you're trying to measure the record based on something that it isn't. you might be less interested in what it is, and that's down to taste, but if you're going to analyze or grade it then you really have to try and engage with it as what it is. the record isn't about hooks or melody, it's about catharsis. the hooks are there, but they're far less important than the dissonance. it's a head cave; if you're going to be thinking of it as pop with a bit of noise, you're going to miss the point - you need to think of it more like early mogwai, or sonic youth, with just a tad of weezer. that makes it a headphone disc...
i liked attack on memory, but it was really heavily centered on "wasted days". beyond that first track, most of the songs haven't held up well. there's nothing to them beyond the hook - they get boring quickly. here, the guitars may only be coming from one person, but they're far thicker - they're built up through multitracking a lot of dissonant harmonies. it creates a bigger, more aggressive and more...cathartic...sound.
i'd call this one a "classic" (roughly a 9) and the last one "hit and miss" which works out to about a six.
as others have stated, this is a demonstration of patriarchy rather than a refutation of it.
the response driving a male to "protect" an abused female is itself a controlling response. men will step in under the hopes that they can take control of a submissive female. there's no such drive to protect a male (that is competition) from a dominant female.
the error underlying the experiment is the assumption that people are stepping in to "help" out of altruism, rather than to further their own aims.
the guy they picked was a little scrawny - small enough that he could be easily beat down and "his" girl could be "stolen" from him with little effort. do it again with a bigger, more alpha dude and you'll see a different response.
yeah, this is actually the version people are more familiar with - punchier dynamics. different master, or something.
it does sound better than the album version.
AllGuts NoGlory
This version is deep and also very dark and Jack White's version is shallow and has no soul. Jack White just copied what someone else created and screamed about it.
Jose Ortiz
I love both versions. U2's is for the person sitting at a bar pondering a failing relationship, where as Jack White's version is raw and could be the background music for a major breakup fight. The kind where pots and pans are flying and smashing against the wall. Either way, it's a well written song.
AllGuts NoGlory
I think this is intense and raw, but it is more like my lover left me and I am all alone and on the edge of despair and there is nothing left to live for and even the lyrics fit into this. I agree whomever wrote this and the other songs is really fucking good. But for me it is like cheapening Picasso's blue period into something commercial, but maybe you're right.. U2's version is very raw, edgy, almost terrifyingly haunting and the organ at the beginning is perfect.
LUCKY WE LIVE SARDINIA
why every time somebody does a cover, there is someone who NEED to say that the original version is better? It is so boring.
Anthony .Derwich
because the original versions are allways better than covers !! ;) (here a great exemple)
LUCKY WE LIVE SARDINIA
I prefer the cover.
Anthony .Derwich
after all we all have our own taste and opinion ;) (but try the u2 live version (Sydney 1993) of this song, it's just one of the best live performance ever IMO, the guitar solo is mindblowing)
Sorusch Afkhami
I like them both. Jack White's version is rougher and gives more a feeling of painful sorrow, while the original has a a feeling of nostalgic craving.
deathtokoalas
i found his version a little thin, but i'm not sure this song really gives him the opportunity to explore his strengths. it's an odd pairing. how many dark, mournful jack white songs are there? i mean, you have to assume the jack white you know is an alterego. there's nothing particularly revealing in this assertion - it's obvious. under the stage act, maybe there's a sad dude that listens to bauhaus and cocteau twins. but, if that's true, it just didn't come off so well.
AllGuts NoGlory
Not everything comes in autotune bitch!
deathtokoalas
i don't understand your response.
Sorusch Afkhami
I'd rather call it simplified, than thin and that's pretty much White's thing. Stripping songs down to their basics and add his personal touch. Mainly his guitar playing style in combination with the Whammy. But also some other effects he often uses that make his music sound gloomy.
deathtokoalas
not the most famous u2 track.
if somebody asked me to pick one, though, it'd be this - although it's hard to separate it from love is blindness, which follows. ideally, it's the two of them together.
Paul Madley
I've always felt those two tracks + Ultraviolet = a trilogy that's meant to be played as one. But that's just me.
Jordi A. TARRAGÓ
not only you ;D
Monday, September 29, 2014
deathtokoalas
this is not bad, musically, but why do all these kids have to wail like geddy lee? it's just sooooo offsetting...yuck....
hold your horses on the angry reactions, i'm actually giving it a chance on bandcamp. there's enough going on here to warrant it, i just don't know if i can get over that vocal style.
well, they've sold me a ticket to check them out. i'll go from there.
the thing i could never stand about the kind of music that got paired to this vocal style ten years ago or so was really just how generic and flat most of it was. it tended to fall into the simplest shit you could imagine, or just outright pretension - with nothing in between. there was just a dramatic decrease in complexity down from the stuff i grew up with (like the smashing pumpkins) down to the stuff that existed. i tried more than once, but it was just bad music. honestly. it's not age. i've been up and down band after band's discography and it's just all garbage from any point of analysis you could conceive of...
...but that seems to have started easing about 2008 or so. it's still a bit of a struggle to get used to these younger vocalists that actually went through their formative years listening to the literal definition of trite and had it define them, but it's doable. i think it's really just a process of mentally separating it; this doesn't at all seem to be what the singer initially advertises it as.
maybe not, actually. i couldn't get through a second listen without cringing. will try again later.
Daniel Thake
This little band is far above most in this genre, I don't normally listen to this stuff but it is 9/10 for me. I think the vocals are done quite well, it reminds me of Saosin E.P - Translating the name. I personally don't find anything about this generic, it is a great listen.
deathtokoalas
the thing is that saosin is kind of exactly the kind of thing i was talking about - and this is nowhere near as bad as saosin was, even if it immediately brings that kind of band to mind through the vocal melodies. remember kids: saetia was the one that was borderline listenable (but not really), saosin was the one you should never be caught dead listening to.
i think what happened around '08 was basically that the mars volta started producing a really dominant influence, and they sort of saved the genre from the kind of suck that bands like saosin or fall of troy were pushing. it was less through direct influence (although it's pretty strong, here) and more just the idea of being able to branch out into different styles and experiment with different things, which is something that just wasn't happening in the early 00s.
Daniel Thake
I enjoy Translating the name still, maybe it has a nostalgic feeling on me though, I was 12 years old when it was released. I cannot stand Circa Survive though..
PersistentResistance
If it sounds good, it sounds good. Sometimes it doesnt though (some DGD songs with Kurt Travis in it dont work for me and some of Thomas' vocals from Fall of Troy are painful). Ive seen Circa and Hail the Sun live, so im personally kinda biased. And i love Rush too, soooo yeah.
i'm going to have to come in soon and not buy anything.
actually, i need a chair with wheels on it. i somehow doubt you deliver. well, maybe you have a truck for delivery that doesn't work. so you "deliver", but only if we push the truck back and forth.
you're close enough that i can wheel it home. any with wheels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwOeNn_4sw
deathtokoalas
nice to see this is getting some hits....
does anybody have an update on tim's status? i've never been clear on whether the heart attack story was legit or an ironic way to end his musical career.
aahmm
Heart attack and a series of strokes. Devastating. Support Tim's care and rehabilitation with some lovely merch on Cardiacs website!
Big Dave
He's getting better but the stroke means he'll probably never play live again.
Philip Whitehead
If he could at least sing again it could bring the prospect of Cardiacs live but with someone else on lead guitar (Bic or Jon returning maybe?) but it still wouldn't be the same.
