Randomness thread, part two.

[oskar]

How much do you have to love peanut butter if you have a crippling fear of something related to peanut butter, but you still eat peanut butter.

[OngBonga]

That's a very good point.

Oh my god this peanut butter is amazing but please please please don't get stuck on the roof of my mouth or I'll literally die.

[a500lbgorilla]

If you're not going to suck my dick, sir, I don't-I don't want to be here.

-My epitaph

[a500lbgorilla]

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

Americans find Chris Morris funny? You guys surprise me.

[Savy]

Americans find Chris Morris funny? You guys surprise me.

Doubt they get it really, just find paedophiles in space a funny concept.

[OngBonga]

It just occured to me that I have absolutely no fucking idea where oscar is from.

[a500lbgorilla]

Doubt they get it really, just find paedophiles in space a funny concept.

Prob cuz manned spaceflight isnt the premise for a joke in america

[MadMojoMonkey]

Haha! We're closer to the equator than you are.

Suck it!

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh yeahhhh, stupid northern islanders. Get some real land.

[rong]

Thought this was pretty intersting:


https://m.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBea...ons_that_will/


Tldr : conservatives / Republicans are more prone to feeling disgust in general, and those with a higher tendency to feel disgust tend to be conservative / Republicans.

Which makes me think something about right wing parties playing on fear to get votes, whilst left wing is about rational thought, but I'm hungover so can't formulate my thoughts properly.

[a500lbgorilla]

This link disgusts me

[wufwugy]

Thought this was pretty intersting:


https://m.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBea...ons_that_will/


Tldr : conservatives / Republicans are more prone to feeling disgust in general, and those with a higher tendency to feel disgust tend to be conservative / Republicans.

Which makes me think something about right wing parties playing on fear to get votes, whilst left wing is about rational thought, but I'm hungover so can't formulate my thoughts properly.

FWIW the fearmongering was from the middle and left during Brexit. I was watching British news the entire night, remembering how you said a couple years back how pro-righty your news is. It wasn't this time.

The left-right dichotomy is tricky. Maybe it's not that useful of a thing to use. In Murika, we have a shitload of people who used to be leftists or who are perfect fits for leftism on paper, who have abandoned the left due to the left changing. Ten years ago, our left wanted more freedom (of things like speech) and the right wanted to quash it. Today that's reversed. Our left is full speed ahead restrictive and conformist while our right is open to new ideas.

[wufwugy]

Lots of issues with that testing methodology, obviously. Neeways my brain is 75% Democrat. Funny how IRL I think the Democratic Party is the most destructive institution in the country and I'd only vote for Crooked and her wife Rapin' Bill if you bribed me with many, many thousands of dollars.

[OngBonga]

Since you posted this, I've watched all six episodes of Jam.

[Savy]

FWIW the fearmongering was from the middle and left during Brexit. I was watching British news the entire night, remembering how you said a couple years back how pro-righty your news is. It wasn't this time.

I get we're a small country in comparison but we don't have one "news", what you were watching/reading makes a huge difference. The right was coming out with ridiculous statements during the campaign (as were the left but the right was built upon them) & since winning they've said they have no exit plan (obviously very important) & that a lot of statements they made were just false.

Whilst lots of things the stay campaign said would happen in the short term have & we've not even left yet.

It's worth noting that for a country that is wanting to do more trade with the rest of the world fucking around Chinese investors over the building of a power plant which will be of great benefit to seemingly everyone is pretty amazing.

The left-right dichotomy is tricky. Maybe it's not that useful of a thing to use.

It isn't using it on a left right scale it's using it on a liberal/conservative scale causing confusion.

liberal - ok with changes
conservative - not ok with changes

It doesn't really factor into left/right. Lots of people on both the left & right would like things to change in drastic ways.

[OngBonga]

It's worth noting that for a country that is wanting to do more trade with the rest of the world fucking around Chinese investors over the building of a power plant which will be of great benefit to seemingly everyone is pretty amazing.

Seemingly everyone? I assume you don't consider the consumer to be part of this "everyone"? The British government were willing to pay EDF double the going rate for electricty per kw/h, who do you suppose will be paying for that? Nuclear energy should be cheaper than oil and gas because of its abundance. When it's going to be more expensive, something is wrong, and that something in this case is debt.

