Shared posts

29 Jul 23:44

"They weren't human. They were monsters." "All monsters are human."

by the man of twists and turns
The Devil In Disguise: Modern Monsters And Their Metaphors

Something Wicked This Way Comes: Witches And Modern Women

My Zombie, Myself: Why Modern Life Feels Rather Undead
From a creative standpoint these fear projections are narrative linchpins; they turn creatures into ideas, and that's the point.
But what if the audience infers an entirely different metaphor?
What if contemporary people are less interested in seeing depictions of their unconscious fears and more attracted to allegories of how their day-to-day existence feels? That would explain why so many people watched that first episode of "The Walking Dead": They knew they would be able to relate to it.
A lot of modern life is exactly like slaughtering zombies.
Or does 'the modern zombie narrative epitomizes millennial fears'?
Why Vampires Never Die
In a society that moves as fast as ours, where every week a new "blockbuster" must be enthroned at the box office, or where idols are fabricated by consensus every new television season, the promise of something everlasting, something truly eternal, holds a special allure. As a seductive figure, the vampire is as flexible and polyvalent as ever. Witness its slow mutation from the pansexual, decadent Anne Rice creatures to the current permutations — promising anything from chaste eternal love to wild nocturnal escapades — and there you will find the true essence of immortality: adaptability.
Monsters and the Moral Imagination

by the way, Romero's Night Of The Living Dead is out of copyright
29 Jul 23:28

What Straight Boys' "Favorite Books" Say About Them

by Isaac Fitzgerald

You haven’t read that, bro, so don’t put it in your dating profile.

Justine Zwiebel/BuzzFeed

"Tuesdays With Morrie doesn't actually like to read."
"Best friends with his mom."
"Thinks it says something about his emotional depth, which he does not have."
"Knew somebody distantly who died once and now he really understands ~mortality~."
"Thinks that all ladies like Oprah."

"Fight Club just, like, really understands the struggle, man."
"Douche fucking alert."
"Hasn't actually read the book but believes he can pass it off like he has because of the movie."
"Edward Norton's depression without Brad Pitt's abs."
"Bedside anarchist."
"So over consumerism, so over society, so over being an actual pleasant human being."
"Is a mansplainer."

"Tao Te Ching was a business major in college."
"Also doesn't actually read."
"But at least he tried?"
"Has used the word 'Oriental' or phrase 'East-meets-West' in actual unironic conversation."
"Was one of those guys who wore suits to class presentations."
"Has a tattoo of a Japanese character, thinks it says 'freedom,' actually says 'soap.'"

"On the Road has never actually done drugs."
"I actually think there is something kind of cute and earnest about liking this book."
"But in sort of a puppy-dog way."
"Constantly misses the point. Probably lives in Colorado."
"Drunk."
"Is more likely to puke in your bed than impress you in bed."
"This guy doesn't understand why Into the Wild is a horror story."

Justine Zwiebel/BuzzFeed

Into the Wild is white and wealthy.
"Has a victim complex where he thinks he has problems but they're 100% self-made."
"Loooooves nature, but actually nature = weed."
"Lots of polar fleece."
"Has probably never actually been camping."
"Cannot grow a beard. Wishes he could grow a beard."

"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People uses SO MANY HASHTAGS."
"Good relationship with his dad. Knows what the Six Sigmas are."
"Will ask you earnestly if you're realllllllly thinking about your personal brand enough."
"Was really into his frat."
"Will give you a Sharper Image gift card as a month anniversary gift."
"Still wears his frat shirt when running in the park."

"The Hobbit will probably take you on lots of fun adventures."
"Awwwwww. Lovvvvvve it."
"Like, I would go to second base with him."
"Truly likes reading and would be chill reading for an entire weekend with me."
"He definitely goes down."
"But also maybe wants credit for it?"

"Lord of the Rings would probably spend at least $70 on a replica ring."
"Loves Reddit."
"Masturbated to the Lady of Rohan character."
"There are definitely some fetishy undertones."
"Smells bad."
"Musty."
"Which is not necessarily bad, IMO."
"Big feet."
"Yes, some big penis action. But maybe didn't kiss a girl until the age of 22."

"Infinite Jest is a self-identified feminist who mansplains feminism at you."
"Fake deep."
"I want it and I HATE that I want it."
"Pissed when I ask him questions about it and/or avoids them entirely."
"Tells me race isn't real."
"This guy actually just read Consider the Lobster in comp class and puts Infinite Jest down instead."
"Mad at his parents for being rich."
"Calls soccer football, but is American."
"THIS IS THE KIND OF GUY WHO THINKS FINGERING IS JACKHAMMERING."

"The Catcher in the Rye stopped reading after high school."
"Is still 13."
"I'm actually on board with this being sort of endearing?"
"My type :( "
"It's a good book and I liked it. I want him to read more but I can show him some books."
"~Show him some books~."
"You guys."


View Entire List ›

29 Jul 23:26

Why "Seinfeld" Is The Most Villainous Sitcom In Human History

by Chuck Klosterman

“Deep satire is a collision sport.”

The following essay is an excerpt from Chuck Klosterman's I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling With Villains (Real and Imagined), out now in paperback.

Chris Greenberg / Getty Images / Castle Rock Entertainment / Justine Zwiebel / BuzzFeed

There's a passage in the documentary The Pervert's Guide to Ideology where dialectic Marxist superstar Slavoj Žižek goes on a tangent about how to properly satirize institutional power. His point, in essence, is that you can't successfully erode an institution by attacking the person in charge. [I suppose it's possible that this wasn't exactly what he was talking about, because sometimes Žižek can be hard to follow. But this was my takeaway, and my interpretation is valid, even if it's wrong. Misinterpretations can still be accidentally true.] According to Žižek, attempting to satirize the public image of a powerful person inevitably proves impotent; this is because positions of power are designed to manipulate and displace a high degree of criticism. You can mock the president with impunity—nothing will really happen to him or to you. Part of the presidential job description is the absorption of public vitriol. It's a rubberized target. A comedic assault doesn't change perception in any meaningful way. ["It's not the respectful voice that props up the status quo," Malcolm Gladwell once noted. "It is the mocking one." Gladwell was subsequently mocked for noting this so respectfully.] Clear, unsubtle political satire on TV shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can succeed as entertainment, but they unintentionally reinforce the preexisting world: These vehicles frame the specific power holder as the sole object of scorn. This has no impact beyond comforting the enslaved. Power holders—even straight-up dictators—are interchangeable figureheads with limited reach; what matters far more is the institutional system those interchangeable figureheads temporarily represent.

So what does this mean, outside of an academic discussion about power? Well, maybe this: If you want to satirize the condition of a society, going after the apex of the pyramid is a waste of time. You need to attack the bottom. You need to ridicule the alleged ideological foundation an institution claims to be built upon. This is much, much more discomfiting than satirizing an ineffectual prime minister or a crack-smoking mayor. This requires the vilification of innocent, anonymous, working-class people. If you want to damage the political left, you must skewer the left's bedrock myth—the idea that all people are equal and that people want to be good (which implies enforced fairness would make everyone's life better). If you want to damage the political right, you must likewise skewer the right's bedrock myth—the belief that the human spirit is both sacrosanct and irrepressible (which implies unfettered freedom allows all people to prosper equally). To illustrate how either ideology is flawed, you must demonstrate how those central notions are moronic. And this requires the satirist to present the average citizen as a naïve sheep who fails to realize the hopelessness of his or her position. The successful social satirist must show a) how the average liberal is latently selfish and hypocritical, or b) how the average conservative fails to comprehend how trapped he is by the same system he supports. A world-class satirist knows the truth about his audience and does not care how exposing that truth will make audiences feel.

This is a difficult task (and if you need proof, just ask the tortured corpse of Machiavelli). Deep satire is a collision sport. It's a little cold and a little antihumanist, so most of its potential purveyors don't go for the jugular. But they went for it on Seinfeld, and they did so relentlessly. And they did it so well that most people barely noticed, no matter how often the writers told them directly.

Chris Greenberg / Getty Images / Castle Rock Entertainment / Justine Zwiebel / BuzzFeed


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:53

If only the real thing had only taken 5m55s.

by absalom
Snob

Moi flipante que, até o armisticio, os que dirías que van gañando sobre o mapa son os que perderon.

A day-by-day map of World War I.

Legend:

Maroon = Central Powers and annexed lands.
Burgundy = Areas militarily occupied by the Central Powers.
Red = Central Power puppet or client states.
Brown = Central Powers in an armistice.
Pink = Central Power gains for that day.
Dark blue = Allied powers
Blue = Central Powered lands militarily occupied by the Allies.
Blue-grey = Allied powers in an armistice.
Light blue = Allied gains for that day.
28 Jul 22:42

Cinco características que cumplen todos los genios

28 Jul 22:39

26 Meat Sculptures That Will Excite Your Inner Geek

by Andrew Ziegler

Seattle’s Uwajimaya is a grocery store that makes sculptures out of meat, and they’re amazing.

Beef Metroid is a must own for any gaming fan out there.

Beef Metroid is a must own for any gaming fan out there.

Uwajimaya / Kieran Gormley / Via epicgrinds.tumblr.com

Luigi and Mario? NOPE. Beef Waluigi and pork Wario.

Luigi and Mario? NOPE. Beef Waluigi and pork Wario.

Uwajimaya / Kieran Gormley / Via epicgrinds.tumblr.com

Pokémon is HUGE at Uwajimaya. Here's pork-Meowth.

Pokémon is HUGE at Uwajimaya. Here's pork-Meowth.

Uwajimaya / Kieran Gormley / Via epicgrinds.tumblr.com

Behold: Beef-Bulbasaur.

Behold: Beef-Bulbasaur.

Uwajimaya / Kieran Gormley / Via epicgrinds.tumblr.com


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:38

Undeniable Proof That Tacos Are The Greatest Food Ever Made

by Norberto Briceño

Hard shell tacos suck and you should feel bad for liking them.

OK – Let's get this out of the way: When I refer to tacos, I don't mean this shit:

OK – Let's get this out of the way: When I refer to tacos, I don't mean this shit:

commons.wikimedia.org

For those in "that" camp who absolutely LOVE those hard-shell chingaderas, we're just going to set you aside over here:

For those in "that" camp who absolutely LOVE those hard-shell chingaderas , we're just going to set you aside over here:

Go ahead and eat your hard shell tacos that break down after one bite, your chopped lettuce, your shredded cheese, and your fake meat. You enjoy that. Seriously.

commons.wikimedia.org

The delicious mouthwatering tacos I'm talking about look like this:

The delicious mouthwatering tacos I'm talking about look like this:

So beautiful.

