WHAT THE FUCK? Why is this even being “reviewed”? The US government doesn’t represent people who aren’t citizens of the US, let alone those who snuck into our country illegally! What the fucking fuck!?
The Washington Post says, “The justices put the case on a fast track and said they will hold a hearing Nov. 30. By then, it probably will be a nine-member court again, if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, giving the court a 6-to-3 conservative majority.”
(No, there will be no 6-3 “conservative majority,” since Roberts always votes with the left when (a) it’s important, and (b) his vote makes a difference to the outcome. We will see if we have an occasional 5-4 sanity majority.)
How can this even be a question that is being asked?!
Why is there no substitute for experience? Can this fact of life be explained in a terse way? Yes, actually. Here’s Ted Chiang in “The Lifecycle of Software Objects,” an otherwise pedestrian story about an attempt to create AI:
Experience isn’t merely the best teacher; it’s the only teacher. If she’s learned anything raising Jax, it’s that there are no shortcuts; if you want to create the common sense that comes from twenty years of being in the world, you need to devote twenty years to the task. You can’t assemble an equivalent collection of heuristics in less time; experience is algorithmically incompressible.
Experience is algorithmically incompressible. That nails it.
Real-world experience is somewhat compressible, of course; to use a thematic example from this blog, that’s why we preach “Chicks like guys who aren’t that into them” to young men. But the application of that idea in the real world is, in technical terms, nuanced as fuck. Memorizing the dictum orients the learner to focus on certain aspects of female behavior, and so accelerates the learning… but just memorizing the dictum doesn’t even get you halfway to using it effectively. That can only be done by the algorithmically incompressible process of going out and interacting with real-world chicks.
In the language of information theory, women are high-information, thus not (completely) compressible.
This is why Claude Shannon was such an unstoppable bad-ass at pickup. (I kid.)
Obviously chicks are merely an illustrative example. It’s much more broad and deep and profound than that; it’s about life in general.
Eddie Van Halen died earlier this month, as I lamented in a recent post. It occurred to me later that most artists don’t attain their peak reputation until after their deaths. Therefore, his reputation is probably going to go up from its already Guitar Mount Everest level to… What’s above Guitar God?
(Update: I’d originally meant Mount Rushmore, but now that I think of it, Mount Everest works too.)
I’d planned on reposting this every year on October first, but I forgot because the goddamn virus bullshit involves closing all the rinks down! Fuck, I’m going crazy! Anyway, if you’re a noob and you can skate in your area (outside or whatever), you might get some benefit from this.
Aright, bitches, ’tis the season, so listen up.
Ice skating is awesome. When you’re going fast it is the closest a human being can get to flying. The American Psychiatric Association defines “not liking ice skating” as a mental disorder. It’s in their diagnostic manual.
I always see a lot of n00bs ice skating, which is great! Here are some tips.
(1) You will fall. Get used to it.
(2) Ice skating is not walking on ice. The physics is different.
When you walk, you push backward with one foot. (See Figure 1.) If your foot has good traction on the ground, it can’t slip back, though, so instead you are pushed forward. (Newton’s third law of motion, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”)
You cannot do this on ice skates, padawan, because you are on a blade that’s like a sixth of an inch thick. If you push your foot straight back, there is not enough area of the blade making contact with the ice to produce good traction. (See Figure 2.) Instead of being planted on the ice and thus propelling you forward, your foot will simply slide back. Then, because you’re a n00b, you’ll fall down. (Newton’s lesser-known fourth law of motion, “N00bs fall down.”)
How do you deal with this? Well, plainly you need more area of the blade making contact with the ice. Simply turning your foot somewhat sideways does it. (See Figure 3.) This gives your foot enough traction, so when you push it back, the only thing that can happen is that the rest of you goes forward.
Meanwhile you are pointing the other foot in roughly the direction you want to go, so you glide forward on that foot. (As per Newton’s fifth law, “Ice is slippery.”)
Then the feet switch roles, with the gliding foot becoming the foot you’re pushing back with, and the pushing foot becoming the gliding foot. Repeat.
Once you learn this, it really is easy and natural.
