Discussion:
Music to Bring Back Memories
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2020-01-05 04:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Many orchestras have performed the theme music from Star Wars and other popular movies...

thus, it's easy to find on YouTube performances by other orchestras of, let's say,

Star Trek


James Bond


but I was very pleasantly surprised to come across this unexpected gem today:

Lost in Space


and so I went looking for a few others to go with it:

UFO


The Time Tunnel


The Wild, Wild West


John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-05 05:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There was also a series of YouTube posts of other incidental music from Lost in Space by John Williams. I looked that up, and *this* ons



sounds almost as if it could have come from a movie that John Williams would work on many years later. Ah, I see his uploads are divided between a number of accounts - here's one from a different account



Lost in Space also used some music by other composers, which I bumped into in my searches. Thus, here's something by Bernard Herrman:



and here's something by Herman Stein:



John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-05 06:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This one's off topic: there's also a guitar player named John Williams,



and here he is accompanied by a well-known Greek singer.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-05 06:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There is also a similar series of background music cuts from The Time Tunnel, here's one:



John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 03:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Lost in Space
http://youtu.be/nKckxONAH4M
This same orchestra also does this performance:



Lost in Space 3rd Season theme
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Space: 1999
Lost in Space 1st/2nd Season theme

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 03:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Lost in Space
http://youtu.be/nKckxONAH4M
http://youtu.be/P8p0wySXkXY
Lost in Space 3rd Season theme
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Space: 1999
Lost in Space 1st/2nd Season theme
Oops, I got the two Lost in Space themes switched around.

John Savard
Titus G
2020-01-06 05:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh, no.

The Vat Quadibloccs are talking to each other.
Kevrob
2020-01-06 05:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Oh, no.
The Vat Quadibloccs are talking to each other.
Does something catastrophic happen if a fourth one
enters the conversation? I'd hate to see a Mechabloc
rampaging through the group!

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 05:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I may as well throw in Superman while I'm at it...



John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 12:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I may as well throw in Superman while I'm at it...
http://youtu.be/-NTiqPIySCM
After Lost in Space and The Time Tunnel on the one hand, and before Star Wars on the other, I had wondered, except for Jaws, what had been happening to John Williams' career. But a glance at IMDb, plus some checking on YouTube, shows that there was no hiatus.

The Time Tunnel 1966
Land of the Giants 1968
Goodbye, Mr. Chips 1969
Jane Eyre 1970
The Cowboys (movie _and_ TV series) 1972
The Screaming Woman 1972
The Poseidon Adventure 1972
Pete 'n' Tillie 1972
The Paper Chase 1973
Cinderella Liberty 1973
The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing 1973
The Sugarland Express 1974
Earthquake 1974
The Towering Inferno 1974
The Eiger Sanction 1975
Jaws 1975

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-07 04:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Oh, no.
The Vat Quadibloccs are talking to each other.
Maybe you didn't see the thread I started, and posted the vast
majority of posts in, over on rec.arts.sf.tv about speculative Korean
dramas. I expect whenever I finally post my last book log to do a
lot of the same kind of thing, although in that case much of it won't
be on-topic, which the vast majority of the rasftv thread is.

In this case, the original post was close enough to on-topic that he
might well have sat back and waited for others to post replies, but
he might well have been disappointed. Do you think there's something
*wrong* with his saving you some searches, should you wish to hear
that music? Or was it just a cheap and easy jab at an unpopular
person?

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Quadibloc
2020-01-07 05:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Do you think there's something
*wrong* with his saving you some searches, should you wish to hear
that music? Or was it just a cheap and easy jab at an unpopular
person?
The post of mine in question wasn't to add more music - but to correct a mistake
in the tracklist I gave.

Also, taking cheap and easy jabs at evil people who want to relegate women to
the home and deny them equality is not evil in itself. What I object to is the
mistake: I am no such person. Instead, because I'm worried that the equality of
women is having a consequence for out society - creating men such as those who
join the "incel" movement, for example - a way needs to be found to address that
consequence *without* taking away the freedom and choices of women.

But how can I complain of being misunderstood, when I chose to present what
seemed to be needed in a deliberately provocative manner?

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2020-01-07 15:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Joe Bernstein
Do you think there's something
*wrong* with his saving you some searches, should you wish to hear
that music? Or was it just a cheap and easy jab at an unpopular
person?
The post of mine in question wasn't to add more music - but to correct a mistake
in the tracklist I gave.
Also, taking cheap and easy jabs at evil people who want to relegate women to
the home and deny them equality is not evil in itself. What I object to is the
mistake: I am no such person. Instead, because I'm worried that the equality of
women is having a consequence for out society - creating men such as those who
join the "incel" movement, for example - a way needs to be found to address that
consequence *without* taking away the freedom and choices of women.
The bit that you just don't seem to understand, or accept, is that your
proposed solution does limit the freedom and choices of women. Your
very starting point is that the privileges and choices of men should
take precedence over those of women. When women only have instrumental
value, they cannot be equal to men.

Not that any of that makes you in any way exceptional in the annals of
history.
Post by Quadibloc
But how can I complain of being misunderstood,
In a somewhat whiny, passive-aggressive way.
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
2020-01-07 15:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
The bit that you just don't seem to understand, or accept, is that your
proposed solution does limit the freedom and choices of women. Your
very starting point is that the privileges and choices of men should
take precedence over those of women. When women only have instrumental
value, they cannot be equal to men.
Which brought to my mind a passage from Graydon's first
Commonweal novel, _The March North._

The good guys have pretty much wiped out the forces of the bad
guys, a few survivors of whom come to surrender and ask if they
can join the good guys. Their leader says,

"Lord, if we must pile bricks, or guard sheep, we will do it, and
earn our women, not win them."

And the Standard-Captain replies,

"That law permits you to come without arms, and to petition for
entry, but I tell you as surely as death comes to all living, if
you believe women are given in trade or purchase you shall not be
admitted nor could you prosper."

There are some men who still need to realize, whether persuaded
by logic or by repeated metaphorical thumps upside the head, that
men do not have a God-given right to women, that (as Ovid put it
a few millennia ago) to be loved, you must be lovable.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-07 19:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Joe Bernstein
Do you think there's something
*wrong* with his saving you some searches, should you wish to hear
that music? Or was it just a cheap and easy jab at an unpopular
person?
The post of mine in question wasn't to add more music - but to correct
a mistake in the tracklist I gave.
The post he replied to was indeed that, but that's not what he was
attacking, or he would've quoted the self-correction; instead he only
quoted the attribution lines, so he was attacking the fact that you
had followed up to your own post. And most of your self-followups in
this thread have not been self-corrections, but listing additional sf-
relevant music.
Post by Quadibloc
Also, taking cheap and easy jabs at evil people who want to relegate
women to the home and deny them equality is not evil in itself.
That doesn't mean it's admirable. Cheap and easy jabs amazingly
reliably turn out to be morally questionable, enough so that I doubt
they're ever a genuinely good idea. Maybe in situations where you're
confronting genuine evil in person and your rhetoric has to win over
it, convince the onlookers *not* to go kill all the ___, say. In
life or death situations, cheap and easy jabs, as a tool, might prove
to be the best tool for the job at some point; but in most situations,
they're a bad tool, with a tendency to turn in the hand.
Post by Quadibloc
What I
object to is the mistake: I am no such person. Instead, because I'm
worried that the equality of women is having a consequence for out
society - creating men such as those who join the "incel" movement,
for example - a way needs to be found to address that consequence
*without* taking away the freedom and choices of women.
Your usual presentation of this makes it, to say the least, unclear
whether the freedom and choices of the vat girls would be respected.
Is their existence supposed to provide lovers for unloved men (with
limited freedom for them to choose otherwise), or merely to modify
the human sex ratio so as to improve those men's odds? If the latter,
one can imagine many ways to improve the odds without changes to the
ratio, or ways to change the ratio without creating people who'd
probably feel like second-class citizens even if the laws didn't make
them so.