Jeffrey Beall/ Flickr: denverjeffrey

And typically, this glorious food from heaven is made by this dear man who knows how to handle a drunken crowd in the wee hours of the night:

And typically, this glorious food from heaven is made by this dear man who knows how to handle a drunken crowd in the wee hours of the night:

The true king of late night.

Omar Bárcena/ Flickr: omaromar


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:36

Pretty girl shows all

by bender
Video: 
28 Jul 22:35

Art,,,

by dw
28 Jul 22:33

This Fake Juggalo Documentary Narrated By Morgan Freeman Is Actually Brilliant

“March of the Juggalos.”

Odd and mesmerizing creatures drawn yearly from their normal habitat to a massive orgy on ancestral breeding grounds: Emperor penguins or Juggalos?

Odd and mesmerizing creatures drawn yearly from their normal habitat to a massive orgy on ancestral breeding grounds: Emperor penguins or Juggalos?

fiftyfootant / Via youtube.com

Anthony Finucane's brilliant documentary mashup, pairing scenes from American Juggalo (2011) with Morgan Freeman's narration from March of the Penguins (2005), plays like a thoughtful (and hilarious) rumination on a poorly understood subculture.

Anthony Finucane 's brilliant documentary mashup, pairing scenes from American Juggalo (2011) with Morgan Freeman's narration from March of the Penguins (2005), plays like a thoughtful (and hilarious) rumination on a poorly understood subculture.

"She must entrust the egg to its father."

fiftyfootant / Via youtube.com

"To live and love in the harshest place on earth."

fiftyfootant / Via youtu.be

28 Jul 22:31

Study Says Children Exposed To Religion Can Have Trouble Separating Fact From Fiction

Young children who have been raised religious are more likely to identify supernatural occurrences in a story as truthful.

Godong / Contributor / Getty

It's difficult for young children to differentiate between fact and fiction after they have been exposed to religion, a new study in this month's issue of Cognitive Science says.

Researchers presented 66 5- and 6-year-old children from public and religious schools three types of stories — religious, fantastical, and realistic — to determine if they could identify fictional elements in the narratives.

The authors found that when presented with stories that included "ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention," children who had been exposed to religion were less able to differentiate the made-up elements, like talking animals, as fictional.

"The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories," the study concluded.

therelentlessreader.com

According to the Huffington Post:

By relating seemingly impossible religious events achieved through divine intervention (e.g., Jesus transforming water into wine) to fictional narratives, religious children would more heavily rely on religion to justify their false categorizations.

The researchers suggest that religious teaching and exposure to miracle-based stories give children a more common acceptance of the impossible, despite what's actually realistic.

About 83% of Americans are affiliated with a religion, and 86% said they believe in God, according to recent Gallup data. Additionally, 28% of Americans believe the Bible is God's words verbatim and should be interpreted literally.


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:26

UFC Fighter Shows Support For Marriage Equality While Stripping Down To His Underwear

There are allies and then there are allies .

Kyle "Kingsbu" Kingsbury, 205 lbs of MMA fighting power, was victorious before he even stepped into the ring last Friday in San Jose, California.

Kyle "Kingsbu" Kingsbury, 205 lbs of MMA fighting power, was victorious before he even stepped into the ring last Friday in San Jose, California.

827.tumblr.com

Stripping down for the official weigh-in on FOX 12, Kingsbury showed his support for the LGBT community right where everyone could see it – with a pair of "legalize gay" underwear.

Stripping down for the official weigh-in on FOX 12, Kingsbury showed his support for the LGBT community right where everyone could see it – with a pair of "legalize gay" underwear.

827.tumblr.com

I'm not sure how wrestling works, but I think this counts as a KO?

I'm not sure how wrestling works, but I think this counts as a KO?

827.tumblr.com

A take down? A pin? A win for underwear all over the world, certainly.

A take down? A pin? A win for underwear all over the world, certainly.

827.tumblr.com


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:24

25 Stock Photos Made Better With Completely Inappropriate Captions

As if stock photos could get any better, the subreddit r/youdontsurf takes them to the next level.

You don't surf:

You don't surf:

Via reddit.com

The Pope's Revenge:

The Pope's Revenge:

Via reddit.com

Feast:

Feast:

Via reddit.com

Sorry:

Sorry:

Via reddit.com


View Entire List ›

28 Jul 22:01

Here Are Episodes of 'Seinfeld,' 'Friends,' and 'The Big Bang Theory' with All the Jokes Removed

by Megh Wright
by Megh Wright

Taking inspiration from a recent clip of Family Feud edited to only include actual gameplay, a Reddit user recently edited out all the jokes from episodes of Seinfeld, Friends, and The Big Bang Theory, and the result is an interesting glimpse at how all three sitcoms approach plot, punchlines, and the relationship between the two. Unsurprisingly, the Seinfeld episode clip from "The Junior Mint" is the longest at 3:02 (and still manages to be pretty funny) while The Big Bang Theory couldn't even make it to the 1:30 mark. Click through for the other two clips.


0 Comments
28 Jul 21:55

The Biggest Winners And Losers Of Comic-Con 2014!

by io9 staff

The Biggest Winners And Losers Of Comic-Con 2014!

Every year, people spend thousands of dollars to journey to the motherlode of geeky pop culture: San Diego Comic-Con. And every year, entertainment companies do their utmost to generate excitement about their upcoming spectacles. But who gained buzz, and who lost it? Here's our list of the biggest winners and losers of Comic-Con 2014.

Read more...








28 Jul 21:50

OkCupid admits it’s been doing experiments on your heart

by Robyn Pennacchia
OkCupid admits it’s been doing experiments on your heart

This June, Facebook faced some serious criticism after revealing that they had deliberately manipulated people’s emotions by screwing with their news feeds to show either all happy or all sad statuses. Now, a month later, dating site OKCupid has semi-rushed to their defense by revealing that they, too, are totally fucking with you.

In a blog post on the site today, site co-founder Christian Ruddy admits to doing experiments on users all the time. In fact, he says that anyone who uses the internet for anything pretty much just needs to chillax about this kind of stuff because it happens all the time and all the websites do it anyway. For the record, we here at Death and Taxes are not getting it together anytime soon to do any experiments on you. Unless, you know, they involve cool mad scientist outfits and ice pick lobotomies that turn you into our coffee fetching minions or something useful like that.

Ruddy detailed three experiments the site has done in order to “improve” the site. The first two were fairly innocuous and were not geared specifically towards messing with people, but the third was pretty iffy. On the site, when you’re looking at someone’s profile, it tells you how much of a match you are for them, percentage wise. However, in order to determine…something, the site told users who weren’t compatible that they were super compatible, and vice versa, to see if they’d still talk to each other. So, basically, OKCupid was trying to set you up on terrible dates to see if you’d just go along with them thinking that you were computer matched in heaven. And it worked, kinda.
OKCupidadmits OkCupid admits its been doing experiments on your heart
Remember back in middle school where assholes would tell you that someone liked you, and then when you were like “Neat!” would yell “PSYCH!” at you and then you’d go eat your lunch in the girls room all sad-like and determined to never trust anyone or show any emotion in public again? This is sort of like that, except they do it to people in both ends. I mean, it’s not exactly like that, but it does erode your trust in what it is you think a site like OKCupid is supposed to be doing for you.

Ruddy claims that experiments like these are the way they improve their site. Although I don’t think compatibility is necessarily a thing that can be measured by a dating website (except of course, Christian Mingle, because they pick out God’s match for you, not some computers), I think it’s crappy to mess with people’s heads like that and provide them with the exact opposite of the service you claim to be providing for them.

28 Jul 17:24

Reglas

by Jónatan Sark

Por extraño que pueda parecer entre los tropos también se han de incluir algunas reglas. No tanto porque lo regulen de por sí como porque explican ciertos usos y costumbres. Algunas se pueden considerar como más propias de Internet, sobre todo las originadas en 4chan. Otras, por su parte, entran más en el terreno de los tropos. Y como durante el mes de agosto tendremos una versión muy especial de esta columna -sí, otro año más- vamos a tomarnos el descanso hablando de estas reglas generales. Que podemos separar en tres partes.

En primer lugar vamos con las más generales, de entre la que destaca la Regla de Tres. La unidad fundamental para crear movimiento y enfrentamiento, para mantener las cosas interesantes. Recordaréis lo comentado hace unas semanas sobre los protagonistas. Pero no es lo único que funciona así, también la necesidad de organizaciones, tanto como objetos a conseguir -que siempre ofrece la posibilidad de Uno el protagonista, una el antagonista, más tensión para la tercera- o en la manera de realizar la organización, bien desde un punto de vista lineal -Presentación, Nudo, Desenlace- como desde la fórmula de presentación de adjetivos o la del funcionamiento de la repetición para historias clásicas o de chistes que introducen una variación final -el tercero de los hijos, el último de la serie de nacionalidades- que ayuda a cambiar la narrativa para lograr el efecto deseado, sea una lección moral o un efecto humorístico. Una Regla muy seria, como vemos.

Luego está la Regla de la Amenaza Superior que es una de esas cosas que tiende a arruinar la narración continuada porque cada amenaza debe ser mayor que la anterior y, claro, cuando uno se ha enfrentado a la destrucción de una casa, un edificio, una ciudad, una región, un país, el mundo, el universo, la realidad toda… ¿a qué se puede enfrentar? Podríamos pasar de esta regla a hablar de la progresiva necesidad en los blockbusters de poner en peligro a todo en absoluto. Pero eso mejor otro día. Por algún extraño motivo eso parece aplicarse con frecuencia a las narraciones de organizaciones malignas -en la de torneos tiene más sentido- de manera que el protagonista va encontrándose con un enemigo superior hasta llegar al de arriba del todo que será el mayor experto de todos. -O, como poco, el que tenga mejor guardaespaldas-.

Y, claro, están las reglas de escritura: La pistola de Chéjov es la más famosa, dice que la pistola (que podemos adaptar a cualquier otra cosa) que se nos muestra como de pasada en el primer acto será usado antes de que termine. Porque si no va a ser usada no debería estar ahí. Es una de las reglas más antiguas y manipuladas, bien sea para subvertirla creando unas expectativas sobre el uso de un objeto o el desarrollo de una acción como para adaptarla de mil maneras distintas. Volveremos sobre ello cuando hablemos de Ladrillos, McGuffins y la armería de Chéjov.

- Debería decir algo del Efecto Kuleshov, que demostró como la contraposición de una imagen varía su interpretación al ponerse otra a su lado. La misma imagen con distintas contraposiciones parecerán ofrecer un registro y otro que ofrezca una narrativa completa para ambas. Pero como es más un recurso y una curiosidad mejor no darle mucho más bombo-.

