War Room Lounge v140:(redacted)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TeTe said:
I don't know if there's a writer who understands the human condition better than Hunter S Thompson
Click to expand...

This calls for a Trotsky-style list.

Top 10 understanders of the human condition among famous writers:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dickens
3. Dostoyevsky
4. Kafka
5. DFW (*ducks*)
6. Bellow
7. Tolstoy
8. Austen
9. DeLillo
10. Joyce

Not to be taken too seriously, as I don't really know what the category even really means.
 
Jack V Savage said:
This calls for a Trotsky-style list.

Top 10 understanders of the human condition among famous writers:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dickens
3. Dostoyevsky
4. Kafka
5. DFW (*ducks*)
6. Bellow
7. Tolstoy
8. Austen
9. DeLillo
10. Joyce

Not to be taken too seriously, as I don't really know what the category even really means.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with Shakespeare, as I am a huge fan of his stuff - if he didn't hijack most of his stories, characters and dialogue.

I'd throw in Mark Twain/Sam Clemens.
 
Bullitt68 said:
Acronyms, numbers and letters in parentheses, this stuff is gobbledygook to me. It sounds like an organization that doesn't pay any money to the government is now getting money from the government - because it's a non-profit complaining about loss of profits. Am I missing something or is this a bunch of people running around with handfuls of money screaming "Suckers!" over their shoulder? Assuming that I've got the proper gist, I'll say that this isn't exactly the type of shit that will ingratiate people to Rand and Objectivism. That this is how the ARI is "helping" the Rand/Objectivism "cause" is...unfortunate. This is the type of shit that makes people like Trotsky feel justified in their disdain.

If only there were a super cool academic by day and Sherdog mod by night who was in a position to write a book on Objectivism for a major academic press in the near future that could dispel all the bullshit and actually convince people that Rand's philosophy of Objectivism isn't Kool-Aid for crazy people despite the number of crazy Kool-Aid drinking people who like her/it...

Oh, that's right: There is.

3f24b2330c6f4f673eec206df9184d05.gif
Click to expand...
You're unironcially an Objectivist? Dude I'm an Islamist and even I'm embarrassed for you.
 
TeTe said:
Is he? I didn't pick up on that. Either way, he's giant pussy
Click to expand...

in the comments section, someone says that he was reciting "textbook sentences from a concealed carry scenario".
 
My mom and apparently her whole nursing home have Covid and are on 14 day lockdown

One saving grace is they are close to Loma Linda Hospital/Univ which is pretty legit
 
Jesus H. Sherdog said:
Sounds pretty good actually. I like that. 2 more sets? Not reps? What’s the base rep/set structure?
Click to expand...

So, the progression is based on volume. Mike Israetel is pretty explicit in his interviews that volume is the single most important factor driving hypertrophy. Volume has three parameters (sets, reps, and intensity). All three of them progress week by week. The rating number that I described adds sets. Reps progress by the ''reps in reserve'' method. For the first two weeks you are to leave 3 RIR, the next 2 weeks 2 RIR, and the next 1 RIR, and finally a one week deload. During that time weight also progresses. The first week is 0.85*10RM for all your lifts, and it increases by 2% every week until you deload. So as you go, you will be lifting heavier weights, through more sets, going closer to failure in each set.
 
Jack V Savage said:
This calls for a Trotsky-style list.

Top 10 understanders of the human condition among famous writers:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dickens
3. Dostoyevsky
4. Kafka
5. DFW (*ducks*)
6. Bellow
7. Tolstoy
8. Austen
9. DeLillo
10. Joyce

Not to be taken too seriously, as I don't really know what the category even really means.
Click to expand...
That's a tough list to make. I mean, who understood the human condition better, Schopenhauer or Whitman? What's more profound, optimism or pessimism?

It's also a bit tough to separate style from substance; in the case of Shakespeare, it's almost impossible-- he just crushes you with both... but for all that, does it mean he understood the human condition better than, say, Saint Augustine? Obviously, that depends on largely on your conclusions about what the human condition is-- and how firm those convictions are... or how firm you think those conditions should be.

All I will say conclusively is that I think you are right to rank Dostoyevsky in the top three.

And I hespect your inclusion of Dana Fucking White at #5. The man is a poet.
 
The Diplomat said:
I'd agree with Shakespeare, as I am a huge fan of his stuff - if he didn't hijack most of his stories, characters and dialogue.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I think it adds to it. Like the original Hamlet story (with the fishhooks) is stupid. He made it the Best Thing Ever Written by looking seriously at the thought processes that would go into it.
 