There's no reason why a nation of our size needs foreign investment to meet our energy needs. £18b is a lot of money, sure, but if it's spent by the UK government without taking on debt, and reinvested in UK companies, then we can surely afford it because it boosts our economy in the process. If we can't afford it, well don't fucking build it. Nuclear energy is not something I'm comfortable handing over to the Chinese.

If anything, I'm reassured by this delay. I would hope the project collapses, or is paid for by us and us alone.

[Savy]

Seemingly everyone? I assume you don't consider the consumer to be part of this "everyone"? The British government were willing to pay EDF double the going rate for electricty per kw/h, who do you suppose will be paying for that? Nuclear energy should be cheaper than oil and gas because of its abundance. When it's going to be more expensive, something is wrong, and that something in this case is debt.

There's no reason why a nation of our size needs foreign investment to meet our energy needs. £18b is a lot of money, sure, but if it's spent by the UK government without taking on debt, and reinvested in UK companies, then we can surely afford it because it boosts our economy in the process. If we can't afford it, well don't fucking build it. Nuclear energy is not something I'm comfortable handing over to the Chinese.

If anything, I'm reassured by this delay. I would hope the project collapses, or is paid for by us and us alone.

I'd agree there are lots of bad points about it but it's definitely still a net positive in the form that was being set forward.

Fixed prices over long periods are stupid especially in a field like energy prices where costs can jump massively in very short periods.

I'd have no problem with the government funding it but when you set ridiculous economic goals like the conservatives did you can't be spending large sums of money on things like this even though it'd be a big plus to our society. I have no problem with foreign investment, you shouldn't either. If anything EDF are the major problem in this & the fears about China are mostly unjust.

If it was being halted to fix these points it wouldn't be so much of an issue but in reality May has been against it from the get go and is now throwing he weight around.

As for nuclear being cheeaper than oil/gas you can argue it should be a lot less expensive but due to all the fucking around we've had with it in the past and not making it the backbone of our society it isn't. It never has been either so you can't really argue.

[OngBonga]

The fact nuclear is not a cheaper option only demonstrates to me that we're doing it wrong.

When I say "cheaper", I'd like to point out I'm thinking long term, like decade to decade, not year on year. Of course initially nuclear is very expensive because of all the hoops we have to jump through just to get a station online, but once it's online and has paid for itself, then it should be significantly cheaper.

My problem with foreign investment is that energy is not something that I believe should be the subject of profit for outside interests. It's not like the consumer has choice, we're not talking about standard market conditions here. For every megawatt hour of electricity that plant uses, EDF and China make money. That means we lose it. If it's proftable for them, why isn't it profitable for us to go it alone? It's not like we need £18b in cold hard cash sitting in the bank to make this work, we need £18b over a period of time in the form of contracts, which, if going to British companies, results in a boosted economy. The money that was profit for EDF and China is now profit for a British company, and thus taxable. If the companies are chosen wisely, they could be contractually obliged to reinvest a large percentage of the profit into expansion, thus further boosting the economy.

It's fine to take on debt, I'm not oblivious to the way the world works, I realise that a contract is debt, but it's the way we go about it that seems all wrong to me. The only reason EDF and China are interested is because they stand to make a shit ton of money out of it. EDF are worried about risk, I noted that, but they still voted it through.

Incidentally, I'm less concerned about France investing than I am China. France are genuine partners, both politically and economically. There is a near zero percent chance of our nations going to war in the next half a century or whatever. China, on the other hand, are a nation that could go either way in terms of the government structure. They already receive a lot of critisism from the West, it's not unreasonable to think that we could drift apart, rather than forge closer ties, over the next few decades. Working with China on such sensetive matters is even more risky than the financial implications that EDF are so worried about.

That said, I'd still much rather this project be a purely British affair, because I don't like the idea of people making a profit out of essential things like energy. At least when it's British profit, the economy gets something back.

[The Bean Counter]

Interesting article on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475

[wufwugy]

Slowmo is the worst. As a rule, if I see something that uses slowmo except in the most exceptional circumstances, I don't watch it.

