That is nature's way of warning you to stay away from the people who pronounce it that way.
The Off-Topic and Random Thoughts Thread(Anything Goes!)
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
Responding to you here because I don't wanna throw the tariffs thread too far off topic.
You bring up a good point. I once thought that the smart phone wouldn't catch on because it was too expensive. Now I'm typing this response on my phone. That was a crazy transition to watch.
I still think robotics and AI are mostly overblown hype. Maybe for now they still are, but in a matter of some single digit number of years they won't be anymore.
How this relates to the Trump tariffs, if at all, is beyond me. It may be Trump is trying to bring back manufacturing, and after temporary pain of some price increases, more people will have (or at least keep) their jobs. It may be that this is all a smoke show for something else that's behind the scenes. Something like key security risks being addressed. Or maybe the billionaire class that outsourced so much in the first place finally has gotten sick of how the Chinese played the very cards our billionaires gave them in the first place. I wish I knew, but that's kinda why I like this forum. We're here to discuss exactly that without the lamestream media trying to so hard to mislead us.
As much as I hope at least some manufacturing stays in the US and maybe even some returns, I realize that the days of machinists making a good wage in their hometown, starting a family and calling it a life are simply over. We'll see what the future has in store.
I'm going through the introduction of this book "The moral obligation to be intelligent" by Lionel Trilling. The introduction is by Leon Wieseltier. The title of the book, which is a collection of literary critic essays by Lionel, is taken from an essay by John Erskine. First, I read the essay by Erskine, which I think he wrote in 1914, and I'm underwhelmed. He makes no real argument, it's a lot of posturing about English literary writers who didn't champion intelligence, and he accuses the Anglo-Saxons for considering intelligence a peril. The essay left much to be desired as I often find early 20th century academic writing to be (like John Dewey *spits*). They are not clear, they draw too much on classic works, they try to be overly theoretical and whenever they mention science I doubt they understand what it is.
Then I move on to reading the introduction. I haven't searched who Leon or Lionel are yet. I read Leon's introduction and I'm put off by his style. Let me show you what I mean by copying down a couple of example sentences at random:
"He was one of the most formidable critics of totalism that his dogmatic and pitiless century produced." (Totalism is never explained, and it turns out to be another way of saying totalitarianism. I've read 1300 books and I've never come across this word before: totalism)
"He was mentally indefatigable; there was order in his writing, but there was no repose." (Of course there was no repose, he was indefatigable, as you said. What does it even mean to have writing that is orderly but not reposed? Gibberish.)
"But lucidity—the mixture of clarity and courage that Camus in particular promoted into a new stoical ideal—was not all that Trilling meant by "mind." (I went down a small rabbit-hole on Camus and his slight alteration of the word lucidity. Just stick with the definition, man. "Philosophers" and their redefining things, so annoying.)
Ok, one more.
"The mordancy of his reminiscence is evident. The "ideation" of which Trilling speaks in this passage is a little comic, almost a deformation." (Mordancy would mean biting, from the French 'to bite', but in relation to criticism, and deformation here refers to a word that is slightly altered, like 'dang' for 'damn'. But really? Why write it like this unless....)
Wieseltier has to be a midwit. Around 115-125 IQ. He has to show us how smart he is and all the words he knows so he can show off to his literati friends. I'll bet that's what it's all about. I say this because nothing from his introduction was clear. After reading it slowly I can't recall what it was about. This never happens when I read people who I know for a fact are highly highly intelligent. Those people want to be clear and know how to do it with the written word. It's always these "look at how intellectual I am" guys who seem to write like this. The academics. I'll bet that's why Mencken, among others, hated them so much.