(Various kinds of reptiles have fairly straightforward ways to change
their sex ratios. This suggests we may have the relevant genes, in
which case turning them on would be the next thing to research, no?)
Post by Quadibloc
But how can I complain of being misunderstood, when I chose to present
what seemed to be needed in a deliberately provocative manner?
If you mean here the vat girls, yes. Improving the odds would sound
very different from your usual rhetoric.

But if you mean here the soundtrack music, are you saying you
*planned* all these self-followups, already had the entire set of
YouTube references in your possession but decided to dole it out in
bite-sized pieces? There are rhetorically less bad ways to do that
kind of thing too, but I beg leave to doubt that you were actually
doing that.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Quadibloc
2020-01-08 04:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Your usual presentation of this makes it, to say the least, unclear
whether the freedom and choices of the vat girls would be respected.
Is their existence supposed to provide lovers for unloved men (with
limited freedom for them to choose otherwise), or merely to modify
the human sex ratio so as to improve those men's odds? If the latter,
one can imagine many ways to improve the odds without changes to the
ratio, or ways to change the ratio without creating people who'd
probably feel like second-class citizens even if the laws didn't make
them so.
It is indeed the latter.

And of course other steps would need to be taken _first_.

The most basic step is "fixing the economy". Essentially, bring back the
economic conditions of the postwar boom, so that virtually all young men, when
they graduate from college or high school, shortly after embark on a steady job
and/or a career.

Once a man is in this position, then, if he is also "lovable", by which I would
assume a kind and faithful partner, who would respect his wife, would it be
nearly certain that he would be able to marry?

Maybe not.

In a world where women *are* equal to men, and thus have the option of
supporting themselves through paid employment as a result, some women - perhaps
a significant number - may choose not to partner with a man.

Why?

One obvious possible cause is... trust issues. From being sexual assault
survivors.

After fixing the economy, the next step needed, therefore, before something as
difficult as altering the human sex ratio, is eliminating rape from the male
behavioral repertoire. However, while bringing in staggeringly severe penalties
for it would help a little, experience has shown that crime can't be easily
deterred out of existence. Fixing some social inequalities might help. As
impulsiveness is a trait that leads to criminal behavior which is difficult to
deter, that needs to be addressed.

One constructive measure would be to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol
syndrome. By bringing back Prohibition, it seems, since restrictions targeted
against women or against Native Americans are not possible. But that didn't work
out well the last time. (So another possible alternative is institutionalizing
people with conditions like fetal alcohol syndrome for life - so that the rate
of rape and other violent crimes is kept very low. The available choices are all
less than good.)

Now, it is indeed true I'm assigning a high degree of importance to the
contentment of males.

But I've explained why. They're the ones who man armies. They're the ones who
enforce the laws. They're the ones who conduct revolutions.

So if the males *aren't* content, society becomes unstable, and it may collapse
- going back to a less civilized time where women *don't* have rights.

So the consequences of women's equality have to be dealt with in order to make
equality for women *sustainable*.

And it should be noted that I'm looking at a level of social stability that is
only likely to be relevant... in a world where the polity I wish to make stable
doesn't have to worry about foreign enemies; no war, no terrorism. One worldwide
shared set of values, one utterly dominant global culture. So vat-girls are a
long way off in the future.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-01-09 00:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Joe Bernstein
Your usual presentation of this makes it, to say the least, unclear
whether the freedom and choices of the vat girls would be respected.
Is their existence supposed to provide lovers for unloved men (with
limited freedom for them to choose otherwise), or merely to modify
the human sex ratio so as to improve those men's odds? If the latter,
one can imagine many ways to improve the odds without changes to the
ratio, or ways to change the ratio without creating people who'd
probably feel like second-class citizens even if the laws didn't make
them so.
It is indeed the latter.
And of course other steps would need to be taken _first_.
The most basic step is "fixing the economy". Essentially, bring back the
economic conditions of the postwar boom, so that virtually all young men, when
they graduate from college or high school, shortly after embark on a steady job
and/or a career.
Once a man is in this position, then, if he is also "lovable", by which I would
assume a kind and faithful partner, who would respect his wife, would it be
nearly certain that he would be able to marry?
Maybe not.
In a world where women *are* equal to men, and thus have the option of
supporting themselves through paid employment as a result, some women - perhaps
a significant number - may choose not to partner with a man.
Why?
One obvious possible cause is... trust issues. From being sexual assault
survivors.
After fixing the economy, the next step needed, therefore, before something as
difficult as altering the human sex ratio, is eliminating rape from the male
behavioral repertoire. However, while bringing in staggeringly severe penalties
for it would help a little, experience has shown that crime can't be easily
deterred out of existence. Fixing some social inequalities might help. As
impulsiveness is a trait that leads to criminal behavior which is difficult to
deter, that needs to be addressed.
One constructive measure would be to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol
syndrome. By bringing back Prohibition, it seems, since restrictions targeted
against women or against Native Americans are not possible. But that didn't work
out well the last time. (So another possible alternative is institutionalizing
people with conditions like fetal alcohol syndrome for life - so that the rate
of rape and other violent crimes is kept very low. The available choices are all
less than good.)
Now, it is indeed true I'm assigning a high degree of importance to the
contentment of males.
But I've explained why. They're the ones who man armies. They're the ones who
enforce the laws. They're the ones who conduct revolutions.
So if the males *aren't* content, society becomes unstable, and it may collapse
- going back to a less civilized time where women *don't* have rights.
So the consequences of women's equality have to be dealt with in order to make
equality for women *sustainable*.
And it should be noted that I'm looking at a level of social stability that is
only likely to be relevant... in a world where the polity I wish to make stable
doesn't have to worry about foreign enemies; no war, no terrorism. One worldwide
shared set of values, one utterly dominant global culture. So vat-girls are a
long way off in the future.
We keep telling you, quadi, and you keep refusing to believe, that the
reason you can't get laid is not that you are low status, it is that
you are the sort of nerd who proposes "vat girls" instead of just
talking in the general direction of women until you find one who talks
back.

Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
Kevrob
2020-01-09 02:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
There's the rub. It's the problem Groucho Marx had with clubs.

I'm over 60, single, w/o kids, and heterosexual.
It would have been nice to marry and have kids, but
things just didn't work out that way. C'est la vie!

How was it put, about then-bachelor Tommy Makem in the
liner notes for one of his albums with the Clancys?
"Better to make thousands of women happy, than one
miserable?" :)

My "relationship count" is not quite as legendary as
the folk singer from South Armagh might have racked
up before starting a family, but, musicians, right?