[OngBonga]

Explosions in slomo are awesome, wuf talking shit as usual.

[JKDS]

Interesting article on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475

Seems like junk.

[Savy]

Seems like junk.

I've not read the article but what's junk about it? Anyone who watches sport knows that slow motion fucks around with the perception of intent.

[wufwugy]

Explosions in slomo are awesome, wuf talking shit as usual.

Sometimes those are good. What I don't like is this brand new trend of slomo gifs of things like a bike jump. Shit is retarded. Maybe, maybe show it in slowmo if there is some move that can't be caught with the naked eye that easily, but still only do it after normal speed. Everything "looks better" in slomo. Perhaps that's why dweebs love slomo so much. Their dweeb brains are easily tricked.

[OngBonga]

Agreed that slomo is overkill when it's inadequate subject matter, but things like fire, explosions, pressure waves from explosions, light, bullets, there's tons of awesome slomo footage on the internet. I'm not gonna let some cunt on a bmx ruin it for me.

[boost]

12 O'Clock Boys used slow motion to excellent effect in a couple dramatic landscape action shots.

But, yeah, it's mostly used as a cheap trick and over used at that.

[JKDS]

I've not read the article but what's junk about it? Anyone who watches sport knows that slow motion fucks around with the perception of intent.

I've responded to this at length, because the journal article is somewhat interesting even though the news article is junk.

The first indication of junk is in the first sentence. It says "slow moition replays ... shown in courtrooms may be distorting the outcomes of trials". Sensationalism sells; the more outlandish the article, the more clicks and views it gets, the more money the site makes. But the article doesnt say "slow motion distorts the outcome of trials", it says "may be distorting". This implies a lack of evidence for the former, as it would be the more outlandish and profitable thing to say. But inaccuracies, and false statements, can lead to lawsuits. It could also damage reputations. So instead of the unsupportable position, the article instead says "may be distorting".

However, the article is nonetheless based off of research in a highly regarded journal. It would appear that their sample size is reasonable as well. So despite the first line, I gave it a read.

Some of the facts in the article go without saying. Video evidence is, of course, important in court. Its also become much more common. I cant fault the study itself either. I take issue with the conclusions.

Lets take a look at the article. The inspiration of their research comes from Com v. Jordan, http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20...%20v.%20JORDAN. The prosecutor showed at trial that the defendant committed 6 armed robberies of retail food shops in North Philadelphia. He robbed 3 Dunkin Donuts shops at gunpoint. 2 Pizza shops at gunpoint. Then a fourth and final Dunkin donuts, again at gunpoint. You dont need a video to say the 12th robbery was intentional. But, thats not the article's argument. The case continues tragically, because an officer entered the store while the last robbery was in progress. The Defendant turned to the officer, took two steps towards him, pointed his gun, and shot him in the forehead at close range. He then fled, but not before stopping to take the officer's revolver.

At trial, the prosecutor showed the jury a video of the shooting. Because the defense argued that the shooting was a "panicky, reflexive action", the prosecutor showed the video in slow motion. By seeing it in slow-mo, you have more time to observe the two steps forward, the direction of travel, the position of the gun before and after aiming, and can better appreciate the distance between the two individuals. It is incredibly easy to miss details in what could be a split-second confrontation.

Legally speaking, the shot was clearly intentional. What else could he have intended when he moved the gun and pointed it at the officer? When his finger moved from the grip to the trigger? When he took two steps towards him, saw the white of his eyes, and fired at his forehead?

Note: the news article takes a different take on this defendant. They seem to believe hes innocent, and end their discussion of him with "Lewis remains on death row". This is likely appealing to the BLM crowd, or other popular justice reform narratives, in spite of the fact that "Lewis" committed 12 armed robberies, threatened the lives of over 12 people with a gun, killed a cop, and then took the cop's weapon as a trophy. Yeah, he should be on death row.

But enough of that. Lets talk about the article's study.

Study 1: They put jurors in a room, and have em watch a video of an attempted robbery resulting in the murder of a clerk. Its a 5 second video of the shot, and the jurors were split into two groups. 1 watching at regular speed, and 1 at slow mo. The article then states "as predicted, participants who saw the slow motion video felt the action was performed with more of a willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to kill, and were more likely to conclude that the person with the gun shot with the intention to kill".

