Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

Can't wait to call into Amazon customer service and get Ong.

[OngBonga]

Apparently their main employer link is Direct Line, they're insurers, but I'm really not interested in taking phone calls and selling insurance. But they do say they have lots of opportunities for those who complete the course, so hopefully there will be something more appealing for me.

Pretty much done, we've got one more day but we had a good group and we flew through the work in four days, so tomorrow we just need to show up to tick the "attended" box. I think they have to allow five days in case there's a moron or two who ask stupid questions and take forever to answer simple questions. Given it's the jobcentre sending people on this course, there's a high chance of getting stupid people. Seems like we were lucky.

[boost]

congrats Ong

re: The Slap

Ong, I think you're conflating the very human impulse to act out violently in response to certain words with violent reactions to words being justified. There are all sorts of "natural" impulses that should not be carried out in modern society. It's far from perfect, but society is a complex web of rules and norms that mitigate our worst impulses. I believe the reason that a (to me) surprising number of people side with Will is that they, like you, are being brought back to a moment in which they were unable to act out violently but wanted to-- Will's successful, contained, and in the moment unpunished violent act encapsulates the ideal fantasy of responding to offense with violence.

This is all understandable, but taking the leap from vicariously enjoying this violent outburst to justifying it because it was satisfying is wrongheaded. If this is to be a sanctioned act of violence, the implicit implications for how society works are dark. We essentially end up back in an honor culture where might makes right. How? Well, just flip the two people's sizes and then exaggerate them. A ripped comedian makes a joke that offends a short scrawny man's wife. What chance does the offended have at setting things straight on the terms that Smith did? Is that really the world you want to live in? Where body builder comedians, and only body builder comedians can freely play on and over the line? Or is a less physically imposing offended party allowed to use weapons, or enlist friends to set things straight? I mean, really, follow the implications and tell me if its a world you want to live in, or if instead you just chose a side because you got some vicarious satisfaction.

[OngBonga]

There's a difference between justifying a violent act an empathising with a violent act. I'm empathising, not justifying. What he did is not ok. But my experience shows that even I, a non-violent person, understand there's a fine line between restraint and a fight. And as much as we might try our hardest not to be, we're all just animals, with primal instincts. Not everyone can control them equally. It's not about the world I want to live in, it's the world I do live in. You're an optimist and I'm a realist.

We essentially end up back in an honor culture...

What makes you think we ever stopped having such a culture? Most people have a sense of pride. Huge respect to those who don't, because it's a barrier to rational thought. But most of us do. I certainly do. And there's no better way of hurting my pride than to insult the girl I love. That's the empathy I'm showing Smith.

[CoccoBill]

I don't get what there is to disagree or even discuss about the slapgate. They both acted poorly, Smith more so. End of story.

[Jack Sawyer]

PokerStars, MicrostakesHold'em No Limit - 10/20 (3 ante) - 6 players


fumikotakaro (UTG): 1,500 (75 bb)
MT-Cuervo (MP): 1,500 (75 bb)
mio.leonardo (CO): 1,500 (75 bb)
Jizzy Sawya (BU): 1,500 (75 bb)
Shicolaii (SB): 1,500 (75 bb)
celled (BB): 1,500 (75 bb)

Pre-Flop: (48) Hero (Jizzy Sawya) is BTN with K♠ K♥
3 players fold, Jizzy Sawya (BU) raises to 60, 1 fold, celled (BB) calls 40

Flop: (148) 5♥ 4♥ 5♦ (2 players)
celled (BB) checks, Jizzy Sawya (BU) bets 80, celled (BB) calls 80

Turn: (308) T♥ (2 players)
celled (BB) checks, Jizzy Sawya (BU) bets 200, celled (BB) calls 200

River: (708) J♣ (2 players)
celled (BB) checks, Jizzy Sawya (BU) ???

[OngBonga]

lol "jizzy"

In England, jizz is slang for semen.

As for the hand, this is marginal. Depends on reads. This appears to be the first hand, given everyone has identical stacks. That complicates matters. If villain has reason to believe we're firing this river with ace high or a hand like we have, then he can continue slow playing a flush or better. I think I'd just check this back, any bet commits us and we're going to puke if he jams. But against a lot of people we're missing value by checking.

If this is a reload MTT then I'd just jam and reload if we're beat, villain can call light given he can also reload.

More info needed.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAssho...to_dairy_milk/

I love these AITAs where you read the title and think "well obv. you're the asshole." Then you read the post and realise the other person 100% had it coming.

[OngBonga]

That's a fucking great title, made me laugh out loud. I haven't even started reading it.

[OngBonga]

Not the asshole.

I used to live in a house with several people, there was one person who just really didn't make any effort to get along with the rest of the house. She would invite her twat friends over where they would belittle the rest of us, giggling about whatever they were whispering about. She got furious if people helped themselves to her milk and stuff like that to the point she would label her things in the fridge, and even draw lines on the carton so she knew how much milk she had. Obviously, being an immature twat myself back then, I (and others) would help ourselves to her milk and then top it up with water. Her name was Lynette, and if we called her Lynn she would get shitty and remind us her name was Lynette, so we started calling her Lynette-t-t-t-t-t. I was hilarious. It didn't take long before she fucked off.