Big Dave
true but apparently his speaking voice is too quiet so he uses a pointer board. Neurological science is progressing phenomenally so hopefully Tim Tim may at least compose again. There'll be a queue of musicians waiting to play his material. We miss Tim. :(
Sunday, September 28, 2014
unexpected early crash.
i'm hitting a sort of neo riot grrl thing in windsor tonight and need to put a third coat of caulking on my window, but i'm hoping i can get at least one thing uploaded by the afternoon.
not only is that a bad tackle, it's an illegal tackle. way too high. that's 15 yards...
deathtokoalas
this is fake, that dog's been trained. even if it was used to having the door closed when it appeared at it, it would have pawed.
that's what the treat on the floor is for...
xwinger15
are you an alien?
deathtokoalas
hard to say. sort of, but it's not quite the language i'd use.
Thiwakorn F.
It seems the dog has been trained. Not for playing fake door, I think. But for it to wait until someone give permission to enter the house.
deathtokoalas
it was given permission to enter the house - it's being called. the little spin around stuff indicates there's more than that going on.
dogs do tend to spin around like that and look up towards the handle when somebody comes to the door. but i remain convinced this is not spontaneous, and rather the result of weeks of training.
EvilWiffles
If you look closely at 1:02 you can clearly see Illuminati trying to communicate to doggy.
deathtokoalas
dogs are pretty smart. this wouldn't be difficult...
Zakk
Mmmmm yes I saw that. Good eye...maybe to good...ILLUMINATI!
RedcapCreations
Holy crap your profile picture scares me! D: Looks like you were half way through an exorcism! D: D: D:
deathtokoalas
i was a little hungover, and not drinking nearly enough for it to be an exorcism...
Rebekah
The dog was trained to ignore the command to come?
deathtokoalas
until he waved his wand, yeah.
it didn't go to the person calling, it picked up the treat and walked off.
Cheesy Ben
IRRUMINATI HAS TRAINED DOGS
deathtokoalas
if this was an illuminati dog, it would have triangulated rather than circled.
Cheesy Ben
ze irruminati is everywhere
deathtokoalas
perhaps, but it is easy to identify. this dog can't even talk, it's clearly not possessed...
again: that's obviously a syrian military installation...
who are these people, and why should i care?
Saturday, September 27, 2014
see, what you don't realize is that they're trying to avoid being photographed in the "seig heil" position...
deathtokoalas
he should really have to pay twice the busfare if he's going to take up twice the space.
as it is, he paid for one seat and is consequently required to give the seat up to whomever requests it.
it's a nice try, but it's ultimately just yet another mra fail...
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
it's first come, first serve. she paid, so she's entitled to the seat - so long as somebody else hasn't claimed it first.
there are a lot of larger people on the bus that are going to require multiple seats, and they should be paying for as many seats as they take up, as well. i don't really see what difference it makes if it's somebody's baggage or somebody's ass.
nor do i think the "social upheaval" here warrants any kind of punishment other than a stern talking to. it's clear that the guy doesn't at all understand that she is in fact entitled to a seat - and not due to her gender but because she paid for one.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't expect a judge to accept that argument. sorry.
Art V
As a 5'1 368 lb Strong Beautiful Woman, I find it highly offensive that you feel someone should pay twice as much if they take up twice the space. I am sick and tired of the media and "skinny is beautiful" lobbyists who feel the need to spread their fatphobic logic and hatred online by saying things like this...
Shane
Skinny is not beautiful but neither is fat. Are you healthy? Does the doctor say your are in good health? Honestly? You can be whatever weight you want and I hope you are happy but you cannot say that being 368lbs is healthy.
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of media images, it's just a fact that you need two seats.
can you provide me with a rational argument as to why you shouldn't pay for two seats if you actually require two seats?
fwiw, your offense is of no concern to me and will not have any effect on my opinions or the way i express them. if you're just going to complain that you're offended, and that's the extent of your argument, then you can kindly fuck off.
i'm really not much of a fan of this *ly youtube content thing, but this is actually pretty good.
i'm scawed.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Rebekah Summa
For anybody disagreeing with abortion...a child is a CHILD from the day it is conceived. A heartbeat can be seen within THREE weeks of the child being conceived. For saying the child is "not really a child" is false. Because it is. Finish this sentence.."it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when....." Ya there is no answer. For anybody saying "what about rape". Why would you punish an unborn child because of one mans fault? The rapist already hurt the mother and if you have an abortion you are hurting another human too (the child conceived) abortion needs to be thought about and changed. It should not be "a woman's right" to kill a child.
Jimmy P
i dont think you meant to type what you did about the rape thing.. oh? you did? well then some people are just dumb :p
deathtokoalas
it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when the mother decides she doesn't want it in her body anymore.
easy.
Helena Jade
But shouldn't a woman be able to decide what she wants to do with HER BODY? If she doesn't have the money to support, or the baby is causing complications with her body, or the baby is cause by rape, she should be able to make her own decision considering it will be her body the baby will be growing in for the next 9 months. Whether to terminate or not? No one should decide something like that for you. That is a personal matter between the parents and most importantly the woman carrying.
gianna bruno
deathtokolas you are wrong. Everyone is agrees with abortion is wrong
TheNicoleDB
no...not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong because it isn't lmao
deathtokoalas
wrong in what sense, exactly? i don't think it's wrong at all, so you're going to have to make your case for me.
i'll even give you a humongous concession: i'll agree that life begins at the point of conception. now, this isn't a religious argument, it's to do with dna. if we acknowledge that what we are, biologically, as individuals is our unique genetic make-up, it follows that we begin our existence at the point that a new genetic combination is determined. so, sure life begins at conception: it's at that precise point that we become distinct individuals.
however, getting from that point to the point that abortion is "wrong" requires a lot of leaps that rely on some level of faith.
so, go for it. lay it out. explain to me why abortion is wrong. let's see how far you can get before i stop jumping with you and reject an opinion....
it looks like a game on the surface, but it's really a struggle for placement in the school's social hierarchy.
deathtokoalas
hrmmmn.
maybe you shouldn't sell guns at walmart?
the cops overreacted, but this is the kind of thing you use to argue we shouldn't have cops at all (which i'd argue) rather than the kind of thing you use to argue for more training. that's a judgement call. it's a bad judgement call, but it's not a training issue and it can't really be dealt with without pumping cops full of hormones. had that one cop called in sick that day or something, things would have turned out entirely differently.
it's really difficult for me to try and get my head around the open carry argument. i don't tend to have much empathy for cops, but policing in an open carry state's gotta be a very stressful job. this is one of those points where i need to step back and say "i'm canadian. i just don't get this.".
but putting the guns behind a counter or something, where they're watched and controlled, would eliminate this sort of ambiguity - you'd know when customers have store guns and you'd know when somebody doesn't have a store gun.
Ron Allen
Well yes, for REAL guns, they are sold from BEHIND the counter & a clerk has to unlock them from the case, but most every where I have shopped, BB or AIR rifles/guns are usually out of the shelf & can be carried to the counter to buy. They usually have 1 or 2 open for DISPLAY, so all the boxes won't be opened.
deathtokoalas
yeah. so, that's not a very good idea, is it?
the reasoning is the big brother intelligence services, and it is frightening. how can they cross-link your facebook, google, security and tax files if they don't know your government name?
it's about being a front for data collection. if you don't use your real name, it's very difficult for intelligence services to cross-link your files together.
so, i'd like to announce my new cult-based subscription business model.
deathtokoalas
you can't stop them. if the court stops them, they won't stop. if you vote them out, they won't stop. if we have a revolution, the new government will continue. so long as we have governments and we have technology, government will use that technology to spy on you.
that doesn't mean you should be complacent, or feel safe in the understanding that you're not carrying out crimes. what it means is that you should be vigilant in ensuring your privacy by taking personal action to protect it.
this idea that you can trust the government is pure idiocy. the laws have never been respected, they're just meaningless abstractions. so, stop being naive in thinking that the laws of the country mean anything at all and start taking greater control over your data.
the legal literature refers to this ridiculous idea that the government cares about it's own laws as "the rule of law" and claims our society is rooted in it.