De momento pasemos a la Tercera Ley de Clarke: Cualquier tecnología suficientemente avanzada es indistinguible de la magia.Lo que teóricamente debería prevenir para que se trate como magos por el público a aquellos que logran hechos increíbles que no son sino ciencia. Lamenablemente en una época post-McGyver -y aún más postJobs- la regla se ha invertido para que cualquier cosa que se haga por ¡MAGIA! se pueda colgar a tecnología avanzada. Si alguno recuerda a cuando -¡Hace cuatro años!- hablamos de la Informágica ya sabe a lo que me refiero.

Algo que hace inevitable pensar en La ley de (Nathan) Poe: Un punto de vista extremista es absolutamente indistinguible de la parodia del mismo. De manera que da igual lo alocado que pueda parecernos la postura de la parodia, la realidad se encargará de superarlo. Algo a lo que puede sumarse la versión para realities -o programas del corazón, o lo que sea, a ver si os creíais que ellos no tenían reglas- conocida como La Zona Tyson, es decir, Algunos famosos logran una reputación tal que cualquier historia sobre ellos, por grotesca que nos pueda parecer, suena plausible. ¿Incluido un espectáculo en Broadway o unos dibujos animados parodia de Scooby Doo para Adult Swim? Podéis marcar ambos en la casilla de Real de Tyson. Bien mirado ambas reglas sirven para demostrar que la separación entre ficción y realidad no siempre es tan fuerte como puede parecernos en primer lugar. O para considerar el mundo en que vivimos, en el que el Gobierno de España cumple ambas.

Luego están las sugerencias para los escritores, ya sea el Efecto Chris Carter que viene de unas declaraciones suyas en las que decía que “SI los fanes deciden que los guionistas nunca resolverán sus tramas, dejaran probablemente de seguir su trabajo.” Siempre he pensado que ese probablemente era lo que le dio fuerza durante años. Podemos añadir esta otra sugerencia, esta vez con la Ley de Chandler: En caso de duda, saca a un hombre entrando por la puerta con una pistola en la mano. Entre esto y que Christie recomendaba que en caso de decaimiento de la trama se matara a otro personaje entendemos cómo se llegó al éxito de las películas de acción. Y que existan cosas como el Postulado de Lord British, Da igual que muestres un personaje inmortal en un juego SIEMPRE habrá un jugador que intente matarlo.

Terminemos esta parte con una de las múltiples adaptaciones del concepto de Token Lady, y es que El Principio de la Pitufina dice que Habrá solo un personaje femenino en los dibujos animados no creados en exclusiva para chicas. Un principio discutido y demostrado extensamente -y que aún queda lejos de todo lo que podemos encontrar en Los Pitufos- que acabaron llevando a un sutil cambio en la realidad llamado Dos chicas en el equipo que funciona para evitar esas tontas quejas que es que como son las personas espectadores, así que se meten más chicas en relación 3:2 para que haya suficientes como para evitar quejas y no tantas como para que parezca para chicas. ¡Es un avance!

De momento pasemos al segundo gran grupo, vamos a reconocer a los chicos de /b/ algunas creaciones populares. Así, más allá de la problemática que hay en alguna de esas reglas; la más obvia tanto por superada como por explicar la misoginia inicial de internet sería la Regla 29: On the internet men are men, women are also men, and kids are undercover FBI agents. que enlaza tanto con el concepto  En Internet nadie sabe que eres un perro como con esa idea de sus inicios, ampliada en la Regla 30: Girls do not exist on the internet, de que si alguien se presentaba como una mujer era, sin duda, un Camionero de Cuenca, creando toda una disparidad de trato a los identificado de una forma con respecto a los otros; mientras que otra no dejan de ser cosas genéricas o puro juego de contraposiciones cínicas, pero hay tres que podemos comentar aunque sean parte más de la parte externa del asunto que de la interna:

Regla 34: Si existe, hay porno. Sin excepciones. 

En un sentido de existencia, por cierto, que se refiere más al concepto de si has pensado en ello que de discusiones filosóficas sobre que algo exista o se haya creador. Es una regla que se autocumple en combinación con la siguiente, pues la Regla 35 establece que Si no hay porno de ello, se creará. Y por si alguien no entiende el motivo o la necesidad se redondea con una Regla 36 de alcance universal: No importa lo que sea, es el fetiche de alguien.

Algo que, a su vez, podemos unir a la Regla 63: Por cada personaje masculino hay una versión femenina (y viceversa). Que lleva por coletilla: Y siempre habrá porno de esa versión. Si no lo encuentras entonces puedes ir a la Regla 62: Ello ha sido crackeado y pirateado. Puedes encontrar cualquier cosa si buscas con el suficiente tiempo y empeño.

Lo que nos lleva a la Regla 46: Internet es un SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS, y esta sí que será más de interés. No porque saber que todo tiene su versión del sexo opuesto, que todo excita y todo tiene porno -y si no lo hay lo habrá- sean menos interesante tanto como porque la existencia de los SFB de la Regla 46 sirve para ilustrar que siempre habrá un algo, por ridículo que nos pueda parecer, que será considerado como SFB en una historia y, por tanto, motivo para que funcione la narración. Da igual que sea amasar pan, la historia de los cómics, sing-alongs de Ricardo III o Relojes Nazis, para ellos son un motivo más que razonable para movilizarse y, de hecho, habrá una gran cantidad de gente que piense lo mismo en ese universo.

Todo lo anterior ha sido entretenido pero las Reglas que acaban sirviendo para tapar agujeros y callar bocas son las que se agrupan bajo un sombrero general que podemos llamar la Rule of Cool. Seguro que su mismo nombre hace que alguno sospeche de lo que va el tema. Si además añado que bajo está Regla de Molar se puede hablar también de una Regla de Gracioso, Romántico, Aterrador, Encantador, Dramático… ¡Lo que sea! Y estoy seguro de que ya sabéis lo que voy a explicar a continuación:

La Suspensión de Incredulidad quedará en el aire mientras un personaje o trama funcione con la finalidad de Molar. Da igual que nada tenga sentido, que haya formas más sencillas de lograr el mismo resultado o que la situación sea absolutamente ridícula. Lo importante es QUE MOLE. O que resulte Gracioso, Romántico, Aterrador, etc… Esa capacidad de sorprendernos y encandilarnos funciona como un trile mental, mientras se mira eso no se suele ver el cartón en el truco e incluso si alguien -¡maldito sea!- lo señala preferiremos ser engañados porque la versión ofrecida… ¡MOLA! -Y así nos va como espectadores-. Si alguien cree que no es una de las formas más poderosas de construcción es que no ha estado atenta durante años. Da igual lo ridículo que parezca el plan o lo físicamente poco probable que sea que explote un coche o que reviente una cabeza acabando con todos los problemas. Otra cosa es que lo diseñado para MOLAR no acabe de funcionar con el público o, peor aún, que los ejecutivos tracen sus planes y en lugar de crear algo que MOLE creen un Poochie.

Y de entre todas estas reglas podemos volver a señalar una como especial, pues la Regla de Sexy dice que si es Sexy podemos creer en cosas. Como en la protección de bikinis de cota de malla o en amazonas con zapatos de tacón . Por algún curioso motivo cuando el sujeto de la regla es un hombre se presupone que se trata de homoerotismo. Porque, claro, siempre será más importante que se haga por gustar a otro hombre.

Fuera de esa hay aún tres reglas más. La de Empatía, que dice que podemos crear empatía con cualquier personaje u objeto simplemente presentándolo y que esa empatía afectará a su comportamiento e importancia en la historia. De modo que un personaje sin presentación podrá morir al instante pero para un personaje por el que se ha desarrollado empatía -incluso aunque lo desarrollado sea odio- harán falta algunas escenas para su muerte y despedida.

La de Diversión afirma que esto en lo que estás invirtiendo tu tiempo tiene que ser divertido. Así que, bien, un análisis de ADN podría tardar semanas y a saber cómo de creíble podría resultar, pero es que para entonces el público ya se habría olvidado de tu caso porque eso llevaría hacer tramas y no un Asesinato de la Semana así que mejor pasarse por el forro la verdad a favor de la diversión, lo que, al final acaba logrando que al familiarizarnos con ello encontremos lo segundo más verosímil.

En cuanto a la de Percepción, lo que nos dice es que la audiencia tiene que ver o escuchar algo para que suceda. De ese modo a la porra las reglas de la física, otra vez, porque lo importante es que se puedan escuchar los gritos en el espacio, los filos suenan, el sabor o el gusto deben ser comentados e interpretados, la oscuridad deja un resquicio para que veamos, en fin, todas esas cosas que parece que los espectadores necesitamos para entender la historia.

Al margen de todo esto, y a modo de resumen, aún quedan unas pocas palabras que decir. Y es que ya lo decía la Revelación de Sturgeon: El 90% de cualquier cosa es basura. Aunque lo hacía para añadir como corolario que ese 10% bueno es tan bueno sea SciFi como Narrativa Generalista. Es una regla es quizá una de las más importantes pero aún las hay más definitivas.

Sobre todo estas tres: La Máxima de Bellisario dice que lo mejor es no examinar los hechos muy de cerca. El Mantra de Mystery Science Theater 3000 es, recordémoslo, es solo un programa, debería relajarme. Y, por encima de todo, la Ley de Moff acuñada en io9, cuando estés haciendo crítica de algo siempre habrá alguien que te diga: ¿Por qué no puedes limitarte a disfrutarlo?.

¡¡¡Pues porque es más divertido así!!! ¡Y esas son las reglas!

28 Jul 17:18

Fist-bumps are cleaner than handshakes, cool scientists claim

by Joe Veix
Fist-bumps are cleaner than handshakes, cool scientists claim

Supercool scientists at Aberystwyth University (a University named after someone randomly pounding  a computer keyboard like a monkey) have confirmed that fist-bumps are more hygienic than handshakes.

Their experiment was incredibly simple. They dipped some rubber gloves in bacteria, and then tested the different handshakes. They then bro-ed out, performing various hand-related greetings, including fist-bumps, handshakes, and high-fives. Apparently handshakes transferred 10 times as many bacteria, and high-fives around five times as many.

This experiment creates more questions than answers, however. What about an awkward half-handshake/fist-bumps? Does exploding your fist while making a “psffhhhh” noise make it more or less safe? We’ll just have to wait for the slow march of scientific progress to know for sure.

Source: Metro | Image: The Atlantic

28 Jul 16:43

17 Men And Women Who Went Through An Arranged Marriage Explain How They Initiated Sex

by hoK leahciM
image - Flickr / Aurelio Asiain
image – Flickr / Aurelio Asiain

Found on r/AskReddit.

1. BANGBANGBANG

Alright how it happens now in India is: parents of girl contact parents of boy. They do shit together. Then they set up the first meeting dates for girl and boy.

Then girl and boy meet in front of family and are encouraged to hang out. Call this “family sanctioned dating.”

Then if girl hates guy (because he smoked weed or kicks babies or whatever) or vice versa, then the whole shebang is ditched.