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-09 02:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
There's the rub. It's the problem Groucho Marx had with clubs.
I'm over 60, single, w/o kids, and heterosexual.
It would have been nice to marry and have kids, but
things just didn't work out that way. C'est la vie!
How was it put, about then-bachelor Tommy Makem in the
liner notes for one of his albums with the Clancys?
"Better to make thousands of women happy, than one
miserable?" :)
My "relationship count" is not quite as legendary as
the folk singer from South Armagh might have racked
up before starting a family, but, musicians, right?
I'm just as happy at this point. I've dated some spectacular women,
blew it with one who I really wish I hadn't blown it with, found out
that the girl of my dreams was a lemon, and I'm kind of half-way
hoping that my former boss gets tired of her boyfriend.
Titus G
2020-01-09 03:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
There's the rub. It's the problem Groucho Marx had with clubs.
I'm over 60, single, w/o kids, and heterosexual.
It would have been nice to marry and have kids, but
things just didn't work out that way. C'est la vie!
How was it put, about then-bachelor Tommy Makem in the
liner notes for one of his albums with the Clancys?
"Better to make thousands of women happy, than one
miserable?" :)
My "relationship count" is not quite as legendary as
the folk singer from South Armagh might have racked
up before starting a family, but, musicians, right?
I'm just as happy at this point. I've dated some spectacular women,
blew it with one who I really wish I hadn't blown it with, found out
that the girl of my dreams was a lemon, and I'm kind of half-way
hoping that my former boss gets tired of her boyfriend.
So, no Vat girl sale to J Clarke yet, but perhaps we should send a
disposable "salesgirl" to Kevrob, Mr Quadiblock, Sir?
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-09 03:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
Huh. I'm a short, aging, homeless man; I usually smell bad. How
would I go about finding a woman who'd be willing to marry me?

"Any man" is a really broad term. It's not hard to imagine even less
marriageable men than me - I don't, for example, have any extreme
medical issues (some of which make their sufferers smell worse than I).

The point here is that once you start to admit that there might be
exceptions, attention turns instead to "how" questions rather than
existence ones, and many of those "how" questions relate to changing
the man in question - in my case, for example, my hygiene (which is
driven by several economic issues as well as laziness). You hinted
at this yourself by talking, in the paragraph I snipped, about your
interlocutor's behaviour (also something of an issue for me).

The old saying: "Women marry men hoping they'll change. Men marry
women hoping they won't. Both experience disappointment."

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
J. Clarke
2020-01-10 00:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:57:18 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
Huh. I'm a short, aging, homeless man; I usually smell bad. How
would I go about finding a woman who'd be willing to marry me?
"Any man" is a really broad term. It's not hard to imagine even less
marriageable men than me - I don't, for example, have any extreme
medical issues (some of which make their sufferers smell worse than I).
The point here is that once you start to admit that there might be
exceptions, attention turns instead to "how" questions rather than
existence ones, and many of those "how" questions relate to changing
the man in question - in my case, for example, my hygiene (which is
driven by several economic issues as well as laziness). You hinted
at this yourself by talking, in the paragraph I snipped, about your
interlocutor's behaviour (also something of an issue for me).
The old saying: "Women marry men hoping they'll change. Men marry
women hoping they won't. Both experience disappointment."
You're like Quadi, you're assuming that (a) you know what women want
and (b) they all want the same thing. Freud himself admitted to not
being able to figure out (a) and the fact that Ellen DeGeneres, Donald
Trump, Ghandi, Stalin, and a certain homeless woman of my
acquaintance are or were all married to women is fairly conclusive
evidence that (b) is not true. You're a mess, so you need to find
somebody who wants to rescue you. They are out there.
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 15:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You're like Quadi, you're assuming that (a) you know what women want
and (b) they all want the same thing.
One doesn't have to make that assumption to observe that *most* ordinary women
seem to want much the same things, and *most* ordinary men want much the same
things.

I have a pessimistic view of human nature.

As one should reasonably expect, as living beings, humans first seek survival
and reproduction. This expresses itself differently in males and females: for
reproduction, males seek to impregnate females; females seek resources with
which to bring their children safely to adulthood. To balance these competing
interests, the institution of marriage has been developed as a human universal.

The great agricultural civilizations on record pretty much *all* started out
with an arranged marriage system. There were a number of reasons for this. One
was simply that early societies didn't have enough of a surplus that they could
afford the level of policing that would make "dating" a safe activity.

One way in which civilizations fall is that they become "decadent". The usual
picture of that is that they become absorbed by indolence and vice. That
certainly would be a bad thing.

I am wondering, though, if something else might not be at work. Societies that
become wealthier and more civilized tend to accord women more rights. And a
legal code designed for the upper classes may not be a good fit for the
circumstances of the proletariat.

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-12 22:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:57:18 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
Huh. I'm a short, aging, homeless man; I usually smell bad. How
would I go about finding a woman who'd be willing to marry me?
"Any man" is a really broad term. It's not hard to imagine even less
marriageable men than me - I don't, for example, have any extreme
medical issues (some of which make their sufferers smell worse than I).
The point here is that once you start to admit that there might be
exceptions, attention turns instead to "how" questions rather than
existence ones, and many of those "how" questions relate to changing
the man in question - in my case, for example, my hygiene (which is
driven by several economic issues as well as laziness). You hinted
at this yourself by talking, in the paragraph I snipped, about your
interlocutor's behaviour (also something of an issue for me).
The old saying: "Women marry men hoping they'll change. Men marry
women hoping they won't. Both experience disappointment."
You're like Quadi, you're assuming that (a) you know what women want
and (b) they all want the same thing. Freud himself admitted to not
being able to figure out (a) and the fact that Ellen DeGeneres, Donald
Trump, Ghandi, Stalin, and a certain homeless woman of my
acquaintance are or were all married to women is fairly conclusive
evidence that (b) is not true.
You're still evading the point that "any man" essentially always
makes demands of some men that they change, thus turning into a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Not that I'm saying no men should change, but
tautology is not good argument.

And the further point that once you drop "any man", you get to "how?"
Which I asked in the above, *without* assuming that I know what women
want or that they all want the same thing.

To put it another way. Most women don't want short men. Many women
don't want men much older than themselves. [1] Most women don't want
poor men. Most women don't want smelly men. In the "any man" case,
my job is to dig through haystacks until I find the golden exception
that proves, gosh darn it, I really am a man and not a wombat. In
Post by J. Clarke
You're a mess, so you need to find
somebody who wants to rescue you. They are out there.
In other words, your own rhetoric keeps veering between these poles.

There is a woman currently trying to rescue me. She's facing the
possible imminent death of her long-term partner, and she's quite
hostile to the idea of marriage (having done it once), but long term
she *might* conceivably marry me. Or she might succeed in rescuing
me enough that I become less of a mess, and have to make serious
choices re marriage and what it might cost.

As it happens, there may be another route to marriage for me. I was
once woken by a woman probably twenty years younger than me asking me
to become her "protector". She proceeded to behave pretty crazily,
and I've always suspected she was actually neither homeless nor crazy,
but put up to it by the drug dealers who did business across the
street from that place I slept. But it's probably realistic to think
that I could find a woman among my peers who'd accept me. However,
it might be harder to find one willing and able to demonstrate that
acceptance by marriage.

I've been having trouble reconstructing the log entry I once wrote
and then lost for Jodi Picoult's <My Sister's Keeper>, in which,
inter alia, two teens dying of cancer Find Love. (In the movie
version they consummate this love, too.) It may be that the case for
"any man" is so strong as to be tantamount to conclusive. But
stating it as a Truth has the effect of redefining "man", not of
encouraging (or even, where you started in this subthread, berating)
those of us who are lonely.

