Randomness thread, part two.

Bet you didn't know that that they speak a completely different language in Okinawa from mainland Japan.
The dude in the video was an orphan born of an American father and an Okinawan mother, grew up in Okinawa and made a point of learning perfect Okinawan, the way his ancestors would have spoken it, instead of the watered down version recent youth speak. Pretty cool imo. The above talk of parents and lack of parents is what sparked this segue btw.

oh and despite how whitewashed I am I speak still like 80% good Japanese (no deep philosophical discussions possible) and understand nearly 0% of what that guy is saying, because it's not a dialect, it's an utterly different language.

i'm going to be 26 in 5 weeks and 2 days.

what the fuck?! howwwwwww?!!!?!??!?

but the good news is i'm 2 alters away from being completely integrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

MLG is far more interesting than other sports like football, basketball, and baseball. I never even played Starcraft yet used to love watching the Korean tournaments with players like Jaedong and Flash

---

1a2a3a4a5sz6sz7sh8sh9su

left pinky on control, ring finger on a, middle finger and pointer finger splitting 1/2 and 3/4 of course, for proper micro

lol

Woman's ex-partner sought over death



Every time I go onto BBC news main page and that headline is there, I mis-read it, even though I've just mis-read it and corrected myself.

Wow! Just watched some of the Rolling Stones performing at Glastonbury. They've still got it. Pretty cool considering they're 70 years old. I'd still pay to go and see them.

http://i.imgur.com/cDDIMcj.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Wow! Just watched some of the Rolling Stones performing at Glastonbury. They've still got it. Pretty cool considering they're 70 years old. I'd still pay to go and see them.

---

No, they have never been good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, they have never been good.

---

They were a great bar band and made large contributions to the white-man blues revolution of the 60s. Their early 70s stuff was decent too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, they have never been good.

---

I really can't understand how any music fan could think this. Certainly not a fan of rock music of any kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, they have never been good.

---

Burn him! Heretic!!! Burn him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3rnxQBizoU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

They were a great bar band and made large contributions to the white-man blues revolution of the 60s. Their early 70s stuff was decent too.

---

In all fairness I may not give them enough credit for doing what they were doing at the time.

around summertime i always succomb to an old habit and start smoking, just 'cause the idea of a cigarette on the patio in the sun with a beer is so amazing. but then eventually i get sick of it and quit again. last night i had the cigarette dream which is always a sign for me when the physical withdrawal symptoms are over, and today here i am eating a pretty ordinary sandwich that tastes AMAZING omg. stuff just tastes amazing when you actually feel your hunger and your taste buds aren't numb. i would take up smoking again (and then subsequently quit) on a yearly basis just to get this amazing taste explosion.

Couldn't you just get stoned instead?

probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

I really can't understand how any music fan could think this. Certainly not a fan of rock music of any kind.

---

Seems a bit hyperbolic to assume that any one band can completely define a genre, especially a genre so varied as "rock".

Personally, I find the Rolling Stones lyrics and music to be bland and pop-culture pandering to the point of being annoying and even repulsive. I put them in the same category as Van Halen and so many other pop-rock/party bands.

If that kind of music is your thing, then party on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Seems a bit hyperbolic to assume that any one band can completely define a genre, especially a genre so varied as "rock".

Personally, I find the Rolling Stones lyrics and music to be bland and pop-culture pandering to the point of being annoying and even repulsive. I put them in the same category as Van Halen and so many other pop-rock/party bands.

If that kind of music is your thing, then party on.

---

party on :lynch:

why didn't that nickelback song get attached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Seems a bit hyperbolic to assume that any one band can completely define a genre, especially a genre so varied as "rock".

Personally, I find the Rolling Stones lyrics and music to be bland and pop-culture pandering to the point of being annoying and even repulsive. I put them in the same category as Van Halen and so many other pop-rock/party bands.
.

---

I had this debate before with someone, and I think you can define a genre/music. Like you can critique books, films, theatre etc so you can music.