If not they get married, already have a certain level of familiarity + repression over time + horny + love so BANGBANGBANG you now have 1 billion people.

DISCLAIMER
Of course this is urban india. I don’t know how it is in rural India.

Source: moderately stoned urban dwelling Indian.

2. Mom, dad, you guys totally get me

A good friend of mine having a marriage arranged explained it to me: it’s not that he couldn’t get a date if he tried, but that he thinks his parents would do a better job of picking his wife/in-laws than he could. Especially because, like the first commenter said, you still “date” them to make sure you’re compatible. For my friend, he knew he wanted a wife with the same culture/religion/values to raise a family with, and the matchmaking power of his extended family was way better than his ability to pick out girls at bars.

Part of it is that most arranged-marriage cultures also have a very strong culture of respecting your elders, which is very different from the American culture–if his dad told him that a girl was a good choice for him, he would trust him; if an American parent did it, their kid would be like “Ugh, MOM. You totally don’t get me.”

3. Stark differences

My wife and I were carried from the hall where the reception was to the bedroom by our new in-laws.

The whole spectacle was accompanied by raucous cheers and I could hear screams of joy and celebration from the reception hall in the bedding chamber. Sadly though I never got to see my sister Catelyn or nephew Robb after the ceremony.

4. Lovely

I porked my wife of twenty years about 4 hours after meeting her. Why be awkward? Get to the fucking.

5. Not that awkward

My friend is from India and his marriage was arranged. I tried to broach a similar subject once and he just chuckled and said they just did it. If you live in a society where arranged marriages are acceptable, all parties know that the newly wed couple are supposed to so the deed after the ceremony. It’s expected, so it isn’t as awkward as one would think.

6. Throw water-balloon condoms at your future spouse

Arranged in Korea, married in 4 months, had him agree to no sex after the wedding until I was comfortable. I was a virgin and was terrified of the pain. So for two weeks we just… explored. Lots of touching, lots of intimacy… tons of jokes. We laughed more than anything else.

He waited until I was absolutely ready, and he made it fun. Bought condoms.. my first condom experience was him filling one up with water in the sink. He threw said water balloon at me while I was showering and ran away before I could retaliate.

For some reason that odd, humorous act moved me and I thought to myself, “this is the only man I will ever give my body to.” Had sex that same night. Hurt like a bitch at first but I’ll never forget how I started to fall in love with my husband because of a condom-made water balloon.

7. Nothing more than history now

My grandparents were married at age 13(gd) and 11(gm). This is more than 50 years ago in rural Nepal. Their first child was born when grandma was 21. That’s all I know. I don’t ask them these stuff. My grandpa did well and moved to the city and with it died the system of arranged marriage in my family.

8. I read with accent, make more sense

This is a story I want to share. My grandmother had partizans (fuckers who told everybody they fought for free Lithuania, and against occupation of soviet union in WWII, but actually robbed and killed people) in her family. in 1960s, my grandfather was a truck driver, and delivered bread all around the place. he was 30, grandmother about 20. She was filling expedition papers (how much bread got delivered, etc.) And one thing followed another, and only like several years after they met, my grandfather impregnated my grandmother with my mom. Nobody talked about their marriage clearly, but they married with my mom inside my grandmother, and they were force-married. My grandfather has serious health issues, and if not my grandmother, he would be dead 10 years from now, but he still says “I should have not meet you” he says to me he uses this to keep this under control. also in 1960, when Nikita Khrushchev was in power (period called de stalinization, when country became better place), my grandmothers uncle got into trials, and received death sentence, because he killed soviet officers during wartime period. Luckily, my grandparent matched well, and had wonderful lives, and my mother turned 50 this year, and my grandparents still live in peace, in the same place. About how they got around it, 5 years after the miracle of my mother occured, my uncle was born.

9. No happy ending

The Pakistani/ Indian matrimonial system is a cesspool of ethnocentrism, I say this as an Indian myself. People aren’t livestock to be traded on factors like the the color of their skin, the family they were born into, their country of origin — things they can’t control. Most arranged marriages are based on superficial factors. Religion. Nationality. Occupation. Labels. You’re marrying a label. My experience with an arranged marriage was probably one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life.

The whole thing was planned within a week and she’d known the guy for less than that before agreeing, all she had seen of him beforehand was a photograph and her parents assurances. This wasn’t a modern version of an arranged marriage as pointed out by other posters. Her parents presented him as a potential partner for marriage, not as someone she could date and then evaluate on her own terms. She found out about him on May 27th and she was pledged to him between then and June 4th. The engagement was on June 21st and the Baat Paki (agreement to get married) ceremony was before I found out. She is just 19 and things went too quickly for me to handle.

I was a freshman in college and from the second she opened her mouth I was inexorably drawn to her. The first time we spoke, sitting outside a cafe in the rain with a mutual friend, we had one of those high fidelity “this weather is awesome” conversations and then we didn’t speak for another couple of months. The attraction was there from the beginning, but I was into somebody else back then.

I developed a real crush on her in Sophomore year and after a semester of shy smiles, waves and an awkward conversation in the courtyard, fate finally intervened. I’d opened her profile picture on Facebook and forgot to close the tab. I brought my laptop in the library and the image popped up. One of her closest friends was conveniently standing right behind me at the time. After a gasp and a short silence, he said he thought it was hilarious and pestered me for a week about it. I asked him to just mention me to her in a subtle manner. This was in order to get him to stop pressing me and so I could evaluate for myself whether or not I could successfully ask her out based on her reaction to my name being brought up in conversation. Well my perfectly laid plans didn’t matter. Instead he brazenly told her I’d liked her for ages and to my surprise she immediately reciprocated. I asked her out the next day.

After dating for a while, she essentially blind sided me. Before summer she told me she was really looking forward to seeing me and that she wanted to keep in touch. She made it very clear, repeatedly, that she wanted to continue the relationship, even though it wasn’t necessary. Every time we met, she put in an un-necessary amount of effort into her appearance even if it was just to say goodbye, she clearly cared. I had no inkling of what was to come, I was already thinking about the future.

We talked everyday for a week and a bit. After that however, she suddenly stopped messaging me. I just let it go initially because she’s interning in a demanding position this summer. After a few days I asked her if something was wrong (there was) but she just said she was extremely busy. Her response was slightly tense but nothing dire.
I waited another 3-4 days before I told her to just tell me, that it was always better to be direct. Turns out her parents wanted her to get engaged to someone. An arranged marriage. She told me that her parent’s would ‘like this’ and she respects her ‘parent’s decision.’ She said she didn’t know how to tell me. There’s really no arguing with that, even if she had protested, her parents won her over before I knew about it. She actually did tell one of her best friends multiple times that she felt bad about having to end it with me. But what good did it do?

The guy she is now engaged to is much shorter than her, speaks terrible English (to the point that communication might be an issue) and is about 9 years older. His educational background is also nothing special (such that her parents might use it in order to compel her). That said, he is also well settled and they work in the same industry, but that isn’t why you marry someone. An arranged marriage is a feeble shot a depraved version of love. You simply cannot throw two supposedly “compatible” individuals together and expect stuff to happen. Love is why you should marry someone, plain and simple.

At this point I should note that my career prospects aren’t close to being bad, we also got along really well and she actually liked me! Nothing about this looks good on paper, she can easily support herself since she’s majoring in computer science and electrical engineering at one of the world’s top ten universities. Her parents also knew we were dating.

10. Irish trial and error

I know a bit about Irish arranged marriages: (fuck off I’m from a huge Catholic family) a couple of my cousins had arranged marriages but it wasn’t like “I’ll give you a bag of potatoes if your son marries my daughter!” It’s more like “Ok, so here’s a list of respectable Catholic families we know who aren’t related to us” then you go from there. The person isn’t forced into it, it’s just like your parents go meet their parents they see if the families are suitable together, then you meet your potential spouse and then you go on a bunch of dates to see if you guys click, but only instead of “going steady” and seeing where that leads there’s the knowledge that this person is also potentially interested in getting married to you, it’s not like they’re going to turn around and say “sorry I’m not looking for anything serious” you know that you’re meeting this person to see if they would be a good person marry. To me it seems way more sensible than meeting some guy in a bar and having to figure out if he’s a good match through trial and error.

11. So that’s how they happen

I’m from an urban, less-conservative corner of the country and middle-middle class. So this generally applies to that demographic.

My parents ‘arranged’ our meeting a year back. The first meeting was at her house and couldn’t really talk a lot because of her parents and my bro being there. This is mostly like an introductory session. After this happened and since we both nodded that we’ll take this forward, that gave us an informal nod to start courting each other.

Now in this scenario, parents are mostly like a dating service, and whatever happens after that was left to both of us. She lived in a different city than I did, so it was pretty much a long distance relationship that we had.

Either one of us used to travel frequently and meet. After a few meetings and long phone calls, we both said ‘yes’ to the wedding. Though we never explicitly told our parents that we are meeting each other, I’m quite sure that they knew what was happening, and wouldn’t have minded much. We fell in love at some point during that period. And had sex long before our wedding night which was still a few months away.

We had the freedom to say ‘no’ at any point throughout this period, though it would have been progressively difficult as time neared the wedding date. But if either of us was adamant about it, the parents would have consented.

Matter of days/weeks is not very common in India nowadays. It’s mostly at least a couple of months before anything moves. That’s not the case always, but urban India – that’s how arranged marriages happen.

12. Had 10 kids, but never showed any affection

My Alaskan Native grandparents, from my mother’s side, were in an arranged marriage and had about 10 kids together. They never talked about this topic in particular but the never kissed or hugged as far back as I could remember. Arranged marriage stopped with that generation when westernization overcame most of the traditional culture.

13. Looks like the internet was their wingman

We went from saying two words to each other extremely awkwardly in front of each other’s families’, to married five days later. I was leaving town a few days after so we didn’t consummate because he wanted to concentrate on his studies.

I came back a year later after he was done with his degree and we became a couple in the true sense of the word. In the year we were apart we talked a lot over phone and email, so we did get to know each other and it wasn’t like we were strangers. It was extremely awkward though.

14. From roommates to lovers

My family is very Jewish, I’m Conservative Jewish but one of my cousins stuck to Orthodoxy and chose to have someone set him up. Yes we still do that, it was offered to me actually. The guy that they wanted me to marry was very nice, but it just wasn’t going to happen (he was substantially older than me). We still keep in touch, and he’s actually secular now.

My cousin says that it went slowly. They sort of acted like roommates at first. They’d met each other a few times before the wedding, and spoken on the phone/facebook, but being married is totally different. It took 3 months before they had sex, and that was due to insane horniness- he says it felt more like a hookup, in all honesty, just due to the weirdness and suddenness of it. After that, though, the ice sort of broke. They’re crazy about each other now, and I’m guessing their sex life is good as they have 5 kids with another on the way. They’re a very sweet couple- he brings her flowers fairly often, and is actually currently a stay at home dad. They’re the arranged ones I know the most intimate details of, but a few other relatives have had it done as well.