Would it surprise you to learn Wieseltier is jewish? That Trilling is also jewish? Both of these guys are (well, one was, since he's dead) English major literary critics. I poked around Youtube and watched Wieseltier give a few talks. He doesn't sound smart at all, his points are your typical JQ stuff we are all familiar with here. Then I see he has this long interview "Intellectual Odyssey with Leon Wieseltier" from Harry Kreisler. I look into Kreisler, who has this Conversations with History thing and he's been at Berkeley for a long time. He's suspiciously jewish, when you look up the family name. In this interview, Wieseltier talks about being a self-described intellectual, which he defines as someone who is comfortable dealing with theoretical information. Sure, Leon, sure thing buddy, basically you're comfortable making stuff up that no one can call you on.
I'm sure it's not just a JQ thing, but rather this midwit smart-boy thing where you get points for being difficult to understand. Is it the sin of pride this all falls under? It's an arrogant superiority that they try to hide behind their intellectualism. I can't stand reading anything by such characters, especially because I never end up learning anything. I suppose I am simply venting my frustration with reading something I have high hopes for and then it all evaporates like a poison gas out of an oven.
Then I move on to reading the introduction. I haven't searched who Leon or Lionel are yet. I read Leon's introduction and I'm put off by his style. Let me show you what I mean by copying down a couple of example sentences at random:
"He was one of the most formidable critics of totalism that his dogmatic and pitiless century produced." (Totalism is never explained, and it turns out to be another way of saying totalitarianism. I've read 1300 books and I've never come across this word before: totalism)
"He was mentally indefatigable; there was order in his writing, but there was no repose." (Of course there was no repose, he was indefatigable, as you said. What does it even mean to have writing that is orderly but not reposed? Gibberish.)
"But lucidity—the mixture of clarity and courage that Camus in particular promoted into a new stoical ideal—was not all that Trilling meant by "mind." (I went down a small rabbit-hole on Camus and his slight alteration of the word lucidity. Just stick with the definition, man. "Philosophers" and their redefining things, so annoying.)
Ok, one more.
"The mordancy of his reminiscence is evident. The "ideation" of which Trilling speaks in this passage is a little comic, almost a deformation." (Mordancy would mean biting, from the French 'to bite', but in relation to criticism, and deformation here refers to a word that is slightly altered, like 'dang' for 'damn'. But really? Why write it like this unless....)
Wieseltier has to be a midwit. Around 115-125 IQ. He has to show us how smart he is and all the words he knows so he can show off to his literati friends. I'll bet that's what it's all about. I say this because nothing from his introduction was clear. After reading it slowly I can't recall what it was about. This never happens when I read people who I know for a fact are highly highly intelligent. Those people want to be clear and know how to do it with the written word. It's always these "look at how intellectual I am" guys who seem to write like this. The academics. I'll bet that's why Mencken, among others, hated them so much.
Would it surprise you to learn Wieseltier is jewish? That Trilling is also jewish? Both of these guys are (well, one was, since he's dead) English major literary critics. I poked around Youtube and watched Wieseltier give a few talks. He doesn't sound smart at all, his points are your typical JQ stuff we are all familiar with here. Then I see he has this long interview "Intellectual Odyssey with Leon Wieseltier" from Harry Kreisler. I look into Kreisler, who has this Conversations with History thing and he's been at Berkeley for a long time. He's suspiciously jewish, when you look up the family name. In this interview, Wieseltier talks about being a self-described intellectual, which he defines as someone who is comfortable dealing with theoretical information. Sure, Leon, sure thing buddy, basically you're comfortable making stuff up that no one can call you on.
I'm sure it's not just a JQ thing, but rather this midwit smart-boy thing where you get points for being difficult to understand. Is it the sin of pride this all falls under? It's an arrogant superiority that they try to hide behind their intellectualism. I can't stand reading anything by such characters, especially because I never end up learning anything. I suppose I am simply venting my frustration with reading something I have high hopes for and then it all evaporates like a poison gas out of an oven.
I like that term better as it's shorter and easier to wield against opponents. In fact, I'd like to apply the same technique to authoritarianism and just call it authoritism.