(3) On falling: One of the problems is that your instincts about righting yourself when you’re off balance are all wrong. Moves that help you regain your balance when you’re on terra firma don’t necessarily help you, to put it mildly, when you’re skating on blades on ice. You have to learn new reflexes (if learned reflexes isn’t an oxymoron). I can’t re-wire your neural wiring that handles these reflexes, so I don’t know what to tell you here, except that you have to practice.
(4) “Crossover,” logically enough, is the term for when you cross one foot over the other. You’ve seen this: It’s that thing a skater does where it seems like his feet are moving independently of the direction his body is traveling in, so it looks like he’s moonwalking or something.
Crossovers function best when you’re turning at high speed and really leaning into the turn. You do this naturally when you turn while running on ground, but when you do that your foot is planted. When you’re skating, in contrast, you continue to glide on that foot as you shift your weight into the turn, so that for a moment the foot is actually moving in a different direction from your body’s center of mass.
Crossovers are a great way to add speed with relatively little effort, because gravity is doing some of the work for you. When you change direction you lean in the direction you want to go in. So you start to fall in that direction. Before you fall very far, though, you put a foot out under yourself so you glide in that direction instead of falling.
By the way, when you take a turn with a fast series of crossovers, it actually is as fun as it looks. Hell, it’s much more fun. There’s a power and smoothness that is like nothing else. Cf. comment above, in re: “flying.”
(5) Control: As long as you’re not going too fast, turning is so easy that it’s practically subliminal. (No crossovers for the moment; I’m not talking about that level of speed.) What is actually going on, of course, is that you’re shifting your weight ever so slightly in the direction you want to go in. But it feels like you’re just thinking yourself into changing direction. Telekinesis!
(6) Efficiency: Another way you can tell n00bs, even after they’ve learned to not fall much, is by how much energy they waste. In extreme cases it looks like they’re expending half again as much energy as they need to per foot-pound of work accomplished.
If this is you, don’t worry; this takes care of itself over time. Your body’s natural reluctance to waste energy will quickly make you adjust so that your motion is economical.
(7) Stopping. Several n00bs at rinks have asked me for advice, particularly about how to stop.
The correct answer is: Stopping is for the weak and timid! Are you a wuss!? Are you!? Huh!? Good, I didn’t think so. Let’s have no more nonsense about stopping.
If you insist, though, you can just point yourself at a wall. That usually works.
All kidding aside: There are basically two ways to slow yourself down, and if you keep slowing long enough you’ll stop.
The first I call the two-feet method: Just point your skates toward each other, while keeping your legs stiff so your feet don’t actually come together. If your feet bump into each other you’ll fall, obviously. But if you hold your feet apart at that angle, the blades will scrape against the ice, slowing you. And if you keep doing it, stopping you.
You can feel and hear the scraping, at least if you’re not at a rink where they constantly blast fucking country music over the sound system at full volume, what the actual fuck, not that I’m complaining or anything, but what the fuck? Don’t they know that playing that shit voids the warranty on your speaker system? Anyway…
The second method of stopping is the much-admired “hockey stop.” That’s the one you think of when I say “how to stop,” where they turn sideways and kick up ice shavings.
Just turn sideways and dig the blade of your leading foot into the ice. You’re also using your trailing foot, of course, but more for balance than friction, at least the way I do it (YMMV). Also, you’re doing some rapid adjustment of your balance, naturally.
When you first try this you’re going to think, “I shall now attempt a hockey stop.” That’s well and good, but you learn faster if you just think, “Shit! I need to stop!” and imagine what you’d do if you really needed to stop suddenly. This makes it more instinctive and less cerebral.
(8) Sharpness matters so your blades dig in. You need this (a) for acceleration, so your pushing foot can bite into the ice, (b) to slow yourself and stop, and (c) to execute a crossover. (Probably for six other reasons that I’m not thinking of at the moment too.) When you’re doing a crossover, the gliding foot has to bite into the ice to a certain extent or the foot will just slide out from under you. This happened to me once when I was trying to take too steep an angle with my gliding foot. Foot shot backward, rest of body went, “Hello, ice!”
The blade has some thickness; it’s not a knife blade. It’s the blade’s edges that are sharp. Once I actually drew blood from my hand accidentally with the edge. But that was probably right after they’d been sharpened; normally blades aren’t that sharp.