Joe Bernstein

[1] The divorce rate, I'm pretty sure, is no longer 50%, and I *think*
the majority of unmarried women I meet are younger than I am, usually
considerably so. The woman currently trying to rescue me is older.
Generationally, Gen X is, in the US, *defined* as slim pickings in
comparison either to the Baby Boomers or the Millennials. The woman
currently trying to rescue me is from the tail end of the former.
Most women still able to bear children (and I've long wanted children)
are now Millennials.
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
J. Clarke
2020-01-12 23:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:38:59 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 03:57:18 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Any man who makes getting married a priority and is willing to accept
whoever will marry him can get married. There are a lot of lonely
women out there.
Huh. I'm a short, aging, homeless man; I usually smell bad. How
would I go about finding a woman who'd be willing to marry me?
"Any man" is a really broad term. It's not hard to imagine even less
marriageable men than me - I don't, for example, have any extreme
medical issues (some of which make their sufferers smell worse than I).
The point here is that once you start to admit that there might be
exceptions, attention turns instead to "how" questions rather than
existence ones, and many of those "how" questions relate to changing
the man in question - in my case, for example, my hygiene (which is
driven by several economic issues as well as laziness). You hinted
at this yourself by talking, in the paragraph I snipped, about your
interlocutor's behaviour (also something of an issue for me).
The old saying: "Women marry men hoping they'll change. Men marry
women hoping they won't. Both experience disappointment."
You're like Quadi, you're assuming that (a) you know what women want
and (b) they all want the same thing. Freud himself admitted to not
being able to figure out (a) and the fact that Ellen DeGeneres, Donald
Trump, Ghandi, Stalin, and a certain homeless woman of my
acquaintance are or were all married to women is fairly conclusive
evidence that (b) is not true.
You're still evading the point that "any man" essentially always
makes demands of some men that they change, thus turning into a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Not that I'm saying no men should change, but
tautology is not good argument.
Well, yes, if you want something to happen and it's not happening you
should figure out why it is not happening and adress the issue. If
that's what you call "change" then yes, people have to change.

The issue is usually not that the male is of "low status", it is that
he just plain isn't meeting any women in a social situation.

"Vat girls" and the like won't fix this--if a guy runs screaming in
terror every time a woman speaks to him and spends his life hiding in
his mother's basement he's not going to do any better with vat girls
than with non-vat girls.
Post by Joe Bernstein
And the further point that once you drop "any man", you get to "how?"
Which I asked in the above, *without* assuming that I know what women
want or that they all want the same thing.
To put it another way. Most women don't want short men. Many women
don't want men much older than themselves. [1] Most women don't want
poor men. Most women don't want smelly men. In the "any man" case,
my job is to dig through haystacks until I find the golden exception
that proves, gosh darn it, I really am a man and not a wombat. In
First thing is to recognized that what people say they want and what
they want are two different things. "I want a nice, tall, rich man
who is kind to me". "Where'd you get that bruise?" "My short mean,
broke, homeless boyfriend slugged me". "Why don't you leave him?" "I
loooove him".
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
You're a mess, so you need to find
somebody who wants to rescue you. They are out there.
In other words, your own rhetoric keeps veering between these poles.
There is a woman currently trying to rescue me. She's facing the
possible imminent death of her long-term partner, and she's quite
hostile to the idea of marriage (having done it once), but long term
she *might* conceivably marry me. Or she might succeed in rescuing
me enough that I become less of a mess, and have to make serious
choices re marriage and what it might cost.
Note--I might have misspoken. I associate "marriage" with having a
long term partner in a committed relationship, not necesssarily with
having a piece of paper. There are sound reasons why it is beneficial
for some couples to not marry, no matter how committed they are to
each other. So where I put "marriage" before, replace it with "long
term committed relationship", possibly with formal documentation.
Post by Joe Bernstein
As it happens, there may be another route to marriage for me. I was
once woken by a woman probably twenty years younger than me asking me
to become her "protector". She proceeded to behave pretty crazily,
and I've always suspected she was actually neither homeless nor crazy,
but put up to it by the drug dealers who did business across the
street from that place I slept. But it's probably realistic to think
that I could find a woman among my peers who'd accept me. However,
it might be harder to find one willing and able to demonstrate that
acceptance by marriage.
There, you see, you do have options.
Post by Joe Bernstein
and then lost for Jodi Picoult's <My Sister's Keeper>, in which,
inter alia, two teens dying of cancer Find Love. (In the movie
version they consummate this love, too.) It may be that the case for
"any man" is so strong as to be tantamount to conclusive. But
stating it as a Truth has the effect of redefining "man", not of
encouraging (or even, where you started in this subthread, berating)
those of us who are lonely.
My intent is not to berate anybody, it is to point our that many
people make their own problems and the solution to those problems is
not to surround them with vat-girls who will be just as unattainable
for them as non-vat girls, it is to identify and address those
problems.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Joe Bernstein
[1] The divorce rate, I'm pretty sure, is no longer 50%, and I *think*
the majority of unmarried women I meet are younger than I am, usually
considerably so. The woman currently trying to rescue me is older.
Generationally, Gen X is, in the US, *defined* as slim pickings in
comparison either to the Baby Boomers or the Millennials. The woman
currently trying to rescue me is from the tail end of the former.
Most women still able to bear children (and I've long wanted children)
are now Millennials.
Quadibloc
2020-01-12 23:39:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
My intent is not to berate anybody, it is to point our that many
people make their own problems and the solution to those problems is
not to surround them with vat-girls who will be just as unattainable
for them as non-vat girls, it is to identify and address those
problems.
Oh, absolutely.

I just think that the increased independence of women has created an
_additional_ problem, leading to many men who don't have those problems _also_
not finding mates.

It isn't lonely men who have stayed too long in their mothers' basements that
are going to overthrow governments or start wars, its those who get out more.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 04:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
We keep telling you, quadi, and you keep refusing to believe, that the
reason you can't get laid is not that you are low status, it is that
you are the sort of nerd who proposes "vat girls" instead of just
talking in the general direction of women until you find one who talks
back.
I know you find this hard to believe, but it's not about me.

It's about the large-scale impacts on our society.

It's about China's one-child policy leading to a situation where the Chinese
regime feels it has to calm internal tensions by invading the Philippines or
India.

It's about discontent in the Western world fueling divisive politics. About
people voting for demagogues who promise to bring back the good old days by
containing immigration and bringing back domestic manufacture - but whose real
agenda is entirely different.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 00:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
We keep telling you, quadi, and you keep refusing to believe, that the
reason you can't get laid is not that you are low status, it is that
you are the sort of nerd who proposes "vat girls" instead of just
talking in the general direction of women until you find one who talks
back.
I know you find this hard to believe, but it's not about me.
It's about the large-scale impacts on our society.
It's about China's one-child policy leading to a situation where the Chinese
regime feels it has to calm internal tensions by invading the Philippines or
India.
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.

Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
Post by Quadibloc
It's about discontent in the Western world fueling divisive politics. About
people voting for demagogues who promise to bring back the good old days by
containing immigration and bringing back domestic manufacture - but whose real
agenda is entirely different.
I recent article suggested, with nice-looking graphs, that, over the
last few decades, a lot of former Democrats and former Republicans
have become Independents who tend to still vote for Democratic or
Republican candidates. This has caused the Parties to become more
extreme simply because only the more extreme elements are still there.

If this continues, we may yet get two new parties, one center-right
and one center-left, with enough votes to oust the increasingly
extreme parties currently in charge.

