Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Monad

1
Games / Re: Image Association
2
Arts and Entertainment / Re: Hugh Grant . . .
. . . not dead.

I watched About a Boy last night and I just wanted to say that I really like Hugh Grant in comedic roles.  I think he has great comedic timing and delivery.

There, I said it.

Carry on.


Yeah me too - About a Boy is pretty good, Notting Hill is my favourite though.
4
I like the music (in the first trailer - NOT the second one)
5
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: Invertebrates
Clam porn
6
I just invite them in to assist in the ritual sacrifice of a she-goat to Beelzebub
7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-breathtaking-surrender-to-russia/2017/07/20/bde94e10-6d6c-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.29a8953a42f9
This:
Quote
If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail?
Is how the east coast elite say #winning

That's a very stupid article though - they seem to want a return to an anti Russian stance based on the premise that Russia = communism - things have moved on considerably. Russia politically now is much closer to the same political layer that Trump represents - a bunch of ultra right thugs and gangsters. It's no surprise he has more common ground with them, as do people like Le Pen and Wilders and 'populists' (ie neofascists) the world over - this is a new world order emerging. Trying to drum up the old cold war anti Russian rhetoric is just a backwards step and if anything feeds the backwardness.
8
ideologically, though, "they're part of the greater household family and in our care" is exactly how masters defended the institution. i don't think this was only a pretext offered in bad faith. it was another paradox that on one level they could think of themselves as the benevolent paterfamilia of both their flesh and blood relations and their dependent slaves (which of course weren't mutually exclusive) but on another level they treated the slaves as livestock. a show that takes a close look at that would be super interesting.

True - it's how they defended it one one level, while at the same time treating them and thinking of them as less than human. I suppose being a slave owning bastard involves a shitload of doublethink.
9
yeah that's all true, i'm just saying that it doesn't mean that even from a master's point of view, "the families they control" couldn't refer to their slaves. in all honesty though i kinda want it to mean that because at least then there's some oblique but discrete reference to slaves in all this but i'm starting to think you're probably right that it's more about these rich slave traders controlling their quasi-aristocratic dynasties

The paradox here is by denying the slaves the sort of full family life they would have had themselves with all their wealth and luxury, the slaves probably had a much clearer grasp of what family really means than the owners did. Even though I am certain the slave owners would have had a hard enough time even admitting 'their property 'to being in the same species as them, let alone part of their 'families' (which is another reason I think it's unlikely that was what was meant there) they probably also ended up treating their families as their property too, although no doubt of a different order of value.
10
the master class could not actually ignore the existence of slaves' families even if they held all the cards. like sometimes they made efforts to avoid breaking up families. or at the very least, family formation enabled reproduction of the slavery system.

Sure they had to allow some perpetuation of reproduction, although reproduction is not necessarily family. The slaves would have been fighting to do everything they could to preserve their humanity and family life while the slave system worked to keep it at the level of reproduction of their property. Both processes were at work there, a 'normal' family life was not 'allowed' but what slaves could do to perpetuate it in the face of a pernicious process of systematic of dehumanisation I'm sure they did - which is part of the poignancy of Rhiannon's powerful song.
11
you have to kinda willfully ignore a whole lot about the actual lived experience of slavery to conclude that slaves didn't have families just because their familial status and integrity was contingent on their masters' whim. like, for example, why did freed people put so much effort into tracking down relatives they had been separated from by sale if they "weren't allowed families"?

I'm not saying families were not important to the slaves, just that the slavery system did everything it could to undermine any sort of human relationships, which is exactly why freed slaves had to fight hard to find families broken up by the system. And since that blurb was clearly written from a top down perspective I still tend to think it's 'the others' where slaves are dumped, not 'the families'. Which figures really.
12
I think this fits facilitated variation theory nicely

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_variation

the idea is organisms have evolved to evolve and adsorb the costs of variation through various process that leverage the benefits while reducing the risks of damage to the organism's functioning. The fact that this is in bacteria that already have a highly modular and stripped down genetic architecture (with a minimal number of core conserved processes and lots of weak linkage) and have evolved to make use of spare genetic parts exchanged through the 'cloud' using HGT pretty much continuously makes this even more understandable.
13
yep.

i mean, they are obliquely referred to here:

Quote
the executives of a slave-holding conglomerate and the families they control

but only as a kind of accessory to the CEOs of SlaveCorp. that is their relevance to the narrative in this summary of the ensemble cast. maybe the reality of the show will be different and this is just a bad summary, though.

