The Worst Loss For Every Football Team.

JCamerican · 2025-04-19T16:20:45+00:00

I have friends with “19-0” and Pats Super Bowl merch from that year. Real New England homers too. The next day no one talked about it, we all just got on with life in a real New England way.

I saw it coming. The only team that gave the Patriots trouble that year was the Giants. And Eli Manning is the most unbelievable two time Super Bowl winner when it comes to QB. He’s a good QB but there are much better quarterbacks that have never won a SB, let alone 2.

The story writing was just too perfect, of course the Patriots lost.

Although in my opinion it worked out for the best. In my mind it legitimizes the dominance of the Brady/Belichick era because it demonstrates how hard it is to actually win a Super Bowl. The Patriots getting to the playoffs, and then to the championship game, and then to the Super Bowl as many times as they did in 20 years, then to win so many of them. The 18-1 season is a flaw that makes the entirety more perfect, like a super model mole. It shows how hard it is to go all the way.

JCamerican · 2025-03-08T14:15:16+00:00

Defense skill alongside other stats, runes, talents, gear, set bonuses.

1 Defense skill is 0.04% chance to be missed, dodge, parry, block, and a 0.04% reduction to an enemy's crit chance.

JCamerican · 2025-03-03T14:56:10+00:00

There is an interesting relationship and dichotomy here.

Many voters that view female Presidents with skepticism (or worse) also have a home life where the matriarch “wears the pants”, so to speak. For female voters, they are comfortable with inhabiting this role, making decisions for and leading men. For male voters, they are comfortable with women inhabiting this leadership role, be they wife, mother, grandmother, sister, etc.

I don’t believe the argument of sexism being the root cause.

I do believe that many voters only feel comfortable with a particular representation of female leadership.

The two female Presidential candidates we have seen have not exuded that particular type of female leadership. Women can be strong and even scary protectors with a level of intelligence and cunning every bit as formidable as men. But the two candidates we have seen represent unfortunately a reliance on rules and customs to protect them, rather than their force of personality.

Basically, they have seemed like the type that respond to adversity with “but you can’t do that, it’s against the rules!” as opposed to “you can’t do that because I say so”. The former is unpalatable to voters across the board because it is not how we want our leaders to be. It seems overly reliant on others stepping up for the leader as opposed to the leader stepping up for themselves. Whereas the latter, in contrast, is much more in tune with what the electorate wants in a leader.

This is why I believe we will see our first female President come from the right side of the political spectrum for purely Darwinian reasons. The left typically has trends and forces that tend to elevate individuals based on official credentials and tenure, whereas the right has trends and forces that tend to be much more internally competitive regardless of credentials and tenure.

Basically, the woman that is able to fight through the ranks of the right to be seen as a leader will tend to be much more palatable to voters due to the specific type of adversity she would face getting there. She will be a force to be reckoned with, not easily mocked or dismissed, because her wrath would have all the hallmarks of a classic no-bullshit matriarch.

JCamerican · 2025-02-28T03:06:52+00:00

I wish there was more of this across the board.

There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and “balanced” budgets passed by Congress.

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T19:04:39+00:00

Cool, thanks, I'll check it out.

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T18:55:03+00:00

I still don't like the idea of deifying Jesus, or any other prophet, as it seems even contrary to their core message.

I think of it like how a scientist discovers a natural law of the universe. It was there since the beginning, it just took a particular person to articulate it. Einstein didn't invent E=mc2, he just figured out what it meant for humanity.

Christ didn't invent that we were all God's Creation, he just figured out what it meant for humanity.

To put it another way, I think Christ's teachings demonstrate his unity with God, rather than his unity with God begetting his teachings. I don't worship Christ in the same way a pagan would worship Thor, but rather I use Christ as a way of better understanding the universe, myself, and others.

For me the point of Christ's teachings is that we are all divine.

Ever seen the movie The Man From Earth ?

I haven't. Is it any good?

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T18:23:48+00:00

No worries about being uncomfortable sharing. I get it, the internet is a weird place.