Alright, stop. Imagine you are about to watch a 5 second video. You have 5 seconds to grasp everything about it. Now imagine you had 10 seconds instead. Would you capture more, or less, details? Obviously more. It goes without saying that by watching the video in slow motion, you would catch more details than in regular time. Especially considering this was a 5 second video, and the jurors saw it just once.

Does that mean the jurors are manufacturing intent where none was? No. In fact, the opposite could be true. It could easily be that the regular speed jurors minimized intent. Play a guessing game. I'm thinking of a number. You guess 2, another guesses 10. Which value is closer to the number I thought of? Theres not enough information to answer that question. Likewise, without knowing the truth (is there intent?), there isnt enough information to conclude which estimate of intent is more reliable.

Still, the difficult question of how you accidentally bring a gun to a robbery and then accidentally point and shoot is unanswered.

The remaining studies dont help answer these questions. So you've got data saying slow-mo = more intent, but what does that mean? Does that mean it is distorting criminal trials? Eh. The study doesnt show that.

One note is that the journal article puts a quote from the court in their introduction and conclusion. That "in a sense, all slow motion and freeze frame video distorts reality". Of course, thats true. Reality is distorted is because it got slowed down or frozen. That doesnt mean that the faith of convictions built upon slowmotion videos is suddenly undermined.

[Savy]

First of all thanks for the in depth reply.

Sounds like a nonsense story then. The journal article shows an effect which makes sense & I agree that that needs more context like you said. I would argue that it's much safer to assume it distorts it in a way which makes it worse at deciding all of those factors because we make all our decisions & view our lives in real time. Though I don't think for a second that a jury is good at those types of call period.

[The Bean Counter]

I've responded to this at length, because the journal article is somewhat interesting even though the news article is junk.

Yeah, I posted the link for you to comment on as I expected it to be missing a ton of important info/context. The implication was that slow motion makes the accused looked more suspicious and would potentially distort the prosecution process, which seems like BS.

[The Bean Counter]

That said, I'd still much rather this project be a purely British affair, because I don't like the idea of people making a profit out of essential things like energy. At least when it's British profit, the economy gets something back.

Pros and cons with privatisation and nationalisation, which no doubt have been done to death here. I can't believe that there is 5% VAT on energy bills however.

One thing about the UK investing in nuclear power. We really don't have enough nuclear engineering brains or experience to do this ourselves. It's always going to be a project that needs the UK to bring in worldwide brain power, but it would definitely be good to see as much as possible stay with UK registered companies.

[OngBonga]

There's a difference between employing foreign brains and allowing foreign nations to build nuclear generators on the outskirts of London.

We can only enter into such an agreement with a nation we are confident we are not going to go to war with. Can you really say that you think China meets this criteria? I wish I could say I had more faith, but I don't. We might not want to go to war with China, but USA might, and China know only too well how strongly we are allied to USA. We would not be able to stay neutral in such an event.

If we were only talking to France about this, then it would be less of a problem, it would purely be an issue of privatisation. I really don't see us ever going to war with France again.

[wufwugy]

England and France bestfrens5evuh! No takesies backsies.

[OngBonga]

I dunno about best friends. I think our relationship is like that of siblings. Everything he does get on your nerves, but he's your brother and you look out for him, right? Do you guys not have a similar relationship with Canada?

[Savy]

I dunno about best friends. I think our relationship is like that of siblings. Everything he does get on your nerves, but he's your brother and you look out for him, right? Do you guys not have a similar relationship with Canada?

We hate the French...

[wufwugy]

We hardly recognize the existence of America's hat (Canada).

[OngBonga]

We hate the French...

I hate my brother.

[chemist]

It goes without saying that by watching the video in slow motion, you would catch more details than in regular time.

Plenty of worn out VHS tapes would confirm this.