an empirical analysis of western/european history since at least the industrial revolution suggests the exact opposite. our governments seem to have no respect for the "rule of law" at all, and essentially do whatever they want.
the idea that we have or can gain oversight over the state - and especially the deep state - is a lie. you can continue to believe these lies that keep the state in place, or you can reject them and adjust your existence to the reality - which is that the intelligence agencies in our culture are not subject to meaningful regulation or oversight.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
what you can do is force them to be more secretive about how they do things.
strangely, david gilmour still sounds like david gilmour,
running through these comments, i'm led to believe that people are a little bit confused. a common response seems to be:
"well, he made a few moves on her, and she said no. what's wrong with that? she can't just say she was harassed."
it's the making the moves part that is the harassment.
most of you don't seem to even understand that.
you need to ask somebody before you go grabbing their body parts or grabbing their hands at all, let alone move them to a part on your own body. if you don't ask, that's called harassment.
now, when you know somebody a really long time, those formalities might be a little less entrenched. that's when trust and intent become more important than formal requests.
but the idea that you can just grab somebody that you've known for a mere couple of hours without asking is entirely preposterous. this is the underlying patriarchal entitlement that feminists speak of, and it's all going directly over your heads without so much as a phantasmic smidgeon of evidence that it's remotely grasped.
it's a cropped, generated background - this could have been filmed anywhere. but, given that the guy has a british accent, it's reasonable to guess that it was filmed in london.
that's obviously a syrian government outpost. the building looks at least 100 years old - it was clearly not recently erected by isis fighters, but was taken over by them. so, this is merely evidence that the united states is, in fact, targeting syrian military targets.
today is a listening day and i heard something i didn't like.
these songs were created in mono, and i didn't see any reason to convert them to stereo; i actually thought the mono sound added a bit of a charm to it. they played through both channels in cool edit, on youtube and on bandcamp, but i just got the annoying left-ear thing through the downloaded flac, so i converted them to stereo for the upload.
it won't sound any different through the streaming. maybe there's a slight loss of character in moving from the original to the mono, but i think the ability to play it on modern equipment is more important.
i want to see how much of the main track of inri030 that i can salvage for the j-squared part, but i believe the vocals are inseparable from the bass, permanently placing the track in rabit. i may have a trick or two.
the next project is that choir.
i don't expect a track to cost me as much time as this did for quit a ways, looking forward. the pace of uploads is going to increase quite a bit.
--
this track represents somewhat of a refocus, but it never found itself to fruition in the way it was meant to.
over the summer of 2001, a friend of a friend decided he wanted to start
a band and asked me to play bass. now, we didn't really have a lot in
common besides both being musicians. i was spiralling out into obscure
independent music, and he was into all the mainstream rock bands. 2001
was the point where grunge was losing it's last bit of mainstream
potential, and giving way to nu metal and various watered down,
corporatized offshoots of hardcore. so, i was sitting around listening
to tortoise and writing jazz compositions and he was sitting around
listening to limp bizkit and writing mtv/radio rock. how could this
legitimately work?
there was a small amount of overlap, centred mostly around tool. it so
happened to be that tool had just released a new record, we were both
listening to it and neither of us really had anybody else to talk to
about it. so, something formed out of that.
now, when you're an isolated twenty year old that's never been lucky
enough to meet another musician you can start a band with, you take what
you can get. it seemed implausible that it was going anywhere, but
wasn't that the case for every other band that ever went anywhere when
they first started off? i don't think either of us thought we were
natural creative partners, but we had a set of common goals and if we
could put aside our differences...
see, the thing is i knew that the only way anything was going to happen
is if i sat down and recorded a bunch of stuff. but, i also knew that
this is a guy that defines himself in terms of his oversized ego and
that the whole purpose of it from his perspective was to give himself a
way to explore it. that's not the worst trait to have if you want to
start a band, either. my overwhelmingly shy introversion hasn't exactly
got me filling stadiums, has it? nor is it ever going to, and i realized
it even at that stage. so, a natural role would be for me to play the
producer (along with the bass guitar) while he throws some stuff at me.
if that meant i'd be doing 90% of the actual recording, that would be
ok, but i realized i had to let him provide the actual song structures
or he'd storm off and pout about it.
so, i waited for him to provide some material. and waited. eventually it
became clear that he didn't actually have any serious songs. we did a
few demos, but he could barely play what he was trying to demo and the
tracks were not of a gigging quality level.
in the mean time, he'd recruited a guitarist. he kept saying he was
talking to a drummer (no drummer ever appeared), and he also recruited
another friend of a friend as a singer. so, we had what seemed like a
full band, if you include the imaginary drummer. what i saw was an
opportunity. if he wasn't going to write some songs, i guess i'd have
to...
the other guitarist almost immediately dropped out, and the whole
project really fell apart rather quickly when the guy that initiated the
whole thing stopped showing up to practice. it was several weeks in a
row that only the singer and i showed up. i had a few songs i had
written, so we started working on those instead and that became rabit is
wolf. predictably, there was much pouting.
that leaves this particular song in an isolated limbo. when it was reworked for rabit is wolf (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-day-i-saw-you-cry
), it took on the epic and experimental nature i was exploring at the
time and lost the crux of itself as a stadium rock song. i feel
something valuable was lost in this process, if for no other reason that
this is so dramatically different than anything else i was doing at the
time.
thankfully, i still have the original drum files, and i remember how to
play the guitar part, so it's simply a process of recreating it. the raw
mix sounds exactly as the track did in 2001. the complete mix takes it
to it's final conclusion.
written in the summer of 2001. remembered over july, 2014. completed august-september, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
credits
j - drum programming, orchestral sequencing,
guitars, effects, synths, electric bass guitar, digital wave editing,
sampling, loops, equalization, vocals (5), production
the rendered electronic orchestra includes tuba, saxophone, flute,
clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and
various full string sections.
first things first, let's get the factories automated.
deathtokoalas
they're not articulating themselves well, but there is a strain of environmental politics that argues that reconstructing the hierarchical relationships of ownership to a more local-based command structure is the most promising approach in reducing the harmful effects of industry in general, not just reducing carbon emissions. the logic is that the people that live in the community will have a greater level of interest (and, wait, is this basically a property rights argument? from me? never....) in maintaining the health of the community than some disconnected board hundreds or thousands of miles away. it sure sounds like a more effective idea than carbon trading to me...
ultimately, i guess the important thing to realize is that these people aren't idiots in any reflective sense of their politics, but in the reflective sense of their nationality. this is the face of america today, regardless of where the meeting is on the political spectrum.
ukraine can't seriously fight with the russians. but, if the fighting goes on long enough, that's going to happen. then, you've got russian tanks in kiev and a really serious problem.
it's a late embrace of sanity in what was truly a reckless and outright criminal policy. if ukraine does not stop provoking it's much more powerful neighbour, it will soon cease to exist. what sort of delusion underlies the desire to keep fighting because the russians have invaded? that's a level of self-righteousness that's really hard to grasp. if this holds (and i do not think it will), it merely exposes how insane the idea of using force was in the first place.
was it pointless?
yes.
it was idiotic.
actually, she gets it in ways that a long of younger feminists seem not to. she's drawing attention to the structural concerns regarding the origins of the culture. "when men don't feel the need to control anymore...". meaning when men aren't taught to control anymore. that's the money statement, what you want to hear out of a speech like this.
easier analyzed than corrected, mind you, and it's not clear if the campaign's initiatives are working on that level. but this is a bit refreshing to hear in the sea of confused messaging...
dunno what's up with that edmund burke quote, though, she could have picked somebody else to express the sentiment. not sure i'm approving of that.
that's a lot of focus on the eyes for grunge.