In my current house, I share it with two friends, and we pretty much take it in turns to buy milk. They drink coffee with lots of milk while I drink tea with a drop of milk, so they get through a lot more than I do, but I never ever complain. It's cheap. It's their house, they pay the bills, I just pay rent. I'd be a complete asshole if I moaned at them about this.

Bottom line, living with people is about compromise and tolerance. If you're incapable of these basic things, live alone.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sharing milk is not a big deal she says.

Then share back, FFS.


I'm lactose intolerant, but I take no personal responsibility for what I ingest.

Well... Good luck with that.

[Poopadoop]

My favourite part is where she treatens to call the cops on her roommate because the milk she stole made her shit her pants. I'd love to see that go to court.

[Jack Sawyer]

lol "jizzy"

In England, jizz is slang for semen.

As for the hand, this is marginal. Depends on reads. This appears to be the first hand, given everyone has identical stacks. That complicates matters. If villain has reason to believe we're firing this river with ace high or a hand like we have, then he can continue slow playing a flush or better. I think I'd just check this back, any bet commits us and we're going to puke if he jams. But against a lot of people we're missing value by checking.

If this is a reload MTT then I'd just jam and reload if we're beat, villain can call light given he can also reload.

More info needed.

Pretty much the very first hand of a freezeout mtt, 5.50 (I think)

[OngBonga]

Freezeout huh?

I think we should check it back. With no reads, he's bb and could have literally any two cards. Once you think he can click buttons with 52o there's nothing he can't have. There's 12 combos of boats and quads even if he folds T5/J5/54o, there's tons of flushes, while we can only realistically expect value from, what, 66-99 maybe? Some AT that floated? Some Ax straight draws that fold river. The more I think about this, the more clear a check it is. There's very little that we beat that can call a bet, we puke when he jams over a 1/3 pot river bet, and we're nearly always losing when he snaps off a river jam. We're getting him to fold nothing we lose to, frankly I think it's likely we're beat. When we're not, he's nearly always folding, or can only call a tiny bet, which he might jam over as a bluff.

Yeah, check back.

[boost]

There's a difference between justifying a violent act an empathising with a violent act. I'm empathising, not justifying. What he did is not ok. But my experience shows that even I, a non-violent person, understand there's a fine line between restraint and a fight. And as much as we might try our hardest not to be, we're all just animals, with primal instincts. Not everyone can control them equally. It's not about the world I want to live in, it's the world I do live in. You're an optimist and I'm a realist.

Ok, I think we see it in a very similar way. I'm not sure I'm an optimist-- ofc I get that we're all imperfect humans, but establishing and holding ourselves to ideals is how we best mitigate the worst parts of our humanness.

What makes you think we ever stopped having such a culture? Most people have a sense of pride. Huge respect to those who don't, because it's a barrier to rational thought. But most of us do. I certainly do. And there's no better way of hurting my pride than to insult the girl I love. That's the empathy I'm showing Smith.

Yeah, I mean, we don't live in an honor culture as compared to the cultures of the past and some contemporary cultures and subcultures. Ofc there are still elements of honor culture in western culture, but far fewer and that's a good thing.

[boost]

I don't get what there is to disagree or even discuss about the slapgate. They both acted poorly, Smith more so. End of story.

There's a ton to talk about because people's response to it reveals a lot about their core values. A lot of people apparently don't have core values, don't understand the implications of the values they do espouse, or have troubling core values.

[OngBonga]

Ofc there are still elements of honor culture in western culture, but far fewer and that's a good thing.

It still exists, we just try to be more civilised about it these days. Where a law has been broken in the act of dishonouring someone, we can restore honour by pressing charges. If someone headbutts me, I can have the police investigate and potentially see the offender go to prison. That would satisfy my honour. Or I could kick him in the balls and punch his nose, that too would satisfy my honour. The latter is actually preferable, probably for both parties. I'd rather have a nosebleed that go to prison.

In Japan, a particularly civilised Western country, honour is still exceedingly important. If you dishonour someone, that's the biggest faux pas you can commit. Of course, it's great that these honour issues are no longer settled with a fight to the death, like back in the Samurai days, but it's still a very important part of their culture. And given we're talking about a society that is probably the most advanced in the world, who are we, in our inferior societies, to say that it's a bad thing? Japan shows us that you can defend your honour and still be civilised.

[Poopadoop]

It still exists, we just try to be more civilised about it these days. Where a law has been broken in the act of dishonouring someone, we can restore honour by pressing charges. If someone headbutts me, I can have the police investigate and potentially see the offender go to prison. That would satisfy my honour. Or I could kick him in the balls and punch his nose, that too would satisfy my honour. The latter is actually preferable, probably for both parties. I'd rather have a nosebleed that go to prison.

