a unique ethnic group is just as bad as genetic extinction. Zionists would not consider a future in which genetic descendants of Jews were numerous, but they didn't identify as Jews or practice Judaism. Zionists would prefer a future of a million practicing Jews to a future of fifty million undifferentiated Jewish descended people.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians, to a future with more numerous Ukrainian descendants who speak Russian.

Big difference. Nobody likes Iran, a large contingent of American prots actively believe that supporting Israel is a religious obligation. I drive by (biblically ignorant, in my opinion) billboards reading "God blesses those who bless Israel" on a daily basis.

I suppose there's "blessed are the peacemakers" as a counter, but everyone ignores that anyway, except Pope Leo.

Also, I think Republican support for the Iran war is overstated. 80-85% of Republicans support the strikes in most polls I've seen, the equivalent numbers in Iraq were 95%+ (Lizardman range) for the first few years of the war. Losing 10-15% support from your own party is pretty bad, though it's just issue polling.

Reports now on CNN, Iran is denying that there are talks.

Which, who knows, we could even have a situation where talks are going on but communication within the Iranian government has broken down.

A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.

Betrayal is the most difficult move to execute in a democracy, because the people who support the betrayal rarely trust you afterward. The anti-war caucus will not trust Trump after he flips on Israel, while the zionist contingent will be demoralized and may stay home.

It's not really possible to fully model something like this because it's basically never happened before. The closest I can think of is maybe LBJ on civil rights, or HW Bush on taxes? But even those weren't nearly as clear value betrayals as this would be.

Such an action, while hilarious, probably dooms Republicans in the midterms to such an extent that it would be unlikely for Trump to actually try it.

Bear in mind there's a lot of propaganda flying around right now. All different sides seem to be spinning every event in the most climactic, dramatic way possible. So we have to be careful to separate fact from rumors and threats.

To be clear, this is a direct quote from the President of the United State:

If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

There is no connection drawn between Iranian infrastructure attacks and American attacks on Iranian power plants, only between Iranian threats against shipping and American "obliteration" of Iranian power plants.

This is directly from the President of the United States, who by all reliable sources runs his own Truth social account. I don't understand how one can support the American war effort, and then say that to understand it you have to credit some statements by the POTUS, SoW, SoS; and discount others.

On the other hand, fifteen minutes ago as of this writing.

Good news everyone:

I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [sic]

We'll have to see how the markets open on this news.

I'm pointing out that "marked unconcern for legal niceties" isn't really accurate,

How is it inaccurate to say that the US is unconcerned with legal niceties when the Secretary of War has made a career out of criticizing prior war efforts for their adherence to legal niceties? When the SoW has repeatedly made public statements that they are focused on "maximum lethality, not tepid legality?" When the stated intention has been from the beginning to open up rules of engagement based on legal niceties?

Look bro, you seem to want to be the woke police about people not being rah rah enough for the war, in future consider all my comments about the American war effort to contain the Politically Correct Disclaimer:

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN IS AN EVIL REGIME THAT DOES EVIL THINGS, AND WE SHOULD NOT FORGET HOW EVIL THEY ARE

Then maybe you won't feel the need to play whataboutism in a discussion of the United States' openly avowed policies. Iran is evil, sure, that doesn't prevent one from examining policy questions in light of the statements made by the United States' Government.

Any reason to treat sharing intelligence with Iran different than sharing intelligence with Ukraine?

Not particularly, except that Iran is pretty evil, Russia doesn't want Iran to have nukes either, and I'm American so I find killing Americans uniquely offensive. I can sit in a debate society in law school and say yeah that's fair game, I don't want the federal government to feel that way.

The biggest allegation would be that Khamenei jr is currently directing the Iranian government from Russia, which would be a lot worse.