Phylum of Alexandria

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't identify as atheist because that's simply not what I believe - or at least it indicates a surety of belief that I don't share.  But if I did, I definitely would not be ashamed in order to try to shift this very apparent stigma.

The stigma is certainly there, and if people like the label, they shouldn't fear using it. I just find it inadequate, and would rather have a conversation about what I believe, what I don't, and what I have no idea about.

Obviously atheism isn't a religion, but most people who call themselves atheists do espouse a particular philosophy on the world, on knowledge, and on human living. I eventually became dissatisfied with the word for this reason: why emphasize what you don't believe rather than what you do believe? 

Of course, saying "I subscribe to philosophical naturalism, empirical skepticism, and some soft version of secular humanism" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well.

But I've come to accept that thorniness as a feature rather than a bug. It invites discussion with those who are open to discussion, and it denies an easy label for those who want a spat with an enemy tribe.

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

The Book of Mormon,

I have a Book of Mormon too, but it wasn't free. It cost several follow-up visits to my door where I had to tell them to fuck off.

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What the USA needs to be saved from is godless Christians. The American right is full of them. Godly Christians are mostly very apolitical about their faith.

No godless man may sit the whitestone house's chair!

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Within Japan, as in other countries, those who consume more violent media are more likely to be violent themselves. That the overall rate of violence is lower in Japan is due to all the other cultural differences they have. 

I'm also dubious of the claim that Japanese media is absurdly violent by most standards.

Is it possible to find violent media? Sure, especially in manga or anime.

Is it more violent than the torture porn horror flicks that have proliferated in the US? Are the most violent titles anywhere near as popular as the Saw series was? 

It's also important to note that streaming and even cable TV are not very common in Japanese households even now, certainly not the ubiquity that we currently enjoy. Internet searches make everything easier to get, of course, but we've had primo access to violent content for much longer.

(I guess this comment is of questionable value in the US politics thread, so I will emphasize the violent nature of US pop culture, which I would say far surpasses that of Japan. Also: they don't have guns...we have easy and unfettered access. They have great social safety nets, we are turning into Saudi America).

It speaks to my great distrust of the current Supreme Court majority that every new case like this (where a minor technical dispute could be used to great destructive effect, to those so inclined) gives me acid reflux:

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/3/25/24108640/supreme-court-january-6-insurrection-fischer-united-states-obstruct

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Wtf did I just read? 

Did anyone expect something more coherent?

The most coherent pro-MAGA take is the most nakedly cynical one, like Steve Bannon's accelerationism. All else is some mix of compartmentalization, whataboutism, conspiratorial thinking, deep grievance, and wounded egos. In other words, a cranial zone thoroughly flooded with shit.

On 3/18/2024 at 4:46 AM, Liffguard said:

It's a genuine problem. Digitial storage does not actually appear to be all that durable long-term, contrary to the idea that something is effectively permanent once it's on the internet.

I would suggest that if you've already paid for the tracks once and now lost them, there's nothing unethical in just pirating them now to restore them. But of course, in the age of streaming, there's significantly less demand for pirated music and therefore no guarantee that you'd actually be able to find the same tracks again anyway.

In essence, in the digital age it's apparently surprisingly easy for a particular piece of art or culture to just...disappear.

With respect to commercial video streaming, one of the quirks of our current age is that it's much easier to get ahold of random trash from my childhood than it is to watch a more culturally important or daring work of any age. 

Like, if I had to bet that I could readily watch Samurai Pizza Cats over any given masterpiece by Abbas Kiarostami, my money is on Samurai Pizza Cats.

There are ways to get to certain classic or arty films for now, but the priorities and profit incentives are crystal clear: nostalgia and pleasant distractions are the way to go.

So I wouldn't bet on the steady availability of anything but blockbusters and random junk from people's childhoods.

What to watch this weekend? Lawnmower Man it is...

15 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Why do you want more of that? 

Revenge, and boredom.

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Politics patterning after pro-wrestling is a terrible, terrible thing.

Decadence, plain and simple.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m on the “dark side” because I say supporting the guy convicted of sexual assault, who says he wants to be a dictator, who says he will not support our NATO allies if they suffer an invasion is a poor choice, and because I believe you are smart enough to see how you are lying to yourself… right…

You're on the dark side because you want politics to be serious and boring, rather than apocalyptic LARPing for bored, lonely people.