listen: i know the purpose of this channel is to sell makeup so you're going to exaggerate a little for the purposes of maximizing product placement. but "grunge" makeup was actually very basic. if you're going to talk about make-up and "grunge" it makes the most sense to put it in the riot grrrl context, which was about co-opting the idea of the slut. it was "i'm going to dress like a slut and act like a slut and throw it in your face in order to force you to acknowledge my humanity". did it work? hardly. but that exaggerated makeup and those stripper costumes were a very conscious, somewhat violent political act.
if you want to tap into that, the idea in your mind needs to be, like, ninja barbie.
generally, the focus on the lips is very, very bright cherry red. that darker colour is more of a goth staple. eyes should be kept to a minimum, except for an exaggerated dollface mascara/eyeliner combo designed to exaggerate that ninja barbie feel. the key with the foundation is just that it doesn't look slathered; there's a wide variation between none at all and a kind of porcelain face.
the most 90s or grunge way to do your makeup, though, is to do what you want and not worry about others. make up your own style. that is what the 90s were really about :)
Monday, September 22, 2014
orcas aren't going to confuse you or a dog for a seal. they're too smart for that.
would you eat a strange animal you've never seen before? no. you might be curious about it, though....
deathtokoalas
"if guys worried about the things that sexist guys incorrectly perceive that women worry about."
this might apply very loosely to very badly sheltered 12-13 year olds in two or three counties in the bible belt...
these videos do more to perpetuate really, really bad stereotypes than they do to function as some kind of role reversal.
it's just another example of how blatant sexist idiocy routinely masquerades as feminism nowadays.
most young women do not talk to each other as though they're mindless puppets of enforced systemic patriarchy, and the male-projected fantasy that they do is precisely the sexist bullshit that upholds that patriarchy.
i would encourage buzzfeed to hire some female writers and correct this skit to properly reflect the kind of modern, emancipated discussions that women actually have with each other on this topic - not a script written by some balding 50 year-old university prof that thinks he understands women from analyzing freud.
MelancholicRomance
You go girl! :)
Privacy Pl0x
hahaha! well said. xD I think these videos are over exaggerated on purpose in order to be more entertaining and offensive. anything that's annoying draws attention somehow, otherwise how could it be annoying?
i think we really need to retire "back in black". it's appeal is entirely to people over 50, and i'd bet it is viewed amongst them as pretty cliched. anybody else is going to cringe and avoid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obs1EEmgPlM
don't listen to the dog fascists. i watched my sister try and "train" a dog like that, and by the end of it the dog completely ignored her - because all she ever did was yell at it. it was a very affectionate, friendly lab that learned quickly and always listened to everybody else. it didn't need discipline, it simply needed positive reinforcement.
your dog is a companion, not a slave. you don't want it to be obedient, you want it to be empathetic. it will respond far better to affection than to discipline...
now, that dog, right there, is actually telling it's cohabitant that it doesn't want to go home at all. it wants to make the creek it's new home. as an independently thinking entity, it has every right to express that desire and should not be punished or disciplined for it. to the contrary, it's the dog's cohabitant that has the responsibility to convince the dog to come home - and leave it if it insists on staying.
a little walk towards the car would have brought the dog running....
well, we don't know what she was doing there, she could have fucked up and corrected it. not proof.
but, of course it was rigged. i'll tell you the mistake they made, though: they made the numbers too obvious. 55% is unbelievably high, given recent polling. when they rigged the quebec vote in canada, they made it a lot closer. most people didn't even suspect it. that's the way you have to do it if you want to get away with it...
i don't expect scots to put on their tartans and warpaint and head down from the highlands for battle. in fact, i'd argue they're much better off in the uk...
...but of course it was rigged. they're all rigged...
deathtokoalas
more cynical politicking from the obama administration....
expect a lot of empty statements and stale rhetoric - with absolutely no meaningful action.
i hope he proves me wrong, though.
in fact, i dare him to.
convince me there's something to this...
yeah. i just took a look at the report and it's focusing on four things.
1) ending "extreme behaviour". i'm going to sidestep the debate: abstinence-based approaches are usually unsuccessful. but there's an analog to "safe(r) sex" that should be pushed hard through public education. it has to be stated though that this is kind of making the error of connecting rape to drinking, which is a false one. and, despite the rhetoric, it's dangerously close to the right-wing perspective. kids are going to get drunk, but, before they do, they should know things they need to do to be safe when they're drunk.
2) bystander prevention. this is messy. the supreme court has continually rejected this kind of thinking. when it's possible, sure, but it's going to be difficult to shift the legal system to assign that kind of responsibility to people - because it's been explicitly rejected. repeatedly. it's also ignoring the facts, which are that rapes usually happen in situations of trust without bystanders. this is really just rhetoric.
3) the psas. these strike me as useless for any purpose other than party messaging.
4) increased funding for crisis centres - which is needed, and probably the most substantial part of this. but it doesn't address the problem or take steps to prevent it.
i don't really know what the white house can do, besides aggressively push the "safe drinking" perspective and try to foster a level of peer pressure coercion against rape. i could argue it's not a total solution, but who would ever think that it is? there's such a complex interplay between defining culture from the top down and erecting it from the bottom up that it's hard to predict how successful it could or might be.
i'm skeptical. but i think it has to be stated that it has to be tried to determine if it's mostly successful and requires minor adjustments (which will become more clear if it is mostly successful), partially successful and require major adjustments or not successful at all. but i'm leaning towards the middle option as a best case.
we'll have to see how the money gets spent when it's in the hands of university administrators. that's probably going to be a defining point. so, if you're in a university, here's your chance to get involved and make sure they don't fuck it up....
the culture of male dominance is something that starts in the home, when boys are very young. often, mothers do as much to foster it as fathers do. every aspect of our culture enforces, upholds and shapes it. you get all this warped thinking about entitlement and ownership in men, and equally warped thinking about submission to dominance in women. that's really at the root of the problem. these are all band-aid solutions rooted in a confused understanding of the issue, and a bit of warped logic regarding what drives people...
i should note the "extreme behaviour" part wasn't in the report, but was an approach suggested by a third party. i initially misread that.
V Whitaker
Exactly!
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
i don't delete all of the comments that disagree with me, and the ones i do delete are not deleted due to disagreement. i merely expect a respectful level of discourse, and a moderate level of understanding of the topic at hand. note that a lot of the missing comments in threads i'm involved with are actually removed due to account deletion, as when a participant shuts down their account, their responses disappear. of the posts i have deleted, they fit one or more of the following characteristics:
1) a personal insult. even if you provide a long argument, an insult will get you blocked. i have a zero tolerance policy. if you will not conform to that, i am not interested in debating with you.
2) oppressive bullshit. again, i don't care about the rest of the argument. if there's racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit in there, it's gone. i won't tolerate this.
3) stupidity. it happens a lot, actually. i don't suffer idiots well, i'm sorry, and i don't feel obligated to reply to or engage with everybody that decides to reply to one of my comments. i've blocked people that agree with me because they're using bad technique. that just comes down to a personal choice to avoid certain people.
i'm not a politician, i'm a reclusive artist. i hate almost everybody. i have no prerogative towards or interest in building coalitions of people. it's really of no concern to me if you're blocked or not.
but if you don't want me to block you, simply don't insult me or reply to my posts with oppressive bullshit.....and try not to sound like you flunked out of grade school.
must have picked up a virus. it's weird though because it's only three symptoms: sore throat, sore muscles and tiredness. no coughing, fever, stuffinesss, anything like that. but it means i've been sleeping quite heavily since thursday. i wasn't sure at first that it was a virus, but i'm sure now...
so, it's going to get put back another day or two.
there's a yearly event in detroit tonight called the noise camp that i was going to check out, but the virus/rain/sunday combination is going to keep me in. the hope was that it would be done completely before i left; it's not even close. i may actually even crash (again) within minutes...
i'm at least more awake than i've been in a few days and think i can get some work done tonight....
