Weekend Open Thread Dada Party!
Schampa wulla wussa olobo!
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.
Posted on June 24, 2011, in open thread. Bookmark the permalink. 153 Comments.
@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!
Speedlines-those are some of my favorites as well-looking at the list of Baum books, I see that they’re fairly late in his work-10, 11, and 14 of the fourteen he wrote. (Rinkitink, according to this list was originally a Non-Oz book).
As I said, the Royal BOok is one of my least favorites of Thompson’s.
I’m a huge fan of Kabumpo in Oz, Grampa in Oz, The Hungry Tiger of Oz, The purple Prince of Oz.
p.s. should note tht in my memory (haven’t read in a while) there is some racist imagery in HT involving the portrayal of the Rash (turbans, fiery tempers, etc.), but I do love the Hungry Tiger (even more than the Cowardly Lion).
@Pecunium
Exactly! xD
Otherwise, you could say this is a great way to pick up girls too xD (actually it WOULD be.. for me.. cuz I love wrestling xD )