Welcome to the Weekend Open Thread Dada Party. Talk about whatever you want. And don’t worry if some of the words you use aren’t actual words. The Dadaists didn’t care about that sort of thing. Blago bung, blago bung. Bosso Fataka!
Click here or here to hear Kurt Schwitters read some of his Dadaist poetry. For more on this poem, see here.
Enjoy! Or, as Hugo Ball might have put it, ba – umf.
Ami – Ohhh, I think I like that new one better. It’s got those nifty blood-lines. Mmm, blood. Also I think it looks more like me than the other one. And it reminds me of Alien 🙂
Speaking of boob eyes, I really want this t-shirt:
http://www.zazzle.com/boobie_eyes_tshirt-235306190751922399
If you search for “boobie eyes” on zazzle there are a LOT of them. But I think that one is the classiest.
I have two tats so far and working on the design for my third. They are:
1) a Chrysler symbol for my first car (a plymouth. Yup, that’s where the nic comes from). It’s on my chest just above my cleavage – that’s my hood insignia 🙂
2) a modified Cadillac symbol for my second car – that’s on my lower back, so it’s my trunk insignia.
The one I’m working on is a set of planetary gears, which is not for any specific car but is an integral part of automatic transmissions so is definitely with the car theme. This is my latest iteration:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/plymouths/4900029189/in/set-72157625395149565
It’s going to be an arm band (won’t go completely around – it will basically go from front to back right where my arm meets my body when it is down).
@ithiliana
I’m reading The Royal Book of Oz because I was correct about the books being available online and that was the first one on the list that I hadn’t read and Holy Racism! We’ve gone now from horrifying descriptions of just how weird and backwards the “Chinamen” are to how horrible their food is – so horrible that the Scarecrow, who does not eat food, is appalled. It’s so fucking bizarre. I’m not even sure if I can finish this one!
AmandaJane5: That one (and the SILVER MOUNTAIN PRINCESS) are arguably the worst (i.e. racist stereotypes part of plot and characterization in a major way).
That was never one of my favorites, and I”d nearly forgotten about it.
It’s not online, alas, but I love Merry-Go-Round in Oz which stereotypes British fox hunting instead! And MERRY GO ROUND LIVING HORSE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Go_Round_in_Oz
smirking at the poor saps who lack the confidence or social skills to do so.
but that’s what makes him so attractive to us ladies! 😀
Also I’ve rly wanted to get a tattoo (or a few) for a while since I transitioned but I keep not having money for it : I do now… but I’m unsure what I want now xD and i prolly need somebody to design it for me… xD so I need to find somebody to do that too xD i want angel wings… and I prolly want the supergirl S symbol somewhere connected to it xD
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/2006-post-crisis-reviews/supergirltattoo.jpg
also maybe that, cuz she had that tattoo in one comic book and I thought it was awesome XD
Graham: PUAs look at it as an urban savannah in which they are lions and women are antelopes – and a neg is a claw swipe at the ankle designed to make the prey easier to pin down.
Which is part of the problem, right there. See again, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.
Ion: I’m glad that you, kirbywarp, are such a natural ladies’ man that you can effortlessly pick up women while smirking at the poor saps who lack the confidence or social skills to do so. Unfortunately, those without your natural gifts have to find a way, and this stuff works
I think Graham actually got closer to the real situation with, if you go out every night and hit on a dozen different people I guess eventually you might end up in bed with one of them regardless..
COnfirmatin bias will make it seem the PUA techniques are what did it, when really it was that people like sex, and will say yes to someone if they are in the mood.
@ithiliana
It’s really appalling! And it was RPT’s first one, talk about an inauspicious start!
I want to read the merry-go-round living horse one! I still say View Halloo as a greeting because of the ones from Mary Poppins! I’m going to have to see if I can find it at some point.
Yes, he certainly came across as blatantly insulting, but I do think he was trying to neg. He said a lot of nice things, then tried to work in the insult/neg as though it wasn’t a big deal. Kind of like “you look so nice tonight etc….it’s just a shame about your ankles…” which makes me think he was trying to slip a little something negative in but went a bit over the top.
Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t use negging in my flirting repertoire.
“I think Graham actually got closer to the real situation with, if you go out every night and hit on a dozen different people I guess eventually you might end up in bed with one of them regardless..
COnfirmatin bias will make it seem the PUA techniques are what did it, when really it was that people like sex, and will say yes to someone if they are in the mood.”
That’s just a guess though, from someone trying to convince himself that PUA techniques don’t work. I’ve seen videos of some of these guys in action, and they pretty much get their target. They don’t randomly hit on a hundred women until one of them says yes.
If there’s a downside to it, it’s that some guys become too wrapped up in ‘the pickup game’ and start to treat it as a goal in itself, forgetting the initial reason they started in the first place – to meet and attract women and eventually get a relationship. The good ones (e.g., Neil Strauss) realize it eventually and snap out of it, though.
“I’ve seen videos of some of these guys in action, and they pretty much get their target.”