Saturday, September 20, 2014
deathtokoalas
it's not a happy reality, but we don't live in the kind of judeo-christian fantasy reality projected by the garden of eden or in disney cartoons. cougars are not our friends. they want to eat us. that puts us in a mortal struggle with them, one that must end with either their demise or ours.
with cougars - and lions and tigers and crocodiles - the only interaction that we can have with them is "kill or be killed". there is no possibility of peaceful co-existence. we will consequently drive them to extinction. this is natural and unavoidable.
Terri
I don't get this "pop culture" thing with the "mortal struggle"? What? Judeo-Christianity "fantasy"? From what I have gleaned: that puts us at the top of the food chain where we have "dominion" over everything, which seems to be what you are saying. Ends with our demise or theirs? What? No possibility of peaceful co-existence? Natural and unavoidable? Uuuuuh: No. Of course nature does right itself -- always -- and it seems to me there is in fact, a possibility: humans have a frontal lobe and should be using it to coexist with nature.
deathtokoalas
no. the struggle does not put as at the top of any chain, it puts us in competition with other creatures aspiring to be at the top of the food chain. systems have predators that compete with each other for dominance, and that competition ends when one creature drives the other to extinction. this is the history of evolution - dominant species eliminate less dominant species.
we can maintain this fantasy that we ought to be holding on to reserves to protect things that eat us for a small amount of time, but it's ultimately impossible to be anything more than an illusion. that's the dominion you think of - this idea that we are their protectors. but, we are not their protectors. we are their competitors.
eventually the reality asserts itself: humans and species that eat humans cannot co-exist. we must eliminate them, and we will.
there's no use in being slave to a system of morals about it. it's evolution.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
well, i stated that it's not a happy reality. i don't enjoy the idea of eliminating species. but large cats, specifically, interpret us as prey - forcing us to kill them or become their next meal. excluding the large cats, the only other species that treats us specifically as prey would be crocodiles.
cougars are shy animals, and are not as threatening to us as tigers or lions. but you have to get a grip on the amount of people that tigers and lions consume in an average year. there are large areas of india and bangladesh where humans are actually a primary prey source. it's not because we're invading their habitat, or because we're killing their natural prey - we are their natural prey, and they have evolved to eat us. it's common in some regions of africa for lions to literally walk into a village, knock the door on the hut down, grab the person inside and drag them out. deaths due to lion and tiger predation regularly run into the thousands.
it's easy to come up with other ideas, but they're rooted in a level of naivete. the governments in the areas have tried to create reserves for tigers and lions, but it doesn't have the effect of keeping them away from humans, it just gives them a safe haven in which they can prey on us. there's a real political discussion in some areas of africa right now about how the reserves are causing increases in predation, and this is only going to continue as the protection increases - if it does increase, which i must suggest it cannot.
nor can we speak of drawing these lines in the sand, a la "i love lucy" and telling the lions to stay on the other side. they will expand. they will colonize. and they will eat us...
humans are going to populate the earth. we're not going to check our population in order to allow the cats to thrive, and as we do so we are going to have no choice but to eliminate them from areas that we are inhabiting - because they will eat us if we do not.
we should not shed tears for the crocodiles, as they will only respond by eating us.
deathtokoalas
ugh. what happened to the separation of church and state?
this is absolutely terrifying.
the first amendment in the united states constitution was intended to build a "wall" between church and state. it's written the way that it is because the concern at the time was that one religion would use the state to oppress another. that is, the intent was to prevent one sect of christianity from forcing itself on another. that might seem a little alien today, but that's because it was relatively successful. the underlying idea was that the state should reflect the values of no single religious institution. as mentioned, what that meant at the time was largely in relation to different sects of christianity, but it's meaning has been correctly interpreted since then to apply equally as well to different religions. if you're writing a constitutional amendment to separate church from state for the purposes of preventing anglicans from oppressing catholics, it follows that you don't want the state to act as a vehicle for christians to oppress jews or atheists, either. there are various morons that have tried to interpret the amendment differently, but they are just that - morons - and should not be listened to. there's absolutely no ambiguity in the historical record if you read the words of the people that wrote the constitution (most of whom were deists or atheists) that the first amendment was meant to separate church and state and honest, educated christians will agree with you on that point. there's no value in entertaining arguments to the contrary, as they are necessarily disingenuous.
now, the reason this is concerning is because it is attaching a religious component to what should be a religiously neutral institution. i'm not commenting on this in a vacuum, either. the state has been carefully nurturing religious sentiment in the military since at least the second bush administration, for the purposes of creating an us v them mentality.
the end result is a lot of self-righteous people with guns, who think they're acting out god's will of manifest destiny in "american exceptionalism". it's dark age, byzantine nonsense.
toantanya
I'm sure this was done on their own time and not forced.
deathtokoalas
the military is fostering it. "forced" is not the right word to use. "coerced" is more like it.
Newb55
what are you afraid of? Marines are atheist, agnostic, etc.....if they did not want to participate, believe me they wouldn't.
deathtokoalas
religion is a very powerful tool of control that states have historically used for horrific military purposes.
(deleted reply)
deathtokoalas
again, i don't see a use in this discussion. people want to talk about jefferson's writings as though they were just some isolated, irrelevant musings. well, he's the guy that wrote the damned thing. if you want to know what he meant, you need to look at what he said. i know that religious people want to look at things in strict, literal interpretations and when you're dealing with ancient texts that come down to us with little if any commentary there may be some justification for that - i mean, what else are you going to do besides discard it as archaic? but, we have a wealth of literature from the founders, and it's not ambiguous on the topic.
if you want to get into it, you should look into the writings of some british preachers like richard price, who argued for the separation on the grounds that it would keep the church pure from statist corruption. they weren't as far removed from the reformation at the time, and understood the papal lesson of integrating the state too closely with the religion. they would have also been working on roughly lockean principles in their understanding of power as a corrupting force. all that stuff about the separation of powers is kind of meaningless if you're going to fuse the church and the executive, or the church and the military, right afterwards.
there's just absolutely no meaningful argument for this, and i'm not interested in giving space to demagogues that want to push it. so, you'd might as well just drop it.
(deleted reply) deathtokoalas
i'm more worried about them destroying everybody else. these are people that want to see the apocalypse, you have to continually remember.
"yay! it's the end of world! i'll be judged and separated from the wicked and spend eternity with god! yay!"
there's one thing i'll agree with them on: it's really hard to get them out of public life. i'm not particularly threatened by somebody hanging out in a church and talking to an imaginary friend, but that's not really what religion is.
Edward
dumb bitch. I remember when we had one of those in Bootcamp and we all participated just to get the fuck away from the Drill Instructors and im an atheist that gives no shit about god. So stop spreading your stupid bs about the government trying to fuck all of us.
deathtokoalas
no, but this is what i'm
talking about - it's not a spontaneous display of religious fervour
(from people that kill for a living), but something that's very
organized with specific brainwashing purposes. they didn't send you
there to get away from the drill sergeant, they sent you there to steal
your mind.
Michael
Fear not, Jesus loves you too!
deathtokoalas
yeah, well, if jesus loves me, maybe he can do something about his followers for me, 'cause they have a habit of freaking me the fuck out.
Terry
Zen Training at Fort Benning, Buddhist Chaplain Part:2 here you go. Enjoy your freedom. -Merica'
deathtokoalas
yeah. that's meant to eliminate empathy. equally terrifying.