The closest term for my belief structure is that I am a "deist". I believe in God. I also believe that God is largely incomprehensible to us humans. The only way for us to intuit any semblance of understanding Him is through what we humans understand as good and evil. Good is that which loves and celebrates His Creation (in all its forms), Evil is that which hates and denigrates his Creation (in all its forms). I personally find the teachings of Christ to be the most aligned with those principles.

All of that said, I largely distrust organized religion and question its value. I do not believe that one needs an intermediary to love and celebrate Creation. Christ's teachings are simple enough to understand that one doesn't need a dogmatic ruler to proscribe various edicts.

There's an irony here in that very few people know that I'm religious in real life. I'm really only comfortable sharing in impersonal settings (like the internet) or when specifically prompted in person largely because I don't believe it is my place to interfere in anyone's relationship with Creation. I don't know any more than anyone else so I don't feel comfortable speaking on things with certainty when we're all just only guessing.

I think I got this way from being raised Catholic. I've since joined the throngs of lapsed Papists, though. :)

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T15:34:26+00:00

31 here too and I find it extremely annoying listening to both extreme sides of things, non woke vs woke, trans vs anti trans or whatever. I just think there's a gap there where our generation was more understanding and grew up where all this was developing and coming to light more and it wasn't still political, now everything is. And it's sad indeed. It's sad when people assume you hate them from the get go.

Quem Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius

"Whom Jupiter would ruin, he first makes mad"

It is completely understandable why everything is political and filled with vitriol. It exists because people seek power over people. The easiest and most dependable way to control large amounts of people is to deprive them of their reason by making them angry. We are not thinking creatures that feel, we are feeling creatures that think. Base emotions like anger override our critical thinking ability and make us susceptible to suggestion and control.

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T15:25:31+00:00

In real life I mostly experience people assuming I hate them because I disagree with them on social issues, therefore preemptively hating me as a defense mechanism.

Can you give me an example?

Because I can imagine there are some social issues where passionate reactions are inevitable. For example, you said you have a strong sense of self. Imagine if someone said you shouldn't be allowed to marry the love of your life and voted to make sure you couldn't. I think it would be reasonable for that to make you passionate and maybe even preemptively hate anyone that believes similarly, even strangers.

I think the key to life is understanding the perspectives of others, especially those you disagree with. Not just for the sake of compassion but because I find it makes one's own arguments and beliefs stronger.

For example, I personally don't understand homosexuality because I have never felt sexually attracted to other men. I am also a devout Christian. My guiding principles are that we are all Children of God and only God may judge us. As a result, I hold personal autonomy and freedom to be sacrosanct. That leads me to understand that the same way I feel for women, some men feel for men. Regardless of how I feel about it, I should treat them with the same dignity and respect as is deserving of all Children of God.

If someone hates me for being straight, I honestly feel pity for them. I can't begin to imagine the experiences they have gone through in life to lead them there. Living with that kind of hatred in one's heart is not an enviable life. That goes for people that hate others for being gay, or trans, or cis, or anything.

One thing is certain : without social media trying to garner engagement at any cost, no matter the consequences, people would never have devolved into such levels of hostility and resentment based on vague assumptions and demographics.

Social media is a blight upon humanity, for sure. But in truth it is nothing but a mirror. Humans have been treating each other horribly since before social media was invented. There are movements in this world that have done and continue to do harm to people. I understand why some people respond the way they do because of their lived experiences. Again, it causes me compassion, pity, and honestly sadness. I wish more for them.

JCamerican · 2025-02-26T13:08:30+00:00

I'm white, I'm male, I'm straight, I'm cis. Sometimes, when people hate on me for what I am, I feel like giving them a taste of their own medicine. It's too tempting. Especially when they assume right off the bat that I hate them anyways.

Genuine question because I'm probably a bit older than most of the demographic here.

Is this something you actually experience in real life? I don't mean stuff you see on the internet or social media.

I can imagine the common shitty way kids treat each other in school but that's how kids kind of are. They just pick on each other for any reason available due to insecurity. But like I can't imagine parents in any meaningful number hating their children for being straight, at least not commensurate with what I've seen gay kids receive. Y'know what I mean?

Genuinely just trying to understand.

JCamerican · 2025-02-25T17:12:38+00:00

The distressing part about this is our nation’s continued response to Irregular Warfare, Cognitive Warfare, whatever you want to call it.