[boost]

This seems to be real, and no matter where you may fall politically or on this issue in particular, you've gotta respect the gamesmanship on display here: http://www.publicdefender.mo.gov/New...esentation.PDF

[MadMojoMonkey]

This seems to be real, and no matter where you may fall politically or on this issue in particular, you've gotta respect the gamesmanship on display here: http://www.publicdefender.mo.gov/New...esentation.PDF

WP.


EDIT: it's def. legit. The St Louis Post Dispatch ran an article about it in yesterday's paper.

[Savy]

Was in a book shop today and saw a copy of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Decided to pick it up due to the rave reviews some of you on here give it. Will post my thoughts after reading.

[a500lbgorilla]

Hope you enjoy it.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's in times like these, when the world comes together, that we see the true beauty of humanity

[oskar]

I identify as an Apache helicopter and I am disappointed by the unrealistic expectations people have of Apache helicopters through their overly helicoptery depcition in the media.
#outraged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8vnaRiF_-U

Found this on my facebook feed. Would it be acceptable to point out that the bitch is still fat at the bodybuilding competition?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Would it be acceptable to point out that the bitch is still fat at the bodybuilding competition?

Not in polite circles, no.

Saying the woman is still overweight at the competition is fine, though.

Social norms and all that.

**
Man.. I bet spoony just popped a random stiffy and doesn't know why.

[JKDS]

Fat people should be shamed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fat people should be shamed.

Yeah, but insults are so childish.

If we're not willing to shame them with a pillory, then I'm not into it.

[Savy]

Fat people should be shamed.

Does shame act as a strong force for change? Does this effect differ, in what is considered shameful & how much shame influences people, throughout social classes?

I'm fairly sure that fat is a much more lower class problem and either in those social circles being fat isn't as big of an issue or the effect of shame doesn't make as much of a difference. In which case shaming isn't an effective tool for solving the problem & all it does is act as a social barrier.

[OngBonga]

Homosexual people should be shamed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I want to agree with Savy on this one, but there are dozens of things I don't do in public due to my perception that it would draw ridicule. So, at least for me, public shaming affects my behavior.

Why is "fat" a shame word?

I mean: People used to call me a "nerd" and I felt they wanted me to be ashamed of it, but I never did. I always saw my nerdy traits as strengths, and if they don't see it that way... well, that's fine. Not my problem. Other people agree with me that being a nerd is where it's at, so why do I care if we receive criticism from people with different world-views?

So go ahead and call me a nerd. Say it with vitriolic intent. It wont shame me. It couldn't. I'm proud of it.


So these people who are crying over being called a name... one which signifies a true statement about themselves... that's even more childish than the people spouting childish insults.

[Savy]

I want to agree with Savy on this one, but there are dozens of things I don't do in public due to my perception that it would draw ridicule. So, at least for me, public shaming affects my behavior.

Think it's worth pointing out that I didn't say shame isn't a real thing and that it doesn't influence peoples behaviour. I'm just querying the details and application.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Does shame act as a strong force for change? Does this effect differ, in what is considered shameful & how much shame influences people, throughout social classes?

I'm fairly sure that fat is a much more lower class problem and either in those social circles being fat isn't as big of an issue or the effect of shame doesn't make as much of a difference. In which case shaming isn't an effective tool for solving the problem & all it does is act as a social barrier.

I don't think it's a lower class issue. Unless you mean everyone but the 1% by lower class.

There's definitely some fat in Congress, and I don't think anyone seriously considers them lower class.

[oskar]

Are fat people really being shamed by anyone? I have a couple fat friends and I think if anything, I should start shaming them. For 99% of fat people it's not a medical condition. Just stop shoving so much food down your top hole, retard.

[JKDS]

Habits are formed when you associate rewards with actions. By removing the reward, or by introducing a negative effect, you can change a habit.

That's why shaming matters. When I was a kid, the worst thing my parents could say was "im not angry, just disappointed". It provokes reflection.

I'm not saying we should take torches to the street. Nor am I saying we should openly mock fat people. But the whole "no fat shaming" stuff has to go. We should not be encouraging children to have bad habits. We should not treat obesity like it isn't a health problem.