In Japan, a particularly civilised Western country, honour is still exceedingly important. If you dishonour someone, that's the biggest faux pas you can commit. Of course, it's great that these honour issues are no longer settled with a fight to the death, like back in the Samurai days, but it's still a very important part of their culture. And given we're talking about a society that is probably the most advanced in the world, who are we, in our inferior societies, to say that it's a bad thing? Japan shows us that you can defend your honour and still be civilised.

Reductio stream-of-consciousnessmo.

Basically though, you're arguing for a mindless revenge-based culture where every bad deed must be avenged by another bad deed, or else we lose "honour."

First of all, we don't lose honour by not avenging every wrong done to us, we show self-control which is a very respectworthy quality, something that civilisation relies on. If every time someone cut me off in traffic, I chased them down, dragged them out of the car, and slapped them, that doesn't make me an honourable man, it makes me a giant baby. Moreover, by that same code of honour, they would be required to respond to my escalation with further escalation, and so on, until one of us eventually murdered the other. This is a retarded code to live by.

Sticking to the Smith-Rock affair, words were countered by violence. That type of escalation isn't justified, ever. I agree with cocco there that it's a pretty straightforward situation.

[CoccoBill]

How is Japan "a particularly civilised Western country"? Like the same Japan that has tentacle pedo porn, used underwear vending machines and cheese-flavored Kitkats? What they don't have is law prohibiting racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Corporal punishment of children was legal until 2020. Probably no need to mention their work culture or suicide rates. Honor codes still being relevant is IMO another strong argument against their civility. That Japan?

"...a society that is probably the most advanced in the world" eh. They might have some advanced tech in use, but that doesn't make the society advanced. Most of their culture is thousands of years old, the opposite of advanced. I absolutely love Japan and their culture, don't get me wrong, but they definitely should not be used as a benchmark for an advanced civilization.

[Poopadoop]

How is Japan "a particularly civilised Western country"?

Based on their porn alone, I'd say Japanese culture is pretty messed up really.

Don't get me wrong, I love Japanese women. I'd just like to see one having sex in some context that doesn't make me feel queasy about it one way or another.

[OngBonga]

If every time someone cut me off in traffic, I chased them down, dragged them out of the car, and slapped them, that doesn't make me an honourable man, it makes me a giant baby.

Sure, but you're lunging in here with a silly example like your everyday minor annoyance, instead of something like being headbutted, a situation which requires some kind of response, whether that be the "civilised" legal response or the "uncivilised" kick in the balls and punch in the nose.

Sticking to the Smith-Rock affair, words were countered by violence. That type of escalation isn't justified, ever.

Would you be saying the same if a white comedian decided that extreme racism was funny, and a black man stepped up and smacked him good and proper? I would say that violence was close to being justified, at least more so than if someone simply called you an asshat.

There are situations where words can justifiably result in violence. If you don't accept that, you're basically saying that you would tolerate someone relentlessly shouting in your face, with all sorts of racially motivated insults, threats to your health, threats of sexual violence against your wife/sister/mother, these are all "just words". If you're honestly saying that there are literally no words that someone could utter that would result in you acting violently, then fair play to you. You're in the minority. Even a court can find some legal justification for violence in some cases.

[OngBonga]

As for Japanese culture, take a look at their crime statistics. Sure they have some weird cultural fetishes, but wanking into used underwear isn't something I would call "immoral", so quite why anyone would use it as an example of their society not being civilised is strange to me. Seems a bit judgemental, frankly. And did a Finn really just point to their suicide rates?

I absolutely love Japan and their culture, don't get me wrong, but they definitely should not be used as a benchmark for an advanced civilization.

I respect the Japanese culture because they are so well mannered, they're incredibly technologically advanced, and their crime rates are ludicrously low for such a large country. They are head and shoulders above USA and UK.

Granted, placed like Finland, Sweden and Iceland run them close, but the population of these countries is tiny compared to Japan. Japan achieves a high quality of life and low crime despite having the largest city in the world. They set an incredible benchmark. I couldn't give a fuck about cheese flavoured Kit-Kats, nobody is making me eat one.

[Poopadoop]

Sure, but you're lunging in here with a silly example like your everyday minor annoyance, instead of something like being headbutted, a situation which requires some kind of response, whether that be the "civilised" legal response or the "uncivilised" kick in the balls and punch in the nose.

But your example is worse because the initial act is one of violence, and mine wasn't. An act of violence in response to violence is different than an act of violence in response to something non-violent. That's the whole point.

Would you be saying the same if a white comedian decided that extreme racism was funny, and a black man stepped up and smacked him good and proper? I would say that violence was close to being justified, at least more so than if someone simply called you an asshat.

Bolded for emphasis.

One might go as far as to say "he was asking for it," but one could also say there was a better way to respond.

There are situations where words can justifiably result in violence. If you don't accept that, you're basically saying that you would tolerate someone relentlessly shouting in your face, with all sorts of racially motivated insults, threats to your health, threats of sexual violence against your wife/sister/mother, these are all "just words". If you're honestly saying that there are literally no words that someone could utter that would result in you acting violently, then fair play to you. You're in the minority.

Luckily I don't tend to find myself in these situations where someone comes at me out of nowhere and starts screaming in my face.