Or, rather, which currrently would be in charge, if anyone actually
were in charge. They mostly seem to be interested in being as extreme
as possible.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-10 08:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
I recent article suggested, with nice-looking graphs, that, over the
last few decades, a lot of former Democrats and former Republicans
have become Independents who tend to still vote for Democratic or
Republican candidates. This has caused the Parties to become more
extreme simply because only the more extreme elements are still there.
If this continues, we may yet get two new parties, one center-right
and one center-left, with enough votes to oust the increasingly
extreme parties currently in charge.
You consider the democrats extreme left wing?
You don't get out much...
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 15:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
You consider the democrats extreme left wing?
You don't get out much...
Well, maybe relative to the *American* voter. They're not running for election in
Sweden or Iceland.

John Savard
James Nicoll
2020-01-10 15:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
I recent article suggested, with nice-looking graphs, that, over the
last few decades, a lot of former Democrats and former Republicans
have become Independents who tend to still vote for Democratic or
Republican candidates. This has caused the Parties to become more
extreme simply because only the more extreme elements are still there.
If this continues, we may yet get two new parties, one center-right
and one center-left, with enough votes to oust the increasingly
extreme parties currently in charge.
You consider the democrats extreme left wing?
You don't get out much...
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal election,
neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. Instead we had the
led by a guy who wears blackface and yet still less racist than the next
two choices party, the genteel racist party, the super racist party, the
we like animals but not in _that_ way party, the unfortunately we're not
in Europe and so can only hope the led by a guy who wears blackface and
yet still less racist than the next two choices party steals our policies
party, and the we like trees but not in _that_ way party.

I ushered an all candidates event in which the super racist party did a
fine job of making the genteel racist party look good by comparison.
Sadly, the genteels have a policy of not showing up to these events as
actual contact with the voters does the candidates no good.

(In all fairness, most of the racist parties also hate women)

Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Kevrob
2020-01-10 16:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)

Kevin R
James Nicoll
2020-01-10 17:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)
That and so people will remember what communists really are.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
William Hyde
2020-01-10 20:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)
We usually had two communist candidates. The Moscow oriented one and the Maoist. Put them both on a stage and they could easily spend more time slagging each other than the capitalist parties. Put one on the stage and the NDP (mild socialist) party would be the target.

Our Moscow-loyalists were far the smoother in my area. Mostly English/Irish culturally, they did a good job of not sounding like party-line machines. Generally lost their deposit, though (i.e. didn't pass some vote threshold - around 300 votes, I think). I knew one of these families. Nice people with a good supply of easily drinkable Bulgarian wines.

I was a student at U of Waterloo near James when the student newspaper was taken over by the Maoists. Something stupid in the paper's constitution meant that meetings could not be adjourned until everyone agreed, so the Maoists just waited until everyone else was gone (36 hours in one case, it was reported) before electing themselves to all the important offices.

At this point the only country in the world that was purely Maoist was Albania, so the student newspaper featured many articles on said worker's paradise, and there was much mockery of this. Stalin was a god as well, so they launched a serious if incompetent defense of Lysenko on the part of history and politics majors against actual scientists.

A competing paper was started, but eventually a third paper was adopted as the official student paper. It was an interesting two years.

William Hyde
James Nicoll
2020-01-10 21:52:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)
We usually had two communist candidates. The Moscow oriented one and the Maoist. Put them
both on a stage and they could easily spend more time slagging each other than the capitalist
parties. Put one on the stage and the NDP (mild socialist) party would be the target.
Our Moscow-loyalists were far the smoother in my area. Mostly English/Irish culturally, they
did a good job of not sounding like party-line machines. Generally lost their deposit, though
(i.e. didn't pass some vote threshold - around 300 votes, I think). I knew one of these
families. Nice people with a good supply of easily drinkable Bulgarian wines.
I was a student at U of Waterloo near James when the student newspaper was taken over by the
Maoists. Something stupid in the paper's constitution meant that meetings could not be
adjourned until everyone agreed, so the Maoists just waited until everyone else was gone (36
hours in one case, it was reported) before electing themselves to all the important offices.
At this point the only country in the world that was purely Maoist was Albania, so the student
newspaper featured many articles on said worker's paradise, and there was much mockery of this.
Stalin was a god as well, so they launched a serious if incompetent defense of Lysenko on the
part of history and politics majors against actual scientists.
A competing paper was started, but eventually a third paper was adopted as the official student
paper. It was an interesting two years.
It felt much, much longer than two years. Maybe because the Anti-Imperialist Alliance
hung on like a bad case of the clap.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-12 04:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You were younger, and not obsessed with illegally typing up an MSc thesis (we had no access to the earliest word processors, so it was a typing ball and massive amounts of whiteout for me). Time passes slower for the young and for those not looking over their shoulders for the typewriter police.
Say what? Illegally typing? Dafuq?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
William Hyde
2020-01-12 20:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You were younger, and not obsessed with illegally typing up an MSc thesis (we had no access to the earliest word processors, so it was a typing ball and massive amounts of whiteout for me). Time passes slower for the young and for those not looking over their shoulders for the typewriter police.
Say what? Illegally typing? Dafuq?
A bit of comic exaggeration for a situation I still find amusing.

In the Good Old Days MSc students wrote out their theses longhand, then paid someone to have it typed. Paid quite a bit, by student standards. A friend in the early 80s shelled out $600 - without equations. Well over a month's pay.

But in the Good New Days of our story, theses had grown longer - my thesis was about twice as long as those common five years earlier - plus I needed much of the Greek alphabet as it was dense with equations. And no typist could read my handwriting, anyway.

The department had an IBM typewriter with a typing ball that could use all the characters I needed, but it was Forbidden to Students. Imagine the Chaos if all twelve of our grad students could use it when/if they ever finished!

So, with the cooperation of the departmental secretaries, who supplied a key to the office, I stole the typewriter every night about 8PM (this was not a department where professors worked late) typed away at an office that I had unlicensed access to but which had an FM radio, and returned it about 4am, sliding the typed pages under my supervisor's door before leaving. This went on for about three weeks. I got to see some nice sunrises.

I don't recall whether I bought or "borrowed" the whiteout. I only know I used a lot. The typing ball had a tendency to slip, especially on kappa, which I used frequently. One page must have taken half a bottle.

When it came time to do another thesis, I found to my delight that someone had created something called TeX. Within 48 hours of having the TeXbook thrust into my hands, I had 20 pages of equations neatly typed, and no whiteout was necessary! Bliss.