(deleted reply)
yeah. so, as i've stated repeatedly, the first amendment was built on lockean principles (as articulated by jefferson) with the purpose of separating the institutions from each other. somehow, you idiots seem to think that the purpose of the american revolution was to create a monolithic british state. no. that's what was being avoided. the singular, driving purpose of the american constitution is the separation of powers into executive, judicial and legislative branches. in addition to this separation is the separation of the military, the church, banks, etc. that is the foundation your country is built upon.
you can deny that if you want, but if you want to live in a country where the military is interconnected with the religion, your best bet is israel - and second best bet is saudi arabia. in the united states, it's not constitutional for the military to conduct prayer services. what you're seeing in this video should not be happening and will hopefully be stopped shortly. hopefully, somebody gets the information and launches the proper court battles.
thread closed. replies to new threads will be blocked.
(deleted reply)
again - as i've stated repeatedly - the issue here is not voluntary exercise of religion or accommodation of services but hierarchical enforcement of engaging in religion as a mandated experience.
this is a good start to learn about some of the recent issues surrounding the military forcing religious services on it's officers.
you know, it really seems clear that our religious narratives are largely confused stories of contacts with extra-terrestrial beings. and, when you see something like this, it makes it easier to understand how we may have become confused.
deathtokoalas
b12 is in fact really the only thing that you need to seriously worry about...
...other than that she looks twice her age. 25? i thought she was an expressive, girlishly immature 45 year-old hippie. she sounds like 25. she doesn't look like 25...
the lack of animal fat and abundance of indigestible cellulose has got her skin sagging. going vegan is healthy for your internal organs, but it will physically age you at twice or thrice the rate. she's going to be full of wrinkles and look like an old lady by the time she's thirty-five.
there's some research indicating that vegans have some difficulty with absorption, which isn't going to come out in these results. all the stuff is in the blood. can it all get out of the blood? there's a lot of suggestions that some of it can't - particularly the iron. that's not quite anemia, but it's something like it. it's thought that it may have some effect on calcium and vitamin absorption as well.
the flip side is that a high fat diet is demonstrably shown to be exceedingly unhealthy. no meat at all is incomparably better than large amounts of meat. but there's a bit of a caveat to this, in terms of bulk consumption.
i've spent a lot of time as a pseudo-vegetarian (i've never considered giving up cheese or eggs or fish) for broader health reasons related to keeping the stuff away from me in it's raw form. i won't handle raw meat of any type under any circumstance. the path it takes from the farm through the factory and the store to my kitchen is not a path that i would argue creates something that is safe to handle without taking biohazard precautions. bacteria. viruses. i'm not touching the stuff. but, i'll eat the odd burger or chicken breast at a restaurant, and pick up a bit of salami or sliced chicken from time to time. what that means is that my meat consumption occurs, but infrequently. despite having other issues with unhealthy substances, i've always been tested as being in perfect health...
the reality is that what you eat is less important than how much of it that you eat. your body breaks all the things you eat down the same way - it doesn't really care what it was before you ate it. it then stores what it doesn't need. if you sit around and eat enough tomatoes that your body is storing it as fat, you will develop heart problems. the thing is that tomatoes are much less dense than cow when it comes to this, so you're much more likely to "eat too much" if you have a lot of cow in your diet. in the end, though, it's simply a per gram issue, worked into the form of stored fat = energy consumed - energy burnt. the more "sophisticated" arguments are generally without much real scientific basis, and built on industry propaganda - getting your head around the healthy diet is really as simple as adjusting your calorie intake to your calorie expenditure, and the best way to do that is to let your stomach guide you. where veganism can come off as more healthy is in the lightness of the foods. if you eat really dense foods, you need to eat a lot less; if you eat really light foods, you can more or less eat all day without it catching up to you. so, that makes vegans seem to have less issues with their heart and liver, but it's not the proper conclusion to make - moderate meat consumption relative to energy expenditure (enough that minimal amounts are being stored) is equally as healthy, and the theoretical idea of gorging on vegetables to the point of massive cholesterol storage is no better than eating too many burgers.
moleman was probably a vegan.
--- FullyRawKristina
For those who are asking, my triglycerides are OK. They show high but that's because eating any carbs (especially fruits after you have gone some hours without eating) makes triglycerides go up. Given my perfect cholesterol levels it is nothing to worry about. Any food that had carbs will mobilize fat. Vegans often will test high in TG but have far less risk of heart disease.
deathtokoalas
yeah. cholesterol = stored energy. it doesn't matter where the energy came from. the idea that eating animals increases your cholesterol is completely wrong. it was based on the idea that the cholesterol enters directly from your stomach, which is not a scientific idea - the cholesterol is broken down through your liver and stored the same way that plant sugars are.
if you have high tricglycerides, it doesn't mean you're not eating enough animals. it means you're eating too many plants. it's not a reason to change the contents of your diet, but it is perhaps a reason to reduce the amount being consumed. (deleted)
deathtokoalas
that's incorrect. triglycerides are made inside your liver and broken down in the process of digestion. insofar as they contribute to clogged arteries, it's to do with the way they are reconstructed by your body. this is a consequence of consuming more energy than is being burned, not a consequence of eating any specific thing. (deleted)
deathtokoalas
there's no scientific distinction between "good" and "bad" fats.
the solution is not to change diet, and is certainly not to increase nuts, but to change the factors relating to excess storage. excess fat means you're consuming more than your metabolism requires to function. there's two solutions to this: reduce the amount of energy being consumed, or increase the amount of energy being burned (ie exercise more).
i would suspect that christina, like most foodies, tends to eat when she's not hungry. that's probably the real crux of the issue.
but perhaps she could also spend a bit more time walking. i don't know her habits...
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
see, it's a funny sort of thing. the american literature takes an obese population as a starting assumption. it just discards the possibility of reducing total energy intake - and there may be some big agriculture money underlying this, who knows.
but the presumed context in all that stuff about different types of fat is that you're dealing with people that are eating way more than they need to to begin with. so, if you're going to have all kinds of fat floating around in the blood anyways you're better off with the stuff that's cleaning the bloodstream out.
arguing that you should eat more nuts to reduce the triglycerides is like arguing that you should open the windows if you're going to smoke. there's a certain logic to it, but it's pretty warped, and it will produce it's own problems. the solution to high fat is never to eat more of something and always to eat less of something.
it's mostly the carbs, yes. you eat less carbs, you do a bit more exercise, you cut the fats down... (deleted)
deathtokoalas
the idea that eating nuts will "reduce your hunger for carbs" is utter nonsense, and i wouldn't take metaphysical advice from somebody that can't spell physiospatial. i wouldn't take metaphysical advice from anybody at all, except maybe artistotle...
and i want to be clear about this: nor will increasing your hdl lower your triglyceride counts. if you have high triglyceride, it might suggest you also have low hdl, but the reverse causal relationship does not hold. triglycerides are not removed with hdl.
replacing the carb source with a protein source may reduce the total energy consumption, but it's not the actual solution to the actual problem. the actual problem is that too much energy is being consumed for this individual's lifestyle, and the actual solution is to decrease consumption.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
ugh. fucking hippies...
she had a blood test done that told her her energy intake is higher than her lifestyle requires. therefore, she needs to consume less or expend more. it seems like i'm oversimplifying, but i'm not - the misconceptions in populist literature tend to overcomplicate it, and get away with it by taking advantage of people's ignorance.
i'll state it one more time:
stored fat = consumed energy - expended energy
therefore, excess stored fat ====> consumed energy >> expended energy.
we need to have consumed > expended. what we want is to minimize stored fat, which means minimizing (consumed - expended).
this can be done by decreasing consumed, increasing expended or both. there's nothing else to add.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
he seems to be a quack that can't pass peer review.
listen, i'm not interested in continuing this.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
the triglycerides in the blood are a much smaller risk factor. what she's going to be more concerned about is what happens when her metabolism shifts and all the triglycerides in her blood get parked in her thighs.