Where did these videos come from?
@Ion:
And do you really think PUAs would post videos of their failures?
firebee: I dunno, MTV? I saw a couple on Youtube, and some on a VH1 show I think.
kirby: What does having failures have to do with their success rate? Can you name a field in which failures are non-existent? It sounds like you’re just grasping for reasons to discredit them, and I’m not sure why.
@Ion:
X_X You… gah…
If a PUA fails 99/100 times, but only posts the video of the sucess, that has everything to do with the success rate. If, on the other hand, a PUA succeeds 99/100 times, that still has everything to do with the successrate. Success rate cannot be determined without knowing the number of failures. How do you not realize this?
I’m guessing basic stupidity.
Ion: Have you got any data from a non-interested source?
Have you got even several nights of footage, from the moment they walked into the “target rich environment” until they left?
Or is it a ten minute slice of life where the guy tells you, “this is how it works”?
@ithiliana and amandajane5
The naked racism in The Royal Book of Oz really soured me on RPT; I was already biased against any non-Baum Oz books, but I thought I’d give her a chance since she had been given the job by Baum’s publishers.
Now if it’s true that she wrote books under Baum’s name, that’s very interesting because I thought there were a few Oz books that definitely stood out from the rest as being different. It would be ironic indeed if it turned out they were the ones written by RPT.
ugh, meant to say: Ironic because they were my favorite books.
Speedlines: As far as I know, the Royal BOok as published under Baum’s name originally, and maybe one other, but the original authorship has been restored. She also wrote seven books on her own.
All I can say is that the others she are very different from TRB–I don’t consider it representative of her work at all, and is one of my least favorite of all of them (even before I realized the racism in it–which I didn’t in the early 1960s).
I’d be interested to know which ones you thought stood out?
The ones that stood out were: Rinkitink in Oz, The Lost Princess of Oz, and Glinda of Oz. The first one was a straight-up adventure story, the second was kind of weirdly gothic, and the third was almost science fiction. Those were my three favorites.
If a PUA fails 99/100 times, but only posts the video of the sucess, that has everything to do with the success rate.
Do you know he failed 99/100 times? No, it’s just a BS assumption you pulled out of your ass because you desperately need to convince yourself it doesn’t work. Point is, I saw proof of it working, and a lot more than once. These guys walk into a club, they get women. Are you saying they walked into 100 different clubs before that and it didn’t work, so they didn’t film it? Again, that’s just your own assumption based on a need to feel superior to these guys. I feel sorry for you. Here, I’ll put it differently. I say it works because I saw proof of it working. You say it doesn’t because… it probably only works rarely, and stuff. Because you say so. Therefore-
I’m guessing basic stupidity.
In your case Johnny, it’s more than a guess, it’s a certainty.
Man, I can’t believe the nastiness that gets pulled out when someone discusses PUA stuff. Threatened much?
Uh, Ion, did you somehow not see the sentences immediately after that 99/100 remark:
That’s nitpicking at details and ignoring the bigger argument. Which, as I see it, is basically. “Hey, the stuff these guys do works, there’s video of it”. “Uh, they probably failed a lot more, they’re just not showing that.” “How do you know?” “I just do, I’m right because I say so, you’re stupid and wrong and blah blah *dodge dodge nitpick*”. That’s what we got so far.
* I should have said “nitpicking at pointless details”. I may have worded things poorly when I talked about success rate, and people predictably seized upon that point to attack me, while dodging the larger argument. Freaking high-school debate team in here.
Ion: Methodology isn’t pointless details. It’s why one does actual studies. If PUA tactics work, then the sorts of, “nitpicky” details (studies with control groups, testable behaviors, valid operational definitions
The problem is, so far as can be seen, what we have is PUAs saying, “This works, and I’ve had success”.
But the people who can’t make it work are told, “well, it works, you are just doing it wrong.” Convenient that. It’s not that Game has problems; “Game can’t fail, it can only be failed,” to paraphrase some of the stuff I’ve seen.
“It’s not that negging doesn’t work, it’s that he chose a bad neg,” to deal with examples from this very thread.
A test would be for an “expert” gamer to design some generic neg; one that’s “decent” and then see how it works in the real world. How one is going to establish a control group is a bit trickier (this is why psychological studies are so hard, and why so many people either discount them altogether, or fall for bogus stuff like EvPsych. The design of the data collection is really hard, even before the task of crunching the numbers is done).
So it’s not a question of it beinag a “high-school debate team” but that success is the critical measure. How successful “Game” is at getting women interested (as opposed to how many women are just generally interested and didn’t need to be Gamed) is the question to be answered.
And that’s what PUAs don’t talk about.
I’m gonna give this a shot, and hope to see some folks. We did this at Jezebel a year or two ago, and it could get pretty awesome. If you have mIrc that works, but here’s the web client: http://webchat.irchighway.net/ and I just typed in #manboobz. I don’t own the room or anything- I don’t know how to set that up. But it’s a room, and I’m in it. Come say hi! I’m just cleaning my house!