Looks like comedy, at least, is finally getting the picture.
This changes nothing, of course.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sex
Roissy is always worth reading, but this entry is especially worth reposting.
For the rationalist, all of Roissy's hard work can be replicated if one knows only this fact about human sexuabiology:
Women are hypergamous, that is, they seek to mate with males of high status.
Men are polygamous, that is, they seek to mate with as many women as possible.
It's all in the gametes, duh. Male sperm are more than 4.5 orders of magnitude more common than female eggs. Of course hominids would evolve to be picky about where the vastly rarer gametes get applied, and to apply the hyper-common gametes as widely as possible.
For the rationalist, all of Roissy's hard work can be replicated if one knows only this fact about human sexuabiology:
Women are hypergamous, that is, they seek to mate with males of high status.
Men are polygamous, that is, they seek to mate with as many women as possible.
It's all in the gametes, duh. Male sperm are more than 4.5 orders of magnitude more common than female eggs. Of course hominids would evolve to be picky about where the vastly rarer gametes get applied, and to apply the hyper-common gametes as widely as possible.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Some Photos...
Of the end of the War in the Pacific.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of death that the US caused to Japanese civilians is left largely unmentioned. Not to suggest that the acts are comparable, I imagine this blindness is similar to the sort of attitude the Chinese hold of Mao.
There's blood on the hands of all authority. The question then becomes, was it worth it?
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of death that the US caused to Japanese civilians is left largely unmentioned. Not to suggest that the acts are comparable, I imagine this blindness is similar to the sort of attitude the Chinese hold of Mao.
There's blood on the hands of all authority. The question then becomes, was it worth it?
A Tangent on Self-Defense
This is an extremely compelling account of an armed altercation. With the exception of the wounds the author received, I am very pleased with the outcome. Life and property defended? Check. Scumbag got his just desserts? Check.
I do hope the author has recovered.
I also think this is a great example of something that's not often said, because in most self-defense company, it's a social death sentence. While training and repetition are key to a solid self-defense system that stays five steps ahead of the bad guys, the basic human animal is capable of some incredibly quick responsiveness when threatened. The author maintains that his training had lapsed, and he does not know what to attribute his admiral responsiveness to. In one of several Red situations I've been in, I was asleep late at night (circa 2 AM), when several drunken black men fumbled up to my door, without knocking, or making any signs that they'd mistaken my house for someone else's. Upon them making a loud noise, I found myself upright, in a kneeling stance, holding the AR-15 that lives by my bed pointed at them, with the safety off and the sling around my arm in a hasty wrap. This is something I'd never before practiced, I'd never done one repetition, and still my brain went from asleep to automatic to awake and cogent, with everything that needed to happen going on automatically in between. Would I trust that level of training? No. But, sometimes, a simple, constant mindset will be enough to save your life.
The only technical comment I have is that I've always wondered about the potential downsides to the 1911's grip safety. It seems here, my concerns were vindicated. In an era before good drop safeties, I can see the use for such a device, but it seems to do more harm than good these days.
H/T to Tam
I do hope the author has recovered.
I also think this is a great example of something that's not often said, because in most self-defense company, it's a social death sentence. While training and repetition are key to a solid self-defense system that stays five steps ahead of the bad guys, the basic human animal is capable of some incredibly quick responsiveness when threatened. The author maintains that his training had lapsed, and he does not know what to attribute his admiral responsiveness to. In one of several Red situations I've been in, I was asleep late at night (circa 2 AM), when several drunken black men fumbled up to my door, without knocking, or making any signs that they'd mistaken my house for someone else's. Upon them making a loud noise, I found myself upright, in a kneeling stance, holding the AR-15 that lives by my bed pointed at them, with the safety off and the sling around my arm in a hasty wrap. This is something I'd never before practiced, I'd never done one repetition, and still my brain went from asleep to automatic to awake and cogent, with everything that needed to happen going on automatically in between. Would I trust that level of training? No. But, sometimes, a simple, constant mindset will be enough to save your life.
The only technical comment I have is that I've always wondered about the potential downsides to the 1911's grip safety. It seems here, my concerns were vindicated. In an era before good drop safeties, I can see the use for such a device, but it seems to do more harm than good these days.
H/T to Tam
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Free Press, Ladies and Gentlemen!
I haven't seen spin like this in quite a while.
I particularly love how the man explicitly says he wants to cut down on government waste, especially funding for patently useless degrees, and the author manages to convert that into "Rick Scott wants to turn your children into mindless slaves!"
Bravo, indeed.