triglycerides cannot be absorbed through the stomach or the intestine without being broken down first. in canada, that was taught in grade 11 biology class.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i want to clarify, because it's clear you're confused and/or not very well learned on the topic, and i feel my statements may be further confusing you.
so, you eat some fatty foods. your body will break the fat down so it can absorb it, then put it back together again in a slightly modified form and send it through your blood, where it will either be metabolized or stored. but the fat doesn't exist in your blood in the form of a "triglyceride", it exists in the form of a molecule that carries the triglyceride. generally, your body prefers not to burn fat but to store it..
now, you eat some carbs. your body will break the carbs down into sugar and store them in your liver. at some point, your body will shoot off some hormones that will trigger your liver into releasing the sugar in the form of triglycerides. this is the primary source of the triglycerides in your bloodstream, because your body converts the triglycerides you get from fat into storage material before it enters your bloodstream, with the intent of putting it away for later.
now, depending on your diet, your body might not put the fat away for later, but burn it right away. but a metabolism that relies on fat for energy is going to show low triglyceride levels in the bloodstream. a very thin person like myself (who, again, is an omnivore) is likely to use fat for fuel rather than store it. this is the health ideal, but is not what she's seeing in her results.
having excess triglycerides like she does basically means her liver isn't able to store the amount of energy she's consuming in the form of sugar and is dumping it all into the bloodstream. that's a vast oversimplification, but it's basically what's happening...
(deleted)
Al Pal
The point she's trying to make is that it ISN'T working for her because her HDL and trigs are crap.
deathtokoalas
the doctor was right about hdl, though. if you have low ldl, you don't need high hdl. in fact, you're better off with low counts of both. the thinking around having high hdl is "if americans are going to be grotesque pigs and eat themselves to obesity, they're better off eating absurd amounts of foods with high hdl to counteract it a little.". but this is a compromise. ideally, you want low counts of both; you're better off reducing your ldl through healthy eating and exercise than band-aiding over it with hdl. so, her low hdl is not a negative, considering she doesn't need it to band-aid her low ldl. that's a sign of being healthy...
Gracie Decker
lol well since she was pre diabetic for her early life and this lifestyle brought her back from that, I'd say its working just fine.
deathtokoalas
the results don't suggest she has reversed her risk of diabetes, which doesn't have anything to do with eating animals - it's about sugar.
Big_Tex
Come to think of it, Kristina already meets at least 2 of the 5 criteria for metabolic syndrome (namely, HDL below 50 for a woman, and trigs above 150). If a person meets 3 of those criteria, they are considered to suffer from metabolic syndrome (roughly speaking, "pre-diabetes".) Would be interesting to know if she has it, if she were to get properly tested. The other three criteria are large waist size, high fasting glucose, and high blood pressure. Kristina obviously doesn't have a fat waist -- but there are skinny people who have metabolic syndrome and who get diabetes. We don't know from this video what's her fasting glucose and BP, unless I missed it.
And that's what this William Petersen wannabe should be talking to her about. Instead of rationalizing to her why her shitty numbers are OK, this doctor should be saying Uh-oh, you might have metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes, come back tomorrow and we'll do a proper fasting blood draw and check your BP, and oh btw leave the camera at home. Sarah R
If the results she posted were fasting lipid levels, then I don't think a high carb diet would cause a high triglyceride level. I don't remember any of the vegan doctors (Dr McDougall, Dr Barnard, Dr Fuhrman) mentioning that high carb vegans tend to have high triglyceride levels either. I have heard that they tend to have low cholesterol levels (LDL, HDL, total). In fact, I think I remember hearing Dr McDougall say that people with high triglycerides should focus on getting their carbs from starches because eating too much fruit can cause triglycerides to go up. I don't remember the exact reason why, but I think he said it was because of the fructose or just simple sugars in general.
deathtokoalas
the triglyceride levels in her blood should not be affected by whether she's consuming simple or complex sugars because it's regulated by the hormones releasing sugar from her liver and not by her diet.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
it doesn't make a difference relative to the triglyceride content of your blood, which is hormonally regulated. there will be some simple sugar that will enter your bloodstream directly, but it's not in the form of triglycerides.
she's probably diabetic. i've provided the option of eating less or exercising more, and those are the better options, but there is a third option of better sugar regulation with hormone injections.
Sarah R
Hmmm . . . I'm pretty sure that what Cynthia Bai said is correct: - fructose is metabolized by the liver and can affect triglyceride levels - glucose that comes from the digestion of starch is not processed by the liver and does not affect triglyceride levels
deathtokoalas
no. if there's anything approaching something that's almost right, it's completely backwards.
as far as your stomach is concerned, there's two kinds of sugar: monosaccharides (including glucose and fructose, wich would be treated the same) and all the rest. some of the monosaccharides (including straight glucose) will go direct to the bloodstream (and might give you a bit of a boost of energy). the rest is broken down and stored in the liver for future use.
most of the food you eat is not going to be in the form of a monosaccharide - and starch is one of the larger chains you can digest. your stomach will break the starch down to individual glucose molecules and store them in the liver for future retrieval. your stomach (your liver, actually, but i said stomach for a reason) will convert almost all the fructose you get into glucose and store it in precisely the same way.
if there's a difference it could come in terms of how you digest it. if you're eating some candy or sugar-water, then digesting a monosaccharide (fructose or glucose or any other) will bypass the whole thing and directly boost your blood-sugar levels - until your hormones kick in to shut it down. if there's any "bypassing", it's that. this has absolutely nothing to do with triglycerides, as it goes into the blood as actual sugar. carbs are always stored first, and retrieved later.
but it ultimately matters very little if we're talking about fruit or bread because neither are going to be digested as monos - they're both going to go through the liver.
Jackeyla Carty
hi fullyraw do you take probiotic to
deathtokoalas
considering that stomach acids are going to kill the bacteria and digest them, probiotics would not be consistent with a vegan diet.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
well, i don't know her diet, but i'm not sure why she'd be so adamant about it.....
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
vegans are the zero animal product under any circumstances type. it's generally rooted in ethical concerns, or very misguided medical advice.
vegetarians come in different flavours and may or may not eat some of the following: nuts, fish, eggs, dairy depending on various perspectives.
a raw vegan would only eat uncooked fruits and vegetables.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
that depends on if you're a pythagorean or not.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
if you were a pythagorean, you'd know you're a pythagorean.
the pythagoreans were a group of mystical mathematicians in the classical age that were very strict vegetarians under metempsychosis arguments. they had a bit of a quirk that extended their belief of transmigration to beans. so, they refused to eat beans because they could prove that beans had a soul. yes, they had a mathematical proof for this.
they didn't merely believe that beans have souls, they insisted they could prove it. seriously.
so, when somebody would question them on it - guys, this beans having souls thing, i dunno about that... - they would launch into a vigorous number theoretic defense that would end in the rigorous demonstration of the existence of beans' souls, clear enough that all with sound minds can agree.
math is a funny thing. especially if you pick unusual axioms.
but, yeah, that's why beans are listed separately. we have to account for the pythagoreans, too...
Rae Rael ラエ・ラエル
The triglycerides are high because of nuts overeating.
deathtokoalas
that's gotta be that bloodstream idea again, right.
hey, look a spider. i'm going to go follow it over there....
it's just like how the first person shooters are actually unpaid military training, except it's for those of you that are fucking hopeless with a gun in real life.
ThiefGuard
Or maybe its just for entertainment? You ever think of that? Instead of randomly swearing for no reason? Well guess what? Your statement is invalid because you're a retard!
(note that thief guard had a phillip banks icon)
deathtokoalas
yeah, well, everybody knows what the correct come back for uncle phil is. we know why you like the game. you're just drooling over those burgers.
and i'll swear as i see fit. we're not all fucking bourgeois bastards from bel-air, you know.
Bread Man
You seem like a wonderful bucket of sunshine.
deathtokoalas
i get my tan from standing in the english rain...