15. Pulling the trigger on weddings

It’s not arranged marriages per se, but in standard LDS (Mormon) communities, it’s pretty common for couples to get engaged and then married REALLY fast. The longest engagement I’ve ever heard of was about eight months. I’ve seen people who have been engaged for only three months and then boom, temple wedding pictures. I don’t know exact statistics and I’m too lazy to look them up, but marriages tend to be solid. Utah has a high divorce rate, but there are plenty of Mormons outside of Utah who have short engagement periods and make it last forever.

On the downside, literally nobody knows anything about sex. I turned 21 this year, and I am an educated single liberal woman, and I didn’t even know until recently that some of the church leaders used to say that oral sex was taboo. Lately, the attitude has been adjusted to say, “As long as you aren’t involving anybody else, what you do in your bedroom is your business,” which is of course how it should have been in the first place. But it was something I used to worry about, because I knew that women aren’t going to just be satisfied with their husbands ramming it into them and nine months later babies, and I was concerned because as a woman who hopes someday to become a wife and mother I would also like to experience great sex with my future husband. I read a fun book by an LDS lady called “And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage Through Sexual Fulfillment.” It was a good read and enlightening for me about LDS people and sexuality.

16. They love each other, but not like that

Man, I wish I could ask my grandparents about their marriage, but they both have hearing disabilities. Theirs was arranged when they were 16 (gd) and 15 (gm) around 60 years ago in rural Vietnam. They love each other very much, but not really in a romantic way. They argue a lot, but one would flip their shit if the other got hurt. None of them forced arranged marriages on any of my aunts and uncles (I have eight total, so they got busy, haha) .

17. Looks like he wasn’t so beta after all

I’m Indian, born and raised in New York. I don’t even speak Hindi, follow Indian customs, or really have ties to the culture. It’s not that I dislike it, I just never got into it.

Anyway, I’m engaged to a beautiful American woman. I’m 23.

Well, before this happened, I found out that my parents and extended family out in India already made a list of girls I was supposed to meet and “choose” from. I shit you not, the list had maybe 12-15 people on it….

Yeah, they brought it up to me.

“Beta [affectionate term for Son/Child], we want you to meet some pretty girls in India.”

Anyway, fast forward to now.

Fuck that, I refuse. Ran off and found someone I loved instead. TC mark








28 Jul 16:21

Drink Your Sorrows Away

by John martinez

Drink Your Sorrows Away

28 Jul 16:18

Clases e embarcacións

by Luis Davila

28 Jul 16:06

Tengo mis motivos para hacerte mucho, mucho daño

by Sergio Parra

hitler.jpgDespojémonos de anteojeras y maduremos de golpe, a golpe de pistón: el cine (la mayoría del cine, el masivo, el Blockbuster, el que se emite en prime time, ya me entendéis), el cine, digo, es una colección de tópicos infantiles, falsos y maniqueos que lleva décadas practicando una de las mayores lobotomías colectivas de la historia de la humanidad.

De acuerdo, acabo de escribir una boutade. Pero algo hay de cierto en lo que acabo de sentenciar. Ahora me daréis la razón:

No, no usamos solo el 10 % del cerebro; no, la gente no puede entablar una relación con un fantasma y quedarse tan ancha (si existe el Más Allá, suicídate y vete con tu ser amado, o deja de ir al baño porque nunca sabrás si un fantasma burlón escruta tus vergüenzas); no, madurar no consiste en formar una familia y tener un trabajo estable; no, no debemos regresar a la inocencia infantil si eso significa creer en fantasías, mitos y otras cosas sin las suficientes pruebas, porque así nos se arreglan de verdad los problemas del mundo; no, los superhéroes no se dedicarían a salvar viandantes de su propia ciudad cuando podrían solucionar de eficazmente grandes problemas colectivos, problemas estructurales de continentes enteros, o incluso dejar que se experimente con su cuerpo para crear más superhéroes o mejorar de algún modo nuestras posibilidades como especie; no, no es lógico que la primera pregunta de una persona mínimanente formada ante una inteligencia superior extraterrestre no sea algo parecido a “¿cómo solucionamos el problema del confinamiento magnético del plasma en la fusión nuclear”?; no, los malos no quieren dominar el mundo porque son malos: los malos tienen ambiciones que colisionan con las ambiciones de los buenos, pero unos usan la persuasión para imponer su modelo (los buenos) y otros la fuerza bruta (los malos), pero ni siquiera siempre es así, y a veces ni siquiera queda claro quién es bueno o malo.

Vale, ya podemos coger aire. En realidad, podéis olvidar ahora mismo esta filípica: tenía más de catarsis que de otra cosa (de hecho, este artículo abordará solo el problema del mal, no los anteriores, que los dejaremos para otra ocasión). Además, soy perfectamente consciente de que muchas de estas rémoras cinematográficas están siendo enmendadas gracias a películas y series de televisión que, sin dejar atrás las señas de identidad de paladar masivo, logran articular un discurso mucho menos manido. Así, a vuelapluma, me acuerdo de Breaking Bad: ¿Walter White era bueno o malo? ¿Acaso importa?

Maldad de villano cinematográfico

Es en el tema de la moral donde parece que más está progresando el discurso catódico. Parece que la gente parece cada vez más permeable a la idea de que las cosas no son blancas o negras. Y que los malos, bien, no siempre son los malos. O que depende (aunque en algunas películas al malo se le presente como tal y la mayoría de nosotros, en realidad, nos parezca el bueno: me pasó con Un ciudadano ejemplar y con Bane en The Dark Knight Rises, del que habría suscrito muchos de sus planteamientos:

El mal ya no es puro, y no solo en el ámbito del cine. Cada vez nos creemos menos lo de que hay personas malvadas sin fisuras, comeniños, Hitlers. Si bien es cierto que existen personas inhumanas y salvajes, en la mayoría de los casos estamos tratando con enfermos mentales o psicópatas: y gran parte de las personas que hacen cosas malas, entendidas como ilegales o inmorales, no encajan en tal clasificación. Por ejemplo, entre el 70 % y el 90 % de los hombres universitarios, y entre el 50 y el 80 % de las mujeres universitarias, han admitido haber tenido al menos una fantasía homicida en el año precedente del estudio realizado por los psicólogos Douglas Kenrick y David Buss. Estamos hablando de matar. La mayoría no llevará a cabo sus fantasías, pero probablemente tratarán de dañar de algún modo, o quizá boicotear, a esas personas desde un punto de vista no penal.

En el reino animal, la forma más evidente de agresión es la depredación. Pero todos hemos visto un gato jugando maquiavélicamente con una presa, por ejemplo.

Casi todos nosotros podemos actuar bajo un dictado moral que nos resulta justo, pero que a los demás no se lo parece, porque tendemos con mucha facilidad al autoengaño: creemos que nuestros motivos son justos, por eso tantas parejas discuten sobre quién friega más los platos: sinceramente ambos creen que son ellos mismos, porque nos fijamos más en nuestros logros que nuestros defectos.

De igual forma, la evolución ha sacado partido de la modularidad de nuestro cerebro, y en ocasiones puede aparecer la furia, una furia que nos hará perder el control y cometer actos de los que más tarde nos arrepentiremos.

En ese sentido, las leyes penales no se articulan solamente para protegernos de los malos, sino también para protegernos de nosotros mismos: al tener la ley un carácter reformador, con penas ajustadas para que la vida del acusado no se trunque para siempre, queda implícito que todos merecemos otra oportunidad, porque todos podemos llegar a necesitarla, tal y como explica Steven Pinker haciendo hincapié en los circuitos neuronales de la violencia en su libro Los ángeles que llevamos dentro:

Como muchos sistemas cerebrales, los circuitos que controlan la agresividad están organizados con arreglo a una jerarquía. Ciertas subrutinas que controlan los músculos en acciones básicas se encuentran en el rombencéfalo, que está situado en lo alto de la médula espinal. Pero los estados emocionales que activa determinadas subrutinas, como el circuito de la furia, están distribuidos en niveles superiores del mesencéfalo y el prosencéfalo. En los gatos, por ejemplo, la estimulación del rombencéfalo activa lo que los neurocientíficos denominan “furia falsa”. El gato bufa, tiene los pelos erizados y enseña los colmillos, pero es posible acariciarlo sin peligro que ataque. En cambio, si se estimula el circuito de la furia en niveles superiores, el estado emocional resultante no es falso: el gato se vuelve loco y arremete contra la cabeza del experimentador.

Eso no significa que todos seamos como Hulk. Pero sí significa que muchas personas (más de las que son conscientes de ello) lo son. Habida cuenta de que a todos nos puede tocar el premio, mejor será que el cine que venga, el masivo, el que llega a todos sitios, continúe explicando muchas más historias de personas así, como tú, como yo, como casi todos nosotros.

-
La noticia Tengo mis motivos para hacerte mucho, mucho daño fue publicada originalmente en Xatakaciencia por Sergio Parra.




28 Jul 15:58

Julia Bonaparte, la reina de España de los monárquicos hipsters

by Álvaro Corazón Rural

Julia Bonaparte y sus hijas, por Jean-Baptiste Joseph Wicar en 1809 (DP).

Soy mujer, aborrezco a todas las que pretenden ser inteligentes igualándose a los hombres, pues lo creo impropio de nuestro sexo, a pesar de que las hay que han leído mucho, y habiendo aprendido algunos términos del día, ya se creen superiores en talento a todos. Tal es la condesa Jaruco y otras varias, y no digo nada de las francesas. Pero como soy española, por la gracia de Dios, no peco por allí. (S. M. María Luisa, esposa de Carlos IV, predecesora de Julia Bonaparte en el trono de España).

No sé si se percataron ustedes de que durante la proclamación de Felipe VI y Letizia como reyes de España en las calles de Madrid no había ni dios, dicho simple y llanamente. Si a los pocos entusiastas de la monarquía que asistieron les restamos los manifestantes republicanos, que no eran pocos, al final solo se puede colegir que la monarquía en España es un culto minoritario. Una pasión de paladares selectos.

Esto es así. Cada uno elige la esclavitud que más le gusta en la maravillosa democracia del mundo capitalista globalizado y en nuestro país solo unos pocos sibaritas muestran en la calle su preferencia por la monarquía. Luego se vota masivamente a partidos monárquicos, pero también se sigue masivamente la final de la Décima y luego la ciudad se colapsa si gana el Madrid. Si esos partidos políticos reúnen veinte millones de votos más o menos y el fútbol en una cita así lo ven, pongamos, diez, ¿por qué no hubo avalanchas humanas para jalear a Felipe? La proclamación de un rey es lo más tope de la monarquía.