(A) Little kids on the ice are cute, but DANGER DANGER DANGER!!! Partly this is because they can’t control themselves yet, and partly because even the ones who can control themselves have no social awareness whatsoever. If they see Mom over there, they will simply turn with no warning in that direction, and if you’re behind them you’re going to be doing some fancy dancing to not hit them. This leads to hilarity and occasional bruises, because of course you’re going to steer yourself into a wall or shift so that you fall, instead of plowing into a little kid.
I recently cracked my elbow into the wall of a rink because I had to dodge a little one who seemed to execute a right-angle turn right in front of me with no warning. I had to do something to avoid smashing into him and ended up saying Hi to the plexi-glass. He didn’t even realize it had happened, but I did get a sympathetic look from someone on the other side of the glass.
They can also turn quite suddenly because their centers of gravity are so low. It’s like they’re equipped with little inertialess drives.
Just remember this:
Little kids on ice = Brownian motion + inertialess drives.
(B) Use your ears as well as your eyes to help maintain awareness of other skaters in your vicinity. Thus you can avoid pulling a “little kid” and turning suddenly just when someone’s coming up behind you.
Caveat: In the corners of the rink, noise bounces around weirdly. Sometimes it sounds like someone is coming up behind you and just about to smash into you. You’re like “Gah!” but when you look around there’s no one within ten yards.
(C) Downhill skating. Sweet! But why didn’t they have this when I was 19? You kids today don’t know how good you have it, let me tell you, when I was your age I had to skate 40 miles to school, and it was uphill both ways! By God!
(D) This is a politically incorrect blog, so an observation about the sexes. Normal people, continue to read; shrieking feminist shrikes, go somewhere else (permanently).
Still with me? OK, a fun observation:
All good skaters have both power and grace, strength and fluidity. But there is a difference between good female skaters and good male skaters. Good female skaters have power – you can’t be a good skater without it – but they have more grace compared to male skaters. And good male skaters have grace – you can’t be a good skater without that, either(*) – but they have more power compared to female skaters. Just a nice little “the world is gendered” observation to affirm normality and freak out the screaming SJWs.
If you’re like most people, i.e. psychologically normal, you understand (there was a time when no one denied this!) that the sexes are different and that the differences, in so many ways, can be a source of delight to everyone. This is just a small example of that.
* Even the most brutal hockey player, 190 pounds of muscle and missing three front teeth, who starts throwing jabs at the slightest provocation, has grace on the ice. If you don’t believe me, Youtube is your friend.
(10) Have fun!
UPDATE: DON’T TEXT OR TAKE SELFIES WHILE SKATING! FUCKING RETARDS!
Speed runs that would make your eyeballs bleed. Insane harmonics. Outrageous end-of-the-world divebombs.
But that was just the start. All this and an awe-inspiring sense of melody, and absolute JOY in playing: The lively, joyful spontaneity of his solos, that I’m-doing-something-crazy grin on his face, the sheer LOVE he had for playing guitar.
Eddie always WAS the band. They changed lead singers like a teenage girl trying on outfits at the mall, but the heart of it was always the guitar. Someone once said that even in the songs that weren’t their best, who cares, because “You always knew there was a solo coming up.” The lyrics, in the early days, probably took about as long to write as they did to sing, and Lord knows you weren’t listening for Alex Van Halen’s just-behind-the-beat drumming (so annoying, stop playing like you have bricks attached to the ends of your drumsticks). No, it was always Eddie’s guitar playing.
The band Van Halen was often mis-categorized as metal, but this was wrong: They were a hard rock band. You could also call them a party band. David Lee Roth, way back in the early days, said, “We play rhythm and blues, shot from a canon.” To get a sense of “rhythm and blues, shot from a canon,” listen to their take on Ice Cream Man from their first album. Unfuckingbelieveable. Play it loud.
From their self-titled debut album:
Eruption, of course. When I first heard that in the mid-1980s, after I had been playing guitar for a couple of months, I blurted, “Is that just one guy?” A lot of people thought he had doubled himself up on the tape. Not a chance; he played it live all the time. (And now I’ll never get to see that! Fuck!)