Let's say instead (more realistically) it was an argument and was getting more and more heated. The person who throws the first punch is always in the wrong there, end of. Otherwise every single person could justify an argument excusing their using violence.

Even a court can find some legal justification for violence in some cases.

I don't think I've ever heard of this. Do you have an example where a judge said "it's ok that you battered him because he called your mum a ho."?

They might consider it a mitigating factor, i.e., it's not [I]as bad[I] to hit someone after they assault you verbally than before, but the courts tend to draw a pretty clear line between words and violence afaik.

[Poopadoop]

wanking into used underwear isn't something I would call "immoral", so quite why anyone would use it as an example of their society not being civilised is strange to me.

Et tu, la banane?

I was referring to the rape-porn, the incest-porn, the humiliation-porn, and the hamburgerization of genitals (which isn't "bad" in any way, just weird given the things they DO tolerate in their porn).

And before you say "we also have these kinds of porn storylines," the difference is these aren't 90% of them. There's hardly any mainstream examples of any of them in Western porn really.

Sex is a big part of society. If a whole country has a severely twisted media representation of sex, Imma going to judge, yeah.

I respect the Japanese culture because they are so well mannered,

Seems a bit of a weird thing to admire, but ok.

they're incredibly technologically advanced,

They have the same technologoies as everyone else; not sure what you've been reading.

and their crime rates are ludicrously low for such a large country. They are head and shoulders above USA and UK.

This much is true.

Granted, placed like Finland, Sweden and Iceland run them close, but the population of these countries is tiny compared to Japan. Japan achieves a high quality of life and low crime despite having the largest city in the world.

You know these stats are done on a per-capita basis, right? This makes population size irrelevant.


I got nothing against Japan, I just don't think they're the end all. Sure it's nice to have a polite, low-crime society that values community responsibility over individual gratification. But they have some problems too, some of which cocco mentioned, and others that I've mentioned (and a few I've left out). It's no ideal culture that's for sure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've heard of the "fighting words" doctrine, but I had to google it to see what it actually is, and it turns out it's basically archaic non-law by this point.

It was started back in the 1800's to suppress a Jahova's Witness from bad mouthing the police and other public officials. However, since then, a string of successive SCOTUS decisions have watered down what could count as "fighting words" to the point that it's basically not an enforceable law, anymore.

The final SCOTUS ruling was basically, "If we could use this law to outlaw cross burning, we'd keep it, but we simply can't even do that in any consistent way that protects other free speech, so we're ruling that nothing could count as 'fighting words' to the point that non-violence justifies violence."

[CoccoBill]

And did a Finn really just point to their suicide rates?

What's wrong with subject matter expertise?

I couldn't give a fuck about cheese flavoured Kit-Kats, nobody is making me eat one.

They're an abomination. I though at least this would have raised suspicions about my seriousness.

[Poopadoop]

In Japan, a particularly civilised Western country...

... it's legal to marry your first cousin.

[OngBonga]

One might go as far as to say "he was asking for it," but one could also say there was a better way to respond.

Well I don't dispute this. I'm not saying violence is the correct way to respond, I'm saying in some cases it's the understandable, even human, way to respond. Again, this comes down to justifying vs empathising. Of course there's a better way to respond, which is why is say "fair play to you" if you can avoid taking the violence path. It takes a huge amount of self control.

Saying "he was asking for it" is exactly the same as empathising with the aggressor. You're just using different language.

Luckily I don't tend to find myself in these situations where someone comes at me out of nowhere and starts screaming in my face.

Let's say instead (more realistically) it was an argument and was getting more and more heated. The person who throws the first punch is always in the wrong there, end of. Otherwise every single person could justify an argument excusing their using violence.

My point is to demonstrate that it's not so simple as to say "violence is never the answer". In that extreme example, where someone is in your face shouting about what he's going to do to your sister, there comes a point where the vast majority of us just snap. You made the point that words should never result in violence. I disagree. Threats are words. If someone threatens me, then maybe I can respond without violence. If someone threatens to hurt my sister, then I'm much more likely to respond, or want to respond, with violence. If I did respond with violence, I would feel morally justified in reacting that way. And if I was hauled in front of a judge, and I could prove that the guy I attacked made threats against my sister, I believe that the case would be thrown out. Can I give examples of this? No, I'm too lazy to look for examples.

[MadMojoMonkey]

My only note is it is interesting to speculate what the public response would have been if the genders and/or races of the slapper and slappee were different.

Would Will have slapped Amy Schumer for the same joke?
What if Jerry Seinfeld had walked up and slapped Chris?
What if Will went up and (tried to) slap Wanda Sykes?

etc.


I'm not making it an issue it isn't, but it is interesting to me the character and tone of this conversation and how it would be different under only the slightest nuances.

It seems to me that 1 black man slapping another black man is probably the least provocative pairing of slapper and slappee.
And that's fucked up in its own way.


EDIT: IDK, maybe 2 Karen's going full Karen on each other would be so off the scale un-provocative that it makes this look like an MMA match.

[OngBonga]

You know these stats are done on a per-capita basis, right? This makes population size irrelevant.