Ocurre que los monárquicos españoles son una especie de hipsters. Y en este espacio de libros muertos de risa, «Busco en la basura algo mejor», qué menos que reseñar uno de interés minoritario para nuestra minoría favorita: La biografía de la reina de España Julia Bonaparte, esposa de José I, el hermano de Napoleón. Una breve etapa de la historia de nuestros reyes que siempre ha hecho torcer el morro a los historiadores patriotas por motivos obvios. Tomaremos el estudio que hizo de ella Juan Balansó en 1991, la primera y la última biografía que se escribió de una reina hipster para monárquicos hipster ¡Viva!

Julia Clary tuvo algo de Cenicienta. Era hija de un comerciante, una burguesa, que llegó a las más altas instancias de la aristocracia de pura casualidad. ¿Cómo? Durante la Revolución francesa, el 18 de septiembre de 1793, el joven intendente José Bonaparte se encontró a una muchacha durmiendo en los bancos de espera de la oficina de su jefe. Era la bella Desiree Clary, hermana de Julia y futura reina de Suecia, y había acudido a pedir clemencia para su hermano, acusado de «favorecer a los aristócratas». José le dijo que no se preocupara, la acompañó a casa, por el camino le dejó la oreja como la de Niki Lauda y consiguió una cita. Tonto no era.

Julia Clary en un retrato anónimo ca. 1800 (DP).

José Bonaparte iba para cura, pero la prematura muerte de su padre por un cáncer de estómago le obligó a convertirse en el cabeza de familia con solo diecisiete años. Tuvo que cuidar de sus hermanos, entre ellos uno que haría carrera en el ejército, el precursor de la UE tal y como la entendemos hoy en día, Napoleón Bonaparte.

Que su hermano pequeño venía pisando fuerte lo notó José tan pronto como le presentó a la hermosa Desiree a la que estaba cortejando. Así lo relató ella misma:

La llegada de Napoleón supuso un cambio en nuestros planes para el futuro. Cierto día nos dijo: «Para lograr un buen matrimonio hace falta que uno de los cónyuges ceda siempre al otro. Tú, José, eres de carácter indeciso, al igual que Desiree, mientras que Julia y yo sabemos lo que queremos. Será, pues, mejor que tú te cases con ella. En cuando a Desiree —añadió sentándome en sus rodillas— será mi esposa». Así fue cómo me convertí en la novia de Napoleón.

Obediente, José Bonaparte no tuvo otra que pedirle la mano a Julia Clary, pero lo hizo con pasión dieciochesca escribiéndole por vía epistolar cursilerías de este calibre: «no dejemos escapar los instantes que nos conducen hacia el placer», «esta pasión sublime revestirá un carácter más intenso a medida que pase el tiempo», «cedamos pues a la fuerza de la juventud, pero sepamos prepararnos para los puros placeres en una perspectiva lejana de la vida». En otras palabras: te quiero comer to lo negro. Y sí, la conquistó.

La boda fue una ceremonia puramente civil. Un asunto que luego hubo que ocultar cuando la pareja ocupó el trono de España por el escándalo que pudiera ocasionar en nuestro fervientemente católico país. Nuestro actual cardenal Cañizares dijo hace pocos años, a propósito de la anterior boda civil de la reina Letizia, que un matrimonio civil para la Iglesia tiene el mismo valor que una solemne alianza verbal de dos jugadores de Monopoly, y con que te cases como Dios manda, después, todo está resuelto. Pero en aquella época significaba vivir en pecado. Un asunto tenebroso. Sin embargo, la pareja lo que había elegido era vivir, a secas, porque en la Francia revolucionaria, señala el autor, muy pocas familias se atrevían a cumplir con los preceptos religiosos aunque fuera de tapadillo.

Por el contrario, el romance de Napoléon con Desiree no duró mucho. De repente dejaron de llegar cartas y la joven se enteró por terceros de que el ambicioso militar se había casado con una tal Josefina, una aristócrata viuda de cierta edad. La despechada Desiree se apresuró a escribirle una carta diciéndole que no se casaría nunca, permanecería fiel a su recuerdo y que sobre él pesase la desdicha de una desgraciada. Dos años y medio después, casualidades de la vida, se casó con el general Bernadotte, rival de Napoleón y uno de los que le derrotó en Waterloo (ya como rey de Suecia y Noruega). Así es la ruleta rusa del amor.

En el romance que nos ocupa, Julia tuvo una hija el 19 de febrero de 1796, que murió al año y medio, bautizada como Zenaida por pedante capricho de su padre. Y en lo político, José fue recomendado por su hermano para que fuera enviado a Parma a un puesto diplomático. Allí tuvo un simpático encuentro en una fiestecilla palaciega con María Amalia de Austria, hermana de María Antonieta, a la que la revolución había decapitado. Dice el autor que se mostró «cortés, pero seca». Vaya. Y habló con José del tiempo «que es lo que se hace cuando no se sabe qué decir». Comentar los últimos modelos de guillotina no era plan.

Después de una admirable labor diplomática en Parma que el autor califica como «inexistente» —ya apuntaba maneras para recibir un carguito en España—, el Directorio nombró a José embajador en la corte papal. Allá fue José con Julia, que cumplía veintiséis años, y en menos de una semana le sobraron motivos para arrepentirse. Una manifestación frente a la embajada francesa de demócratas romanos pedía una república igualitaria que no fuera controlada por el papa. Un pelotón de caballería pontificia fue a disolverlos y persiguió incluso a los que se colaron dentro de la embajada. Los viandantes testigos de los hechos, y algo cuñaos, acusaron al embajador de haber pagado a los manifestantes para extender su revolución, pero José salió espada en mano a poner orden en los pocos metros cuadrados del jardín que era jurisdicción de Francia y le pidió el pasaporte a los soldados. Hubo tiros, un muerto. Y al día siguiente el embajador volvió a París con su mujer donde fue recibido como un héroe.

Esos días de reconocimiento y gloria en Francia los aprovechó José para comprar un hotel en París y una finca en el campo. Dijo muy alto que lo hacía con el dinero de la dote de su esposa, pues se había vuelto rico con su matrimonio. Pero según las indagaciones del autor del libro, era una forma de «blanquear» su fortuna personal, que provenía de beneficios de la piratería. José Bonaparte había metido sus ahorros en compañías de corsarios genoveses que abordaban naves en el Mediterráneo. Y además, blanqueó también parte de la de su hermano Napoleón, que venía de «confiscaciones y rapiñas de guerra». En cualquier época, nada como ser considerado súbitamente un héroe de la patria por la prensa para ir resolviendo asuntillos de aquella manera.

Mientras que su marido celebraba su éxito en los negocios y la política persiguiendo a otras mujeres, Julia sí que dio un servicio diplomático verdaderamente útil a Napoleón cuando concretó un almuerzo con su cuñado, el aludido Bernadotte, en el que los rivales acordaron no tocarse los cataplines mutuamente. Al menos durante un tiempo. El esposo de Desiree accedió por motivos familiares, Napoleón porque iba disparado hacia lo más alto y quería el camino despejado.

El 8 de julio de 1801, José y Julia tuvieron otra hija. Se volvió a llamar Zenaida, como la primera. Y un año después, otra. Carlota. A José se le cayó el alma a los pies. Se corrió el rumor de que era incapaz de engendrar varones y, entre los corsos, se creía que el sexo de un feto podía depender de maldiciones y males de ojo. Pero, a decir verdad, la que daba la impresión de haber recibido un mal de ojo era Julia. Valoren si no el resumen de aquellos años en París:

José la continuaba engañando con coristas de la ópera, turistas inglesas y damas de alto copete, pero ella cerraba los ojos y seguía amándole profundamente.

En enero de 1806, los Borbones fueron expulsados de Nápoles —concretamente, Fernando IV, hijo de nuestro Carlos III— y Napoleón le pidió a su hermano que ocupase su lugar. Conocedor del temperamento de los naturales, José se ganó a los napolitanos colocando un collar de brillantes en la imagen de San Genaro de la catedral. «En pleno templo se desencadena una ensordecedora salva de aplausos de la muchedumbre allí congregada», dice el texto. Se nota que aquello fue Corona de España durante muchos años.

Sin-título-3

Napoleón, José y Jerónimo Bonaparte retratados por François Gérard (DP).

En una primera etapa, José no estuvo acompañado por Julia en el sur de Italia y se dedicó a reinar como solo saben los más iluminados monarcas: con Elisabeth Dozolle, viuda de un oficial francés, tuvo una «volcánica relación», María Giulia Colonna «le haría perder la cabeza». Y así hasta que llegó su esposa. Aunque haber dejado por ahí un par de bastardos del sexo masculino le hizo respirar tranquilo sabiéndose libre de maldiciones. Y con ese orgullo y satisfacción, llegaron noticias de Bayona: iban a ser reyes de España.

«Los problemas y las tristezas de España no me asustan», dijo Julia a su marido en una carta. Pero cuando José llegó a Bayona para coger del suelo la corona que Carlos IV y Fernando habían cedido «amablemente» (junto a una deuda de siete mil millones de reales, que no suele mencionarse), el país llevaba un mes levantado en armas, desde el 2 de mayo. La única condición que le pusieron al hermano del emperador los Borbones fue que se mantuviera la integridad del reino, «que los límites de España no sufran alteración alguna». La imperecedera obsesión.

El problema era que a Napoleón sí que le apetecía morder el noreste de nuestro país. Y para más complicaciones, el nuevo rey se propuso introducir los principios de la Revolución francesa «todavía en pugna, en varios puntos, con las costumbres tradicionales de España», expresado finamente por el autor. Imaginen, yo qué sé, que Messi es proclamado ahora rey de España, quiere meterle mano a las diputaciones mientras Guardiola le presiona para que incorpore las Baleares y el litoral andaluz a Alemania. Así de chungo.

Don José Napoleón, nada lerdo, enviaba una carta tras otra al emperador: «Mi posición es única en la historia: no tengo aquí ni un solo partidario (…)». Don José llegó incluso a aparentar gran interés por las corridas de toros —que le disgustaban— y por la suculenta paella —que le daba náuseas—. Tampoco sirvieron para popularizarle sus frecuentes y democráticos paseos por Madrid, sus misas diarias —¡él, que era masón!—, sus magnánimas rebajas de impuestos. La gente no le tomaba en serio. Fue llamado «Pepe Botella» cuando en realidad era casi abstemio, y las graciosas gitanas sevillanas, que ya habían adjudicado a Napoleón el título del «empeorador», bautizaron a José con el famoso «Pepino el Tuerto», aunque su vista era absolutamente normal y su aspecto físico más que apolíneo: ¡Qué guapo eres! ¡Qué hermoso ahorcado harías!, había tenido que escuchar José cierta vez a su paso, de labios femeninos.

