MaoTheLawn

joined 4 years ago
[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah, but I think given Shelley's circles more radical tendencies, the interpretation of some revolutionary allegory is a strong one, especially when you think of that Rousseau(?) poem about the ruling class creating the 'monsters' that will destroy them.

The Monster isn't some child killer with a tough past, he's a child born into an adults body, cast out into the cold by his creator, and then spurned on account of his perceived inhumanity by every living being.

Most murderers get accepted by some initially, and when they don't it's on account of their bad vibes. The Monster showed himself to be very emotionally capable in spite of his troubles, and capable of living amongst humanity, especially in his covert benevolence towards the blind mans family. He even rescues a child, but is then shot at because people perceive him to be a monster.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 1 points 7 months ago

Rejected on account of inhumanity though - it's more like a racial spurning than him being a malcontent. Initially, he tries to be kind, even though he was been brought into the world lacking a real parental figure.

Frankenstein himself was much more of an entitled shitlord.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 1 points 7 months ago

honest to god I think he would slap the fuck out of like 99% of hexbear, and thats assuming we actually have anyone here at all who's large and in charge.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

But in that - soldiers are trained for long marches, firearms, swordfighting, prolonged fitness in battle, whatever it may be - they are not solely trained on hand to hand, and aren't built purely to go hand to hand fresh off the buzzer. An elite UFC fighter is. And that is all they master, day in and out.

Yeah, there's regulations, but remove them and you get goring kicks or elbows to the backs of heads that they used to do in early MMA days anyway. The controls are in place for the safety of both parties - because if they didn't have those regulations they would easily end up killing each other.

If UFC fighters are more entertainers than they are fighters, then it would stand to the test that army men today could take them on. Or other hardmen from around the world. That isn't the case. They are guys who get put in a cage for 5 minutes at the time, with the intent of annihilating their opponent. 5 minutes is a long time. If theres no referee, their trained chokes are lethal, their arm and leg locks are crippling. And they can do those submissions (and strikes) better than any human civilization in history.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

True, much more accurate than Mr Bolt Through The Neck, but in my mind the stitching was always more apparent, and the parts less perfect in their symmetry.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 1 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Trained in combat to the best that they knew - but it wasn't a highly commercialised and ultra elite pathway. They didn't have advanced fitness, muscle gain, and recovery methods or in depth knowledge of nutrition. They didn't have replays to analyse their fights, or a globally interconnected web of the most effective martial arts at the click of a mouse.

Think of it like this - how many top MMA guys use exclusively ancient fighting methods? Greco Roman takes you so far. Judo takes you far. Sambos newer but based on a wrestling tradition. But no one's using that exclusively. The mix of all the most efficient methods is absolutely lethal.

 

I mean - consider for a second that we currently have the most comprehensive martial arts practice in all of history, with the largest humans, best sports science, and all that.

Any top UFC fighter from the past decade could probably beat the fuck out of anyone ever before the year 1980. Isn't that wild? Dudes who have (probably) watched Rick and Morty could beat the piss out of Alexander The Great or whoever the fuck. And it wouldn't even be close.

Biting and eye gouging is banned of course, but even if it wasn't, Brock Lesnar isn't letting you even get close to that. I mean, speaking of Brock, even big pro wrestlers - medieval blokes would shit their pants on sight if they saw Scott Steiner going freakmode off the roids. Perc Angle. Big Show - like what - he's a literal giant.

But what about Mark Zuckerberg? He's a big guy. He does his MMA. I think give him a month to train and send him back in time. Hate to hand it to him, but he would crush.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

that's not Frankensteins monster

that's just some guy

 

holy fucking idiots

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

They need to play Batman like a straight cop next time. Literally just a brutal private security elite, killing anyone and destroying proof of Bill Clinton's crimes aboard the Lolita Express.

1
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
 

Think I've got Havana syndrome.

No but seriously - the state of the world right now - feels like every contradiction inherent to capitalism has erupted in the past few days.

Climate. Imperialism. 'Democracy'. Media bullshit.

Maybe my life's personal stress is compounding it at the moment too, but fuck me. I am so mad at the moment.

I find myself typing like a milennial cringelord, my replies filled with 'fuck shit assfucker fucking come at me shitfucker' type posts. I find myself not bothered to put effort into responses when a rage filled uppunctuated mess feels so right.

I often tell people not the mald. It's easy to get stirred up about online crap. I recognised this habit, this feeling of enjoying being mad, but in an unproductive way, and I stopped doing it. I never do it with singular issues anymore. I don't get into internet debates. I let it ride.

But these last few days? Its making me insane. It's one thing to recognise it going down. It's another thing for society to make me feel like IM the one that's overreacting.

And to think, I voted for Kier fucking Starmer.