An underappreciated piece on this album is On Fire, where the guitar work is pure aggression. And yet it’s so full of Eddie’s usual joyful energy. If such a thing as joyful aggression is possible, the guitar work on this song embodies it.
But really, the whole album, with the exception of the perhaps regrettable Atomic Punk.
Second album, Van Halen II: Spanish Fly, which is Eruption squared… on an acoustic. One guitar player in the comments: “Inhuman.” (Another comment, from yesterday: “Angels get to listen to this live now.” Reading that kinda fucked me up.) If you know anything at all about the guitar and have never heard this, click through and listen. After you regain the power of speech you’ll thank me.
And the intro to Women in Love is cool. On this one he does double himself up, or rather, he uses a lot of delay to get the notes to pile up on each other in just the right way. Just listen to the first 0:33.
If you just wanna rock, the best songs on this album are the anthems Outta Love Again and Somebody Get Me a Doctor.
Fair Warning: Unchained. The opening riff is pure rock and roll, pulled down from Plato’s World of Forms and laid down on vinyl. Eddie’s guitar sounds like a fucking chainsaw.
1984: The best guitar work is on Girl Gone Bad and House of Pain, though the latter doesn’t really start blazing until the second half. You can also listen to a semi-isolated guitar track on Girl Gone Bad; the highlight is the solo from around 2:20 to 2:50.
Best of Both Worlds is also a fun stompy romp, not for blazing guitar work, but just because. Once I heard this on the car radio with my mother. When the lyrics got to “You don’t have to die and go to heaven, and hang around to be born again,” she was like, “That’s so true!” LOL, Van Halen, mother-approved!
For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge: Try the solo on Pleasure Dome. Definitely not one of their better songs, and it runs too long. But damn, that solo! Dear God! It goes from about 4:00 to 5:05.
One moment from I Can’t Stop Loving You. Wait, don’t laugh! Yes, it’s a sappy song, but there’s one moment when Eddie’s (very brief) solo, having just been a very simple melody for about 2 bars, suddenly goes into an amazingly fast run across the fretboard. The whole passage is only 2:36 to 2:44. And it’s absolutely fluid! There are other guitarists who can play that fast, but no one I’ve heard could play something that blazingly fast and make it sound so fluid, so natural, so effortless. It’s like water running over some rocks. And this, by the way, is one of the many reasons that Van Halen imitators always sound like exactly that: Van Halen imitators. No one can really copy the man; it’s simply impossible.
I could go on. I haven’t even mentioned highlights from all the albums. But this isn’t supposed to be comprehensive, just to give you an idea what all the fuss is about. Though in a sense this blog post is pointless: If you don’t understand the guitar (or fretted string instruments in general) it might be impossible to convey to you what a master Eddie Van Halen was. (IS, dammit, and always will be The Master.) And if you do have any acquaintance with the guitar, you’re almost certainly already familiar with his work. But on the off chance that you’re not, wow, what a treat you’re in for!
Heaven just gained an awesome guitarist. God, the rocking that there was in heaven last night!
My favorite comment from the last couple of days: Edward Van Halen, predeceased by many stereo speakers.
“Durham’s investigation! Secret indictments! Mass arrests! Any day now! Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnny day now!”
STOP THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. We have been hearing this sort of bullshit for four years. How long does it take for you to learn?
Remember the “thousands of arrests from sealed indictments” that the Q crowd was expecting for Christmas 2017? For fuck’s sake, get a clue.
Just stop. There is not going to be a wave of mass arrests. You know this. We are going to have to defeat the anti-democracy totalitarian insurrectionists the hard and unpleasant way.
And that’s what we’ve been planning for anyway. Ever since it became clear that the left will start a civil war rather than let Trump have another four years. So, weird though it is to say it, a bloody, hard-fought civil war is simply business as usual. Or rather, business as planned.
At Jim’s blog the proprietor recently said,
“If a storm of top level arrests, it is on. If no top level arrests, we have a problem.”
Nah. If no top level arrests, things go as everyone has been expecting, civil war. Not fun, but not a surprise either: it’s what everyone (on both the left and right) who has been paying attention is expecting and planning for.