Kafir-kun said:
You're unironcially an Objectivist? Dude I'm an Islamist and even I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...
From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't seem so crazy -

Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see rational egoism), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

But I don't believe anyone can be truly objective due to our instinctual flaws.
 
Fawlty Elizabeth said:
Republicans seem overly pessimistic about the election. They're not in as bad of shape as they think. COVID could make the election unwinnable for Democrats, and nothing about it helps Democrats. There will be way more excuses (we've already seen this in the primaries) for shutting black people out of voting. They're going to go super hard on that and swindle this election.
Click to expand...

Isn't redistricting on the table with this election? That could be a huge blow to the GOP.

Also Trump does not afford any GOPer any wiggle room with his loyalty pleas. For example back when Arnold was running for his 2nd term in CA President W Bush reached out to see if Arnold wanted him to campaign for him. Bush was unpopular at this point so Arnold declined. Bush knew his own polling numbers and didn't take it personally, he understood that's the game of politics. Arnold distanced himself from Bush and won the election.

If you're in the GOP and your running now you have to show fealty to Trump. You can't distance yourself at all.

Take a look at 2018 and Mark Sanford. The guy was one of the founders of the Freedom Caucus and the record to prove it. He pushed back against Trump and Trump turned on him with a fury. The result was Sanford losing a very close primary to Katie Arrington who goes on to lose the general election to Democrat Joe Cunningham. The first time a Democrat won that seat since 1988 and it's all because of Trump's fragile ego.

Now let's look at the upcoming election and we have another example of Trump handicapping the GOP for no other reason than his own vanity with Jeff Sessions. In his last 3 elections Sessions got 58% of the vote, 63% of the vote and 97% when the Dems didn't even challenge him. He would probably defeat Jones easily but he had the nerve to obey the law so now he's persona non grata and we have another primary being dragged out.

The GOPers need Trump's blessing to win the primary and it can hurt them in the General especially in the hotly contested suburbs.


If there is a Blue Wave in 2020 and it gives more redistricting power to the majority party what does that mean for the future of the minority party?

Trumpists like to dismiss Project Lincoln guys such as Rick Wilson, John Weaver and Steve Schmidt because they think they failed in getting Romney and McCain elected President. But on the Congressional and State/Local level look at the seats those guys flipped to the GOP over the past 20-30 years.....
 
luckyshot said:
That's a tough list to make. I mean, who understood the human condition better, Schopenhauer or Whitman? What's more profound, optimism or pessimism?

It's also a bit tough to separate style from substance; in the case of Shakespeare, it's almost impossible-- he just crushes you with both... but for all that, does it mean he understood the human condition better than, say, Saint Augustine? Obviously, that depends on largely on your conclusions about what the human condition is-- and how firm those convictions are... or how firm you think those conditions should be.

All I will say conclusively is that I think you are right to rank Dostoyevsky in the top three.

And I hespect your inclusion of Dana Fucking White at #5.
Click to expand...

I was just looking at fiction writers, and really just a list of what I think people who say that kind of thing ("this motherfucker has a deep understanding of the human condition") are thinking when they say it. Like I said, not too serious.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Hmm. I think it adds to it. Like the original Hamlet story (with the fishhooks) is stupid. He made it the Best Thing Ever Written by looking seriously at the thought processes that would go into it.
Click to expand...
He was great at structure, and putting words to theatre. Whats funny is that he wasn't even that original compared to his contemporaries, but he picked the best stories and pieces of dialogue that would outlast his peers.

Julius Caesar is still one of my favorites to this day. Even the story of Romeo and Juliet was borrowed heavily from Marc Antony and Cleopatra's historical deaths.
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
It's an asinine position , even if you leave out the part that according to the authorities the road was closed and that he went around a barrier to get on the road , he still made the decision to not slow down and try to swerve around the vehicles , that's moronic , if there is an obstruction on a road , a normal person slows down .

Saying they had no one to blame but themselves is fecking stupid .
Click to expand...
Protesting in the road is not something new. This line of attack is just another way to justify violence. The cops allowed that protest to take place, so arguing about legality is completely moot imo. This whole thing is disgusting.
 
HappyCamper said:
If they hadn't been standing in the road, would they have been hit?
Click to expand...
Does this point actually seem compelling to you , or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,006
Messages
58,334,461
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top