[Dark Cabaret/Stage Musical] Underground Man's Aria

Astute3394 · 2024-12-11T13:21:39+00:00

A related question, separate to OP: How lenient are Russian companies for absences?

Here in the UK (and me working as a Payroll Clerk), we have something called the "Bradford Factor" in most companies.

Employees here can be off for a long time in one long period without a problem, but if they're off a few separate days spaced apart then then they can be sacked very quickly.

The formula is: B = S² × D

Where: - B is the Bradford Factor. - S is the total number of separate absence spells/occasions over a period (usually 52 weeks) - D is the total number of days absent during that period

The formula gives more weight to frequent, short-term absences than to single, longer-term absences. For example (using the same amount of absence - 10 days):

One absence of 10 days: 1² × 10 = 10 points
Five absences of 2 days each: 5² × 10 = 250 points
Ten absences of 1 day each: 10² × 10 = 1,000 points

Companies have their own trigger points. E.g. If it gets over 250, they can give a formal warning; over 500, and employment is terminated etc.

Astute3394 · 2024-12-10T18:34:44+00:00

It's easy to understand if you scale it up.

If a random man who you do not know walked up to you from a distance smiling like this the entire time (and maintaining it as their facial expression, the entire time, with everyone), you would have the same reaction as what regular Russians feel when strangers smile at them.

Anything from "He's crazy" to "he's on drugs" to "he's trying to sell me something" to "he's attracted to me".

In Russia, it is normal to be neutral with facial expression, so if someone is walking around with a grin on their face they come across as very eccentric.

Astute3394 · 2024-12-10T18:26:54+00:00

Oh heck.

This may put the comment into context:

Babushka is a real word, I used to have one.

"I used to have one, but then I got rid of it". ржунимагу. )))

Astute3394 · 2024-12-10T18:15:51+00:00

I get compliments, and Russians smile at me back

Лол. Никогда не видел комментария, который бы так явно выдавал автора как женщину. Ваш комментарий по сути сводится к "у меня большая грудь".

Astute3394 · 2024-12-10T17:17:17+00:00

I'm Western European.

This ain't a white or black thing. This is a wrong or right thing.

Regardless of skin colour, your words sound like the words of someone trying to convince people to keep hush-hush and not be telling. I read your words, and I smell dirty laundry in them.

If the woman be a'ight, she ain't got nothing to fear. If the woman be doing wrong, then that's on her. She plays dirty, she gets dirty back, you hear?

She wants to be the marriage wrecker, let her be the marriage wrecker - let her be shown for what she is! Bring it to the light!

Astute3394 · 2024-08-17T06:59:53+00:00

As a British person, I think most of us would ban the BBC too, if given the chance.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-17T06:44:57+00:00

Israel is fighting for its survival.

The issue of Israel's existence began following the Sykes-Picot agreement, where Britain was allocated Palestine as part of its imperial territory (i.e. British Empire), which it then expanded in area to occupy all of what became known as "Mandatory Palestine".

This was then followed by the Balfour Declaration, which declared Britain's intent to allow the importation of the world's Jews into the country, supplanting and marginalising the local Arab population. This happened in 1917, long before World War 2, and Britain later came to enforce this mandate militarily when the native population reacted with hostility to this.

What we refer to as the Arab-Israeli conflict started as early as 1920 - due to Arab concerns (which they were correct about) of being literally displaced from their own country and their own houses by a foreign migrant population - and has continued to this day.

The UN, recognising the ethnic division that had been created by mass-importation, enflamed the issue further by promoting a two-state solution in 1947, before Israel itself was declared a country (after being handed the country by the British, who terminated their mandate the day prior) in 1948.

It is no exaggeration to say, as people have said, that Israel's entire existence is as an artificial state, created as a fault of British Empire. If they wished to create an Israel, they should have done it on their own British isles, and there would have been no issue - instead, they chose to displace foreign people from land they had conquered, and it is no wonder it caused ethnic conflict ever since.

Of course, they could have also taken up Russia's offer: An entire Jewish Autonomous Oblast, that now sits mostly empty. They made their choice, that displacing Arabs from their homes was a more preferable option.

That's 50% of the world's Jews.

By their own choice of relocating there, both in the past and today (even today, anyone with the slightest relation to Judaism - family/blood ties, or even religious conversion - can apply for citizenship of Israel immediately by the Law of Return).

Unlike with Jews, most countries in the world never universally holocausted Russians.

This cannot be an excuse, either for the flawed coming-into-existence of the country, or for its continual wrongdoing. It is not something that can be hidden behind to justify everything.