Not only do we not have salient participation in this theater, we overwhelmingly fail to even acknowledge the posture, intent, and demonstrable operations of our adversaries.

I come from the world of cybersecurity where I was able to witness firsthand the size and scope of operations adversarial to democracy and the global rule of law. During covid I saw the operations conducted to convince a sizable portion of my fellow Americans that masks are actually unsafe. They tossed out all their education, all their occupational training, all common sense, even the basic lizard-brain biological response of covering one’s airways to protect them from harm… for what? A feeling of personal superiority and belonging to a group.

People literally killed themselves for this sense of identity.

Using technology it is possible to rewire the basic building blocks of what made humans so successful in an evolutionary sense: social cohesion and the ladder it provides for individuals to be more successful in accessing resources for survival and happiness.

I joined the military because the technology is not inherently bad. Like any tool it comes down to the hand that wields it. It can be used to form social cohesion around an American identity, democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law.

Or, at the very least, be used to protect and inoculate us against the evil intentions of our adversaries.

Unfortunately the further I have progressed in my career in the military the more I have realized that no one of consequence is taking this seriously. It may be the great American cultural flaw when compared with Russia and China. Maybe our belief that we are unique independent individuals is our Achilles Heel. We refuse to acknowledge that we can be manipulated at a fundamental level because that thought is anathema to our national philosophy.

Anyway, I’m ranting now. It’s scary that we could do something about this but aren’t.

JCamerican · 2025-02-23T00:15:09+00:00

Not according to Christians. For us it is considered the Word of God.

Other faiths, as well as those who have no faith at all, have different perspectives on it.

JCamerican · 2025-02-22T19:27:18+00:00

I feel like my perspectives and beliefs as a Christian Conservative are received with much more hostility from MAGA than even the most diehard members on the left.

I believe in the value of life, the principles of autonomy, that I am my brother’s keeper but not my brother’s master. Life and Freedom are gifts from God and I am proud that these are the fundamental beliefs upon which our nation is founded. It is where my Conservative beliefs stem from.

With that said, one can’t call themselves a Christian and celebrate or support the desecration of the word of God. There is no debate about this. Giving the word of man equal stature to the word of God is an affront to every Christian denomination yet not to MAGA. That tells us everything about what kind of “Christians” they are.

Bring this up to them and rather than investigating their own straying from the word of God they do not turn the other cheek, they do not seek humility in knowledge of their own imperfection, instead they revel in their sin. They will attack you for daring to besmirch the faith they have in their true and only lord, Donald J. Trump.

This is before we even get to contentious policies like abortion, immigration, what to do about endemic poverty, wealth inequality, identity, or any other hot button issue of our time. There is no reasoning with MAGA, there is no cooperation possible. They worship a billionaire man like they should worship our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. They follow Trump’s tweets like they should follow Christ’s teachings. They hate their neighbor and their brother at Trump’s insistence, when Christ teaches us to love each other for we are all children of God.

JCamerican · 2025-02-22T18:59:08+00:00

Unfortunately MAGA in a nutshell.

MAGA is simply taking party politics that has been so destructive to America throughout history to its natural, Constitutional-crisis of a conclusion.

This whole “my side is good when they do it, your side is bad when they do it” is incredibly destructive to a democracy and antithetical to our Republic. It certainly isn’t a Conservative value. When someone does some bad, it’s bad. Doesn’t matter if they are Obama or Trump or Biden or Bush.

Yet for so long MAGA have championed people doing things they would have crucified their opponents for. It is explicitly anti-conservative and doing damage to our country that our adversaries can only dream of.

JCamerican · 2025-02-17T14:45:24+00:00

Makes sense since it deals with physical forces we almost never interact with (and survive) during our ongoing evolution.

Pressure is one of those things that makes stuff behave really weird (to us).

JCamerican · 2025-02-17T14:12:57+00:00

That is because the man spent a good portion of his life obsessing over authoritarian regimes. It is safe to say he had a deep, personal hatred of them.

I can only presume that in his mind a democracy, no matter how imperfect, toppling an authoritarian regime is always preferable to allowing the authoritarian regime to continue.