I'm sure you would agree that The Great Gatsby is much better book than The Da Vinci Code for instance.

Mick and Keef have written some amazing songs. Back in the day their music was genuinely thought to be a threat to society. Sure they have their mainstream hits (which I think stand up to most songs), but if you listen to the darker heroin albums, there is some genuine genius song writing.

Listen to Sister Morphine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C39kQoprfP0 .

Then listen to Van Halen.

Give an example of what you like, I'm sure it won't stand up against even the Stones weakest stuff....

omg a song about drugs using personification

4/10 would change radio station

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Give an example of what you like, I'm sure it won't stand up against even the Stones weakest stuff....

---

:facepalm: You realize that art is subjective, right? Many people don't like the stones, get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

:facepalm: You realize that art is subjective, right? Many people don't like the stones, get over it.

---

Yep it is. But just because you like abstract art doesn't mean you don't recognise that Van Gogh is a master.

Same with the Stones. You may not like their music, but to call them "bland and pop-culture pandering to the point of being annoying and even repulsive. I put them in the same category as Van Halen and so many other pop-rock/party bands" is fucking moronic. That was my point.

i'm nervous. i have 100+ inches to hand sew on a dress and then about 100 more inches on a petticoat for a photoshoot type'a thing i'm doing at a huge ass event this weekend that's going to be full of classic [1968 and prior models] cars, pin-up ladies, and a lot of other shit. i'm nervous and scared and oh god what if i look stupid. who am i kidding, i'm going to look stupid either way, but, oh god, i'm nervous. i'm also excited. THERE'S SO MANY EMOTIONS. one outfit is high waist shorts and a white crop top, the other is a super awesome cherry dress with a red petticoat. i'm going to look like an idiot, but it's okay, because i like that style of clothes, and there's going to be a fuck ton of other people dressed up for this thing, too. it's called the heavy rebel weekender event, if anyone is interested in what i'm rambling about.



p.s. i'm going to be 26 in 4 weeks and 5 days. wtf.

26? That's young!

but i've not done enough with my almost 26 years. i need to be an LPC nao, and be out helping people help themselves, have a car, house, a published cookbook, and idk, other shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelle

but i've not done enough with my almost 26 years. i need to be an LPC nao, and be out helping people help themselves, have a car, house, a published cookbook, and idk, other shit.

---

I still haven't got round to that stuff...and im a whole decade in front.......

Hi xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To celebrate the return of Black Card, we’re delighted to award you 50 days at Black Card status, the highest rewards level available at Full Tilt Poker.





thx ftp -.-

"Art is subjective, so you can't judge it." As a response to anyone critiquing art is such an exceedingly dumb position to take. It's akin to saying, "A core part of poker is the chance of the draw, therefore all that matters is luck."

But everyone's opinion is worth the same!

Art is mostly valued at the recognition it receives. In most cases it matters just as much who the painter was as the quality of his painting. If it was all about quality then perfect forgeries wouldn't be worthless compared to the original.

Jamie Gold's World Series of Poker Main Event Bracelet Up For Auction

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=31001#Photo

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/0...tion-15025.htm

Is he broke? Comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChipEaterMan

Jamie Gold's World Series of Poker Main Event Bracelet Up For Auction

http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...No=31001#Photo

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/0...tion-15025.htm

Is he broke? Comments?

---

:facepalm:

Lol and he was so proud of his poker skills when he got it. Last week I watched a 2hr replay of his hands on his win, and while he did extract good value from his hands with his peculiar talking, this is so easy to read if you don't get irked by the surprise. He has quite some tells. And his poker game is horrible, he just ran like god incarnate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

"Art is subjective, so you can't judge it." As a response to anyone critiquing art is such an exceedingly dumb position to take. It's akin to saying, "A core part of poker is the chance of the draw, therefore all that matters is luck."

---

True, subjective things can still be judged. But the values assigned by different people will vary, often dramatically. I personally found Wilbur's statement ridiculous that you can name any other song and it won't be as good as the Stone's weakest stuff. That highlights the amount of variance in society's judgement of the Stones' work -- some people think they are untouchable gods, others don't think much of them at all, most people are somewhere in between.