William Hyde
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-12 22:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You were younger, and not obsessed with illegally typing up an MSc thesis (we had no access to the earliest word processors, so it was a typing ball and massive amounts of whiteout for me). Time passes slower for the young and for those not looking over their shoulders for the typewriter police.
Say what? Illegally typing? Dafuq?
A bit of comic exaggeration for a situation I still find amusing.
In the Good Old Days MSc students wrote out their theses longhand, then paid someone to have it typed. Paid quite a bit, by student standards. A friend in the early 80s shelled out $600 - without equations. Well over a month's pay.
But in the Good New Days of our story, theses had grown longer - my thesis was about twice as long as those common five years earlier - plus I needed much of the Greek alphabet as it was dense with equations. And no typist could read my handwriting, anyway.
The department had an IBM typewriter with a typing ball that could use all the characters I needed, but it was Forbidden to Students. Imagine the Chaos if all twelve of our grad students could use it when/if they ever finished!
So, with the cooperation of the departmental secretaries, who supplied a key to the office, I stole the typewriter every night about 8PM (this was not a department where professors worked late) typed away at an office that I had unlicensed access to but which had an FM radio, and returned it about 4am, sliding the typed pages under my supervisor's door before leaving. This went on for about three weeks. I got to see some nice sunrises.
I don't recall whether I bought or "borrowed" the whiteout. I only know I used a lot. The typing ball had a tendency to slip, especially on kappa, which I used frequently. One page must have taken half a bottle.
When it came time to do another thesis, I found to my delight that someone had created something called TeX. Within 48 hours of having the TeXbook thrust into my hands, I had 20 pages of equations neatly typed, and no whiteout was necessary! Bliss.
As my father used to say, "'Ah, I see!' said the blind man as he fell
into the ditch." :) Thanks for the story.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
William Hyde
2020-01-11 21:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:37:02 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)
We usually had two communist candidates. The Moscow oriented one and the Maoist. Put them both on a stage and they could easily spend more time slagging each other than the capitalist parties. Put one on the stage and the NDP (mild socialist) party would be the target.
Our Moscow-loyalists were far the smoother in my area. Mostly English/Irish culturally, they did a good job of not sounding like party-line machines. Generally lost their deposit, though (i.e. didn't pass some vote threshold - around 300 votes, I think). I knew one of these families. Nice people with a good supply of easily drinkable Bulgarian wines.
I was a student at U of Waterloo near James when the student newspaper was taken over by the Maoists. Something stupid in the paper's constitution meant that meetings could not be adjourned until everyone agreed, so the Maoists just waited until everyone else was gone (36 hours in one case, it was reported) before electing themselves to all the important offices.
At this point the only country in the world that was purely Maoist was Albania, so the student newspaper featured many articles on said worker's paradise, and there was much mockery of this. Stalin was a god as well, so they launched a serious if incompetent defense of Lysenko on the part of history and politics majors against actual scientists.
A competing paper was started, but eventually a third paper was adopted as the official student paper. It was an interesting two years.
Well, what else is college actually /for/?
Oh, it was an education. Hardline communists in pre-takeover mode and those who felt they could work with them. If my field was polysci it might have been fodder for a paper.

As per Marx on history repeating itself: the first time is tragedy, the second time is farce, the hundredth time is ...?
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-12 04:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:37:02 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
I was a bit disappointed that in the most recent Canadian federal
election, neither Communist party fielded a candidate locally. .....
Back in the 1979 election, they had an all candidates event at my high
school (since the grade 13s could vote) and a Communist candidate did
show up for that. He had a great bushy beard and responded to all
questions by rereading his party's official policy paper in a thick
European accent.
Did you want the Commie to run for the theatre of it? :)
We usually had two communist candidates. The Moscow oriented one and the Maoist. Put them both on a stage and they could easily spend more time slagging each other than the capitalist parties. Put one on the stage and the NDP (mild socialist) party would be the target.
Our Moscow-loyalists were far the smoother in my area. Mostly English/Irish culturally, they did a good job of not sounding like party-line machines. Generally lost their deposit, though (i.e. didn't pass some vote threshold - around 300 votes, I think). I knew one of these families. Nice people with a good supply of easily drinkable Bulgarian wines.
I was a student at U of Waterloo near James when the student newspaper was taken over by the Maoists. Something stupid in the paper's constitution meant that meetings could not be adjourned until everyone agreed, so the Maoists just waited until everyone else was gone (36 hours in one case, it was reported) before electing themselves to all the important offices.
At this point the only country in the world that was purely Maoist was Albania, so the student newspaper featured many articles on said worker's paradise, and there was much mockery of this. Stalin was a god as well, so they launched a serious if incompetent defense of Lysenko on the part of history and politics majors against actual scientists.
A competing paper was started, but eventually a third paper was adopted as the official student paper. It was an interesting two years.
Well, what else is college actually /for/?
Oh, it was an education. Hardline communists in pre-takeover mode and those who felt they could work with them. If my field was polysci it might have been fodder for a paper.
As per Marx on history repeating itself: the first time is tragedy, the second time is farce, the hundredth time is ...?
The song "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 14:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-01-10 18:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.

N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 19:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China has its own second-strike capability. I mean, they might get away with
invading Argentina...

John Savard
Kevrob
2020-01-11 02:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
China has a population problem. They can lose the population of
Europe and still be bigger than the US and the EU combined. Nuclear
war may not be as much of a deterrent as we like to believe.
[ObSFfilm]

Lt Col Tanner: Six hundred million screamin' Chinamen.
Darryl Bates: Well, last I heard, there were a billion
screamin' Chinamen.
Lt Col Ranner: There were

"Red Dawn" - John Milius

[/OSFf]

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-01-11 17:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:17:27 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China has its own second-strike capability. I mean, they might get away with
invading Argentina...
Not if the Munroe Doctrine is still in effect!
Argentina is /ours/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-10 23:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2020-01-11 17:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:39:14 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
So?

They could invade, restructure N Korea into a /sane/ commie state (as
opposed to the /insane/ commie state currently there), and then leave.

If they took all that long-range missile/nuclear weapon stuff with
them, the UN might even give them a medal!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-12 04:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:39:14 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
So?
They could invade, restructure N Korea into a /sane/ commie state (as
opposed to the /insane/ commie state currently there), and then leave.
If they took all that long-range missile/nuclear weapon stuff with
them, the UN might even give them a medal!
Couple of thoughts on that. One, North Korea isn't a commie state. Its
a theocracy with the Kim family as the Gods. Two, NK isn't a threat to
China and its antics tie the Americans up in knots. Which is a good
thing from China's POV. And a third thought, invading NK would involve
Chinese troops staring over the DMZ at American troops. Avoiding that
is the whole purpose of a buffer state.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2020-01-12 18:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:44:06 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:39:14 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
So?
They could invade, restructure N Korea into a /sane/ commie state (as
opposed to the /insane/ commie state currently there), and then leave.
If they took all that long-range missile/nuclear weapon stuff with
them, the UN might even give them a medal!
Couple of thoughts on that. One, North Korea isn't a commie state. Its
a theocracy with the Kim family as the Gods. Two, NK isn't a threat to
China and its antics tie the Americans up in knots. Which is a good
thing from China's POV. And a third thought, invading NK would involve
Chinese troops staring over the DMZ at American troops. Avoiding that
is the whole purpose of a buffer state.
A nuclear state with missiles with enough range to reach Peking run by
"gods" is somehow /not/ a threat to a nation they share their border
with?

What makes you think that, if the N Koreans ever decide on a
full-scale test, the missile will head /east/?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-01-12 18:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 10:00:12 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:44:06 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:39:14 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
So?
They could invade, restructure N Korea into a /sane/ commie state (as
opposed to the /insane/ commie state currently there), and then leave.
If they took all that long-range missile/nuclear weapon stuff with
them, the UN might even give them a medal!
Couple of thoughts on that. One, North Korea isn't a commie state. Its
a theocracy with the Kim family as the Gods. Two, NK isn't a threat to
China and its antics tie the Americans up in knots. Which is a good
thing from China's POV. And a third thought, invading NK would involve
Chinese troops staring over the DMZ at American troops. Avoiding that
is the whole purpose of a buffer state.
A nuclear state with missiles with enough range to reach Peking run by
"gods" is somehow /not/ a threat to a nation they share their border
with?
What makes you think that, if the N Koreans ever decide on a
full-scale test, the missile will head /east/?
So they nuke Beijing. China loses 1 percent of their population. How
long do you think it will be before the Chinese and the South Koreans
are having a party wherever their armies meet?