Slaves aren't allowed families

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vy9xTS0QxM

I think that is referring more to their own extended families within a patriarchal structure

Which means the slaves are probably 'the others'
14
Arts and Entertainment / Re: In The End...
Linkin Park lead singer Chester Somethingmumble commits suicide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTXPUF4Oz4

Which one is it - the blonde singer or the hand wavey rapper?
15
Games / Re: Image Association
16
Arts and Entertainment / Re: New Who
Yes, and Xena, Buffy etc
those are not really scifi, try startrek voyager, orphan black, izombie

The last 2 are recent ones, the question was about pioneers of strong female leads in TV (yeah in this case more superhero than scifi but I was more focussed on the role per se than the genre)
17
Arts and Entertainment / Re: New Who
Yes, and Xena, Buffy etc
18
I always thought you don't really get to fully embrace the role of school dean until you've snorted coke from a hooker's ass cheek
19
Well tbh some strands of environmentalism are no more than some kind of pastoral fascism anyway
20
Arts and Entertainment / Re: New Who
Well count me as a happy freak.

Yeah it's great - it really makes sense that a time'lord' should be gender and sexuality fluid
21
Arts and Entertainment / Re: New Who
I'm sure there will now be a she Who hoo ha
22

As a sidenote, the bird in amber that Monad posted about was not a basal Paraves.

Irrelevant.
23
What are the reasons for thinking that a frameshift explains credibly the evolution of bird digits (and metacarpals) from dinosaur?
What are the reasons for thinking that a frameshift does not explain credibly the evolution of bird digits (and metacarpals) from dinosaur?

And rather than ask me, how about people take a crack at this on their own.
Since it is not likely that anyone here will take up this challenge I was just thinking of another aspect of this.
When a chick is born today, it cannot immediately fly. In fact it does not even have the flight feathers developed yet to fly.
The same thing would occur in the birth of the earliest basal paraves that had evolved from flying pterosaurs. And just as a chick today, it would develop the flight feathers and the practice of flying. After all its parents already had the brain and bone structure etc. for flight.
:facepalm:

I've seen chicks born with one wing, or no wings at all.

Funny thing- They don' grow wings as they grow.

In fact, they hardly ever get to grow.

I wonder why.


It looks like early birds were not born with altricial features like some modern birds (and even then this only really applies to the less basal groups) but in a much more precocial state including with wing feathers formed already:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/
24
So how did the flying pterosaur evolve to flying basal paraves? Of course an adult flying pterosaur did not evolve into a flying basal paraves. Flying pterosaur parents would have had offspring with feathers and the ability to fly. This transition has always been a stumbling block for the dino to bird theory. It is much less a problem for the pterosaur to bird theory.
After all pterosaurs could already fly. Dinos were running around on the ground.
The dino to bird theory has a magical saltation where a dino running on the ground somehow sprouts wings with feathers and runs really fast and his arms grow longer and he overcomes gravity and flies. It is a fantasy. But if enough "scientists" pretend in it they pull it off.
I find it funny that folks worry about a pterosaur wing developing into a basal paraves wing when they have no problem with a running dino sprouting wings from nothing and flying.
People are worrying that the pterosaur digits are not similar enough to scansoriopteryx digits for their liking, but have no problem about wings springing magically from nothing in dinos.
I wonder if the guests are starting to get it. I do not expect the people here to admit it.
Speaking as one of the "guests" (in that I have never participated in one of these discussions), it looks to me like you have been reduced to no more of an argument than expressing incredulity about the very idea of the evolution of flight, which is no sort of argument at all. Is that what I'm supposed to "get"?
If that is the quality of your thinking, you probably should not try to participate in this discussion. But welcome nonetheless.


Lol - the abysmal quality of your thinking never stopped you participating you arrogant, self deluded, fool
25
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: Rodents
Amazing!

This one shows the snake trying to make a getaway with the baby in its mouth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggkNZJ-rAkA