Population size is totally relevant when comparing crime stats. It is much, much easier to police a small country. Tokyo is the biggest city in the world, for it to have such low crime rates is incredible.

I realise per capita stats are important, but it's not the only way of looking at crime. You expect a higher per capita crime rate in densely populated cities. For Tokyo to compare with Reykjavik is nothing short of incredible.

... it's legal to marry your first cousin.

And this is a problem why? We're applying our moral code on Japan here, we're judging them for something that we determine to be immoral.

Koreans eat dogs. That's fucking disgusting. But then again, there's lots of people in the world who think I'm disgusting for eating pigs and cows.

[OngBonga]

I'm not making it an issue it isn't, but it is interesting to me the character and tone of this conversation and how it would be different under only the slightest nuances.

It's a good point. If some dude threatens my sister, I'm likely to respond with violence, or at least want to. If some girl threatens my sister, that's completely different. Why? I still want to protect my sister, but it's not like I can smack a girl round the head. I'm much more likely to protect my sister by standing between them, making myself the target instead. I guess worst case scenario, if a girl hits my sister, it's not as bad as if a guy does so, so there's less urgency.

But you're right, there are nuances that dramatically change the conversation.

[Poopadoop]

Population size is totally relevant when comparing crime stats. It is much, much easier to police a small country.

You mean you need fewer police to police a small country? Ok, sure. Whatever.

And this is a problem why? We're applying our moral code on Japan here, we're judging them for something that we determine to be immoral.

You think it's a good idea to allow people to breed with someone who shares 25% of their genetic material? I think Mendeleev might want a word with you.

Ignoring morality, on genetic grounds alone, it's a bad idea. A very bad idea. An advanced culture would accept the science of that and re-write their laws.

Koreans eat dogs. That's fucking disgusting. But then again, there's lots of people in the world who think I'm disgusting for eating pigs and cows.

Reductio ad irrelevanto tangento.

[OngBonga]

Seems a bit of a weird thing to admire, but ok.

When it's widespread within their culture, yes it's worthy of admiration.

At the last World Cup, there were two countries whose fans stood out from the rest. Those two countries were Japan and Senegal. After the match, lots of their fans would tidy up their seating area, leaving the stadium as they found it. It's part of who they are, it's embedded into their culture. If that's not worthy of respect, what is?

[Poopadoop]

Saying "he was asking for it" is exactly the same as empathising with the aggressor. You're just using different language.

I'm not excusing the attacker; he still should have controlled himself. I'm saying the person doing the insulting deserves less sympathy.

Say I go up to the local Mob boss and call him a big fat tool. He has me whacked in retaliation. He's still guilty of murder and will get the same sentence as if he did it for no reason at all. But I'm also an idiot who was asking for it.

My point is to demonstrate that it's not so simple as to say "violence is never the answer". In that extreme example, where someone is in your face shouting about what he's going to do to your sister, there comes a point where the vast majority of us just snap. You made the point that words should never result in violence. I disagree.

I guarantee you no-one is ever going to make me snap using words.

The guy threatening your sister should have you calling the police. That's illegal. Punching him out for threatening your sister will feel good for 10 seconds but then get you both arrested. How is that good?

Your argument is there comes a point that you can absolve someone of responsibility for their actions based on what another person is saying. There's no legal or moral justification for this. We don't live in the Old West or Traditional Japan. We've moved past that.

[Poopadoop]

When it's widespread within their culture, yes it's worthy of admiration.

At the last World Cup, there were two countries whose fans stood out from the rest. Those two countries were Japan and Senegal. After the match, lots of their fans would tidy up their seating area, leaving the stadium as they found it. It's part of who they are, it's embedded into their culture. If that's not worthy of respect, what is?

Fine, they can be good little citizens sometimes. Cleaning up a stadium is pretty small beer though.

They have a serious problem with sexual assaults not being reported in Japan. Do you think a guy who gropes a teenage girl on a bus is a good citizen because he takes his litter with him when he gets off the bus? Yeah, great guy.

[OngBonga]

You mean you need fewer police to police a small country? Ok, sure. Whatever.

It's not just about this.

An example would be a village vs a city. In villages, you don't get much crime, because everyone knows everyone. In the city, it's much easier to blend in and go unnoticed. Smaller cities and towns are more community driven than large, densely populated cities.

Tokyo is fucking huge, yet doesn't have a serious crime problem. Of course there are still gangs, stabbings and terrorism, but compared to New York, Mexico City, London, and every other similar sized city, the crime is remarkably low.

You think it's a good idea to allow people to breed with someone who shares 25% of their genetic material?

How many mutant children does Japan have due to them being allowed to marry their cousins?

[OngBonga]

They have a serious problem with sexual assaults not being reported in Japan.

Yeah they have women-only sections on the trains because they have a problem with men groping women on crowded trains. This is pretty much Japan's greatest shame.

[Poopadoop]

How many mutant children does Japan have due to them being allowed to marry their cousins?

Ever hear of recessive genes? They're more likely to co-occur in the offspring of related couples, and a lot of them are pretty bad to have a pair of. Cystic fibrosis for one.