Yargle Barg
You look like a female Professor Snape.
deathtokoalas
you know, i was in that precise age group that harry potter didn't appeal to, as i was just a little too old to read children's books seriously and not quite old enough to read them ironically. i don't know the characters very well.
this is what sunny day real estate actually built their sound on top of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaB2iNRJ-pY
Thursday, September 18, 2014
burning at the stake was more of an inquisition thing, and it did happen - mostly jews, though.
see, what you don't know is that the cheating girlfriend called the sad-sack-of-shit's friend up and asked him to get him drunk so she could go on that date in the first place. the friend agreed to it because he wants to sleep with her, but wants to make sure they're broken up first. so, he takes his friend to where he knows they'll be so he can see it, pushing through the whole process.
guys are generally fairly naive when it comes to how they understand women...
deathtokoalas
this is terribly regressive...
and, remarkably, nobody has said it yet. there's some dumbass mras kneejerking to it, without stopping to realize how remarkably anti-feminist this is, to the point that it's arguably worse than the 60s music it's ripping on.
please don't let your daughters listen to this pro-patriarchal shit, and please take the time to talk to them about it if you see them being brainwashed by it.
dear future owner,
it'll be nice if you don't beat me.
subserviently yours, meghan trainor
Alyssa W
Ya.. but, thank god, it takes many types to live in this world. If this is her dream, and if anyone else wants to buy into it, so be it. As long as the rest of us can live more or less completely different lifestyles, and arn't oppressed.. no harm, right? *shrug.
deathtokoalas
the funny thing about oppression is that it's mostly a perception.
i don't really care about meghan trainor's personal life decisions, i'm more concerned about the renormalization of female domestication that this furthers without seeming to realize it. the message of the song is that the existing hierarchy is acceptable so long as it produces certain concessions. that's a big step backwards for social progress, and a big victory for the status quo.
it'd be one thing if it was some kid in her basement, it's another when it's media that is mass marketed to children with the explicit purpose of expounding a worldview.
also, to clarify: the play here is on 60s girl groups, like the supremes. this does not sound like music from the 1950s. whatever journalist initially wrote that had no idea what they were talking about....
i don't know who this guy is, so i'm not approaching this with any attachment, and i just need to suggest you take a step back and look at the track from a distance. it's really downright hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9wYZBJkarQ
deathtokoalas
i know almost nothing about gaming, other than that gaming doesn't seem to cause antisocial behaviour (beyond it's addictive qualities). rather, it seems to be that people with pre-existing issues are attracted to certain types of games.
i think the point is that if there's a problem then it's not gaming culture precisely, but more what gaming culture reflects - as mainstream film and music also reflects. you're not going to get to any conclusion at all by looking at gaming in this monolithic way, as though all games are the same or present the same perception of reality. there's not some centralized body overseeing sexism in games. some games may present a strong female protagonist, while others are full of patriarchal bullshit - and they may be released by the same company.
if the games that sell are the awful ones, the process of addressing it isn't demonizing the industry but addressing the cultural issues that produce the market for them in the first place.
fl4shblade
Games do not addict anybody. For a game to be addictive they would have to alter brain chemicals like for example alcohol. Games do not do that. They can create a compulsion to play though.
deathtokoalas
games actually do do that. they create a physical dopamine dependency in the same way that cocaine does.
in terms of addictive power, games are far worse than most drugs.
(although you don't overdose on them)
(deleted reply)
deathtokoalas
i'm merely stating the science. addicts will rationalize their addictions in complex and convoluted ways, but i'm not an addictions counsellor and i frankly don't give a fuck about your problem(s). i'm not going to empathize with your struggle or entertain your delusions, i'm simply going to remove your nonsense and block you.
video games are dangerously addictive. they ruin people's lives. that is a fact. no amount of anecdotes or bitching and moaning is going to change it.
as incredibly complex and slightly patronizing as that statement is, it actually means i'm in a cool place. i've been over this a few times, but allow me to reiterate why i usually (not always.) use the dude's room.
1) the primary reason is that i can use the urinals and will choose to in most circumstances. i find something disrespectful about forcing women to listen to it fall in the toilet, cause it's just obvious. the reality is that public washrooms are gross. if you did a random survey of women, you'd learn that something like 98% of them would urinate while standing if they could, because it avoids the ickiness of squatting. it would be irrational of me to not take advantage of my biology in this sense, considering virtually any woman would do the same thing if given the opportunity.
2) i transitioned late. it's generally clear that i'm trans, but few people are going to confuse me for a cis. i completely grasp why the idea of me walking into the women's washroom would be a little unsettling. if i were cis, would i want the actual me waltzing in there? the truth is that i probably wouldn't. i know there's going to be a spectrum of reactions, but i feel obligated to be respectful of this concern and aware of how other people feel about it. the converse is that the worst that's going to happen from using the men's room is a funny stare or a concerned reaction. in the end, it's not really important enough of a concern to me to start pissing people off.
i mean, i support the whole bathroom rights thing. but, personally? i don't really care if the bathroom door has an M or an F on it and i'm willing to compromise pretty dramatically to keep the peace on the issue.
it's not absolute. if i'm wearing a dress, or some other particularly effeminate clothing, and i feel safe in doing so, then i'll probably use the women's washroom. it's pretty rare, though. i really default to standing when i pee....
i actually had a good time tonight at the detroit museum of contemporary art. the drinks were exceedingly strong, it got me a little drunker than i planned to be and i ended up dancing a little. i actually kind of needed that, it'd been a while. reviews in the comments...
got distracted there...
so, the opening dj was actually mildly interesting. he was playing with max or audiomulch or something in real-time, which, yes, tends to unfold somewhat predictably. but it's not clear to me why people will knock some software for this, while not bothering with others. any software system is going to colour the output in a roughly equal manner.
he had some syncing going on with the background films. as one example - bucephalus or not - he had some kids bouncing balls synced to some beats bouncing.
this is what i pulled myself out to see, and it was quite enjoyable. there's a lot of process in their approach to deep bass music, which tends be very dark ambient and integrate a lot of glitchy noise. you can't dance to this, but it's nice to get as a blast of sound. it was plenty loud, but i do kind of wish it was just a bit louder.
there's an improv inherent in the design, but they did something quite similar to this.
here's a full set:
so, reading up a little on the show, it became apparent that what was driving it was an attempt to pull a little manchester into detroit house. true or not, detroit gets a lot of credit as being an epicentre of electronic music that has sort of lost it's way. so, from detroit's perspective, the idea is to try and bring a little bit of that british artistic genius in (a british invasion, if you will) to kickstart a more interesting electronic music scene in detroit.
but, i can only assume that the opposite perspective is of a sort of a pilgrimage to mecca - detroit being where it all came from. these are a bunch of lanky brits that have never been near to the city, remember.
so, you have to think that andy stott was maybe a bit nervous about playing detroit, and that the overly minimalist start to his set had something to do with playing to the audience - who was visibly a little restless, apparently looking for a drop. whether by design or reaction, he seemed to become very british all of a sudden and morphed into some solid danceable idm - we're talking amen breaks, autechre melodies and rdj basslines. in fact, it seemed like it was just about to break into some kind of totally mental squarepusher chiptune freakout before the clock turned to midnight and we all turned into pumpkins on the floor.
it really wasn't what i was expecting. andy stott is known for morphing minimalist house beats into these sort of impressionist soundscapes, which is something he leaned towards in the first half of the set but didn't really give enough time to develop as it's meant to. i've never heard of him being associated with that warp sound the way that demdike stare is often compared to autechre. unexpected or not, it sure was a lot of fun, though.....
i doubt i'll find much like what i heard out there. this is more the kind of thing he's known for - and did play around with a bit at the beginning of the set, although it was more stripped down.