I particularly love how the man explicitly says he wants to cut down on government waste, especially funding for patently useless degrees, and the author manages to convert that into "Rick Scott wants to turn your children into mindless slaves!"
Bravo, indeed.
Friday, October 21, 2011
A Post About Zombies
Yes, zombies. No, I'm not using that as a cute term for any political group. This post is about actual (or rather, fictional) living dead.
Firstly, zombies aren't real. And no matter how much we may brainstorm about how they might be real, they will never be real. A person assimilated by the nanobot horde is not a zombie, end of story.
But this post isn't about how zombies are fiction, it's about why everyone is so continually obsessed with them.
Well, I think I know the answer. That should be obvious; if I didn't, would I write a post about it?
Many people have their own pet theories for the popularity of the less-intelligent, flesh-eating undead, but I feel that nearly all of them are wrong. I do not think this is a coincidence: I think it's directly related to something Progressives are not supposed to admit about themselves.
Namely, Progressives seek to achieve power via the destruction of all other powers. That's their modus operandi. Reactionaries build towers by stacking one block on top of the other. Progressives build towers by eroding the very earth around them.
This is why apocalypse fiction is so popular with Progressives. If all the world powers are gone, power is within their grasp! They don't even have to be all that resourceful, cunning, or strong. It's just there, for the taking. Hooray!
But zombies in particular? That's a whole new level. Not only are zombies apocalyptic, but the playing field is especially ripe. Zombies range from are you fucking kidding me? easy to vaguely threatening. At their most powerful, they are less threatening than indigenous Africans with sharp sticks. In addition, they've removed any possible human post-apocalyptic competition, since most zombie fiction involves being the last one, or near to the last one alive. The playing field is especially ripe, indeed.
However, in addition to that, zombies are completely morally unambiguous. They're dead, so you can neutralize them, but you're not killing them. They're cannibals, they're decidedly nonsentient, and they're actively falling apart, anyway. In every possible respect, they're an abomination against nature, and it is no less than this that will allow the Universalist Progressive to get a good night's sleep after annihilating scores of them.
So zombies promise a Progressive what he craves: Easily grasped power, at the expense of everyone else, and complete moral unambiguity. Their popularity is entirely predictable.
Postscript: I'm sure somewhere along the line I will get a comment to the effect of but then why are they especially popular with conservatives and libertarians? The answer to this is simple: Because conservatives and libertarians are just another Progressive sect, and more to the point, one that isn't in power. Ergo, their leveling lust is especially great, leading to a strong affinity for this type of fiction.
Firstly, zombies aren't real. And no matter how much we may brainstorm about how they might be real, they will never be real. A person assimilated by the nanobot horde is not a zombie, end of story.
But this post isn't about how zombies are fiction, it's about why everyone is so continually obsessed with them.
Well, I think I know the answer. That should be obvious; if I didn't, would I write a post about it?
Many people have their own pet theories for the popularity of the less-intelligent, flesh-eating undead, but I feel that nearly all of them are wrong. I do not think this is a coincidence: I think it's directly related to something Progressives are not supposed to admit about themselves.
Namely, Progressives seek to achieve power via the destruction of all other powers. That's their modus operandi. Reactionaries build towers by stacking one block on top of the other. Progressives build towers by eroding the very earth around them.
This is why apocalypse fiction is so popular with Progressives. If all the world powers are gone, power is within their grasp! They don't even have to be all that resourceful, cunning, or strong. It's just there, for the taking. Hooray!
But zombies in particular? That's a whole new level. Not only are zombies apocalyptic, but the playing field is especially ripe. Zombies range from are you fucking kidding me? easy to vaguely threatening. At their most powerful, they are less threatening than indigenous Africans with sharp sticks. In addition, they've removed any possible human post-apocalyptic competition, since most zombie fiction involves being the last one, or near to the last one alive. The playing field is especially ripe, indeed.
However, in addition to that, zombies are completely morally unambiguous. They're dead, so you can neutralize them, but you're not killing them. They're cannibals, they're decidedly nonsentient, and they're actively falling apart, anyway. In every possible respect, they're an abomination against nature, and it is no less than this that will allow the Universalist Progressive to get a good night's sleep after annihilating scores of them.
So zombies promise a Progressive what he craves: Easily grasped power, at the expense of everyone else, and complete moral unambiguity. Their popularity is entirely predictable.
Postscript: I'm sure somewhere along the line I will get a comment to the effect of but then why are they especially popular with conservatives and libertarians? The answer to this is simple: Because conservatives and libertarians are just another Progressive sect, and more to the point, one that isn't in power. Ergo, their leveling lust is especially great, leading to a strong affinity for this type of fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)