So is there an objective value for the Stones' work? If so, what is it? An average of what all people think? Or are only some opinions valid, and if so, whose? I think that the value for things like art are personal, since it's based on the immediate emotional and intellectual response to that art. So one person's opinion shouldn't really matter to other people. You love the Stones, great -- that doesn't change my opinion of them. If I don't like the Stones, it shouldn't have any impact on how much you like them, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

True, subjective things can still be judged. But the values assigned by different people will vary, often dramatically. I personally found Wilbur's statement ridiculous that you can name any other song and it won't be as good as the Stone's weakest stuff. That highlights the amount of variance in society's judgement of the Stones' work -- some people think they are untouchable gods, others don't think much of them at all, most people are somewhere in between.

So is there an objective value for the Stones' work? If so, what is it? An average of what all people think? Or are only some opinions valid, and if so, whose? I think that the value for things like art are personal, since it's based on the immediate emotional and intellectual response to that art. So one person's opinion shouldn't really matter to other people. You love the Stones, great -- that doesn't change my opinion of them. If I don't like the Stones, it shouldn't have any impact on how much you like them, either.

---

See, you're creating a false alternative. Either your way is right, or there is some group of people who's opinion should matter more, or the majority, or whatever. In the next generation, everyone could disagree with this generation-- does that make the quality of the work better or worse? No. I'd say that there are qualities to art that transcend trends, and are ultimately measurable. You could mock these measurements, by finding an aesthetically pleasing form outside of their parameters... but the aesthetic value of that form could be derived and therefore replicated or mocked by future artists. For this reason, historical works are a better place to find objectivity, because they don't have the immediate pressure of trends. However, the idea that any art, or art critique for that matter, is beyond reproach is absurd. You can paint a picture, and you can convince a lot of people that it is a beautiful work, but persuasion does not afford intrinsic value.

lolwheresthedrunkthread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

True, subjective things can still be judged. But the values assigned by different people will vary, often dramatically. I personally found Wilbur's statement ridiculous that you can name any other song and it won't be as good as the Stone's weakest stuff. That highlights the amount of variance in society's judgement of the Stones' work -- some people think they are untouchable gods, others don't think much of them at all, most people are somewhere in between.

So is there an objective value for the Stones' work? If so, what is it? An average of what all people think? Or are only some opinions valid, and if so, whose? I think that the value for things like art are personal, since it's based on the immediate emotional and intellectual response to that art. So one person's opinion shouldn't really matter to other people. You love the Stones, great -- that doesn't change my opinion of them. If I don't like the Stones, it shouldn't have any impact on how much you like them, either.

---

I do love the Stones, but they are not my fav band. I was reacting to someone calling them shit/bland. That is like saying Van Gogh is shit. Just because you don't personally like their work, they are far from shit.

But it is possible to critique music. You can look at originality, musical complexity, lyricism etc etc

For instance Dylan's Tangled Up In Blue is a an amazingly complex song. Written in Open D, god knows how many verses, switching perspective and open to interpretation. Whereas say Motley Crue's Girls, Girls, Girls is a basic riff, without any subtlety of lyrics (which has it's merits!).

So objectively Dylan's is a "better" song than Motley Crue's - however you may find Dylan unlistenable as he has a voice like strangled duck and is hard to get into, and you might be a soft rock fan. But I think all and sundry would agree that Dylan's is "better" song, and any intelligent person wouldn't call Dylan shit or bland just because they don't personally like his music.

Ya feel me?

I think we can all agree though, that The Rolling Stones are a fuuuuckton better than a lot of today's music.

As far as art - not everyone likes the same kind, but, even if you don't like that type of art, if it looks good, it looks good, and you respect the art. There's plenty of art that confuses the absolute shit out of me, but, if I know that someone put a lot of effort and took time on making something, then I'm going to respect it.