Your body, your choice. I'm not saying we should force people into being skinny. But the culture of "gasp, I'm offended! Wah" needs to go

[JKDS]

I guess my main point is most people that complain about shaming are focusing on the wrong things. There will always be ridicule ammunition, for everyone. But being fat isn't something that should be celebrated or ignored. We are not perfect snowflakes. It's ok to have problems and be wrong about things. But we should acknowledge the problem, else how will it ever be corrected?

[OngBonga]

For 99% of fat people it's not a medical condition. Just stop shoving so much food down your top hole, retard.

Why should they eat less? Why is someone being fat a problem to you?

Poor eating discpline might be medical, or perhaps it's phsychological. Maybe it was developed in early childhood as a result of comfort eating... otherwise unhappy child is happy when eating sweets and cake... and as such could possibly be something so deep rooted in people that it's not a simple case of "fixing" it by eating less any more than "fixing", say, homosexuality by suggesting they stop thinking about eating dick.

Fat people should be shamed no more than smokers. In fact, why stop there? Let's shame people who don't go jogging every day, because let's face it, failing to go jogging every day has a negative impact on your health. If everyone went jogging, public health would benefit greatly.

So I hope you don't smoke, and go jogging everyday. And if you do, I'm sure there's something you can do to improve your health, and therefore the lives of everyone around you. And if there's something you can do that you're not doing, then shame on you. Utter shame. I hope you realise how selfish you're being by not doing whatever it is you could be doing to be a better person.

[OngBonga]

Healthy people are more likely to live longer and therefore require more state support in later life in the form of state pension.

Healthy people should be shamed.

[OngBonga]

The funny thing is, I don't even disagree with you people, I have a problem with fat people. The difference is though, I recognise it's MY problem, not theirs. Well, it might be their problem, they might be unhappy with their weight, or their health, or their relationship status, or lack of kids, but those are problems they can resolve or not, and it makes no difference to me.

The only way other people's weight is my problem is in the form of public health, and being fat is hardly the only problem in this regard. There's smokers, druggies, anorexic people, lots of people who disregard health for happiness or whatever the reason is for their bad habit.

Fat people are no worse than smokers. I might not like looking at fat people, but making them feel bad instead of me for that attitude is not the right way to go about things.

[Savy]

Is it an all over America thing where people say things like "needs cleaned" instead of needs cleaning and "needs brushed" instead of needs brushing? I've only noticed midwestern people do it.

[wufwugy]

i have no idea what you're talking about. my father was raised in the midwest too

[Savy]

i have no idea what you're talking about. my father was raised in the midwest too

You've never heard people phrase things that way?

To be more specific I've heard two different groups of people from Columbus do it and one group from Cincinnati.

[wufwugy]

heh i just returned from visiting family in columbus.

no ive never heard phrasing that way. i think you'll have to use it in a fuller sentence becuase im unsure what "needs cleaned" actually means. ive never heard somebody says "hey that thing over there that's dirty, it needs cleaned"

[wufwugy]

btw if you're ever in the ohio area, cedar point is the shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. gangster rollercoasters are cathartic as fuck.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is it an all over America thing where people say things like "needs cleaned" instead of needs cleaning and "needs brushed" instead of needs brushing? I've only noticed midwestern people do it.

It's not the most common usage in "proper talk" in the St Louis area, which is def. midwest, too.
It's not a common thing in the surrounding suburbs, either, which is where I grew up.
We do have our own regional slang, and there's a real divide between urban (black) slang and backwoods (white) slang.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that someone's hair "needs brushed" from either slang community.


Your major clue should be TV. Hollywood decided long ago that the American accent they will use as their standard is my midwest accent. Well, the midwest is a huge area, so technically includes the Minnesota accents (Canadian) and other "northernisms" all the way down to Texas, which parts of are considered "the South" and parts are "desert West" and parts are "midwest." So there's not really really only 1 midwest accent. However, my accent is used from St Louis all the way to Denver, CO and out into the Rockies as far as the 4 corners. I didn't notice any significant accents when I was in Seattle, and I knew a bunch of people from Salt Lake City whom I didn't think had accents, either (I mean: they had my accent).

[MadMojoMonkey]

btw if you're ever in the ohio area, cedar point is the shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. gangster rollercoasters are cathartic as fuck.