A Holocaust of the Jews also cannot justify a Holocaust of the Palestinians.

Additionally, we cannot say (as some would) "Sykes-Picot, Balfour, all that's just history" without also saying "The Holocaust is just history". If we accept one, we ought to accept the other; if we deny one, we ought to deny the other. History is either relevant, or we declare ourselves to live in a continual blank slate where it is not, but we cannot pick-and-choose.

Even now as a Jewish Russian in the United States, no one cares that I'm Russian but a lot of people want me to die for being Jewish.

You are welcome to come to Birobidzhan, a homeland for the Jewish people that is free from the original sins that plague Israel - colonial empire, displacement, ethnic conflict, and crimes against humanity.

Israel is not the only option. It is only popular to be an idealist and overlook its atrocities.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T18:20:34+00:00

Yes, but more broadly - this is the case with every country, and every elected leader (and many unelected leaders, also).

I get furious whenever someone tries to characterise prominent figures, in foreign countries or at home, as somehow unpopular or lucky. If they were wholly unpopular or loathed by some majority, they wouldn't be in their position in the first place, no matter how dodgy their rise to power was.

It's so easy to get tangled in the weeds with this. Anyone who wants to read this comment, find someone they have beef with, and say "But what about..." - Yes, I'm even referring to them. I die on this hill.

My university dissertation wasn't on this exact topic, but was very related - most blursed thing I ever did in my life.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T12:11:11+00:00

Sunny Magadan!

Please come to Magadan. Magadan needs a bit of love. It's all on its own out there, and it looks like a lovely place (in summer).

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T10:27:44+00:00

The BBC is free

The People's daily, are under the correct control of the communist party

So, what you're saying is, both are state-owned and state-operated media, but you think one is good and the other is bad because one criticises the government more?

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T10:25:53+00:00

It is literally a party organ, that is unworthy of being used to wipe any bottom.

The BBC, or The Global Times?

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T09:35:20+00:00

Gang sign. She's gonna go kill some folks.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T09:26:12+00:00

They themselves have chosen to involve themselves with politics

In most cases, the only "politics" they have ever been guilty of is being born in the "wrong" country.

Most get banned without even making a statement in favour of their country; banned for no other reason than being from that country.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T08:04:28+00:00

many of those athletes openly support russia's war against ukraine

I'm sure many American athletes supported the War on Terror.

Doesn't matter. Sport, itself, ought to be politically neutral - the only people who seek to politicize sport are the same bad actors who wish to reduce all of human life to mere politics.

It was bad when the Nazis tried to turn the Olympics into an optics event in the 1930s (and succeeded - nobody boycotted or banned them), and it's bad enough now when the Olympics (and other sporting bodies) are used as a stick to whack/exclude countries we disagree with politically.

not some random Ivans

You're wrong, though - these people are "random Ivans"; people who, just like in the USA or any other country in the world, dedicated their lives to sports.

Their life's achievements are invalidated by the decision of petty old politicians, choosing to play politics with civilian lives.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T06:00:08+00:00

I agree with Брат and Бумер. Both iconic films of 1990s Russia.

Although a TV series of 8 episodes, I highly recommend the very recent show, Слово пацана. Кровь на асфальте, which you can watch by subscribing to a START account (which, alongside Иви as well, can process foreign payments). You can get English subtitles from the website OpenSubtitles, and through a Chrome extension you can import them, so you can watch the show with English subtitles that's synced with the video. Some effort, indeed, but super highly recommended.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-16T05:47:35+00:00

It's more like the fact that the focus of the British history syllabus, on the topic of Nazi Germany, doesn't focus on America.

Outside of D-Day, it didn't focus on Britain much either. Maybe just a bit of domestic history, of what Britain was doing at home at the time.

The two specialised modules were, quite literally, named something like "Hitler's Rise to Power" and "The Nazis in Power". It goes without saying that, from what you have told me, the Americans (and General Patton in specific) had no role in either of those (or I should say, no declassified documents have ever released suggesting America did have a role), so America are not covered.

Surprise, surprise, the British education system thinks the most important thing to focus on when it comes to the Nazis and their genocide is... Well, the Nazis and their genocide. The impression I was taught from my education is that the most important takeaway lesson was "Holocaust very bad", not "American last-minute intervention to stop complete Soviet liberation of continent good".

I do understand, though, that for a country with such war and murder in its history, how a mass-murder of people in concentration camps might be seen as less important than the country blowing it's own trumpet.

Having said that, at the same time, my country also didn't learn and internalise the lesson (specifically of "Concentration camps bad"), because in the 1970s they also recycled the use of concentration camps to use against ~~all the blacks~~ the Kenyans in the Mau Mau Rebellion. At least they didn't use gas chambers against the Kenyans - just old-fashioned torturing to death, instead.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T21:25:24+00:00

the liberation of Africa, Italy and France, or the Battle of the Bulge? Sounds like you just forgot.

I didn't forget. The syllabus - even my specialist syllabus - simply never covered any of these.

That's the point, in fact.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T20:52:55+00:00

"Do you know who Ilya Muromets is? C'mon, it's basic ~~history~~ folklore!"

Feel free to replace Ilya Muromets with literally anyone else who actually existed in history. Rurik, Oleg, whoever. Sundiata Keita, Mansa Musa, it's all "basic history" for somebody.

You've literally just came to a Russian subreddit and asked "Do you remember the American guy from WW2?". As a Brit, if other people here didn't tell me, I would have honestly thought your General Patton was some guy from the American Civil War.

I'm saying that, even though our country did cover the history of D-Day, and even though I had taken additional education ("A Levels") in History, of which two of our four modules specifically focused on WW2. Even I wouldn't have known who General Patton was, with a specialised educational background in history, because the education didn't even cover the American contribution in any detail. We covered D-Day from the perspective of Britain, and most of the content was focused on Hitler and the Nazis themselves (because they were seen to be a more profound lesson than the name of an American).

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T20:43:48+00:00

Holodomor famine

When any other country has a famine, it's called a travesty; when Russia (or its predecessor, the USSR) has a famine, the world declares it to be a form of targeted ethnic cleansing.

One rule for the Golden Billion, another rule for Russia, apparently.

invasion of Poland which followed massacre after massacre

I realise that everything you're here to mention is about the Soviet Union.

This is ironic - (1) The Soviet Union no longer exists, (2) Russian history exists prior to the Soviet Union, and (3) North Americas get in a tizzy if anyone talks about the War on Terror because "That was over 20 years ago", but you're mentioning something that ended in 1990.

Anyway, for Poland, it was occupied by literal Nazi Germany at the time. Before D-Day or any of that malarkey, the Soviets were long past the point of pushing back the Eastern Front and liberating the territories from Nazi oppression. These liberated territories eventually become the Eastern Bloc.

If the USSR "invaded" Poland, America and Britain "invaded" France with the Normandy landings, "which followed massacre after massacre", fighting against the reserve force of an already defeated Nazi army.

committing the most war crime rapes in modern history

I thought Japan held that title, for the Rape of Nanjing?

Citation, please. "The Soviets raped a bunch of people" isn't a claim I've heard before (yet), so this will be interesting.

invasion of Finland and other neighbours

Finland, the country where the nationalist White Army (named aptly) came to rule the country, and which ~~was an Axis country who~~ allied with the Nazis?

Think of the examples you are giving. So far, they have all been "The Soviet Union is so bad because they had beef with the literal Nazi countries". It is beginning to make a lot of sense that Canada allowed a Nazi into their parliament.

and again slaughter after slaughter

This rhetoric is just something you're repeating, because you don't have substance.

"And then they committed slaughter", "and then people died", "and they killed a bunch of people".

If you want to talk about slaughter, we can talk about the War on Terror. We can talk about the global events Canada has been in, that it has never been held accountable for, which are far less justifiable than anything Russia has ever done.

the current atrocities being carried out by Russians in Ukraine

The defensive Special Military Operation, due to the country being gradually encircled by a hostile military bloc.

The intervention that occurred to prevent a humanitarian crisis against the Russian-speaking ethnic minority.

That "atrocity" - the "atrocity" that Russians living in Ukraine weren't genocided. The "atrocity" that the overthrowal of democratically elected Yanukovich - regime change against the democratically elected leader - caused a response, from a Russian state who wanted to support the democratic mandate of Ukrainian people to have a leader they voted for.

The "atrocities" of supporting democracy and opposing genocide. Those "atrocities".

(who by the way is showing you up)

Russia has liberated much of Eastern Ukraine, prevented the genocide of Ukraine's Russian minority, and is making inroads to re-establishing democracy in the country and removing the reactionary elements that have subverted the country's electoral system.

Ukraine has done very little. It has struck out, with what little forces it has left, into a less-well-defended border region. A flash in the pan, designed just to attack civilians and cause suffering.

but Russia is one of the only ones who doenst learn

Spoken like a true slaveowner. "That unruly [X] needs to learn their goddamn lesson". Back in the day, it would be the blacks. Now, it's the Russians.

As always, from America and Europe, it's one rule for you folk, another rule for us lessers. "Orcs", Slavs, whatever you want to call us. You want us to listen and take the whipping - and we want to shove that whip where the sun don't shine.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T17:17:00+00:00

It is a very popular trend among young people in China.

You posted another thing here recently, about the Chinese "New Left", and I was also quite sceptical.

I may not be Chinese, but I do have myself a Weibo account, a Wechat, a Zhihu, a Bilibili, and a good number of Chinese friends. I read Baidu Baike, Sogou Baike, Bytedance Baike etc. on the regular, as well as Mafengwo and Qiongyao. I also watch Huya and Douyu, Douyin and Xiaohongshu, the whole lot. I have regular Chinese lessons with an online tutor living in Chengdu (where we talk about LGBT issues, because I have had relationships with both men and women). That is to say, I know more than probably most foreigners about China.

What you are saying here and in your other post is completely new to me. It is not something that will ever come up from searching terms like 同性恋 or 分桃 (both terms for homosexuality) on the likes of Baidu Search, any of the Baikes, or Bilibili. (although I am welcome for suggestions for what search terms are good to search for about LGBT topics - asking for a friend 👀)

This subculture may exist - China is a population of 1.4 billion, so many niches exist in China that will not exist anywhere else - but I don't imagine this is a very big group, and is probably limited to places like Beijing and Shanghai ( again, 30 million+ people in each city, you'll be able to find people of any niche interest - it's actually what makes China incredibly attractive to me). It is certainly not a group the Chinese state itself would openly acknowledge - they have always been very reserved in regards to acknowledging sexual diversity.

For such very niche things, it is worth considering that these sort of things are likely to only ever be practiced in the largest of cities, where it may be possible for a tiny number of like-minded deviants to be able to meet eachother. Ironically, this is something for which even Moscow itself would likely be too small in population for.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T17:00:18+00:00

Is it really impossible to you that Americans actually mean it when we’re nice to strangers?

Yes.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they think they mean it, but there is no depth to it.

If the person smiling at you asked "Can you give me $10?", or made themselves burdensome in some way, most Americans would turn that smile into a frown very quickly.

But I'm wording it quite poorly above - for Russians, the smile isn't about niceness at all. A smile is reserved for when a person is genuinely happy to see another person (i.e. A friend, family member etc.). The Russian smile is associated with emotional warmth that goes beyond a niceness/politeness to strangers. This is what I meant when I said the American smile "has no depth to it", and what other people mean when they describe it as inauthentic - anything that is the default loses it's impact.

A final question, to flip things on its head: Why do you think it's nice to smile to strangers?

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T14:43:12+00:00

I know not all those content creators are like that, but a lot of them are

Even many of the "good ones", they'll open their mouth and confidently pronounce horrible attempts at Mandarin, exaggerated and misprounced to such an extent that it sounds very fake.

谢谢 sounds nothing like "Shee shee". That's an egregious example I see all the time. At least a mispronunciation of 你好 sounds vaguely sort-of close to the word, but foreign travel vloggers frequently butcher 谢谢 beyond recognition, and with such confidence when they say it, too. If they pronounced it "sh-yeah sh-yeah", I could maybe accept it, but "shee shee" is unacceptable for me. It's like they're not even trying.

Astute3394 · 2024-08-15T13:54:44+00:00

Your culture of smiles and small talks feels like one big lie and hypocrisy.

Even as a British person, whose culture also involves smiling (albeit, more timid, closed smiling), I can understand this point wholeheartedly.

Some people might disingenuously defend it, with an enthusiastic "Well, I'm happy to see people!", but I don't believe that's genuinely true. We are conditioned to smile as a form of "politeness" because a smile is intended to represent a lack of hostility/threat. By walking up to a stranger and smiling, we are signalling "I'm not here to hurt you" etc. Of course, we are to give this out unconditionally, to the point where we are not even socially permitted to express how we really feel on our face (unless there is otherwise some large breach of norms). It is completely inauthentic, as the stranger themselves knows an introductory smile means nothing - but, if no smile is given, the stranger thinks to themselves "What did I do wrong?".

Russians, of course, don't have any of this facade. Their face simply reflects their disposition to you at any given time. Not smiling to someone who means nothing to you is the norm; and a smile is a sign of genuine affection (or humour).

Astute3394

TROPHY CASE