Mass arrests of leftists in our current political regime is an unthinkable event. It can’t happen. However, our current political regime is not long for this world. Sometime after November 3rd, and possibly not until after January 20th, mass arrests of someone will become not only thinkable but inevitable. There will be mass arrests of either Democrats or Republicans, and probably both.
In the meantime there is no chance that there will be a wave of mass arrests from Durham’s investigation. You know this already, dear reader, but sometimes it can firm up one’s focus to hear something said out loud. You’re welcome.
“The most powerful ideas in history have gotten their power not from asking men to bow but to stand up. Not from subverting their natural power drive but by dovetailing with it.”
The Cominator says:
“Yes and no. Men want to have purpose and use masculine energy for that purpose, but men also want to be a part and submit to something greater than themselves.”
We need to distinguish between revolutionary ideologies and governing ideologies. Or if you like, ideologies that are useful for seizing power and ideologies that are useful for keeping power (what evil people care about) or for maintaining a well-ordered, successful nation (which is what decent people care about, but note this requires keeping power).
Marxism is the canonical example of a revolutionary/power-seizing ideology. It said, as I think revolutionary/power-seizing ideologies always do,
“Some bastards are attacking you; fight back against them!”
In Marxism the details were
“The capitalists are sucking your blood; fight back against them!”
But it could be anything. In the western world right now it’s
“White people are murdering you; fight back against them!”
Marxism is utterly brilliant as a power-seizing ideology. At communism’s height, it ruled over a third of the human race.
Of course, what works for seizing power is not necessarily what works for keeping power or creating a successful nation. Thus communism, while certainly the most successful power-seizing ideology in human history on the time scale of 75 years, didn’t get beyond 75 years. And once it started to collapse its collapse was breathtakingly fast. Boiled down to its essence, without the self-flattering bullshit, the official economic part of communist ideology (as opposed to the power-seizing part) was “We’ll grab all the capitalists’ stuff!” Obviously that’s not a recipe for long-term success.
Those of us trying to oppose the current leftist/SJW holiness spiral and replace it with something tolerable must keep the crucial distinction between revolutionary ideologies and governing ideologies in mind.
Our best revolutionary ideology is simple enough, since all we have to do is tell the truth: There is a large number of people who hate traditional western populations and are planning to get rid of us by various means.
A governing ideology must satisfy a lot of desiderata, obviously. But it cannot have “Some bastards are attacking you; fight back against them!” as a major component.* This is because it must provide a large stake in social stability to a majority of people. Fomenting civil war obviously won’t work.
* A governing ideology must explicitly warn against parasites, the power-mad, and holiness spirals. It must also explicitly warn against the “high-and-low against the middle” revolutionary strategy. But saying “Be watchful for these dangers” is not the same as saying, “We’re being attacked; start spraying bullets in the streets right now!!!”
Trump said something suboptimal about “Yay, legal immigration!” in his 2019 State of the Union speech. When I read it I said to myself, “That’s bad management of the Overton Window, Donald.” That may be a good way to look at it: Managing the Overton Window. No one person controls it, of course, but each person can influence it. Especially the President.
Indeed, it’s important to stretch the Overton Window in political debates, and not to try to just stay within the current Overton Window. The left won over the last half century by stretching the Overton Window, not by operating inside it. They won by saying things that seem insane today, and making them then debatable, then undeniable (e.g. if you want to keep your job) a decade later.
If we try to stay within the current Overton Window, while letting the left define the Overton Window, we will lose.
The left’s propaganda/rhetorical strategy is entirely different from ours. Ours is based on persuasion, on showing reality to people. Theirs is largely composed of various forms of compulsion. In a sense, the left doesn’t really have a propaganda strategy (other than outright lying), if by that you mean trying to convince people. Rather, they infiltrate the information-disseminating professions then start yelling in unison to indicate what the current party line is. Then they enforce it by e.g. trying to make unemployable anyone who deviates from it.
You can’t totally ignore the current Overton Window, of course: not even the left does that. But you must be mindful of the degree to which you can and must contribute to stretching it in your desired direction, as well as staying to a certain extent within it.
A major difference between us and the left, of course, is that they’re shouting insane things while we are shouting sane things.