El único apodo que le pusieron que respondía a la realidad fue el de «Tío Plazuelas». El pueblo de Madrid le debe las plazas de Santa Ana, del Carmen, del Rey, de los Mostenses y de San Martín. Tal vez su masónica intención fuera, quién sabe, que el hedor a orín pudiera abrirse paso libremente hacia la estratosfera. También inició la plaza de Oriente, dato que tal vez ignoren los centristas liberales que allí jaleaban al Invicto Caudillo. Y al escudo de España le añadió el cuartel de Navarra, que ahí sigue desde entonces.

¿Y la reina Julia qué? Pues doña Julia estaba en París, encerrada en casa, recibiendo cartas contradictorias de su marido. Ven, no vengas, decide tú, ya deberías haber venido. Fue más o menos el resumen de su correspondencia. El rey no dejó que asistiera a ningún encuentro social en Francia por el riesgo de que «sus prerrogativas como reina de España no fueran suficientemente respetadas». A falta de series, la reina aprovechó su encierro para aprender la lengua de Cervantes con sus hijas.

Eso sí, por mucha Revolución francesa, ilustración y rojeríos de aquel tiempo, en derechos de las mujeres los españoles les dimos en el morro. Ya los Borbones trajeron la ley sálica, que nunca se había aplicado en Castilla, para excluir a las mujeres del trono. En la Constitución de Bayona, Napoleón, siguiendo la tradición francesa, quería profundizar y redactar que las mujeres quedaban excluidas «a perpetuidad». No obstante, Don José logró meter una coletilla por la que el hijo varón de la primera mujer sí podría heredar la corona. Un avancito. Sin embargo, unos años después, en las Cortes de Cádiz se constituyó que las mujeres podían heredar con todas las de la ley. Ojo, veinte años antes de que ese argumento fuera empleado por el integrismo católico español para trufar de guerras civiles y conflictos el siglo XIX.

Esta cuestión, pues Napoleón insistió en que si Julia no paría un varón la corona pasase a él como hermano, encabronó a la reina que terminó preguntándole a su marido qué sentido tenía hacerse acreedor de patologías cardiacas tratando de ser rey de los simpáticos españoles si luego no podía ni legar el trono.

Lo que no faltó, en cualquier caso, fue la figura españolísima por excelencia, la de «el Listo». El príncipe Fernando VII escribió a Don José: «Acudo a implorar el apoyo de vuestra majestad para ver realizado el más ardiente deseo de mi corazón: el de unir mi suerte a una princesa de su familia». Dice Balansó que el rey francés «se encogió de hombros». La mayor de las infantas aún no había cumplido diez años.

Pero pasaban los meses y el reinado seguía sin ser normal. La reina no había pisado el país. Primero don José titubeaba por eso de que era traerla a algo así como Vietnam en los sesenta. Y luego había otro problema, si abandonaba Francia, Napoleón podía retirarle a su hermano la asignación por un carguito tipo asesor con el que mantenía su palacio de Luxemburgo y la «posición decorosa» de Julia y las niñas. «Todo me lleva a creer que el emperador se apoderará de todo cuanto poseemos en Francia desde el momento de mi partida», escribió ella a su marido. ¿Encerrona? Una carta de su hermana Honoria da cuenta de cuál era la situación: «Me pregunto a menudo si no hubiera sido mucho más feliz quedándote en nuestro rincón de Marsella. No veo en verdad lo que puedas sacar de tantas grandezas, sino muchas penas y complicaciones». Y cuernos, olvidó mencionar.

Y una de sus antiguas coimas recordó, con nostalgia: Necesitaba [José Bonaparte] la compañía femenina como el sediento un arroyo. Y, además, era el hombre mejor dotado por la naturaleza que nunca conocí.

Ah, el rey en España de rodríguez. La marquesa de Montehermoso, la condesa Teresa Montalvo; una soprano italiana llamada Fineschi; la francesa Nancy Derjeux «cuyo marido hizo pingües negocios de suministros a las tropas francesas en España», —reza la Wikipedia—; la mujer del embajador de Dinamarca y antigua bailarina, baronesa Bourke. José Bonaparte inseminaba con arrojo estajanovista. Y atiendan a este hermoso párrafo sobre la vida cotidiana de un monarca.

… cuenta Estanislao de Girardín, el amigo edecán del rey, en sus memorias, que un día, al levantarse, vio José en el patio de la mansión a una criada morena y risueña de la marquesa, y la requirió de amores, «por lo cual no despachó su majestad aquella mañana su correspondencia».

Hasta abril de 1811 no pasó José un día con su esposa. Solo fue a París a apadrinar al primer hijo de Napoleón, pero como en el protocolo a Julia no le concedieron un sillón, sino una silla, montó un pollo de dios y ordenó a su mujer que sufriera una jaqueca y se quedase en casa. En España, mientras tanto, iban perdiendo la guerra y Napoleón cambió la forma de gobierno de Cataluña, Aragón, Navarra y Vizcaya con fines anexionistas dejándose de disimulos.

La situación llegó a ser tan grave que el «rey intruso» tuvo que fundir su vajilla de plata para sufragar sus gastos personales en España. Cuando vio la guerra perdida, terminó escapando de noche de la capital y días después cruzó la frontera «a uña de caballo» perseguido por húsares ingleses. Miren a qué simpática conclusión llegó tras su reinado:

No se conoce a esta nación. España es un león que la razón conducirá con un hilo de seda, pero que ni un millón de soldados reducirán por la fuerza de las armas.

En el exilio, José y Julia siguieron ejerciendo de reyes de España. Al estar el matrimonio bajo el mismo techo, esto se traducía en «escuchar misa diaria». El emperador tuvo que recurrir a Julia para decirle que ya no había reino que reinar y que aquello era una charlotada. Pero José siguió firme: «Puedo sacrificarlo todo al honor y el honor no me permite dejar de comportarme como rey de España mientras no haya abdicado».

Julia y José Bonaparte en 1808. Cortesía de Editions Allia.

Así que Napoleón le dijo, mirándole a la carita como Luis Aragonés, que entonces abdicase. José reunió al consejo de ministros en el exilio y a su lado se sentó, por primera vez, Julia, la reina de España. El primer acto al que acudió Julia fue el último, la abdicación. Récord que no le podrá arrebatar Letizia. Con gran dolor de su corazón y de su honor, pero con las joyas de la Corona de España en su poder —detallito—, José Bonaparte dejó de ser rey de los españoles.

Tras el hundimiento definitivo de Napoleón, el matrimonio volvió a separarse. Julia se quedó en Europa y su marido marchó a Nueva York. Allí le ofrecieron por azares del destino la Corona Imperial mexicana. Lo que habría convertido a Julia en emperatriz de México, aunque por esas fechas ya debía de hacer a las andanzas de su marido el mismo caso que al email ese de «enlarge your pennis». Aunque lo que sí que tuvo que añadir la exreina a su biografía fueron nuevos cuernos. Eso sí, siempre de relumbrón. En Estados Unidos José se lió con Annette Savage, descendiente de la famosa princesa india Pocahontas, nada menos.

Pese a todo, el matrimonio terminó sus días unido. José murió en brazos de su esposa el 28 de julio de 1844. En Madrid se prohibieron los funerales que organizaron sus antiguos fieles supervivientes. De la muerte de Julia no hay fecha, solo se sabe que está enterrada en la iglesia de Santa Croce de Florencia. Ninguna señal indica que esa mujer fue reina de España, aunque fuese de chiripa y nunca pusiera un pie en su reino, pero tampoco destacaría mucho en un mausoleo en el que se encuentran Galileo, Miguel Ángel o Rossini. Al fin, buena compañía, aunque fuera para «la vida eterna».

28 Jul 15:53

Comics: Megg, Mogg, & Owl - Part 13

by Simon Hanselmann

28 Jul 15:11

16 Maps Illustrate the History of the Game of Thrones Universe

by John Farrier

Fans of both the Game of Thrones TV show and the Song of Ice and Fire novel series can appreciate the extensive worldbuilding that George R.R. Martin engaged in prior to publishing his work. Martin's stories are predicated upon carefully-developed history, geography, and ethnography.

The world in which the stories take place is huge. It can be helpful to understand its history. Thanks to a series of 16 maps by redditor hotbrownDoubleDouble, we can do so quickly. They take us from the dawn of known history in Westeros and Essos to the complete conquest of Westeros by House Targaryen. Each one contains a summary of historical events during that period.

-via Geek x Girls

28 Jul 15:10

Confessions of an Ex-Pickup Artist

by Nathan Thompson

The author as a PUA

Sometime in 2005, a package plonked onto the pile of unopened bills, flyers and takeout menus by my front door. I ripped it open. Inside was a copy of Neil Strauss' The Game, which charts the author’s transformation from feeble geek to master seducer.

Strauss achieved this by joining a sub-culture of pick-up artists (PUAs), namely men who think of themselves as experts in attracting women. I was rapt. If he could do it, why not me? A couple of months later, disgusted by the manipulative tactics outlined, I threw the book in the bin. If only it had stayed there.   

A year after that, my sex life dried up. I was 23 at the time and the situation became desperate enough for me to again look into PUA culture. I signed up for a weekend course with PUA Training—a London-based academy run by Richard La Ruina, who also goes by the PUA pseudonym of Gambler.

The course was held at the Tiger Tiger nightclub just off Piccadilly Circus and began on a Saturday morning. There were 12 clients including me—professional, normal-looking guys. Gambler languished on a sofa next to a stunning blonde. He didn’t acknowledge us—a tactic I later learned was designed to make us seek his approval—and left most of the training to his assistants.

The first exercise was called “set breaking.” Our trainer explained that attractive girls are rarely alone so a key skill to learn is how to infiltrate a group and isolate the girl or “target.” The blonde, whose name was Kezia and is herself a pick-up coach, led the exercise by forming us into conversational groups and picking out guys who would practice cutting in and gaining rapport.

The training was thorough. We were given fashion advice, motivational talks and lessons on how to appear confident. Later, we spilled out of Tiger Tiger keen to practice what we had learned. We were taught the “Three Second Rule,” which stated that you had three seconds from seeing a girl you liked to approaching her and introducing yourself. The aim was to get their phone number. I felt liberated, as if I had been given permission to follow my instinct a bit more and approach the women I liked. I returned with two numbers (one of which wasn’t fake).  

The PUA practice of approaching women in the street is sometimes confused with harassment. In my experience, most PUAs place great emphasis on politeness and consideration when making a cold approach—after all, they are trying to get laid so being aggressive wouldn’t be helpful. We were taught that if a woman is not interested we should always smile and be polite, even if she is rude—especially if she is rude because this trains us to be non-reactive.