So yeah, I'm guessing if by "mutant," you mean "ones with genetic issues," it's going to be more than a country that doesn't allow cousins to marry.

[OngBonga]

Your argument is there comes a point that you can absolve someone of responsibility for their actions based on what another person is saying. There's no legal or moral justification for this. We don't live in the Old West or Traditional Japan. We've moved past that.

You might have moved past that, but most people have not.

[OngBonga]

Fun fact - over 10% of marriages in the entire world are between first or second cousins.

[OngBonga]

On the Wikipedia page for cousin marriage, the word "Japan" is mentioned twice, the first a link relating to historical arranged marriage, and the second is a point about how it's legal but not common in modern times. That's it.

It's not a problem in Japan, it's merely legal.

[Poopadoop]

This is pretty much Japan's greatest shame.

They also fought on the side of Nazis in WWII and committed heinous atrocities, but I agree culturally-sanctioned sexual molestation is nothing to be proud of either.

[Poopadoop]

Fun fact - over 10% of marriages in the entire world are between first or second cousins.

So Japan is in the bottom 10% on the "responsible breeding" culture score. Well, that's great.

[Poopadoop]

It's not a problem in Japan, it's merely legal.

Sounds like they're catching up with the West, where it's not a problem and it's illegal.

[OngBonga]

They also fought on the side of Nazis in WWII and committed heinous atrocities, but I agree culturally-sanctioned sexual molestation is nothing to be proud of either.

Well that was a long time ago, but even so, I'm not going to pin the blame for this on the Japanese people. Having asshole leaders a century ago is not so much a cultural problem.

Sounds like they're catching up with the West, where it's not a problem and it's illegal.

It's not illegal here in the UK, just very rare. Nor is it illegal in Germany, and it's legal in half of USA.

[Poopadoop]

It's not illegal here in the UK, just very rare. Nor is it illegal in Germany, and it's legal in half of USA.

I knew it happened in the US, didn't realise it was actually still legal there and other places. Well, that's fucked up.

[OngBonga]

Yeah it surprised me too, I assumed first cousin marriage was illegal here in the UK. Turns out it's not.

[boost]

Well I don't dispute this. I'm not saying violence is the correct way to respond, I'm saying in some cases it's the understandable, even human, way to respond. Again, this comes down to justifying vs empathising. Of course there's a better way to respond, which is why is say "fair play to you" if you can avoid taking the violence path. It takes a huge amount of self control.

Would you be saying the same if a white comedian decided that extreme racism was funny, and a black man stepped up and smacked him good and proper? I would say that violence was close to being justified, at least more so than if someone simply called you an asshat.

There are situations where words can justifiably result in violence. If you don't accept that, you're basically saying that you would tolerate someone relentlessly shouting in your face, with all sorts of racially motivated insults, threats to your health, threats of sexual violence against your wife/sister/mother, these are all "just words". If you're honestly saying that there are literally no words that someone could utter that would result in you acting violently, then fair play to you. You're in the minority. Even a court can find some legal justification for violence in some cases.

You are not communicating this distinction between justifying and empathizing very well.

My point is to demonstrate that it's not so simple as to say "violence is never the answer". In that extreme example, where someone is in your face shouting about what he's going to do to your sister, there comes a point where the vast majority of us just snap. You made the point that words should never result in violence. I disagree. Threats are words. If someone threatens me, then maybe I can respond without violence. If someone threatens to hurt my sister, then I'm much more likely to respond, or want to respond, with violence. If I did respond with violence, I would feel morally justified in reacting that way. And if I was hauled in front of a judge, and I could prove that the guy I attacked made threats against my sister, I believe that the case would be thrown out. Can I give examples of this? No, I'm too lazy to look for examples.

Imminent threats are reasonably viewed as an act of violence, similar to a punch being thrown. You don't have to wait for the punch to land to respond with violence.

Non imminent threats are best reported to and handled by the state, insomuch as the state is capable and competent in handling such matters. This ability to outsource the resolution of conflict to the higher power of the state is key to the near utopian levels of violence we see today relative to historical levels. Ofc we can then talk about how the state's monopoly on violence will always result in some amount of abuse of power by agents of the state-- this is a cost, and one that we should very much fight to mitigate, but it's worth paying.

Saying "he was asking for it" is exactly the same as empathising with the aggressor. You're just using different language.

Fair if this is how you feel, but it's just that, your feelings. "they were asking for it" can be and is commonly used for either justifying an offense, empathizing with what brought the offender to offend, or both.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ehh... I'm pretty sure inbreeding is basically a non-issue unless it goes on for many generations.
I'm also pretty sure that first cousin relations are not close enough for concerns of inbreeding.

Like... one generation of in-breeding with a direct (puke) relative isn't really ticking the needle on the problems normally associated with birth defects and genetic issues due to inbreeding.

I mean... if you got a source from a medical journal that says otherwise, I'll gladly revise my thoughts. I'm just nearly positive that the general vibe on inbreeding in the US is totally unrelated to the actual biological concerns.