North Korea is a danger to China the way a hornet is a danger to a
human.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-12 19:24:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:44:06 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:39:14 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:42:30 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Not if you pick your targets carefully.
N Korea, for example. Would they try to nuke China if attacked? Would
the USA or Russia complain? Or would they applaud?
China will not attack North Korea. They find them far too useful as a
buffer between themselves and the American puppet South Korea.
So?
They could invade, restructure N Korea into a /sane/ commie state (as
opposed to the /insane/ commie state currently there), and then leave.
If they took all that long-range missile/nuclear weapon stuff with
them, the UN might even give them a medal!
Couple of thoughts on that. One, North Korea isn't a commie state. Its
a theocracy with the Kim family as the Gods. Two, NK isn't a threat to
China and its antics tie the Americans up in knots. Which is a good
thing from China's POV. And a third thought, invading NK would involve
Chinese troops staring over the DMZ at American troops. Avoiding that
is the whole purpose of a buffer state.
A nuclear state with missiles with enough range to reach Peking run by
"gods" is somehow /not/ a threat to a nation they share their border
with?
What makes you think that, if the N Koreans ever decide on a
full-scale test, the missile will head /east/?
The reality of North Korea's situation and location. They are beholden
to China for what little trade they have and for their very existence
/and they know it/.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Juho Julkunen
2020-01-10 20:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire. This forces a search for new solutions.
Which is why there have been no conventional wars since 1945, certainly
none that didn't end in thermonucear fire.
--
Juho Julkunen
Meanwhile, in our time line...
Quadibloc
2020-01-11 00:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Which is why there have been no conventional wars since 1945, certainly
none that didn't end in thermonucear fire.
Well, maybe not, but still no _big_ wars against anyone _important_.

John Savard
David DeLaney
2020-01-11 23:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
The /traditional/ method for handling a surplus of males is to raise a
large infantry army and send them out to die for their country.
Well, they aren't going to reproduce anyway, right?
The trouble with that nowadays is that the consequence of engaging in military
aggression can well be having one's country wiped off the face of the Earth by
thermonuclear fire.
... well then, they DEFINITELY weren't going to reproduce.

Dave, at least not recognizably
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2020-01-10 00:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
We keep telling you, quadi, and you keep refusing to believe, that the
reason you can't get laid is not that you are low status, it is that
you are the sort of nerd who proposes "vat girls" instead of just
talking in the general direction of women until you find one who talks
back.
I know you find this hard to believe, but it's not about me.
It's about the large-scale impacts on our society.
It's about China's one-child policy leading to a situation where the Chinese
regime feels it has to calm internal tensions by invading the Philippines or
India.
Since that did not happen, you are making up fantasies to support your
argument.
Post by Quadibloc
It's about discontent in the Western world fueling divisive politics. About
people voting for demagogues who promise to bring back the good old days by
containing immigration and bringing back domestic manufacture - but whose real
agenda is entirely different.
Which has nothing to do with there being insufficient women, but you
will never believe that because your own loneliness is so crushing for
you that you can't imagine that anyone else out there can be unmarried
and not be driven insane by it.
Titus G
2020-01-10 03:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
We keep telling you, quadi, and you keep refusing to believe, that the
reason you can't get laid is not that you are low status, it is that
you are the sort of nerd who proposes "vat girls" instead of just
talking in the general direction of women until you find one who talks
back.
I know you find this hard to believe, but it's not about me.
It's about the large-scale impacts on our society.
It's about China's one-child policy leading to a situation where the Chinese
regime feels it has to calm internal tensions by invading the Philippines or
India.
Since that did not happen, you are making up fantasies to support your
argument.
Spain and the USA have invaded the Philippines and Britain, India. As
neither Spain, the USA and Britain have internal pressures from
one-child policies, it can not be termed fantasy. Canada's frustrations,
as represented by Mr. Q Bloc, in being able to solve all its neighbours
problems but still unable to suppress internal tensions from the
one-Vat-Girl per householder policy is why they invaded Sri Lanka. QED
Peter Trei
2020-01-09 03:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Joe Bernstein
Your usual presentation of this makes it, to say the least, unclear
whether the freedom and choices of the vat girls would be respected.
Is their existence supposed to provide lovers for unloved men (with
limited freedom for them to choose otherwise), or merely to modify
the human sex ratio so as to improve those men's odds? If the latter,
one can imagine many ways to improve the odds without changes to the
ratio, or ways to change the ratio without creating people who'd
probably feel like second-class citizens even if the laws didn't make
them so.
It is indeed the latter.
And of course other steps would need to be taken _first_.
The most basic step is "fixing the economy". Essentially, bring back the
economic conditions of the postwar boom, so that virtually all young men, when
they graduate from college or high school, shortly after embark on a steady job
and/or a career.
Once a man is in this position, then, if he is also "lovable", by which I would
assume a kind and faithful partner, who would respect his wife, would it be
nearly certain that he would be able to marry?
Maybe not.
In a world where women *are* equal to men, and thus have the option of
supporting themselves through paid employment as a result, some women - perhaps
a significant number - may choose not to partner with a man.
Why?
One obvious possible cause is... trust issues. From being sexual assault
survivors.
After fixing the economy, the next step needed, therefore, before something as
difficult as altering the human sex ratio, is eliminating rape from the male
behavioral repertoire. However, while bringing in staggeringly severe penalties
for it would help a little, experience has shown that crime can't be easily
deterred out of existence. Fixing some social inequalities might help. As
impulsiveness is a trait that leads to criminal behavior which is difficult to
deter, that needs to be addressed.
One constructive measure would be to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol
syndrome. By bringing back Prohibition, it seems, since restrictions targeted
against women or against Native Americans are not possible. But that didn't work
out well the last time. (So another possible alternative is institutionalizing
people with conditions like fetal alcohol syndrome for life - so that the rate
of rape and other violent crimes is kept very low. The available choices are all
less than good.)
Now, it is indeed true I'm assigning a high degree of importance to the
contentment of males.
But I've explained why. They're the ones who man armies. They're the ones who
enforce the laws. They're the ones who conduct revolutions.
So if the males *aren't* content, society becomes unstable, and it may collapse
- going back to a less civilized time where women *don't* have rights.
So the consequences of women's equality have to be dealt with in order to make
equality for women *sustainable*.
And it should be noted that I'm looking at a level of social stability that is
only likely to be relevant... in a world where the polity I wish to make stable
doesn't have to worry about foreign enemies; no war, no terrorism. One worldwide
shared set of values, one utterly dominant global culture. So vat-girls are a
long way off in the future.
John:

I pointed out a while ago that your proposal to increase the fraction of
the population which was female would, in a democracy, result in women
acquiring a majority of political power.

They might not go along with your plans.

IIRC, your solution was to strip women of the franchise. Is this still the
case?

pt
Quadibloc
2020-01-10 14:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
IIRC, your solution was to strip women of the franchise. Is this still the
case?
Actually, my solution was to give men and women equal representation, regardless
of their regular numbers, which I rationalized on the basis that if one thinks the
Electoral College is OK, one could hardly complain about that.

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-09 04:09:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote, quoting me:

[vat girls and such]
Post by Quadibloc
And of course other steps would need to be taken _first_.
The most basic step is "fixing the economy". Essentially, bring back
the economic conditions of the postwar boom, so that virtually all
young men, when they graduate from college or high school, shortly
after embark on a steady job and/or a career.
Um. Wherefore why is it that people who want to change society
always start from the assumption that we need to return to some
improved version of the 1950s?