The strategy of shouting insane things and then enforcing rhetorical compliance works well for the left because individial leftists are the kind of people who love to monitor what the herd’s leaders are saying and repeat it. They do this quite naturally. Thus NPCs, attack swarms, etc.
This is extremely effective for the left on the time scale of decades. But: it makes them vulnerable to holiness spiralling. Every individual leftist wants to make sure that he’s a little to the left of the leftist average to stay safe, but of course that’s not possible; thus the leftward spiral. This is the failure mode of leftism; it’s a major reason that leftism didn’t take over the world millennia ago.
I’m tempted to define leftism as power-hungry people engaging in holiness spiralling.
That is consistent with the memetic drift in the left over the last century. In the early 1900s and until the collapse of the USSR, the core idea of the “left” was socialism. Accusations of e.g. “racism” were just frosting. Now the core idea of the “left” is hating white people, and socialism is merely the frosting. Notice that in the 2016 and 2020 Democrat primary contests, the mainstream left energetically attacked Bernie Sanders and “Bernie Bros,” even though they were more (overtly) socialistic than the other Democrat contenders. That would have been unthinkable 40 years earlier. I imagine Sanders was surprised to find himself no longer protected by pas d’ennemis à gauche. “But I’m to the left of you!” one imagines him crying to the mainstream Dems. “I’m allowed to attack you, but you’re not allowed to attack me!” Poor Mr. Sanders. He failed to understand that socialism is no longer the defining feature of “the left.”
And you thought your worst first date story was bad.
A Massachusetts woman became an unexpected getaway driver after a man she met on a dating app robbed a bank on their first date. Christopher Castillo, the unnamed woman’s would-be Robin Hood, plead guilty this week to armed robbery and three counts of assault and battery on a police officer — all committed on their first date on December 5, 2016 — according to the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office. Castillo was sentenced to three years in state prison for the robbery, plus two years in the Bristol County House of Corrections for violently struggling against and spitting on police who tried to subdue him, according to the district attorney’s office. The woman wasn’t charged — the “worst date ever” story was enough punishment. It all started, the woman told police, when she picked up Castillo from his parents’ home in Chepachet, Rhode Island, and drove him 30 minutes east toward North Attleboro, Massachusetts. She said he drank wine in the passenger seat of her Nissan Maxima (which is also illegal, but he wasn’t charged for that one). The two had never met in person before that fateful day in 2016, she told police. So why would she think anything was wrong when he told her to pull over as they approached a bank? He got out of her car and left her there alone for a few minutes. Then, suddenly, he came running back, sweating with sunglasses, a hat, a gun and $1,000 cash in hand, the woman said. “F**king go,” he told her. She “panicked,” she told police, so she did as she was told.
I don’t think I’ll ever forget the time an attractive woman said, in all seriousness, that she was different because she was really only attracted to tall, good-looking alpha males, who had a little bit, although not too much, of an edge to them. Yeah, that’s totally different from every other woman on the planet….
Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably.
From a social proof standpoint, it’s better to be unattached than to be attached to an unattractive woman.
His girlfriend of some years, who is also an aspiring social media content creator, has published a documentary: ‘my sex is broken‘, in which she, no joke, no irony, explores the grand mystery of why sex with her boyfriend just isn’t so good… a very honest analysis about the general dissatisfaction among feminist women.
‘Honest’ being a relative term: a woman is permanently in denial about what makes her love a man. And so it is with this documentary, which is essentially her ‘honestly’ wondering why her sex is bad, without ever getting to the crux of the question: that she doesn’t really love her boyfriend. The documentary is one big shit-test towards her boyfriend, a shit-test the boyfriend can’t pass, because being the emancipated left-wing prog that he is, he principally refuses to stop her from doing stupid shit. One can imagine their conversations: ‘babe I’m not sure this documentary is a good idea.’ ‘But honey I just need to express myself! These are my feelings, I feel like I must do this. You support me right?’ ‘… Right.’
(5) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster Redux.
Two articles: (A) A sane one, from McCall’s magazine, 1958, “129 Ways to Get a Husband.”
