Man, when I was like 16 I got so sick of being made fun of for being the fat kid that I took an axe down inna woods, chopped down a tree, and started doing log-lifts all the time. I got strong as fuck, but I didn’t lose no weight. I actually got bigger.
Same thing happened when I got into fighting. I got even stronger, and I got *fast*, man, and nimble, like a cat. Still chubby.
Body-building culture is a bunch of crap, my dude. Functional muscle is not necessarily toned or lean. You can be swole as hell and still be heavy. And that’s cool.
Embrace your inner barbarian. And when fatphobic little gym twinks try to body shame you, you should DESTROY THEM with your MIGHTY AXE
Can comfirm, i am Quite Fat ™ but i still hit my punching bag hard enough last week make it touch the ceiling and broke a finger in the process
You know, I train with (martial arts) a bunch of dudes, and a few bodybuilders have showed up over the years.
And every damn one of those huge shredded motherfuckers has the endurance of a fucking newborn puppy. Fifteen minutes into warmups and they’re panting for air like like they’re about to die. I’ve sparred them and every one of them telegraphs their moves about two weeks in advance, and are slower than my dead grandpa because their huge useless muscles get in the damn way.
Now. I also work with a couple of guys who are not weightlifters. They do, however, do very physical jobs and are Big Dudes. Picture this sort of build.
No abs to speak of, a bit of a tummy, and those motherfuckers can pick up one of the weightlifters and throw them.
And they’re fast.Like, unfair fast.
Bodybuilding culture is bullshit. Embrace your status as a giant barbarian and if anyone gives you crap throw them off a mountain.
it’s also because Leonard COHEN (!) was Jewish and this is a quintessentially Jewish line, and changing it to that level of Annoying Certainty is stripping it of its Jewish meaning and imbuing it with that particularly American smug evangelical Christian attitude that makes me tired, so very tired
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY
I don’t think I’ve heard any cover artist sing my favorite verses
You say I took the name in vain I don’t even know the name But if I did, well really, what’s it to you? There’s a blaze of light In every word It doesn’t matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn’t much I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you And even though It all went wrong I’ll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
um woah
I will always hit the reblog button so hard for Hallelujah but ESPECIALLY mentions of the elusive final verses which are just about my favorite lyrics ever. Why do people always omit the best part of the song??
In Yiddish
In Hebrew
In Ladino
Yeah, I wonder why the verses that reference specific Jewish mystical and chassidic concepts that aren’t readily understood by American “I love Jews, you know, Jesus was Jewish!” Christians never get any airtime. Funny that.
You say I took the name in vain I don’t even know the name But if I did, well really, what’s it to you? There’s a blaze of light In every word It doesn’t matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah
These are specifically about Chassidic Jewish theories of the holy language, how each letter and combination of letters in Hebrew contains the essence of the divine spark and if used correctly, can unlock or uncover the divine spark in the mundane material word. And of course, there are secret names of God which, when spoken by any ordinary human would kill them, but if you are worthy and holy and righteous can be used to perform miracles or even to behold the glory of God face-to-face. The words themselves have power. Orthodox Jews often won’t even pronounce the word “hallelujah” in it’s entirety in conversation, because the “yah” sound at the end is a True Name of God (there are hundreds, supposedly) and thus too holy to say outside of prayer.
None of this is to mention how David’s sin in sleeping with Batshevah (the subject of much of the song, with a brief deviation to Shimshon and Delilah) is considered the turning point in the Tanach that ultimately dooms the Davidic line at the cosmological level and thus dooms Jewish sovereignty and independence altogether. From a Christian perspective this led to Jesus, the King of Kings, and that’s all very well and good for them, but for the Jews, the Davidic line never returned and is the central tragedy of the total arc of the Torah. Like, our Bible doesn’t have a happy ending? And that’s what this song is about? There’s no Grace - you just have to sit with the sin and its consequence.