It's like someone telling me I need to put clothes on the mystical creatures in my paintings, they can't just respect what they're seeing, because omg it's a nakie mystical lady and titties. But - if they actually look at all the shading and how it actually looks pretty damn good, and took me several fucking hours, they'd be like, "Damn, leave that just like it is." Obviously I'm going to leave it like it is, because fuck them, but for someone not thinking a piece of art looks good because it offends them in some fucking ridiculous way, they need to step back and figure out what is making them feel this way about a piece of art.

titties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelle

I think we can all agree though, that The Rolling Stones are a fuuuuckton better than a lot of today's music.

---

Wow, don't be one of those people.

There are absolutely fuck tons of fantastic bands releasing fantastic albums all the time. In terms of being a music consumer there isn't a better time to live, you can listen to pretty much any album you want by clicking a couple of buttons.

omg popular music is mostly shit, always has been.

I think a lot of modern art is created with the sole intention of confusing the shit out of people. I don't get most of it.

I remember seeing one 'artist' put a bit of blu-tack on the wall with his thumb. He filmed himself rolling it into a ball then sticking it to the wall, and called it art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Wow, don't be one of those people.

There are absolutely fuck tons of fantastic bands releasing fantastic albums all the time. In terms of being a music consumer there isn't a better time to live, you can listen to pretty much any album you want in clicking a couple of buttons.

omg popular music is mostly shit, always has been.

---

I must say the standard of unsigned bands has improved a lot in recent years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Wow, don't be one of those people.

There are absolutely fuck tons of fantastic bands releasing fantastic albums all the time. In terms of being a music consumer there isn't a better time to live, you can listen to pretty much any album you want by clicking a couple of buttons.

omg popular music is mostly shit, always has been.

---

How can you dismiss the Stones then tell someone "don't be one of those of those people"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luco

I think a lot of modern art is created with the sole intention of confusing the shit out of people. I don't get most of it.

I remember seeing one 'artist' put a bit of blu-tack on the wall with his thumb. He filmed himself rolling it into a ball then sticking it to the wall, and called it art.

---

The reason is that computerized graphics completely dominate what people can produce nowadays. Or simply taking pictures. There isn't much reason to show off your very realistic portraits when a picture that every joe on the street can take with his cell phone is much better. So they now turn to abstract stuff to distinguish themselves. So it becomes completely subjective, and success will have mostly to do with being able to make a name for yourself 'in the art world'.

I personally find current day art a complete crock, probably because I'm an extremely scientific-minded person. But I can understand why it has its role in society.

Well, photos have been around for a long time. I do agree though that visual art necessarily had to become more abstract once photography took over the painter's illustrative roles, though. We're talking about a century-old development, however.

I don't really follow visual arts that closely, but it could be similar to contemporary classical "art" music in the sense that artists/composers are stuck in a timeloop and they can't actually push any more boundaries in any direction any more, because literally everything has been done already.

Also I disagree with JV's notion that rational thinking hinders the capacity to appreciate "abstract" art. Music, without lyrics and other outer meanings attached to it, is totally abstract and in itself just a bunch of sounds put into some sort of order that for some reason are appealing to our senses and souls.

And here is Einstein playing the violin:

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012...7f9-s6-c30.jpg

Very true that most everything has been done, or can be done easily. In music, pictures etc. About me not liking contemporary art, I tried to find an explanation for my dislike. I'm not saying rational thought leads to disliking art, although probably there's a connection.

I do hate music for example that has no discernable structures, and you could argue that structures emerge from rational thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Wow, don't be one of those people.

There are absolutely fuck tons of fantastic bands releasing fantastic albums all the time. In terms of being a music consumer there isn't a better time to live, you can listen to pretty much any album you want by clicking a couple of buttons.

omg popular music is mostly shit, always has been.

---

I don't mean all bands these days are shit. Just a lot of the ones that are played on the radio - so yeah, basically the really popular music.

I like a lot of music, and don't have a favorite kind - but when you have 6 different writers on one song and it has nothing but repetitive shit VS 1 writer and it's a bad ass song with actual meaning and feelings behind it, something is wrong with those 6 writers.