Sitting here at the bank waiting to open a business account which is ridiculous in it's own right that I even had to make an appointment to do so and also I'm sitting here waiting even though my appointment was 10 minutes ago and nobody else is in here. But beyond that there is a black kid in here, probably mid 20's, trying to cash a check and the teller has been explaining for 5 minutes what a beneficiary is, he just can't grasp it. How is someone this retarded and functioning normally in society?
Last edited:
I guess we don't have a wall victims thread anymore but looking at this female spaceman footage, looks like Katy Perry hit the wall at 1,000,000mph and no amount of trying to be cute with a daisy is going to hide it.
Words of wisdom from the old days to young men, time is cruel to women and your best days are in front of you.
Words of wisdom from the old days to young men, time is cruel to women and your best days are in front of you.
I would say she doesn't look that bad for 40. She's not a hot young thing in her 20s like when she first got famous, but she's ahead of the pack for her age.
Unfortunately, she seems to be completely empty headed with the way she's been presenting herself. She is quoted as saying this group was putting the "ass" in astronaut, as if she is an only fans bimbo or something.
Would not marry.
100%. I was noticing that too with her dyed jet black hair and was thinking, "Seeing as how her value is going down and Orlando Bloom's value is going up I wonder how long before he dumps her?"
Absolutely not, especially after she's been run through by the likes of Russell Brand, John Mayer, Diplo (a rave party "DJ"), and the bisexual fag Jared Leto. Most likely she's a carrier of HPV and latent creepin' herp due to her stellar choice in promiscuous men.
I'm sure she looks even older without makeup caked on her face and not letting her gray hairs show. I'm noticing my wife hitting the wall (she's 42 now). A few years into your 40s age seems to come on quick, especially for women because of their thinner skin (I'm 41 and still don't look "old", a girl at my last job thought I was in my 20s, which even I found hard to believe). But if a woman looks generally good from late teens to late 30s that's a multi-decade span of time you have her in her good years, and even in her 40s it's mostly her face that ages, her body can still be good into her 50s.
That's why I argued against sexiness in another thread. If I weren't so preoccupied with finding a sexy woman I could have been with a young woman, maybe even meet someone while I was in high school, and I don't think it would have made too much of a difference getting married after high school graduation. In fact, I bet it would have been better for me, I'd have had to grow up faster and not spend my 20s doing nothing. I've often thought if I had had a child at 20 instead of 30 I wouldn't have missed out on anything and my child would already be grown up now that I'm 40, instead of hitting 10.
I usually turn the radio on here at the warehouse when I'm doing monotonous work, tonight a Detroit Tigers player just now attributed his good game to the Lord Jesus Christ and I heard another do the same a few days ago on the radio. Think I might be rooting for them this year....
4:45 in the morning here on the east coast of the US and we have 493 lurkers and 10 members logged in. That's quite a ratio. Good afternoon Tel Aviv, Moscow and Bejing! Your boys Nevsky and Cooper are fast asleep.
SIDE NOTE: Now at 4:58 am there are only 124 lurkers and 9 members logged in... that happened fast, we somehow lost 369 lurkers in about 10 minutes. Must just be a glitch in The Matrix.
SIDE NOTE: Now at 4:58 am there are only 124 lurkers and 9 members logged in... that happened fast, we somehow lost 369 lurkers in about 10 minutes. Must just be a glitch in The Matrix.
Last edited:
I figure this is as good a thread as any for this. I am an etymology enjoyer, so this is pretty interesting to me. It's interesting that horror is the one with all the forms, and terror is the next most, what with horror and terror being closely related.
Last edited:
Stupific and Stupible have now entered my vocabulary.
That's very lucible of you!
Perfectly cromulent words.
This chart doesn't include the english suffix -ous, as in rigorous and vigorous. Horror also slips in there too as horrendous.
I quite like "liquible" I feel this should've entered common usage around the same time as blender instruction manuals and smoothie recipes.. It's perfectly fine to add non-liquible ingredients to a smoothie, as long as the ratio to liquible ingredients is sufficient.
All the ones I've known are, funny I've never thought about it like that until you just asked that but yes they all were.