[OngBonga]

You are not communicating this distinction between justifying and empathizing very well.

That's because we're drifting between different hypotheticals. When we talk about slapping someone who made a bad-taste joke, that's not justifiable, but when we talk about threats, that might be. It depends on the nature of the threat and how seriously it's taken, but in some cases, yes I believe a certain degree of justification is forthcoming.

Imminent threats are reasonably viewed as an act of violence

Ok, but let's be realistic. Threats are words, not actions. We're talking about words justifying violence. If you agree that responding to a threat with violence is acceptable in some cases, you agree that responding to words with violence is acceptable in some cases.

Non imminent threats are best reported to and handled by the state...

Most verbal threats are not what you are calling "imminent threats", instead they are hot air. But that isn't necessarily how they are interpreted in the heat of the moment.

[Poopadoop]

Ehh... I'm pretty sure inbreeding is basically a non-issue unless it goes on for many generations.
I'm also pretty sure that first cousin relations are not close enough for concerns of inbreeding.

Like... one generation of in-breeding with a direct (puke) relative isn't really ticking the needle on the problems normally associated with birth defects and genetic issues due to inbreeding.

I mean... if you got a source from a medical journal that says otherwise, I'll gladly revise my thoughts. I'm just nearly positive that the general vibe on inbreeding in the US is totally unrelated to the actual biological concerns.

Not a medical journal, but a basic understanding of biology says you're going to increase the risk of pairing bad recessive genes.

From Wiki:

Children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, and this risk is higher in populations that are already highly ethnically similar.[10] Children of more distantly related cousins have less risk of these disorders, though still higher than the average population.

I mean, fair enough, adding a bit to a relatively small risk is still going to give you a fairly small risk overall, but it's not trivial.


This might be less of a problem in the US, where there's a lot of ethnic heterogeneity, than in a place like Japan. Though ironically, I suspect the parts of the US where it's likely to happen are the ones that are less heterogenous - i.e., small rural places where 2/3 people already have the same last name.

[OngBonga]

I read that on wiki yesterday as I was glancing through this topic, but I also read elsewhere on wiki that there are prominent people in the field of biology who feel the risks are exaggerated by people motivated by a sense of morality. I don't think it's as clear cut as we presume.

Not that I'm taking a side on this. I don't want to marry any of my cousins. But, if two cousins do want to marry, it's kinda none of my business, and there's weirder stuff going on in the world. And getting married doesn't automatically mean having a family. I can't imagine there's any reliable figures, but I'd imagine a decent % of those cousins who do marry actively avoid having children through fear of the biological consequences. At the very least, that % of people are doing literally nothing wrong, and if society judges them, it's society that's in the wrong.

[Poopadoop]

But yeah, over generations, famously the greatest experiment in inbreeding took place in the European royal families. Definitely some mutants were spawned out of that bit of real-life Japanese porn.

Roll up, roll up, and behold the "Hapsburg Jaw!"

[OngBonga]

lol using bad art as an example of mutants.

poop if I drew a picture of you, people would think your parents were related.

[Poopadoop]

I read that on wiki yesterday as I was glancing through this topic, but I also read elsewhere on wiki that there are prominent people in the field of biology who feel the risks are exaggerated by people motivated by a sense of morality. I don't think it's as clear cut as we presume.

It depends a fair bit on how different the four grandparents are. If they all come from different parts of the world, like mine did, then a first cousin marriage is probably not a big deal. I don't even look I'm related to most of my cousins.

On the other hand, if your Grandma was Queen Victoria, you probably look nearly identical to your first cousins (the King, Kaiser, and Tsar did all in fact look like twins, despite being cousins), and maaayybe you'd want to think twice.


Edit: Here's Willy, George, and Nicky ruling Europe with one face between the three of them.

but I'd imagine a decent % of those cousins who do marry actively avoid having children through fear of the biological consequences.

I'm guessing they don't.

[Poopadoop]

lol using bad art as an example of mutants.

poop if I drew a picture of you, people would think your parents were related.

Oh sorry, if you have some photos of Carlos II of Spain please share.

Seriously, this guy had some major issues linked to inbreeding.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/charles-ii-of-spain

[Poopadoop]

If anyone were thinking of boinking their cousin though, I'll just leave you with this scientifically accurate rendition of your first child:

[Luco]

Eh, all my cousins are ugly

[OngBonga]

I can't tell you how much I miss Luco's high quality content.