Of course, when a number of PUAs gather in one area a woman can find herself running a gauntlet of gamboling nerds. We even used to refer to Leicester Square as “Pester Square.” I remember stopping a girl around Covent Garden. Before I had even begun my spiel, she erupted, “God! You’re the third creepy guy who's come up to me today saying that you ‘like my energy.' Fuck off!" And she was gone.

In my experience, PUA tactics don’t work. They don’t produce Bond-esque rogues but grotesque social robots whose jabbering mouths spout programming written by borderline sociopaths. It’s insulting to a woman’s intelligence to think that a sartorial spruce up and reciting some lines will win her affection.

Some PUAs do a better job by teaching “inner game,” though. This focuses on building men up as opposed to dragging women down. For the men who suffer from crushing shyness this kind of work can be helpful; learning confidence and self-respect is a good thing but I’m not sure professional seducers are the best sources of this knowledge.

While self-styled “Pickup Gurus” like Strauss seem to have created one slick personality, the majority of PUAs appear hopelessly inauthentic. Bona fide seducers like Russell Brand are a rare breed whereas PUAs are like hoverflies; they wear the wasp’s colours but have no sting. Furthermore, women are adept at spotting fakes so creating a fake PUA personality in order to attract them seems bafflingly counter-intuitive.

Add to that the fact their techniques are unethical. Manipulating people for your own selfish ends is enshrined in PUA culture—a “pivot” is a girl you use to raise your social status, “AMOGing” is a technique used to bully rivals away from girls you like and “boyfriend destroyers” are designed to lay a girl already in a relationship.

PUAs justify this with a muddled appeal to evolutionary psychology, particularly the idea of “alpha” and “beta” males. Beta males are men who want to be with one woman and alphas are those with access to many. So the gold standard of success in the PUA community is the “MLTR” or “Multiple Long Term Relationship,” where a PUA has sexual relationships with multiple women at the same time.

Things get darker when you get to “relationship game.” Based on more evolutionary psychology, some PUAs believe that all women are subconsciously trying to entrap them in long-term relationships, a process they call “betaisation.” Tactics to avoid betaisation involve refusing intimacy (which basically means you can only do "hard fucking" only) and freezing-out partners while you focus on seducing other women (called “nexting”). This is the sad heart of the culture—where insecure men form relationships with women, who allow themselves to be mistreated.  

Emerge from the Underground at “Pester Square” on any given weekend and you will spot guys gamely approaching women. Some will grow out of it, some will meet future girlfriends and many will benefit from the confidence boost this kind of training produces. Others will take it too far and become embittered and alienated.

For me, it wasn’t all bad. I still get mileage from a tactic known as “the direct approach.” The verbal formula goes something like this: “Hi excuse me, I don’t usually do this but I think you are really hot and I would be kicking myself if I didn’t come up and introduce myself.” In fact, I met my last girlfriend this way. But I’m sure it had little to do with the words and more to do with the authenticity that comes with maturity and the fact she digs writers.

The PUA Lifestyle is consigned to my personal history, along with my Korn T-shirts and pierced nipple. I don’t need their tactics because now I know that being a happy, independent individual is more attractive than mastering a bunch of psychological tricks. And quite right too, because their system is based on a falsehood—that women are a code to be broken instead of human beings.
 

Follow Nathan Thompson on Twitter

28 Jul 15:02

Know Your Missiles

by Julian Morgans

Whether it’s the Gaza Strip or the tragic mess of MH17, July has been a big month for missiles. Stockpiled by every army on the planet, as well as countless junta and rebel groups, self-guided missiles are ubiquities of modern life. Sure, your great-grandparents would probably struggle to believe that a meathead rebel army could someday blow a plane out of the sky but unfortunately, that's the world we live in. So how is this possible? And how did we get to this point?

Let’s start with some clarification. Missiles are divided into two streams: ballistic and cruise. Ballistics is the science of how a projected object forms an arch as it falls and then lands in a predetermined area. Ballistic missiles are therefore powered by rockets on the way up, and fall towards the target on the way down. They’re also generally the ones to carry nuclear warheads. Cruise missiles on the other hand, are guided by on-board jet engines for the whole journey, so are suitable for carrying light-weight explosives with pin-point accuracy.

Both formats originated in Nazi Germany. Fritz Gosslau and Paul Schmidt were the two aerospace engineers behind the V-1 rocket, which evolved into the modern cruise missile. They worked for the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, creating the first jet engines. After that, in 1942, they made another conceptual leap—replacing the jet pilot with a payload of explosives, thus creating a flying bomb. V-1 rockets announced their attack with a loud buzzing sound, and while they could only carry small payloads,  they were incredibly accurate for the period.


Wernher von Braun. Image via

V-2 rockets were designed simultaneously by Wernher von Braun, but the approach was fundamentally different. Von Braun was convinced that liquid fuel combustion would create enough thrust to carry enormous payloads over long distances, so he focused on what would become the modern ballistic missile. Introduced in September 1944, V-2 rockets had little effect on Germany’s ailing war efforts, but they were unstoppably fast (5,760 km/h or 3579 mph) and could be launched 320 kilometres (200 miles) from their targets.

Both missiles migrated from Germany to pretty much everywhere with the fall of Berlin in 1945. Both the US and the USSR tried to lure former Nazi scientists to work for their arms programs, and most of the von Braun team took the American bait and left for Huntsville, Alabama. Not many went with the Soviets except for a guy called Helmut Gröttrup, who was allegedly sick of being an assistant on von Braun’s team. From this divergence, the Nazi designed V-2 rocket evolved into the Redstone missile in the US, and the R-2 in the USSR.

From here, missiles spread exponentially. It’s a messy family tree, but basically your nation’s arms technology is basically a descendant of whatever side of the Cold War you landed. For example, today’s Chinese missiles evolved from the 1950s Dong Feng range, which was a copy of the Soviet R-2. Likewise India’s missiles were originally reverse engineered from the 1960s Soviet SA-75 SAM, while most countries throughout the Middle East use on descendants of Soviet technology. Exceptions are in Egypt and Israel, which both buy and develop arms from the US.


Modern arms show in Paris. Image via

According to Amnesty International “the United States is by far the world’s largest arms trader, accounting for around 30 percent of conventional arms transfers in terms of value.” American arms companies supply weapons to around 170 countries, including most NATO partners, and a few human rights-free zones such as Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Proxy conflicts such as Vietnam and Afghanistan mean that one side use Russian arms, while the other uses American.

Since the Cold War there have been several advancements in missile technology, the main one being how they’re guided. As a missile closes in on the target, a diverse range of systems are used, depending on what it is. To target buildings and structures, Tomahawk missiles use a system called DSMAC (Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation) which takes photos of the target and compares it with pre-programmed images from a satellite. Other missiles designed for moving targets use thermal imaging, while the Soviet BUK missile system, which is currently copping the blame for downing MH17, uses a tracking technique called semi-active radar homing. This searches for radar signals emitted from something like a plane, and then measures how the radar pulse bounces off the ground, to chase down the source.

Missiles have also become a lot more destructive. The warhead in most modern missiles doesn’t explode when they hit the target, they explode on top so nothing obstructs the blast wave. How the blast is directed however, and how the casing shatters, all depends on the target. Currently, the bulk of Israeli warheads are designed to pierce tanks and bunkers in the Gaza strip. HEAT (High-explosive anti-tank warheads) explode with a hypersonic ray of molten metal (often copper) hurled at the target, which slams through most steel or concrete. Thermobaric warheads are also designed to deal with bunkers, by filling confined spaces with molecularized fuel and setting fire to it. Many of them operate in a two stage detonation—the first charge destroys any armor, while the second kills the contents.

The BUK missile that likely brought down MH17, is able to be loaded with a number of interchangeable anti-aircraft warheads. The most common forms are continuous-rod warheads in which the explosive warhead is encased in a cylinder of steel rods, welded end to end. When the warhead explodes, the bars expand into a zig-zag shaped ring, slicing through the plane’s fuselage. The other option, which according to Bloomberg is looking more likely, is a fragmentation warhead which shreds planes with a cloud of metal shards.


Detonation of a continuous rod warhead at China Lake, California. Image via

Each of the aforementioned developments are pretty clever in an icy, sad way. In fact people say rocket science usually to describe something clever, although space rockets came from missiles, and you probably wouldn’t praise missile science. And despite all these leaps and bounds, the essential core to conflict remains: humans disagree and want to kill each other. From some far-ahead alien race it’s possibly not so impressive to build a missile. It’s probably kind of a dumb thing to do. Not making rockets for the purpose of carrying death and destruction is the real rocket science.

Follow Julian Morgans on Twitter: @MorgansJulian

28 Jul 15:00

7 Everyday Accomplishments That Make Life Worth Living

By Chris Bucholz  Published: July 28th, 2014  Feeling good feels good, if my tautology class taught me anything, and given the choice, most people would prefer to feel good all the time. And yet so much of our time is spent doing things that don't feel good, like working, or wearing undergarment
28 Jul 14:56

Man launches crowdfunder to suck his own dick [NSFW]

by Brian Abrams
Man launches crowdfunder to suck his own dick [NSFW]

“I’m rooting for you, bud.”

“Godspeed.”

“I want this to happen.”

“I’ve never seen a better reason to get out my fucking checkbook.”

Contributors to Bobby Hacker’s gofundme campaign have spoken. The Los Angeles-based director of “Next Star Wars” fame launched a crowd-funding project last week in order to live out his childhood dream.

“I’ve been trying to ‘S’ my own ‘D’ since I was about 13 years old,” Hacker wrote. “To be perfectly honest with you, the years have not been kind. I’ve gained quite a bit of weight around my abdominal region making it extremely hard for me to continue my conditioning. I’m only looking for enough money to help me with the bare minimum.”

Hacker added that the funds would go toward Spinning or Zumba classes to help him with the necessary weight loss and flexibility to accomplish this feat–and it definitely sounds like an activity that requires one to be in peak condition. Three months ago, a redditor claimed to suck his own dick and described the event as a “level 6 or 5 discomfort level … It’s like trying to give yourself a back rub. It sucks. Pardon the pun.”

As of Monday morning, there have been six donors who have contributed to Hacker’s cause. Watch the sales pitch below and contribute to Hacker’s gofundme campaign here.


source: Bobby Hacker

28 Jul 14:54

John Oliver Reveals How Embarrassingly Bad the US Is at Storing Nuclear Weapons

by Megh Wright
by Megh Wright

While most Americans might worry about the possibility of getting annihilated by another country's nuclear warheads, last night's Last Week Tonight proved that what we should worry about most are our own nuclear weapons, which it turns out aren't stored with the level of security and up-to-date technology you might think. If that scares you, just wait until Oliver breaks down some of the men in charge of these weapons and America's many "Almostgeddons"– it only gets worse.

0 Comments