And next election, I'll be forced to do the same so that Tories don't get in. And I know, electoralism is a sham, but I don't think people comprehend just how bad Tories have been for Britain in the last 20 years. Especially for my sector. I do find Labour - even Starmer's Labour - a lot better in quite a few ways. But on key issues? I fucking hate them. I hate them with all my bile. Maybe I need to just move to Corbyn's borough so I can make sure he stomps some ghoul again.

Anyway. I'm fine.

But as I sit here anticipating the new wave of absolute garbage propaganda I'm going to be fed over the coming weeks, a vignette from a Chinese movie called A Touch Of Sin comes to mind, based on real events.

Dahai's corrupt boss screws him.

Over and over. [SPOILERS] So he shoots him.

He also shoots some guy who is abusing a horse. And some other relatively innocent bystanders.

Anyway. I don't mean this as a call to adventurism. I would never kill my local politician or anything, not only because my life so far means I would find it very difficult to take another human life, but also because it is totally counter productive. But as a concept? As a piece of art on screen? The ultimate expression of a 'dog-eat-dog' world turned towards those who like it that way, is certainly satisfying to watch. As are many tales of vigilante justice.

Anyway, here's another still:

I think the stills could be great emotes if it wasn't so on the nose to interpret uncharitably. Undoubtedly goes hard.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 7 points 10 months ago

Surely this will just be patched by the time those events take place

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I worked in a corner store underneath a housing assistance block. All the customers were either alcoholic, disabled, drug addicted, demented, very elderly, or all of the above.

One guy lifted his top, and showed me his recent heart surgery, which immediately started bleeding once he took the gauze off. I had a lot of instances of them showing me their weird medical ailments, actually. This particular customer was a pathological liar, but reportedly had once murdered a man. He was now approaching dementia, but sometimes attempted to use his dementia to not pay for booze.

The worst, but funniest, was this infamous customer called James. He had inherited a fortune and spoke poshly, but was now a seemingly demented alcoholic. Just hangs around the village charmingly harassing people. Kind of a local myth type character.

One day he comes in and starts calling me common muck and all this other stuff, says he could buy the entire shop, and so on.

Another customer was there, who was friends with all the staff, and also a posh old alcoholic (but still totally functioning outwardly), starts defending the staffs honour. The two old men get into a shouting match. Then it escalates so they're now both whacking each other with walking sticks. We split them up. James gets banned from the store. As he leaves, he does a big diarrhea shit mostly in his pants but a little bit on the floor.

The boss kindly opted to clean it up for me, given that it was my first few days on the job.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 4 points 10 months ago

He caught some flak for it but he was going to lose by miles to the labour candidate in the first place so no one really bothered too much.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 27 points 10 months ago (3 children)

He's not just a fedora guy, he was a Tory local election candidate!

 

k-pain

 

Of course, there will be many interpretations, but what are the defining Marxist ideas on the definition?

I ask, because you see a lot of libs and liblefts calling America fascist, but then being asked how, and not being able to respond. It makes them (and us, because we always get lumped in with them) look bad. I'd like to be able to step in if I ever witness such a thing.

 

Hello folks - I've tried all.the usual spots like Anna's archive and Z library and so on to no avail. This is the book in question -

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Theater_and_Film.html?id=W7HdXRCLcoIC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

There's a copy of it on internet archive but it's only accessible to American people with impaired sight it seems.

Anyone know a way around it?

 

not bad

found guilty of supporting designated far right terrorists and letting their banana boats be used for drug smuggling

 
 

I don't even know where to put this other than badposting

it was literally the most bad post I've ever read

really just stomach churningly moronic

 

I feel like this has been a concept for a long time within imperialist studies, but I can't find it. Surely it's a thing. What would you call it?

EDIT: thanks for all the brilliant responses

 

Come contribute your analysis in the comments, vibes based or otherwise.

I think sometimes it depends on the topic.

Reuters is good at getting some key points and missing full state department spin, but the problem is that they have a reputation as non-biased, and that reputation means they/you do not bother to inspect their own ideology. In other mainstream media, it's easy to spot the political spin and bias if you know what you're looking for, but Reuters is much more clandestine, and possibly unintentionally so.

I imagine it to be ran by 'well meaning' liberals who have a level of journalistic integrity, that is born from 'do the right thing in the name of democracy' rather than from a serious political education.

So they thoroughly explore 'both sides' a lot, while presenting all of their information with a very 'objective' feeling register of language, in the process omitting important facts/framings that they would deem to be inducing a level of political bias.

That said, I will say they're not otherwise too worthy of my ire in comparison to other major media organisations.

Weirdly, I was researching Venezuela recently for a stageplay I'm writing, and Bloomberg gave surprisingly good coverage of events I didn't expect them to bother with. You wouldn't be able to form a meaningful analysis of venezuela based on their coverage alone, but I was still quite shocked that I found bits of their coverage to be pretty OK, and sometimes divergent from the usual state department shit that CNN or even The Guardian would put out. Very curious.

view more: next ›