[Jack Sawyer]

Ok, I'm actually proud of this one

PokerStars, $0.91 + $0.09 - Hold'em No Limit - 15/30 (4 ante) - 9 players
Hand delivered by CardsChat

Gletti1001 (UTG): 6,345 (212 bb)
garetvissel (UTG+1): 1,396 (47 bb)
VenonZelao (MP): 1,206 (40 bb)
Jizzy Sawya (MP+1): 2,865 (96 bb)
p!nky_porn (LP): 1,004 (33 bb)
thebadcowboy (CO): 1,344 (45 bb)
Marynych (BU): 2,238 (75 bb)
Knight Koragg (SB): 1,370 (46 bb)
Oooooommm (BB): 1,420 (47 bb)

Pre-Flop: (81) Hero (Jizzy Sawya) is MP+1 with 7♦ 7♥
1 fold, garetvissel (UTG+1) raises to 64, 1 fold, Jizzy Sawya (MP+1) 3-bets to 154, 3 players fold, Knight Koragg (SB) calls 139, 1 fold, garetvissel (UTG+1) calls 90

Flop: (528) A♦ T♠ T♣ (3 players)
Knight Koragg (SB) checks, garetvissel (UTG+1) checks, Jizzy Sawya (MP+1) bets 264, Knight Koragg (SB) calls 264, garetvissel (UTG+1) folds

Turn: (1,056) 3♦ (2 players)
Knight Koragg (SB) checks, Jizzy Sawya (MP+1) checks

River: (1,056) 6♣ (2 players)
Knight Koragg (SB) bets 948 (all-in), Jizzy Sawya (MP+1) calls 948

[OngBonga]

Ugly as fuck but seems well behaved, playing a mandolin or whatever that is.

Oh sorry, if you have some photos of Carlos II of Spain please share.

Given there are no photos and only bad portraits, I think Carlos II of Spain is not the best example of cousin fucking mutant offspring.

Honestly those portraits look like the belong on a proud parent's fridge, not hanging in the gallery of a castle.

[Poopadoop]

Given there are no photos and only bad portraits, I think Carlos II of Spain is not the best example of cousin fucking mutant offspring.

Honestly those portraits look like the belong on a proud parent's fridge, not hanging in the gallery of a castle.

You're right, the guy was so inbred he couldn't chew his own food, but he hired a bad artist to do his portrait, ergo he was fine.

[OngBonga]

He might well have been inbred as fuck, my point is that centuries old artwork is not particularly good evidence of this.

[OngBonga]

I mean this first image is fucking hilarious. It looks like that priceless painting of Jesus that someone decided to "fix".

The second one, she has a Desperate Dan chin and a forehead to match. Not sure if it's accurate of terrible art. At first glance she looks like she's holding a cock, not a rose, that's hilarious too.

[OngBonga]

Evidence Mary and Joseph were cousins.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fun fact... Billy Redden was the banjo kid in Deliverance, and he couldn't even play the banjo (at the time).
He was cast 'cause he looks like that.
Even though he couldn't play the banjo in the one scene he's most famous for, the only later TV and film work he found was caricatures of that role revamped in various forms, often making inbred jokes.

No mention on the wiki page if he's actually inbred, though.

I mean, more than the rest of us.

There was a point in human history where the entire population of humans was culled to ~600 worldwide.
And we're all related to those 600 people.
And thus each other.

And we're like... 98% the same as a banana or smth based on DNA.

And I def. know someone who fucked a banana, so... prob. inbred bananas.

And all bananas are clones, so def. inbred now that I think about it.
Bananas are basically sin berries.

What's the difference between eating a banana and worshiping Satan?
Nothing.
They're the same thing.

Satanists have been misunderstood banana lovers all along.

[Poopadoop]

Ong flailing around as usual. I say "these guys were inbred" which is pretty common knowledge to anyone who's read a book. He comes back with an argument about artwork. lol

[OngBonga]

Poop read it in a book. Ok you win.

[Poopadoop]

Poop read a book. Ok you win.

fyp


I mean your arguments are getting so retarded, even for you, that it just makes me lolz.

Reductio ad Ongobooko is the latest.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... ong's argument was fine, and poopy's was poopy.


Ong said a painting isn't evidence of inbreeding. Which, I think, is a perfectly sensible thing to say.


What part of that argument do you have issues with?

[OngBonga]

The part where I made it.

[Poopadoop]

Ong said a painting isn't evidence of inbreeding.

Look at the jaws on those two people.

It's not like they're going to make that up when they paint someone who can have their head chopped off.


p.s. Ong, this should be your new avatar.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Look at the jaws on those two people.

It's not like they're going to make that up when they paint someone who can have their head chopped off.

So by that rationale, Jay Leno is inbred..?



I mean... I was taught in school that the European royalty had big issues with inbreeding during that era.
So I'm not saying that wasn't the case without some source to back me up.
I am saying that a painting isn't evidence of genetic disorders.

I'd think a scientist like yourself could appreciate the analysis you're leaning on sounds a lot like Phrenology.

[Poopadoop]

You guys really crack me up. Of course a painting isn't evidence. The painting is just to give you an idea how freakish they looked. There's plenty of other evidence, like the fact the guy couldn't even chew his own food because of his mutant jaw.

And since Ong had no case to say they weren't inbred, he did his usual pedantic thing of going reductio ad irrelevanto on some tangent, in this case whether a painting is a genetic test. And you're backing him up on it, like his nonsequitur is somehow a good point. I would think as a scientist you would know the difference between using a painting to illustrate how fucked up a person looked, and a stupid irrelevant counterargument about whether a painting is a genetic test of inbreeding.

[Poopadoop]

Watch to the end.

https://twitter.com/hike_charity/sta...94342865936384