Of course, Cohen is referencing all of this ironically, and personalizing these very high-level religious concepts. Like the point of this song is that Cohen, the songwriter, is identifying with David, the psalmist, and identifying his own sins with David’s. The ache that you hear in this song is that the two thousand year exile that resulted from one wrong night of passion and Cohen feels that the pain he has caused to his lover is of equally monumental infamy. Basically, in a certain light, the whole of Psalms is a vain effort for David to atone for his sin and I think Cohen was writing this song in wonderment that David could eternally praise the God who would not forgive him and would force him and his people into exile. But he ultimately gets how you have to surrender to the inexorable force of God in the face of your own inadequacies and how to surrender is to worship and to worship is to praise - hence, Hallelujah. You can either do the right thing and worship God from the start, or you can fuck up, be punished, and thus be forced to beg for His forgiveness. It’s the terrible inevitability of praise that’s driving him mad.
Like honestly, I identify with this song so strongly as an off-the-derech Jew, I sometimes wonder what Christians can possibly hear in this song, as it speaks so specifically to the sadomasochistic relationship that a lapsed Jew has with their God. It’s such a different song from a Christian theological perspective it’s almost unrecognizable, man. This song continues to be a wonder of postmodern Jewish theology and sexuality from start to finish. Don’t let anyone give you any “Judeo-Christian” narishkeit. This is a Jewish song.
(Sorry about the wild tangent it’s just 2AM and I love this song so dang much, you guys.)
holy shit. woah.
This.
That last bit from @stoneandbloodandwater, that’s a great articulation of the well of feeling, memory, storytelling, and culture packed into one of the most Jewish songs ever to get real famous. The song is both surrender and defiance, and that those are actually a single path together, not two opposite choices.
writing style: author from the 1800s with a severe love of commas whose sentences last half a page
I came out here, to this point, to this place, hoping against all hope and despite signs and portends suggesting otherwise that I might, somehow, find myself having a pleasant experience, and yet here I stand, alone against the world, feeling assaulted, attacked on all fronts, knowing not my enemy’s name nor his face nor whether our battle is done.
one thing i think is interesting, as someone who basically grew up playing video games non-stop, is how some types of video game just don’t gel with people
like, it’s easy to forget that, even though i’m pretty bad at most games, that my skill at handling video games is definitely “above average.” as much as i hate to put it like this, i’d say my experience level is at “expert” solely because I can pick up any game controller and understand how to use it with no additional training.
a friend of mine on twitter posted a video of him stuck on a part of samus returns. the tutorial area where it teaches you how to ledge-grab. the video is of him jumping against the wall, doing everything but grabbing the ledge, and him getting frustrated
i’ve been playing games all my life, so i’d naturally intuit that i should jump towards the ledge to see what happens
but he doesn’t do that.
it’s kinda making me realize that as games are becoming more complex and controllers are getting more buttons, games are being designed more and more for people who already know how to play them and not people with little to no base understanding of the types of games they’re playing
so that’s got me thinking: should video games assume that you have zero base knowledge of video games and try to teach you from there? should Metroid: Samus Returns assume that you already know how to play a Metroid game and base its tutorial around that, or should it assume that you’ve never even played Mariobefore?
it’s got me thinking about that Cuphead video again. you know the one. to anyone with a lot of experience with video games, especially 2D ones, we would naturally intuit that one part of the tutorial to require a jump and a dash at the same time.
but most people lack that experience and that learned intuition and might struggle with that, and that’s something a lot of people forget to consider.
it reminds me a bit of the “land of Punt” that I read about in this Tumblr post. Egypt had this big trading partner back in the day called Punt and they wrote down everything about it except where it was, because who doesn’t know where Punt is? and now, we have no idea where it was, because everyone in Egypt assumed everyone else knew.
take that same line of thinking with games: “who doesn’t know how to play a 2D platform game?” nobody takes in to consideration the fact that somebody might not know how to play a 2D game on a base level, because that style of gameplay is thoroughly ingrained in to the minds of the majority of gamers. and then the Cuphead situation happens.
the point of this post isn’t to make fun of anybody, but to ask everyone to step back for a second and consider that things that they might not normally consider. as weird as it is to think about for people that grew up playing video games, anyone who can pick up a controller with thirty buttons on it and not get intimidated is actually operating at an expert level. if you pick up a playstation or an Xbox controller and your thumbs naturally land on the face buttons and the analog stick and your index fingers naturally land on the trigger buttons, that is because you are an expert at operating a complex piece of machinery. you have a lifetime of experience using this piece of equipment, and assuming that your skill level is the base line is a problem.
that assumption is rapidly becoming a problem as games become more complex. it’s something that should be considered when talking about games going forward. games should be accessible, but it’s reaching a point where even Nintendo games are assuming certain levels of skill without teaching the player the absolute basics. basics like “what is an analog stick” and “where should my fingers even be on this controller right now.”
basically what i’m saying is that games are becoming too complex for new players to reasonably get in to and are starting to assume skill levels higher than what should be considered the base line. it’s becoming a legitimate problem that shouldn’t be laughed at and disregarded. it’s very easy to forget that thing things YOU know aren’t known by everyone and that idea should be taken in to consideration when talking about video games.
All of this. Basic game literacy is remarkably complicated. I grew up on the earliest ones and had high fluency up to around the Super Mario 64 era. I fell out of regular gameplay at that point and even from that baseline, I experience a really bewildering disconnect from what’s required to approach most games today.
I wonder if this is partly a gatekeeping thing, keeping games for G A M E R S by assuming the player already has an ‘expert’ level of literacy re: the game’s mechanics and lore, which provides both a way to keep out Others (read: non-gamers) from their game space & a way for players to rank themselves by how well they do/how much they know, setting up a hierarchy they constantly struggle to rise up in so they can look down on those who can do/know less.
I.e., a manifestation of the Curator Fandom vs. Creative/Transformative Fandom split.
Man, this so much. There’s also a strong disparity between what people think will be fun for someone and what is actually fun for them? The amount of women I’ve met who were “not into video games even though their boyfriends tried to get them into it” I’ve met is staggering. But the thing is, said boyfriends kept pushing FPS zombie games onto their girlfriends, which are games that a) require a lot of coordination and previous knowledge and b) are not that interesting. I understand the appeal of a FPS game, but you also have to understand that someone’s who’s never played one before will not enjoy being dumped into a world where they die constantly and only get to splatter brains onto concrete.
But I once got a friend whos bf had been trying to push video games onto unsuccessfully for years to spend three hours gleefully laughing and cursing at a screen with a controller in hand. You know what game I picked?
Journey.
Because Journey has a fairly low entry-level, you can’t actually die or loose progress, there is no time pressure, and the controls are relatively easy to learn. She still needed help getting through the tutorial, but the game is very forgiving and getting lost is enjoyable rather than frustrating, so it was a good experience for her. She didn’t know video games could be that fun.
I also got my father to play this game, someone who has never had a controller in his hands in his whole damn life.
But here again, something I’ve noticed a lot from people who try to get other people into video games, is that they lack the patience necessary to teach a complete, bloody noob how to play the game. Even easy, forgiving games like Journey, when people first start, they suck at controlling the camera, they cannot walk in a straight line, they don’t follow the obvious path because the cues are not obvious to them. And a lot of gamers (lots of them male) get really irritated and angry at people if they don’t intuitively use the controls correctly and end up angling the camera at their feet all the time, and a lot of newbies get very self-conscious, very fast when they can’t quickly get a hang of how the game works.
So I guess my piece of advice here is, if you want to get someone into games, there’s two main things to remember:
a) don’t pick your favorite FPS as their first game to try out. Pick something simple and forgiving, with few buttons and a straightforward game mechanic and something that won’t kill you and make you restart for every mistake.
b)be patient. The same kind of patient you have to be to teach your grandmother how to write an email. They’re not going to do it “right”, they will do weird things and roundabout things and maybe surprise you with weird, novel solutions because they won’t follow the patterns laid out for them. You’re gonna have to watch them spend fifteen minutes trying to nail a double jump. You’re gonna watch them poke everything except the really obvious glowing button to open the door to the next level. They are going to leave key items lying around because they didn’t realize it’s a key item. Be. Patient.
Video games are an amazing and novel experience and can be a lot of fun and escapism and hobby, they can be beautiful art or compelling stories or just fun puzzles, but we stop a lot of people from getting into them by setting the entry bar really high and then mocking people for not getting it right the first time. The first time you played Super Mario you ran straight into the first Goomba you saw and died. Your first Pokemon team was made entirely out of cool looking Pokemon with high power moves and zero strategy. Give people a chance to learn.
I feel all of this so hard. I grew up with a Sega Genesis but I was never really a video game kid. I literally dropped Skyrim after an hour because I couldn’t understand the interface, and that’s baffled my friends, except for maybe a “well, it was designed for console” — but I don’t think I’ve had understood it on console either.
There’s an argument for some games to be able to assume literacy, but there should also be an entry point for people who aren’t so well-versed.
I’m happy the whole thread is here, and that it correctly notes that these aren’t explicitly programmed in by a single mustache-twirling product engineer but instead they reflect larger systemic biases as a result of how the algorithm works — likely an algorithm that seemed neutral while being planned out of context.
This reminds me of the various AI chatbots that became racist and sexist when they interacted with the public. AI algorithms optimize for what they see as most common and most successful in the environment they’re in. (I wish there were a follow-up experiment to see what personalities those chatbots would have ended up with if they were set loose on various gated or self-moderated communities instead of the internet at large.)
The work you do and the things you create must exist inside the world; you must take that into consideration during the act of creation. Every choice has meaning.
Are you a witch who has just experienced something infuriating, or perhaps being aggro as fuck is just your state of being?
MAKE FUCKING BREAD.
IT’S CHEAP, EASY, AND ENDS IN YOU HAVING FOOD IN YOUR FACE, WHICH WILL CURE YOU OF YOUR AGGRO IF IT IS CAUSED BY BEING HANGRY. IT’S BASICALLY THE BEST WAY TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF SOMETHING LEGALLY.
HOLY COW I LOVE KNEADING.
STICK HERBS IN YOUR BREAD FOR CALMING.
DRAW A SIGIL ON IT WHILE IT PROVES TO TRANSFER YOUR ANGER AWAY FROM YOU.
HOLY SHIT I LOVE MAKING BREAD.
Can we get some basic bread recipes for the witch who has never made bread before?
YOU FUCKING BET WE CAN.
I TOTALLY SUCK AT BAKING, BUT EVEN MY CONFUSED ASS WAS ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS EASY BREAD RECIPE LIKE A BOOOSSSSSS.
I’m pretending all the time to be, kinder, stronger, funnier, more sociable than I am. I guess we’re all like that but it just feels so inadequate.
What’s the difference?
I know it sounds flippant but… certain things are fundamentally performative. And other things are so close as makes no difference.
Kindness is performative. Actions are kind, and people are kind by performing those actions. You can’t “pretend” to be kinder than you are, you can only perform kindness or not perform kindness, and choosing to perform kindness is alwaysworthwhile, no matter how much you may second-guess your motivations.
Strength is so many things. It takes strength to pretend a strength you don’t feel. And the way to achieve strength is to exercise it, so long as you do it in enough moderation to not strain or break anything. Being able to affect strength when necessary while being able to put it down again when that in turn is necessary is healthy. Everyone starts weight training with the littlest weights. It’s not fake or pretending to do what you gotta do in any given situation.
Funniness lives in the interlocutor, not in the speaker. It doesn’t matter how funny you think you are (or think you are pretending to be) - that’s not how it’s measured. At what point are you “pretending” to be a musician if the music still gets made? And often what it’s tempting to describe in first person as “pretending” is more accurately described in the third person as “practicing” - which is of course the way you cause things to Be.
Sociability is also performative. Pretending to be sociable is just…being sociable, despite a disinclination towards it. It’s making an effort towards something you value. So long as the effort is not so great that it backfires into resentment, there’s no practical difference.
Qualities or activities or whatever are no less worthy because you have to actively choose to perform them. If anything, the worthiness lies in the act of choosing. It’s not “pretending” - it’s agency.
tl;dr: ain’t nothing wrong with “fake it till you make it.” A plastic spoon* holds just as much soup as a “real” one
* I keep wanting to talk about semantic domains! Artifacts are defined by their utility, whereas living things are defined by their identity. So plastic forks are still forks, but plastic flowers aren’t flowers. So there’s two pep-talk messages to take away from this: (1) for certain things, the distinction between “fake” and “real” isn’t a relevant one so long as they still get the job done, and (2) the purpose of a living thing is to be the thing that it is. The idea of a “useless person” is as semantically nonsensical as the idea of “pretend kindness” (or fake cutlery).