I stopped liking rollercoasters when I grew over 6 feet tall in high school. Those iron bars they use in lieu of seat belts don't fit me, and the jostling around is iron against bone. It's quite painful for me to ride most coasters... or it was 20 years ago.

[wufwugy]

I always figured that Hollywood English was just that area of California English. So now tons of Americans speak in Hollywood California English.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I always figured that Hollywood English was just that area of California English. So now tons of Americans speak in Hollywood California English.

Not the story I was told. IDK if this is all true, but this is the story I know:

Hollywood seems like an ever-present institution to us now, but it was tenuous at first. It was an experiment in communication and entertainment. It was a real concern to the early TV show makers that they would be considered to be ridiculously rude to impose their conversations into good people's living rooms. They were making every possible attempt to alienate as few people as possible and the midwest accent was the most wide-spread at the time. They chose it so that the most number of households would find the TV people to "fit in" with themselves as much as possible.

[wufwugy]

That makes a good deal of sense. I wonder if the accent Hollywood pulled from was the one used in the posited most American of nations in the book American Nations: the Midlands. Some of the Midlands runs right through the Midwest.

[OngBonga]

I stopped liking rollercoasters when I grew over 6 feet tall in high school. Those iron bars they use in lieu of seat belts don't fit me, and the jostling around is iron against bone. It's quite painful for me to ride most coasters... or it was 20 years ago.

They're really a lot more comfortable nowadays, unless you're like the size of a bear. Rollercoasters are fucking awesome, stop wussing out based on twenty fucking years ago.

[aubreymcfate]

Not the story I was told. IDK if this is all true, but this is the story I know:

Hollywood seems like an ever-present institution to us now, but it was tenuous at first. It was an experiment in communication and entertainment. It was a real concern to the early TV show makers that they would be considered to be ridiculously rude to impose their conversations into good people's living rooms. They were making every possible attempt to alienate as few people as possible and the midwest accent was the most wide-spread at the time. They chose it so that the most number of households would find the TV people to "fit in" with themselves as much as possible.

Reminds me of this David Milch interview I read recently. For those who don't know, he wrote Deadwood, which is notorious for its really persistent vulgar language, and has had its authenticity in that regard questioned because of what people's notion of the Western is. Here's what he says:

The idea of the western, I believe, as people conceive of it, is really an artifact of the Hays Production Code of the ’20s and ’30s and it has really nothing to do with the West, and much to do with the influence of middle-European Jews who had come out to Hollywood to present to America a sanitized heroic idea of what America was. The first term of the Hays Code is that obscenity in word or fact or action is an offense against God and man and will not be depicted. In the early ’20s there were starting to be films that were kind of racy and these guys didn’t want their hustle to be jeopardized. So they formed this production board which essentially announced that, let us run the show and we will give you an America disinfected and pure.

Working in network television I had something of a similar experience. You know, you can spend your time pissing and moaning about the strictures within which you’re forced to work, or you can try and find ways to neutralize the distorting effect of those strictures, which is to develop personalities [or] characters whose own internal process winds up at the same place as the external strictures, but for internal reasons. So, what the great western storytellers did was develop stoic characters who lived by a code and then a kind of justifying dramatic structure which validated that. Every storyteller works within the conventions of his time, and there were some great westerns done. But by the time I was watching them, the pernicious effect of the code itself had created a kind of sanitized and mediocre version of it. So, when I came to do “Deadwood,” I sort of came to it fresh.

[wufwugy]

William Munny and Unforgiven still the best. You're unforgiven for yet not watching it.

[NightGizmo]

Why should they eat less? Why is someone being fat a problem to you?

Obesity causes all kinds of other medical problems (diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, ...), which adds significant costs to the healthcare system. So their fat actually does cost me money, because my healthcare premiums go up to subsidize their bad decisions.

[boost]

William Munny and Unforgiven still the best. You're unforgiven for yet not watching it.

Stop this. I just finished Rome, and when I did, my first thought was, "First three seasons of OZ, Deadwood, and now Rome-- only Carnival left to complete the set of wuf's undwatchedmustwatch series."

p.s. Roller coasters are for rubes.

[wufwugy]

p.s. shitty Roller coasters are for rubes.

fixed