This suggests to me blinkered creativity.
Post by Quadibloc
Now, it is indeed true I'm assigning a high degree of importance to
the contentment of males.
But I've explained why. They're the ones who man armies. They're the
ones who enforce the laws. They're the ones who conduct revolutions.
So if the males *aren't* content, society becomes unstable, and it may
collapse - going back to a less civilized time where women *don't*
have rights.
Um. In general, my impression is that increased civilisation goes
along with decreases in women's rights. Women were notably freer in
primitive Sparta than in advanced Athens, for example. Our current
society isn't the only exception - Rome at its height comes to mind -
but in general, "less civilized" is *good* news for women's freedom.
At the most extreme level, you can't do hareem, and can only do foot
binding with extreme difficulty, if you're nomadic.

Mind, civilisation usually trammels men's rights too. It's normally
something of a disaster for individuals in general. My explanation
for the simultaneous advance of civilisation and freedom over the
past few centuries is that technological advances created enough
surplus to enable us to do both.

But you definitely shouldn't assume that "less civilized" always and
only means fewer rights for women, or for anyone else. There are
better reasons to not want a social collapse than that.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Quadibloc
2020-01-09 04:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Um. In general, my impression is that increased civilisation goes
along with decreases in women's rights. Women were notably freer in
primitive Sparta than in advanced Athens, for example. Our current
society isn't the only exception - Rome at its height comes to mind -
but in general, "less civilized" is *good* news for women's freedom.
At the most extreme level, you can't do hareem, and can only do foot
binding with extreme difficulty, if you're nomadic.
Mind, civilisation usually trammels men's rights too. It's normally
something of a disaster for individuals in general.
It depends on the timescale. Initially, the invention of agriculture made
everybody much worse off than they were as hunter-gatherers. However,
agriculture allowed an increased population to survive, so the _real_ culprit
was the limited supply of land.

Instead, I'm just looking at today, and comparing today to the Middle Ages and
to ancient Greece and Rome - not going any further back. Within that narrow
range, technical progress has correlated with social progress.

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-13 03:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Joe Bernstein
Um. In general, my impression is that increased civilisation goes
along with decreases in women's rights. Women were notably freer in
primitive Sparta than in advanced Athens, for example. Our current
society isn't the only exception - Rome at its height comes to mind -
but in general, "less civilized" is *good* news for women's freedom.
At the most extreme level, you can't do hareem, and can only do foot
binding with extreme difficulty, if you're nomadic.
Mind, civilisation usually trammels men's rights too. It's normally
something of a disaster for individuals in general.
It depends on the timescale. Initially, the invention of agriculture
made everybody much worse off than they were as hunter-gatherers.
However, agriculture allowed an increased population to survive, so
the _real_ culprit was the limited supply of land.
Instead, I'm just looking at today, and comparing today to the Middle
Ages and to ancient Greece and Rome - not going any further back.
Within that narrow range, technical progress has correlated with
social progress.
Why, look - it's an actual Whig!

OK, first off, I was using "civilisation" in its anthropological
sense, not simply as a synonym for "more than one human being".
Yes, the agricultural revolution was a disaster too, but I'm talking
about later phenomena, the more or less linked rises of the city
(hence "civilisation") and the state. These were almost entirely
*social* progress, as against the primarily *technological* progress
farming represented, and so they were almost entirely bad news.
(Although we today have reason to be grateful to those early bad guys,
who invented writing so as to document what they were expropriating
from the masses.) Several early civilisations had rituals in which
when the king died, so did several hundred of his servants, to
accompany him to the afterlife. I can't think of a better example
of inequality than that. But you can also test for civilisation
archaeologically. If everyone in a settlement of some particular age
shows evidence of malnutrition in childhood, that's evidence of a
famine, or some such. But if *some* people of *every* age show
evidence of malnutrition in childhood, that's evidence of the kind of
class structure civilisations normally have.

I'm not sure "today", there, means what it sounds like. Do you mean
you're comparing our entire civilisation to the equivalent areas
hundreds or thousands of years ago? Or do you mean you're comparing
Canada with mediaeval Britain, the city of Rome under, say, Augustus,
and Athens before the Peloponnesian War? People recently have been
talking about the incredible reduction in poverty globally, so this
isn't quite as crippling an argument as it used to be, but of course
poverty isn't the only problem in "today".

But OK, "within that narrow range". Dunno about Canada, but first
wave feminism in both the US and the UK was primarily about taking
back rights that women *had* had, until reformers in the 18th and
19th centuries stripped the silly creatures of such fripperies. (The
main exception, here, the main real innovation of first wave feminism,
was women's suffrage.) Seems to me those reforms are examples of
progress in society, at a time of progress in technology, that didn't
actually result in increased freedom, unless you look at the rights
men obtained to expropriate women's property, for example, as a boost
to freedom.

Christianity and Islam are both presented as having been, in their
original contexts, steps forward for women. (Christianity enabled
them *not* to marry; Islam, among other things, allowed them to
divorce.) The rise of both is usually understood as a step *backward*
in civilisation as a whole.

Basically, I don't understand how one can look at the history of
civilisation and remain convinced of the Whig version of history. So
I'm kinda curious how you pull it off.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Quadibloc
2020-01-13 05:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Basically, I don't understand how one can look at the history of
civilisation and remain convinced of the Whig version of history. So
I'm kinda curious how you pull it off.
I don't expect a breakdown of civilization to bring out the best in us, and take
us back to a simpler time. Instead, I expect it to bring out the worst, and
result in a society dominated by those who are stronger.

Advances in technology have increased the capabilities of societies for good and
ill. I have been focusing on the high points of any time to characterize that
period.

John Savard
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-13 19:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
[vat girls and such]
Headline in the online edition, at least, of <The Seattle Times>
today:

"Dating apps need women. Advertisers need diversity. AI companies
offer a solution: fake people"

-- JLB

Quadibloc
2020-01-09 04:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
So vat-girls are a
long way off in the future.
Well, maybe not that long, given that civilization is already collapsing around
us.

Of course, in the absence of vat-girls, we will have to do something else. And how
do we avoid that something else being discrimination against women?

Exploiting poor countries seems to be the obvious alternative. Can we do better
than that?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-01-06 04:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Lost in Space
http://youtu.be/nKckxONAH4M
http://youtu.be/P8p0wySXkXY
Lost in Space 3rd Season theme
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Space: 1999
Lost in Space 1st/2nd Season theme
With better sound quality on Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/album/0D6wrim9T8jrGccAijxJYG

However you might want to skip over all the Star Trek/Star Wars
stuff--it's all Abrams era crap.
J. Clarke
2020-01-06 04:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 05 Jan 2020 23:22:13 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Lost in Space
http://youtu.be/nKckxONAH4M
http://youtu.be/P8p0wySXkXY
Lost in Space 3rd Season theme
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Space: 1999
Lost in Space 1st/2nd Season theme
With better sound quality on Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/album/0D6wrim9T8jrGccAijxJYG
However you might want to skip over all the Star Trek/Star Wars
stuff--it's all Abrams era crap.
But to make up for that lack, from Denmark


Or the whole album on Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/album/4ivAHY8zEe3BvcxzYMkxBJ
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 05:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
But to make up for that lack, from Denmark
http://youtu.be/Bfwiy9JQ-PI
And if you have a bit more time to spend,
http://youtu.be/yySw7vkdkZY

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-01-06 04:33:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is a nice performance of a suite of music from Star Wars:



John Savard
Loading...