(B) A lame attempt to fisk it in 2018, with wince-inducing results. Surprise! The author of this “Imma strong woman I don’t need no man!” piece writes a column for Psychology Today called Living Single, which says it all. (There’s a photo of her at the link if you’re curious. Summary: No surprises there.)
While the original article has some strange pieces of advice, most of it is reasonable.
A couple of mystifying/amusing ones:
#42, “If you’re at a resort have the bell boy page you.” What? How is that going to lead to romance? They don’t explain.
And #103: “Learn to play poker.” Um… Why?
But it’s also full of good advice to women, e.g.,
#52: “Wear high heels most of the time – they’re sexier!” Damn right! We need to pass a law about this.
And #60: “Go on a diet if you need to.” Duh.
What’s sad is the sour-grapes advice from the author of the 2018 piece. Any young woman who follows this advice is dooming herself to a life of childlessness and addiction to wine and anti-depressants.
E.g. the original article says,
18. Tell your friends that you are interested in getting married. Don’t keep it a secret.
To which the 2018 “Imma strong woman!” doofus responds,
“Tell your friends you have no interest whatsoever in getting married! Don’t keep it a secret. Tell your mother. Tell all your other relatives. Tell all the random people you meet on the street. Declare it on social media.”
The most tragic response is to this:
12. Become a nurse or airline stewardess – they have very high marriage rates.
“Become a person who thinks for herself. They have very high rates of living the life that works for them, rather than the life everyone tells them they should want.”
This is idiotic. First of all, women are not constantly told that they should get married in our culture; they’re constantly told that they should not get married, by the bitter old feminists who have taken over our popular culture.
Second, and more importantly, the advice is tragically misguided— most people, men and women, want to pair up, and in any case refusing to do something because it’s the conventional wisdom is just as stupid as doing something because it’s the conventional wisdom. They are two sides of the same idiotic coin, paying attention to the crowd.
A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex… While men still search for significantly more porn than women, search rates for these more extreme types of sexual content are at least twice as common among women than men.
Those statistics make for fairly surprising reading, but are the facts Dr Seth Stephens- Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, discovered when he was given complete access to PornHub’s search and views data for his upcoming book. “If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women,” he writes.
A woman named Ann Akana goes bi and develops sympathy for guys. My favorite part starts at the 1:45 mark: She and another “bi” chick are returning from a date and the other one says, at the door to her apartment, “Do you wanna come in and make out?” Akana says “Yes,” and they go inside and proceed to do nothing but talk for hours, to her great frustration. Why? Because each one was expecting the other one to make the first move, obviously. Based on a lifetime of habit, each one was thinking, “I’m the girl, so the other person should make the first physical move.” Neither one apparently had the wit to realize the other one was thinking the same thing. Duh! One would think this incredibly obvious, but I guess not to everyone. Akana goes home at 3:00 am, after no sexyfun.
She gets a lot of flak in the comments about other episodes she talks about, but I think it’s unwarranted. At least she’s open-minded enough to sympathize with guys when, e.g., she’s expected to pay for a date with a girl.
(1) Video: Arizona Senator Martha McSally calls CNN “reporter” a “liberal hack” to his face on camera. It’s around the 0:45 mark in the linked vid. I originally saw this clip at RazorFist/Rageaholic (lost that link) and he comments that that moment made him want to propose marriage. That was exactly what I blurted when I saw the clip.
Her: “Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not going to talk to you.”
Me: “Marry me!”
McSally is now selling “liberal hack” T-shirts, bless her.
(2) Speaking of leftist agitprop operatives, here’s a practical definition of chutzpah: Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:
“Trump and his propagandists are actively trying to engineer violent civil conflict, by signaling to white Americans that they are under siege in a race war that they’re losing.”
Unbelievable. A lefty reporter, in the current environment, claiming Trump is stirring up civil conflict? The brazenness of leftist lying really is unlimited.
(3) Starting in early June there was a burst of people arriving at my site from searches involving the idea of a second American civil war. While most search engines now mask the search terms that lead people to your site, not all of them do. There have been occasional searches on this theme over the years, but only two or three per year. Check out the recent ones:
June 7: 1 hit from the search term second american civil war.
On June 8 there were two such terms, the 2nd civil war has started, which generated 4 hits, and possibility of a second american civil war, which generated 1 hit.
