@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 would guess that this is not answerable with any degree of rigor without a specific example, which you are presumably unwilling to offer because it's too close to home.

That said, in a general sense I can think of a few reasons. you see that pattern:

  1. You have a warped perception of a place. There are lots of towns that had a bad reputation when I was growing up, but have since turned around completely, and it often takes a while for my perception to catch up to the reality. What do you mean hip young people are moving to Pittsburgh? This can also be a case of using county level statistics when you're dealing with the housing supply in a smaller area, the county is shrinking but [town] is growing.

  2. The industry in an area is shrinking overall, but the jobs that do exist are shifting, so the housing stock is shifting as well. You have a town that used to have a cardboard box factory employing 1,000 people at an adjusted wage of $25,000/yr, 1,000 houses were built to accommodate the workers. Now that factory only employs 500 people at an adjusted wage of $50,000/yr and a SaaS payroll company opened up an office in town where they employ 100 people at an adjusted wage of $100,000/yr. On the one hand you'd say well there's 1,000 houses and only 600 workers, there's plenty of housing! On the other, you'd say all the existing housing was designed for a worker making $25k, and there's no housing for people making $100k. The old, bad, factory housing is a decrepit slum at the same time that the new shiny stuff is being built.

  3. Shifting tastes. Greater sprawl is more in fashion with online shopping and less socializing, there's less need to reach amenities, so you see rural housing on large acreage sold as a luxury good, no neighbors is awesome and it doesn't really matter that you can't get to the mall. Flip side, apartments and dense mixed use developments are more in fashion among a different subset of buyers, who highly value being able to walk to get a quart of milk or a beer, and don't want to spend their Saturdays on lawn care.

We're hearing increasingly unbelievable things coming out of the DoW about each Iranian operation. I can't say with any confidence which things are untrue, or what the truth is, but the credibility given to the official story is dropping rapidly.

Increasingly, I can't offer any alternative theory, because I don't know anything other than what is being said by two (or three) untrustworthy participants in the war. But it's like reading an /r/relationships post, at some point you decide the whole thing is bullshit.

Gay couples having kids really is a bad thing. It’s obvious girls are just different. I see it every time my gf does little baby talk with her cat. Men just don’t have that silliness where they can actually have fun doing dumb kid stuff for hours every day. Mothers are different.

You need to broaden your horizons.

Neither I nor Mrs. FiveHour have the baby talk skill. This is concerning for our offspring, but we'll figure it out.

Human experience is broader than you and your girlfriend.

If you spend a lot of time with men entering dementia, it's pretty clear they're two sides of the same coin. Some old men shuffle quietly around, mumble unclear platitudes, and try to be unobtrusive and confusing enough that no one can figure out that they have no idea what is going on. Others get angry, yell, insist that they know what is going on; this works as a coping mechanism because eventually the rest of the family or the people at the nursing home realize that there's no point arguing it'll just upset grandpa more so let's just agree and then we'll figure it out once he's out of earshot.

Both are extremely problematic behaviors in the white house.

As for Iran, there is no reason why they would not believe a threat that was worded more calmly. If anything, I think a calm-worded threat would probably seem more plausible to them.

Honestly, the 4d chess argument I can come up with for this is that Trump is actively trying to make sure the war does not come to a diplomatic conclusion, and as such is utilizing a mix of insults and obvious bluffs to convince the Iranians to stay in it.

Related to my conspiracy theory that this entire adventure is designed to let some air out of the stock market bubble, on the theory that the AI investment process needs to continue in order to achieve AGI, but that a catastrophic sudden bubble pop would torpedo the whole industry, so they needed to do something to bring down the stock market slightly prior to the bubble.

The difference is that lawyers and doctors are relatively evenly spread geographically.

Where NYC is crawling in finance bros, and the bay area is full of tech bros. There's a vast horde of guys all working in the same field at the same companies who went to the same colleges dominating the social and romantic market in these places.

You never have the same phenomenon of seemingly EVERYONE working in medicine or law, outside of colleges for those progressions.

I'd like to think it's a successful example of seeing through bait.

Clausewitz wrote that it's best to threaten the same thing on the same conditions repeatedly, with increasing levels of distress, it imparts seriousness.

I'd add the qualifier consistent high volume winners.

It's one thing to take a chance where you see one, it's another to produce enough ideas to run a fund.

Predicting Democrats won't fumble a good position is bad epistemic hygeine.

Like predicting the Jets to win a super bowl.

I would say it's divided by the question of virtue.

We're in agreement that firing officers when things are going badly can be the right thing to do.

What's blackpilling to me is that this is a strong bayesian update that things are going badly.

I don't entirely buy the DEI explanation, I don't think the friction of changing horses mid stream would be worth it to do right now. Even replacing a mediocre or bad general incurs costs in chaos and readjustment, the "where's the bathroom" problems, which I don't think we'd do in wartime.

Trump seemed to ramble something about the Ford getting hit by missiles and drones from 17 different directions during a speech recently, but the whole thing didn't make much sense.

That's an interesting thesis, but a key theme in it is that there has been a fuckup. My general view is that the Lindy effect rules in leadership: changes beget changes and indicate failure. When you change leadership there is instant friction.

Complicated by CoS being more administrator than commander, so it's more just increased friction on the back-end than replacing McClellan with Grant on the front line.

The reported reason is culture stuff, George wasn't implementing anti-DEI measures as aggressively as Hegseth wanted.

But that feels like something you do in the off-season, not right before a playoff game.

I'm really blackpilling here.

Is there any precedent for the Army Chief of Staff being fired during wartime?

I can't think of anything since the civil war that comes particularly close.

I don't know that any of them were any more useful than tits on a bull, but it's telling that none of us are concerned.

Throw in the Army Chief of Staff I guess.

Maybe he was plowing the Army Chief of Staff

What do Pam bondis husband's tits look like?

You've never met a really good manservant then!

I mean I'm not @grandburdensomecount or @2rafa I don't have a valet. But I've definitely interacted with people in service roles who gave off that "this is what we're doing" vibe. Barbers and waiters come to mind. Mechanics as well.

A really confident barber tells you what you want to do with your hair, informs you that this is how we do things in this shop. Yes you want to trim your eyebrows let me do that quick. No you can't cut your hair that way it will look gay. Now sit back while I do the massage with the vibrating glove from 1950.

There's a whole trope older than dirt of the strong willed servant who dominates his weak master, by his sheer frame.

Noem, Kent, Bondi.

Gabbard's office has been essentially sidelined as well, but she's still there.

Are there more I'm not thinking of?

I'm going to register my concern that at least three high level administration officials with portfolios that include counterterrorism have exited the administration in the past month, as we engage in an assymetric war with the premier state sponsor of terrorism.

This is like at best eighth on the list of weird ejaculations from Trumpworld in the last 72 hours.

De gustibus non est dispuntandum

TLDR: People probably like the things they say they like, even if there are people who pretend to like it they probably aren't the majority and definitely aren't universal.

I've never read Vonnegut, Heller, or DeLillo at all, but I know they are "canonical" in the postmodern genre. I made it 100 pages through Gravity's Rainbow and was earnest convincing myself I was "getting it" before literally slamming the books shut and verbalizing "This is fucking unreadable."

Back in college, I did the thing and carried around the Big Blue copy of Infinite Jest so people could see I was reading it and I stuck pens in various places to show I was capital-R Reading it. I think I made it a little further than 100 pages, but I can't be sure because I can't remember a damn thing about it.

So you haven't actually read any examples of post-modern literature, but you question whether anyone enjoys it because you don't think you would enjoy it if you actually read it?

I think you should probably be very hesitant to assume that no one actually enjoys thing because you don't enjoy thing, even if you yourself pretended to enjoy thing as a signaling exercise.

There are things that in my life, I tried to pretend I enjoyed because I thought it was the cool thing to like. Sometimes these weren't even things that would get me credit among my actual peers. When I was heavy into straight edge punk or metal, I'd listen to bands like Earth Crisis or atonal Norwegian black metal outfits because online forums told me those were the coolest bands to like, and I'd listen to them on my ipod and try to like them even though I didn't actually enjoy atonal screeching and lack of melody. But I thought for whatever reason that was the cool thing so I tried to like it.

At the same time, there are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to believe that I like the things that I like. Amon Amarth isn't a universal taste. My workout playlist contains at least one song that will offend anyone.

My favorite books are full of things that people would call posing, or say that no one actually enjoys. I've read War and Peace four times, and loved it every time. Euros will tell me that there's no way I can possibly enjoy a boring sport like Baseball or Football, Americans will tell me that there's no way I can enjoy a BORING sport like soccer. The arguments over which sexual acts women actually like and which they are pretending to like could fill a new Talmud with disputations in volumes on BDSM, Anal sex, blowjobs; some contend that women don't actually get horny at all! Atheists claim no one can possibly enjoy going to church. People tell me that the gym is a chore and that one can't possibly enjoy it; the gym puritans even tell me that enjoying lifting is sin, indicative that you aren't engaged in proper lifting which must be unpleasant. For every one of my favorite things there's somebody who wants to tell me I don't actually like it I'm just a poseur.

Now for the genre arguments, Chuck Pahluniuk is normally labeled as postmodernist author, and I don't think Fight Club is a book that you can reasonably say that it isn't enjoyable. One doesn't have to like every postmodern novel for the genre to be real or any good, any more than I have to enjoy every piece of scifi for scifi to be real or any good.

It's not that I'm advocating a RETVRN to the business suit. I'm critiquing that we abolished the business suit with nothing to replace it.

I do believe that the American Ivy/Prep tradition is the perfect way for a white American man to dress, and that the suit or something like it is the perfect outfit for most occasions. The suit is aesthetically perfect for the male form. Structured tailoring smooths out your body's imperfections. The lapels broaden the shoulder and slim the waist. The shirt collar frames the face. It's relatively practical and comfortable if you pick fabrics and cuts properly.

But I recognize that wearing a suit and tie is a costume today in most circumstances. It might be a very attractive costume, but it's a costume. For the most part I try to achieve a similar impact with more casual clothing, a chore coat or an unstructured blazer with chinos, a zippered hoodie, etc.

There are lots of other things that can fill that role. There are lots of other ways to create an outfit or dress people well. But we haven't picked one as a society and I think that's a problem that society can choose to solve. We've lost, in most places, the basic "this is how you dress to show respect to those around you" set of rules that make life more navigable.