- I impose TWO MONTH MORATORIUM next (soon) tattoo
- if I still want if I still want if I still want like I want now
- 4x4 alternating maroon and jade
- We are domesticated pets.
- My Bidenist Colleagues, oh my
- Bidenbeto, bet you a pint
- (another ghost of a previous life emailed me yesterday, the fuck?)
- Life in the Remind Me Why We Lost Touch O That's Right Ocene
a holy place of gatherings
father mother three kids a ghost
eating asado Sunday mass barbeque
sins familiar sins scattered all over
the old checkered tablecloth Pray
one day you'll have a family like this
all these traditions will pass on
to you Pray! this broken table
now dies slowly now lies
alone in a toolshed
Will take that bet! Even if I have to come to Michigan to collect. (unless, of course, you're being facetious, kayfabe and all that; and, if so, catch John Oliver's rant from Sunday about WWE) Also, not gonna' try and predict—WAY too fucking early. Lotsa' things to be sorted out.ReplyDelete
anthropologist wrangham ['humans self-domesticated' hypothesis] thinks
"Violence is the opposite of virtue. I think that a major object of human endeavor and societal ambition should be to reduce violence."
although the 3 b's - beto, biden, and bernie - have more fame, i find myself climbing aboard the buttegieg (BOOT-edge-edge) bandwagon
i was discussing this midwestern homosexual mayor with a homosexual friend of mine, and he let me know that polite people don't say 'homosexual' anymore
i guess i sort of knew that
is it polite to say 'queer' yet? maybe not
here's something that strikes me as - what shall i say - a bit surprising - mayor pete's husband, after they got married, adopted his surname
as has been said, THIS is the future - you got to LIVE it, or live WITH it, and at a time TBD get out of the way
Rich link trove of late but beware the "We are domesticated pets" thing, which links to Richard Wrangham's spiel, because: beware scientists who are Harvard Profs, speak with authoritative Brit accents and use Biblical terminology ("Demonic" and "evil") to describe human-analogous-animals under examination in crypto-Eugenicist studies. Wrangham's work was neatly addressed in 2000, here (https://wsarch.ucr.edu/wsnmail/2000/msg01480.html )... why is Der Spiegel re-platforming him in 2019? Another Harvard type who made dodgy Determinist claims in the mid '90s, early 2000s... was another Dick named Hernnstein... famous co-author of famously nasty The Bell Curve. There are only two or three conceptual steps needed to link Wrangham's "work" to Hernstein's. For me, though, what puzzles most is Wrangham's curiously Creationist connection, by implication, between the proto-Sapiens cooking of food (the big breakthrough) and our "smaller guts" (shorter and/or narrower intestinal tracts")... what is the lethal selective pressure putting cooked food in competition with non-cooked food... to result in "smaller guts" in animals with access to the former? What's the DNA-sculpting mechanism there, if it isn't (by implication) intentional/rational/ intelligently directed? The guts shrank to match the new diet how, exactly? How were animals with bigger guts dying off, before they could reproduce, on the way to evolving into smaller-guts-US? Wrangham's essentially Creationist explanatory shortcut is of a type that seeps into SO MUCH pseudo-Evolutionary discourse in popular science writing. It's quite weird to the extent that the same sources are arguing explicitly anti-Creationist positions. TL; DR: WTFReplyDelete
In fact, humorously enough, Wrangham's dog whistles are so effective in sparking a recognition in his target demographic that I just found this comment under a YouTube video, of Wrangham's, on The Big Think's channel:Delete
2 years ago
I love him his work really influenced me. Helped me out of raw food prison. I read his book like 4 times. Then recently Lustig and Taubes and Perlmutter got me out of the vegan/vegetarian/low fat prison. They lied. Keys lied.
Now something nobody here wants to touch: What made us human is an interest question. Also interesting to me and of value to me and social value in my opinion, is how *human races diverged* "
Wrangham's pseudo-scientific arguments are expressionistic and winkingly suggestive and induce just the right pseudo-scientific questions and conclusions in his followers without forcing Wrangham to be explicit. That's how it's done these days, I guess.