June 10: second american civil war is starting.
Jun 11: what a second us civil war would look like 2020
June 12: 2nd american civil war 2020
June 23: the 2nd civil war has started
June 24: will the left start a civil war
June 30: civil war 2020
July 1: when will the left start civilwar (sic)
July 5: can the left win the civil war
July 14: Two, time to give the left war tehy want (sic) and is the united states heading for a civil war
People can see what’s happening.
(4) After the riots of late May through (so far) mid-July, the left is freaking out about Trump winning the November election. An additional reason is the Congressional elections. Now that everyone paying attention knows that Democrats are the party of literally burning buildings down, the Dems’ chances of re-taking the Senate just got much lower, and their chance of losing the House got a lot higher. No wonder they’re freaking out!
I pray that every soccer Mom in the U.S.A. sees Minneapolis and all those other cities burning.
(5) I wonder if social media might, in the last analysis, be good for stopping the holiness spiral short of an all-out civil war. The reason is that it makes the holiness spiral accelerate so fast that normies can’t help but notice.
Nah, pipe dream. Holiness spirals are so inherently unstable by their very nature that they can’t really stop, short of being forced to stop by externally-imposed force. But it is nice that even the “old” brand of leftists like Chomsky – himself pretty damn extreme – are starting to wish the brakes could be applied. That cannot hurt, and maybe it will help.
(6) It’s a notable fact that the right is now the intellectual leading edge of the western world. The left is doing nothing, intellectually, but trying to come up with new ways of calling people “racist” (…sexist, this-aphobe, that-aphobe, etc.). While the right has come up with, to name just a couple, the concepts of holiness spirals, shit-testing (as a concept that is used in political thinking), hypergamy (ditto), Chesterton’s fence (ditto), etc. Intellectually, the left has nothing but “White people are horrible!” and lamely trying to come up with new ways of saying that. The Right is where all the energy, intelligence, intellectual openness, and sheer intellectual alive-ness are. People on the right are not just fighters. We’re intellectually alive and curious and genuinely interested in understanding things. That never existed on the left; it was always just another lie (“left-wing intellectuals”), which they used to help them consolidate power in the universities.
In response to being called out for falsifying evidence, the (black) prosecutor and her defenders called the people calling it out “racist.”
President Trump has been following this case. He should send federal marshalls in to arrest her for conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights, which is a felony. He really should do this. It’s a perfect case for this kind of action. What’s the media going to do to shield her, defend evidence tampering? (Of course they will, but not effectively.) If nothing else the light his tweets shine on it will prevent her from getting away with it. But that’s way too little in response to the crime. And when will we ever get another case this clear?
Twitter (TWTR) is actively exploring additional ways to make money from its users, including by considering a subscription model, CEO Jack Dorsey said Thursday. The move comes as Twitter suffers a sharp decline in its core advertising business.
“You will likely see some tests this year” of various approaches, Dorsey told analysts on an investor call held to discuss the company’s second quarter earnings results. Dorsey said he has “a really high bar for when we would ask consumers to pay for aspects of Twitter,” but confirmed that the company is seeking to diversify its sources of revenue…
Twitter reported second-quarter ad revenues of $562 million, a 23% decrease compared to the same quarter a year ago.
Quarterly ad revenue of $562 million seems nice, but the 23% drop, and other info they have, obviously is making them alarmed, or they wouldn’t consider the subscription model, a desperate move for a social media company.
Ace comments: “Most of the country… remains captive in their own homes with only the internet for diversion, and Twitter still can’t sell ads? LOL.”
Based on [porn website] xHamster’s survey of 50,000 respondents from over 150 countries, Cosmopolitan Magazine reported in May 2019 that “the ideal dream woman is a 25-year-old, 5’5”, Eurasian, bisexual woman named ‘Shy Yume.’” This supposed “ideal” woman has blue eyes, straight, dark, long hair, an “average” body size, “fully shaved” genitals, and is “not a feminist.”
Sounds pretty fucking awesome to me, though I’d go a couple of years younger than 25. How about 20. And who cares what her name is?
Here’s a fitting celebrity. Can you identify her?
It’s actually a digital amalgamation of Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie.