One day Polly Proposition went out without her context. Suddenly a grammarian leapt out from an alley! “Hey, baby,” he leered, “I’d like to split your infinitive.”
Polly feared he was a serial comma. Feeling tense, she tried to dash away, but the brute caught her.
He removed her parentheses and every article she wore, and told her, “At first I wasn’t sure what gerund you are; I thought you might have been a transitive. But now I see you have a nice figure of speech.” She hoped he was neuter, until she saw his participle dangling right in front of her. But it wasn’t dangling for long; it quickly became like irony at the cite of her.
“Please, sir, I’ve never been inflected, and–”
“Don’t be so demonstrative!” he said. He bent her over a table of contents and made her give him headings. Polly couldn’t believe he made her do verbal! Then he explored her cleft sentence until he exclaimed a large amount of pleonasm.
When he was done he said he was passive voice and he wanted Polly to dominate him, to treat him like her subordinate clause, but she told him she was a nonrestrictive modifier.
Angered, he put her in an inverted position until she was totally redundant, and she felt him in her semicolon. She protested, but he ignored her and plunged into her Deep Grammar. He diagrammed her until he achieved conjunction. After he interjected Polly ran home.
“He totally treated me like a direct object!” she said to her friend Penny Preposition. “I didn’t mean to be naughty… it’s just that my boyfriend, Oxford, is so pronominally possessive. Oh, I’m such an idiolect for going out singular!”
“Poor thing,” Penny sympathized. “Had you ever done that before?”
“No,” said Polly. “He’s the first person! And not only that… He back-channeled me!”
“Oh! You mean he used your assonance?”
“Yes! But that’s not the worst,” Polly sobbed. “He didn’t just take me. In fact, he took me… out of context!” And she broke down in tears.
“You can have him arrested,” Penny said. “Do you know where he lives?”
“It’s indefinite,” Polly wept. “If only he’d been a homophone,” she added.
A few days later Polly missed her period. “Something’s implicit within me!” she bemoaned to Penny.
“Are you sure?”
Nine months later Polly started experiencing contractions, and she soon gave rise to a large set of unintended implications.
The moral of the story:
Don’t be an oxymoron: Never leave your context without your brackets, or your future could be imperfect and for your wayward ways, you’ll pay a syntax.
1) Programming note: For fans of the Red Pill in Fiction series, it’s still very much alive; I’ve just been busy with other stuff lately. Teaser: The next one is actually going to be Blue Pill in Fiction.
2) Hillary Clinton says of blacks, “they all look alike.”
Dems and NeverTrumpers are really squealing in pain over this ad, so we know we’ve got ’em!
Speaking of hostile invaders: Media coverage of the invader caravan has changed from “There’s a caravan and here’s some video of them marching toward us” (what the hell were they thinking with that?) to “That bastard Trump is trying to turn the caravan into a political issue!” Trying to turn it into a political issue!? Like it’s not inherently a political issue!? Like he started it?
Whatever. Their anger at his mentioning this fact proves they know this issue is a loser for them. Hence the “Stop talking about this!” Uh, no. We’re going to talk about it. Loudly and frequently.
I also noticed that the media has largely replaced photos and video of the caravan marching, with maps showing its progress. The left has acquired a clue that vivid images of a hostile force marching toward our border are devastating for them.
And it illustrates how insane they are that this wasn’t obvious to them to begin with.
6) In response to the President talking about the invasion caravan, the left is busting out the “Nazi/white nationalist” stuff.
Wow, in the 1940s Nazis invaded other countries. Now apparently “Nazis” are those who object to invasions!
As if that isn’t bad enough for Evergreen,
“All of this is happening as enrollment at competing schools is up. This year the University of Washington announced it was welcoming its largest freshman class ever. So this is not a regional trend. This is about Evergreen and what happened there last year.”
8) Google employees stage a walkout over Google’s “treatment of women.”
Reposting this today because it’s October first, a good date to put up stuff about skating. If your local rink isn’t open for the season yet, they will be soon. I think I’ll repost this every year on Oct. 1 (until I forget or get bored).
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!
Using Keynesian equations, supergeniuses like me will achieve total permanent economic stability!
How the rest of the world sees liberals:
Forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them seemed like such a good idea! Also, I once again have an octopus stuck to my face, GLAVIN!
How Hillary! sees herself:
I am a supervillain! All the deplorables will fall before me!
How the rest of the world sees her:
“The people were like, ‘We love you, Hillary!’ but then who should intervene but Trump and Comey and Facebook and Russians and the Electoral College and white women who are easily led and let their husbands tell them how to vote…”
How Open border libertarians see themselves:
If I virtue signal hard enough, all these people will remember and be nice to me! Also, look, leftists, look how NOT racist I am! And by the way, I don’t mind this guy’s elbow on my neck at all!
How the rest of the world (including their new “friends”) sees Open border libertarians:
Slather more A-1 sauce on yourself. And be quick about it!
“…and WikiLeaks and racists and misogynists and the Trilateral Commission and a cartoon frog…”
How SJWs see themselves (when they’re telling themselves that they actually believe their own bullshit):
A commenter at the iSteve link provides this quote from someone who worked on the victor’s campaign:
“Memo to potential candidates considering a run someday across America: our only paid television ads for the ENTIRE @ayannapressley campaign were on Telemundo and Univision.”
—Alex Goldstein (@alexjgoldstein) September 5, 2018
2. Leftist psychology:
If we refuse assent to reality: if we rebel against the nature of things and choose to think that what we at the moment want is the centre of the universe to which everything else ought to accommodate itself, the first effect on us will be that the whole universe will seem to be filled with an inexplicable hostility. We shall begin to feel that everything has a down on us, and that, being so badly treated, we have a just grievance against things in general. That is… the fall into illusion. If we cherish and fondle that grievance, and would rather wallow in it and vent our irritation in spite and malice than humbly admit we are in the wrong and try to amend our behaviour so as to get back to reality, that is, while it lasts, the deliberate choice, and a foretaste of the experience of Hell.
(1) July 2018: Twitter and FaceBook stock drop by ~ 20% each! My perspective on this, from a technical securities analysis point of view: Bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
(2) August 2018: Sudden purge of Alex Jones and Info Wars from several fora, such as YouTube, all on the same day.
Reporting on this in the “mainstream” press often takes the side of the censors by calling Jones a “conspiracy theorist.” Um, what? Several different Internet outlets implemented a coordinated strike against him all at once. That is, they conspired against Jones. Now I’ve never perused his videos, but when his political opponents are overtly conspiring against him, calling him a “conspiracy theorist” is simply hot air.
But that’s not the half of it. Prominent voices accuse the President of the United States of colluding with Russia to subvert our elections. This accusation is coming from some of the same people who are calling Jones a “conspiracy theorist.”
Vox Day is right: Projection is one of the Left’s signature features.
(3) The Left never gives up because for the Left, the existence of people who are free is like a red-hot poker inserted into their eye. Every moment of it is unbearable agony. They will never stop trying to destroy freedom and establish their unlimited domination of other people, any more than you could stop trying to remove a red-hot poker from your eye. They never stop; they only pause to re-group and change strategy.
(4) Epic: Man steals date’s car, then uses it for another date (with her God-sister, LOL).
Talk about outcome independence! Skittles Man, you’ve met your master!
Still hasn’t outdone Bring the Movies man, though, who (inadvertently) got one girl to kill another girl in a rage of jealousy over him.
Note to nice guys: Ya know how girls are always telling you, “I just think of you as a friend”?
Well, try ignoring everything a woman says about how you’re mean to her, and responding with an irrelevant text of “Bring the movies,” and she’ll kill or die for you.
As I’ve said before: Take the red pill orally, or have reality administer it to you by enema.
(5)MSNBC Analyst Says It’s ‘Unfortunate’ Voters Shape Public Policy
A quote from MSNBC political analyst Elise Jordan on the tax bill:
“And I think it’s unfortunate that we are designing — that we are designing public policy in a way that, you know, comes down to how you voted in an election,” Jordan said.
As recently as 2004, writer Susanna Clarke was able to satirize anti-democracy sentiment in a passage in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. In the early 1800s in England, a servant has just asked a gentleman named Lascelles for his opinion on an important matter.
“My opinion!” exclaimed Lascelles. He looked all amazement, and only part of it was feigned. “This is the first time I was ever asked my opinion by a footman. Thank you, but I believe I shall decline my share of this…” He thought for a moment, before settling upon the most offensive word in his vocabulary. “…democracy.”
As many people have noted, the more entrenched the left becomes in a society’s institutions, the harder it becomes to make up satire more extreme than reality.
In Salem, the accusers and alleged victims came from a small group of girls aged nine to 19, including Betty Parris and Abigail Williams. In January 1692, Betty and Abigail had strange fits. Rumors spread through the village attributing the fits to the devil and the work of his evil hands. The accusers claimed the witchcraft came mostly from women, with the notable exception of four-year old Dorcas [Dorothy] Good.
So the majority of accusations came from females and were directed at females. Attention, social power, and the elimination of sociosexual rivals, all in one yummy package! Who would have thought that young females would be disproportionately tempted by that!
What we have here is a holiness spiral, with a particularly heavy accusation spiral as a major component. It might be pointed out that a preponderance of females isn’t always true in such accusation spirals, e.g., it wasn’t true in another witch hunt episode in Europe, IIRC. And we know from our current holiness spiral that men certainly can get involved. BUT, two points:
● Once a holiness spiral – part of which is an accusation spiral – is seriously underway, the incentives start impelling people to make accusations, even if they don’t want to, as a preemptive defense mechanism. That incentive affects everyone, so it’s not surprising that both men and women would participate eventually, even if it started with only females.
● Is there any equal-and-opposite case in which it was men disproportionately making the accusations? There are none that I know of.
I’m not arguing that the main problem in a holiness spiral’s accusation component is a problem with women. It’s a problem with power-mad assholes and the dynamics of positive feedback. Still, I think that it is disproportionately women. That is something to keep in mind as we design strategies and tactics to end the current holiness spiral.