I love the beats to music, but I pay attention to lyrics, too.

I listen to classical, so I don't have to have lyrics to actually like a song. But - when a song has lyrics, it needs to have just a tad bit more of, " Baby baby baby"

I believe there was some research that found a correlation with being bad at rational thought being related to being religious. I think it is similar with such subjective art.

Even from my own experience I relate to all of this. I went to church as a kid every sunday, until age 10 or so, until I heard one of our neighbours never went to church. "They aren't religious" my parents said. This gave me the realization I had a choice. I had already been doing my own investigation and I didn't believe any of it. One thing I remember for example was that I was taught god is omnipotent, so I inferred he should be able to hear my thoughts. So I can't think anything bad of him? But when I did, nothing happened, and noone noticed. I found that a bit fishy. So I refused to go to church anymore, my parents kept going with my brother and sister for a few years, then it faded out.

Same with santa claus, which I think is related. My parents gave up trying to lie to me because I had so many critical questions, like about how it was financed. Ended up me having to keep it a secret because I was the first in school 'to know'.

And about art, in high school we had art classes where they tried to explain the aesthetic and other interpretations of famous art pieces. Was a big facepalm for me because it seemed so arbitrary.

Btw I don't want to sound high and mighty or anything there. It's just honestly how I perceive things.

Grunching:

Man I was really really drunk last night.

I don't think you're being high and mighty at all.

As far as the religion thing - I started questioning things about the same age, but kept having to go to church [yay souths]. Over the years I've finally just figured out [not really but almost] where I stand on the whole religion thing [to put fear and control into the masses], but I'm a more of a spiritual person [not a hippie, kind of, but not really]. I like some the view points of the Dalai Lama, some of the ideas of reincarnation, and I really think religions have the wrong idea of "god", or w/e they pray to. A lot of people that follow the Chrisitian religion that I know just pray for things to get better, don't put in the hard work, and just expect things to pop out of thin air. It's like they don't realize they have to put some effort into improving their life. A lot of people pray for their finances to improve, but if they started looking at the shit they're spending money on - they'd improve it themselves instead of praying. It's like they just don't realize they have the answer the whole time, and want a crutch to lean on.

It'd be fucking nice for an omnipresent power to just make every little thing better, but it doesn't work that way, sometimes you have to find it within yourself, and maybe that's what that omnipresent power is trying to teach people. People just don't want to be taught.

In other news - I like tuna, and japan was able to make a human liver out of stem cells.

Well aesthetics is a pretty interesting topic. Why something strikes one as being beautiful. Beauty (not related to sexual attraction which has an obvious biological function) and its appreciation seems to have no direct "practical" value, and yet society without art, theatre, dance and music is unthinkable - indeed it seems to be a fundamental human need. Why? Why did cavemen start drumming beats and dance to it? What's the driving force behind all that? As a professional musician, once in a while I'm forced to ponder stuff like that.

forgot to include literary arts in my list. which gets me thinking about the evolution of various art forms. i can only assume that dancing came before writing poems in human history. music->dance->theatre->painting->writing? probably such a linear progression doesn't exist at all. but hey it was a try.

It's not as elusive as you think. Many others have pondered this before you. And we know why. If you want I can just tell you lol

jv, @ chelle or @ me?

At you.

Well, elaborate.

I'm pretty sure that one of the fundamentals that lie beneath appreciation of art in any form is related to empathy.

I guess Tolstoy's views are pretty close to my own: "Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."

which also explains why often i find people who haven't lived through any tough times or whatever produce lame art. but that's just my anecdotal two cents, it's far from a rule of thumb!

like, recent studies showed that yawn contagion is related to empathy - the more empathy one has the more prone they are to it. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ce-of-empathy/

i would throw out a hypothesis that the urge to dance for example stems from similar processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

How can you dismiss the Stones then tell someone "don't be one of those of those people"?

---

Tell someone not to be someone who says things like "omg old music is so much better" and saying I don't like the stones aren't different things.

Also I don't dislike the stones by any means, the couple of albums I've listened to by them are just decent, not bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

I personally find current day art a complete crock, probably because I'm an extremely scientific-minded person. But I can understand why it has its role in society.

---

Next time you go to a gallery or exhibit actually do some research on some of the people who are being shown there. The idea with a lot of modern art is much more to do with the ideas behind the art than it looking like a pretty picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

Very true that most everything has been done, or can be done easily. In music, pictures etc. About me not liking contemporary art, I tried to find an explanation for my dislike. I'm not saying rational thought leads to disliking art, although probably there's a connection.

---

This is complete crap. Everything that can be done in music and art has already been done, lol kk.

You're aware that most subjects like physics and maths require huge amount of abstract thought too?

another point which is relevant is that most artists aren't all that great, and that's the way it always has been. look at how few people from each era people still give a damn about today. only a handful.

also hitler was a crap artist.

and seemed to have little empathy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

like, recent studies showed that yawn contagion is related to empathy - the more empathy one has the more prone they are to it. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ce-of-empathy/

i would throw out a hypothesis that the urge to dance for example stems from similar processes.

---

Not gonna produce a huge post here, but it stems from sexual selection on intelligence. Being able to produce art or music that moves people (whether through it's aesthetic value, cultural fads, what it represents or who the creator is as a person - or most likely a combination of all those factors) is a heuristic we use for good genes. What we are capable of as people, in terms of buildings, colonizing the whole world, abstract thought, philosophy, medical and scientific advances etc, is an "unplanned" (ie it's not an advantage in and of itself) consequence of choosing smart mates. Kind like if you select on flies for size, you can grow really large ones. In the same way humans became a lot smarter in a relatively small period of time, evolutionarily speaking, through sexual selection. I have to add that that last part is more my opinion and there are other theories. The sexual selection part of our cranial explosion is generally accepted but there are varying theories on what was the catalyst. Most think it had to do with changing environmental factors, such as a higher intelligence helped with using utensils and weapons and hunting, like being able to throw a spear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

You're aware that most subjects like physics and maths require huge amount of abstract thought too?

---

ya that was the allusion i wanted to make with Albert Einstein loving the Mozart.

Hm I think you're on the wrong track thinking about it in terms of empathy. Hitler was one of the most influencial people of the past century. You can't honestly say that a person who was able to bring a whole country together (people mass fainted at his speeches they were so powerful) to lack the most basic people skill. It's quite the opposite. I've read Mein Kampf, and besides the jews suck nonsense, it read like a psychology book on how to influence people. He basically invented propaganda. He is the embodiment of evil in our society, and it's hard to find anything objective about him, but I did find some books in the library in college.

I'll just go with what Andy Warhol said, 'Art is what you can get away with.'

As much as I like to label the wordspew of others as empty, I think this one is right on the button and I couldn't tell you why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

Hm I think you're on the wrong track thinking about it in terms of empathy. Hitler was one of the most influencial people of the past century. You can't honestly say that a person who was able to bring a whole country together (people mass fainted at his speeches they were so powerful) to lack the most basic people skill. It's quite the opposite. I've read Mein Kampf, and besides the jews suck nonsense, it read like a psychology book on how to influence people. He basically invented propaganda. He is the embodiment of evil in our society, and it's hard to find anything objective about him, but I did find some books in the library in college.

---

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...561192763.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

Hm I think you're on the wrong track thinking about it in terms of empathy. Hitler was one of the most influencial people of the past century. You can't honestly say that a person who was able to bring a whole country together (people mass fainted at his speeches they were so powerful) to lack the most basic people skill. It's quite the opposite. I've read Mein Kampf, and besides the jews suck nonsense, it read like a psychology book on how to influence people. He basically invented propaganda. He is the embodiment of evil in our society, and it's hard to find anything objective about him, but I did find some books in the library in college.

---

Maybe he was good at faking it.

I mean, my understanding of evil is that a dire lack of empathy is a pre-requisite for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

Maybe he was good at faking it.

---

This is true, he was a psychopath if you take empathy in the sense of showing affection and care for other people, which I take is the definition you use. My definition is more in terms of how someone is able to understand people. He did have that otherwise he wouldn't have been able to weasel his way into uniting germany under his ideology. Well to be fair a big factor in how it happened as it did was that germany had been harshly punished for ww1 and as such very susceptible to unite under a powerful leader and refind their patriotism. Still, he did what was needed to fill that void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

I mean, my understanding of evil is that a dire lack of empathy is a pre-requisite for it.

---

True, in that they are psychopaths. But the dirty truth is that this is also true for politicians and succesful managers and entrepeneurs. The best criminals are also the best businessmen, genetically speaking.

Largest scale example: Australia was England's penal colony, so basically Australians are all descendants of English criminals. Still they have a normal society like any other now. It's a fine line of environmental factors that determines how you end up. And how we look back at you. If Germany had won the war, I'd be speaking german now and thinking of the jews as the root of all evil.

Well, it's a bit of stretch to say that even a significant portion of the prisoners sent to Australia were actual psychopaths. I don't know enough about it though to say what degree of criminal you had to be on that boat.

Agree with you that top dogs in certain professions (banking for example) are probably very likely psychopaths.

Also nature vs nurture blah blah blah. Not all people with 0 empathy will end up being a psychopath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

another point which is relevant is that most artists aren't all that great, and that's the way it always has been. look at how few people from each era people still give a damn about today. only a handful.

---

Yeah, I think people quite often overlook this phenomenon. Sure the oldies channel is constantly playing good music, while the contemporary stations are playing the same dozen songs, seemingly on repeat, with half of them not even being very good. The thing is, the oldies channel has an advantage in that it can pull from a multi decade spanning catalog, while the contemporary station is confined to a playlist younger than a year for the most part.

Not to mention most "oldies" songs are nostalgia driven crap anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

Well, it's a bit of stretch to say that even a significant portion of the prisoners sent to Australia were actual psychopaths. I don't know enough about it though to say what degree of criminal you had to be on that boat.

---

Yeah I was more talking about how the skillsets top criminals have and the skillsets of exemplary people are very similar. About psychopathy, it's a pretty laden word, where in reality it is a spectrum and there's nothing essentially wrong with it. Just that it was common in criminals like serial killers, so it's a clinical term. But yeah politicians who think one thing and say another for a job, what do you make of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

Also nature vs nurture blah blah blah. Not all people with 0 empathy will end up being a psychopath.

---

Yeah this is what I mean. Empathy is also an acquired skill imo, everyone has the ability to be empathic. Everyone is capable of greatness, and everyone has the ability to murder someone else under the right circumstances. We have a mental mechanism that makes us capable of objectifying (a subset of) other people. As in "I am empathic with all other people, and care for them. But the enemy aren't people, they're below people not even worth thinking about". This is probably easier for psychopaths.

But everyone can be anything, and I don't mean this as in a motivational slogan. Shut down all electricity in your city and see how all civilized people are going to act now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

But everyone can be anything, and I don't mean this as in a motivational slogan. Shut down all electricity in your city and see how all civilized people are going to act now.

---

Take away my internets for 1 min and see how frantically i go from the router to the modem to yelling at my ISP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bikes

Take away my internets for 1 min and see how frantically i go from the router to the modem to yelling at my ISP

---

But there is no ISP. ISPs are a thing of the past. That shit was for 12:32. It's 12:34.... only God can save you now.

I just spent about 2 hours hand sewing a dress to make it 2 inches shorter, and to make it tighter since I've lost so much weight.

The hem of the dress [the part that is on the bottom that i made shorter] is about 4-5 foot. Yay 50's dresses.

I'm not even finished yet. I have to add another dart to make it tighter, tack the straps to make it a strapless dress, press the new seams. Then, I get to start adding more fabric to the petticoat, add trim, and then I'll be done.

I bet when sewing machines were introduced to the people, they cried tears of joy. Cause this shit is ridiculous.

Ask my butcher if he can prepare my chicken wings for me. I explain that I need the wing tips removed, then cut into two sections. This will save me prep time. Just checked on my stock and he ain't done it. Cut of the wing tips sure, but left it whole. I aint got time to butcher 200 mofing wings. Special for the day? Whole wings........"like they do in the USofA - Happy July 4th"......might get away with it........

Sounds like a man with a plan.

That's not how they do it here...

Also, this should take you less than 15 minutes.

/hatehatehate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

That's not how they do it here...

Also, this should take you less than 15 minutes.

/hatehatehate

---

I know that - but if anyone pulls me up on it, I say along the lines of "A cool American chef named Boost gave me the recipe"........

I semi cook and was cutting it fine already, needed to get them on.......they're cooking now. Plus I'm not a trained chef. That would take me minimum 1/2hr!


http://www.truckstoplondon.com/ This is where I'm heading today. Should be fun!

true, now that i think of it, i've never seen unseparated wings ever in any place i've ever been. but you could still bluff. idk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelle

As far as the religion thing - I started questioning things about the same age, but kept having to go to church [yay souths]. Over the years I've finally just figured out [not really but almost] where I stand on the whole religion thing [to put fear and control into the masses], but I'm a more of a spiritual person [not a hippie, kind of, but not really].

---

Wise words Chelle. Religions were created to put fear and control the masses. That's why in chess the bishops are near the king and the queen. You don't need religions to attain high spiritual states of consciousness.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CdsQqXsu54...+the+World.JPG

okay so i need some advice.

should i go buy a sewing machine for 74 bucks, use it, then take it back and get my money back?

i finished the dress - but the whole adding layers to the petticoat isn't working out like it should. so, i got the idea of hey i can get a sewing machine, use it, then return it!


p.s. keep in mind i'mma soulless ginger when it comes to judging whether or not this is a good idea.

Alternatively just buy a sewing machine and then have hours of fun using it and doing cool stuff that you couldn't do by hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Alternatively just buy a sewing machine and then have hours of fun using it and doing cool stuff that you couldn't do by hand.

---

My Mom has two - one of which is getting passed to me whenever I get a place, which is why I don't want to buy one to keep forever. But, currently I'm 45 minutes away from my house, and won't be there for a few days. I need the more floofy petticoat for a photo shoot this weekend. The petticoat is okay as it is, but, needs more floof. I'd basically be using a sewing machine for 30-45 minutes max.

That's not an acceptable reason to do what you want to do unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

That's not an acceptable reason to do what you want to do unfortunately.

---

;_; i figured. i might just end up wearing the petticoat as is. or figuring out how to do all this by hand. meeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

This sounds perfectly acceptable to me. If it matters to you just do it. Unless this is a local store where everyone is in your circle of acquaintances, this is socially just fine. That's coming from a soul-less nonginger.

Now I'm getting mixed responses WHATTHEFUCKDOIDO

Seems like a pretty straightforward don't do it to me.

Seems like a pretty straightforward idgaf to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Lately I have been doing egg casseroles, which can be done in advance and save some cooking/cleaning time in the morning. Basically stir/combine in a large bowl: 12-18 whole eggs, maybe a bit of salt and pepper, cut up veggies, and some grated cheese and meat (either use pre-cooked or if you want to use bacon, cook it in a pan first then rip it up and put it on top), pour into a greased 9x13 glass pan, bake at 325 for roughly 40 minutes or until a knife put into the center of the pan comes out clean.

Let it cool, cover with foil, and it can be refrigerated for 4-5 days at least, I haven't tested further than that and don't plan to.

---

My first attempt at this is in the oven, hoping to make it a regular lunch although may need another attempt or two at it to get it down (kinda freeballed veg+meat to egg ratio, and wasn't sure about the size of the dish to do it in cos dunno how much the eggs are going to expand, so may have made too thin a layer of everything).