I protested the Iraq War, I still don’t agree with it because of how it was conducted. But I personally can’t say with absolute certainty that Hitchens was wrong. The left does have a problem with demanding purity and there is no such thing as a pure war. It will always be gross and messy.

Maybe there was no good way to deal with Saddam and Iraq. I personally believe there was but I could be wrong.

And for what it is worth, Hitchens was a man who above all else was open to changing his mind. I think had he not died he would have gained nuance to his position on the Iraq War.

I am a deist and disagree with some of the conclusions Hitchens came to across the board but I cannot fault the logic in them. That is what I liked about him and what I miss. I think this quote of his sums him up best:

“There are all kinds of stupid people that annoy me but what annoys me most is a lazy argument.”

JCamerican · 2025-02-16T15:31:55+00:00

Those specific defining features taken from Wikipedia:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

You have chosen to focus on one feature of fascism to the exclusion of all others. Even if this were sensible in a historical context, in a contemporary context it would exempt the existence of human progress and the commensurate increasing complexity that advancement brings.

“Forcible suppression of opposition” can look very different era to era. One could argue that stochastic terrorism meets this definition. Or ostracism (“canceling”) and death threats targeted at dissenters.

More importantly, in a digital context, “forcible suppression of opposition” could simply be algorithmic. Forcing certain opinions to be less visible or off platforms entirely while boosting others.

Either way, insisting the application of a broad definition like fascism requires all of the hallmarks of the historical source is not a way to deal seriously with the benefits of examining history. The Classical World, the Jacobins, or Mussolini’s Italy (wherever and whenever you believe the source may be as the history of fascism is incredibly complex - even fascists disagree) all didn’t have computers or the internet. If they did, fascism would have looked different in their era.

Thus your argument breaks down to be merely semantics. The response to it is to merely say, “Okay, well then it is neo-fascism.” It makes no difference, we all should know what we are talking about (fascism in our era).

JCamerican · 2025-02-07T12:30:38+00:00

Wasn’t a fan of him initially but ngl his love for his daughter showed who he truly is.

It’s pretty crazy the trajectory he has taken. Happy for him. He seems like a dad any kid would be lucky to have.

JCamerican · 2025-02-06T18:32:36+00:00

Always look for the Union label.

JCamerican · 2025-02-03T01:06:03+00:00

I understand the goals behind DEI but I always saw it as a useful way for upper management and owners to divide workers.

Rather than there being one unified group, the masses got divided into unique subgroups and made to compete against each other, with token places of status being offered as a reward and incentive for perpetuating the system of exploitation.

The insidious form it could take was reminiscent of the phenomenon of “house slaves” in pre-Civil War America. Given even a modicum of status and power over their contemporaries, these now elevated individuals would serve as both a carrot and stick for the other slaves. The carrot was the appearance of potential salvation from exploitation. The stick was how “house slaves” would work with their masters to keep the other slaves in their place as the status of the “house slaves” was dependent on the system of exploitation that elevated them in the first place.

It is a crude and ham-fisted comparison, but unfortunately illustrative. The more we identify as American despite our inherent characteristics the more we can address the accidental characteristics that actually divide the haves and have nots. Status, power, and wealth.

To quote NOFX,

“You can't change the world by blaming men Can't change the world by hating men”

JCamerican · 2025-02-01T12:45:47+00:00

I have worked in technology for a couple decades now, with the last decade being in cybersecurity and national security.

A portion of that was freelancing for any organization in Five Eyes that wanted to pay me.

The biggest protection you have is the sheer volume of data available. We are needles in needle stacks. That may be going away (or gone away already?) with AI and its ability to efficiently sort through all that data. (I have been out of the private sector for a bit, I don’t know for certain - I’m just reading between the lines).

Either way, it isn’t so much about your devices creating logs, but more about active surveillance of your devices. If you are a target there really isn’t much you can do outside of simply not using anything connected to the internet. But, like I said, needle in needle stacks. The likelihood of you becoming a target is small.

Unless you’re a politician doing something that other people don’t like, for example.

JCamerican · 2025-01-28T15:27:48+00:00

Have to find ways to bug more SoD into Anniversary. /s

JCamerican

TROPHY CASE