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

This is the trilogy that defeated me. They're just so ridiculously massive, and I'm still stuck on To Green Angel Tower Part 1 and can't work up the motivation to finish this ridiculous beneamoth. I feel like I'm being trolled every time I try to pick it up again. 

Well, to be honest, I'm doing this series via audiobook. Andrew Wincott does the reading, and he's pretty good (despite most of the non-human characters sounding similar). I too was intimidated by the massiveness of Book III, but I figure with the audiobook, it'll be more like a gargantuan radio play.

(You've also hit on my shameful relationship with War and Peace and Gravity's Rainbow. They're looking down on me from my bookshelf as I type this)

I'm finally digging into Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, currently close to finishing The Stone of Farewell.

I have a lot of thoughts about how it does and does not connect with ASOIAF. GRRM was clearly influenced by it (he has said as much).

But I also think he saw a bit of his old work in it. Some characters and passages recall the more fantasy-leaning stories GRRM wrote in decades past.

My guess is that he saw a kindred spirit doing fantasy right; and concluded that his own fantasy story could be a compelling way to bring a lot of his own themes and motifs into a grand and coherent narrative world.

In any event, Memory is more high-magic than I prefer, but I like William's characters, and often love his prose. I'm eager to see how the story develops.

6 hours ago, mcbigski said:

OTOH, one of my golf crew is totally Republican, except for being anti Trump.  I assume he grew up loving big brother media, and he does seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but listening to hear him say how awful Biden is but he still can't vote for Trump makes my head spin.

"Je suis l'Empire à la fin de la decadence…"

I guess I didn't spell out why I asked about those Haley voters in the first place. It's because Kal mentioned 2016 as a reference point. Third party shenanigans aside, I don't think 2016 is a good reference anymore.

Wouldn't 2020 be the more appropriate reference point? That election had some portion of conservatives voting for Biden but for other Republican candidates down-ballot. And even that election was before the January 6 insanity.

2024 has few good reference points, in truth. Trump is running as an incumbent, but is technically not an incumbent (essentially he's an incumbent in the minds of people who assert that he won in 2020). In 2021, most Republicans wanted to move on from January 6 and pretend it never happened; some people were outright disgusted. I'm not saying these people are guaranteed to vote against Trump; many have shifted to the party line narrative, while others will equivocate to assuage their discomfort. I think of these effects in terms of tendencies, which will depend in some part on the plausible deniability that Trump will offer to more well-informed conservatives as he runs. And yet, he is currently offering no convenient off-ramp for the more well-meaning voters: not only will he not "move on" with Jan 6, he's calling the insurrectionists "hostages," and promising them pardons.

It's not crazy to think that the chunk of conservatives who split their 2020 tickets against Trump will do the same in 2024. Given all that's happened, it seems more likely than not. 

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

As I've said before the main way Biden wins is by making people very aware of how bad Trump is and leaning on the dissatisfaction and disapproval of Trump, but in general most people who vote Republican are going to vote Republican regardless of other factors. 

I don't disagree with this basic assessment, except that in the most important swing states, a small margin of disaffected conservatives can have a big impact on the electoral results. Those rare well-informed purple state voters may end up mattering quite a bit.

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except in the way it matters - in polling. It might be a good thing to fuck up all the other races, but I don't know that that matters as far as making Trump less electable. Trump in 2016 showed how relatively unimportant paid advertising is when he gets billions in free media, and that hasn't changed even one small bit; if anything, it's gotten a lot worse. 

Just wondering, what is your take on the 20-30% of Nikki Haley voters? There numbers roughly track the percentage of conservatives who report believing that Trump lost the 2020 election, and Biden legitimately won. You don't think that's a major vulnerability for Trump? Especially considering that he's been doubling down on his Jan 6 insurrection rhetoric rather than downplaying it?

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Don't forget "wooder" and "liberry", which Philadelphians still say to this day. Not me; when I got to college I realized how awful I sounded and mostly trained that shit away.

I went to a private Christian school out of the city for elementary school, and I quickly realized that my distinct pronunciations had to go. If any come back up, it's usually when I'm tired. But "wooder" and "liberry" and "donit" are gone for good, unless they creep back when I'm in a retirement home.

Aileen Cannon shows her rank ignorance and partisanship with every decision she makes. I think lawyers throw around terms like "writ of mandamus" because they want to sound like wizards, but I agree that the prospect of Jack Smith reaching out to the 11th circuit court is get closer and closer. I wouldn't break the glass just yet, but I think it's coming.

https://www.newsweek.com/aileen-cannon-trump-jury-instructions-presidential-records-act-1880757

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Say the AG seizes all of Trump's FLA properties and Trump towers.  How does that actually affect the election?  At the end of the day he's still going to be in the top .1 % of Americans as far as wealth goes.  Like beyond the schadenfreude angle, what does anyone expect the consequences of this to be other than his personal wealth being diminished, but in a way that still keeps him living a life of stupid-level luxury?  

I'm hoping, and it's a reasonable hope, that it makes Trump more desperate, distracted, sloppier, and loonier on the campaign trail. I'm hoping that RNC donations are wasted to fund his lifestyle and legal woes rather than actual campaigning.

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I reflexively deduct 50 IQ points from people who pronounce “nuclear”… “nucular”.  I shouldn’t… but I do.

Sometimes my childhood Philly accent pops up and I say "defully" instead of "definitely." At least the "nucular" folks are adding a syllable rather than subtracting one.

Made some more of that excellent jalfrezi (thanks again @AncalagonTheBlack), this time with some aloo gobi as well. The flavors played off of one another really well. Great combo platter.

Just now, Kalbear said:

The idea that he's this amazing businessman and that's what he's running on now was barely true in 2016; it's definitely not true now. 

It was definitely true in 2015 and 16, and even before, with The Apprentice cementing that perception in people's heads. That was a big component of how his base came to like him. They loved the notion of a millionaire businessman who sounded like a blue collar grunt. They related to his roughness, and eventually accepted the idea that he could be their millionaire; the guy who fights for them. Yes, there were plenty of other elements in the mix, and the perceptions of the base underwent some massive transformations over time, but his businessman persona was an important ingredient. It's been fundamental to Trump's whole identity for as long as he's been in the public spotlight; it can't not be an issue at this point.

But I'm really talking more about his success in general, political as well as in business. The whole Big Lie was birthed and fueled by Trump's massive self-confidence, and in the inevitability of his will to power. I won because I said so, and I'll prove it to you by doing what I want. The more he looks like a loser, the more that self-confident narrative sounds like BS. People will see that in fact he always has been a pathetic creature.

I'm not talking about mass defections, mind you; people who want zero taxes will justify anything. But among that 20-30% of Haley voters, there are portions that could be swayed not to vote for him, for various reasons. Him being a terminal loser and incompetent being one of them.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You misunderstand on a lot of levels. Trump's power is derived from people liking him. He has successfully framed all of this as attacks by corrupt enemies and can easily explain it away. The perception for a civil trial is not going to cause him any real issues. 

The source of Trump's power is likely not one thing, but anyway, people loving him is more about his base, the MAGA-faithful. That doesn't get him across the threshold in a general election. There are plenty others who are more mixed on him, or at least a bit more circumspect. But part of the reason people who are mixed on him give him a chance is because they think he's an eccentric but successful businessman.

And even people who hate the man can sometimes unknowingly buy into the narratives he sells, such as the idea that MAGA is an unstoppable force, or that he is. A successful campaign against him will attack all such narratives. And his real failures can work against him in this way as well.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Mostly, however, I'm talking about the actual problems this is going to cause him. The idea that his properties and assets are going to be seized is a beautiful fantasy that I'm sure people can happily get off on, but it isn't going to actually happen. Why? Because when you owe someone $454 million it isn't your problem, it becomes theirs. They don't want to have to put liens on property and seize assets because that is going to be even more litigation and problems and hassle, and they'll likely not see that money, like, ever. They'll either settle for pennies on the dollar or they'll balk and give him more time. Possibly both. 

I am agnostic on the problems it raises with respect to his assets. I'm more focused on how it can affect his chances as a candidate. For instance, this businessman can't afford to pay his bond for a fraud trial? Sounds like the claims that he was inflating his wealth were true after all. More practically, if he's funneling all of the RNC's funds to his court cases, he's limiting resources for campaign spending. Not just his, but other Republican candidates as well. 

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh no! I'm sure that this will be the end of Donny Trumparino

We certainly shouldn't bank on it, but so much of Trump's power is derived from perceptions about his success, and recently about his inevitability. To the ultra-faithful, nothing will shatter the brand. But to everyone else, he's looking and acting more and more like a loser.

There will likely never be one thing that takes him down. But collectively, they can compound and help do him in. Hopefully by making him an incompetent candidate in the coming election.