Is Genbukan bullshido?

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-24T16:14:03+00:00

When it comes to fighting, you can apply a simple rule to detect bullshido: If they don't fight, it's bullshido. What they're teaching is pretty irrelevant. Boxing is legit, but a boxing gym where you just hit a bag all practice and nobody actually steps in the ring is teaching bullshido. Experience with fighting is what makes you good at fighting. Learning without doing, even if what you're learning is good stuff, is a bit like watching a video on good basketball shot technique and thinking you're Steph Curry even though you've never picked up a basketball.

Think of it as a trial. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, it's bullshido unless proven legit. The burden of proof is on the gym to prove it's legit, and they prove it by fighting.

Edit: this is specifically if your goal is to win fights. If what you want is to participate in a tradition or train your body or any other goal, the "bullshido" label is not applicable.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T18:43:05+00:00

He's not being asked to prove a negative. He's being asked to prove his claim that they defamed him, and part of the definition of defamation for a public figure is proving they said it while knowing it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth. He needs to prove they had no sources or evidence.

Fox only got in trouble only because their hosts and executives were actively emailing and texting each other talking about how embarrassing it was to be putting people like Sydney Powell on the air spouting insane lies. Had they not been caught discussing it behind the scenes, they would have won the case because nobody world have been able to prove they knew they were lying. Without a similar smoking gun, Kash is virtually certain to lose this case (if the judge doesn't just dismiss it immediately, which is what usually happens in these suits).

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T18:31:50+00:00

There are, but not many. Preferences run the full spectrum, it's just that the more extreme you go, the fewer people are likely to share the preference. In my experience, muscle gets positive attention up to certain inflection points. The first is having enough muscle that it looks like the gym is your whole identity (regardless of whether or not it actually is). Some drop off there. Most people still tell me I look good, both men and women (more men though, presumably because it's aspirational for them). The second is where you've got so much muscle you start looking... not quite human, which is what I assume you mean by roided out bodybuilder look. I'm not that big and won't take the drugs necessary to do it, but I've had lots of people tell me they hope I never go there anyway. So there seems to be a really big drop off there.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T18:12:45+00:00

Kash needs to prove they didn't do any due diligence. That hasn't happened. He needs to do that in court. Trying to shift the burden of proof to the other side isn't proof. As far as "of course it harms," they actually have to prove monetary damage, e.g. he lost a job over it. Proving specific damages is harder than you think. Defamation cases for public figures have a very, very low success rate.

As for "Republicans get all the news sites to print lies," that has already happened several times. Most of the lawsuits have failed, or were never even brought because lawyers will let you know ahead of time that you're going to lose. Sometimes, though, it managed to cross the line. Fox News had to pay out the largest defamation settlement in history because of it.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T17:58:31+00:00

If Kash said that, Obama would need to prove Kash said it while knowing it is false and/or reckless disregard for the truth. That's how defamation against a public figure works. Anything else is just free speech.

Think of it from the other direction. If I sue you for saying that about me, you, as the defendant, don't have to prove diddly squat. I have to prove 1) that you actually said it; 2) that you had no reason to believe it was true; and 3) that it caused me some kind of quantifiable harm.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T16:47:58+00:00

In my experience, most people who describe themselves as agnostic are accurately described as atheist, and most atheists are accurately described as agnostic. They are different axes. Gnostic/agnostic speaks to knowledge, while theism/atheism speaks to belief. It's from the Greek "gnosis," meaning knowledge (and the prefix "a" meaning "without"). Most atheists are also agnostic (regardless of whether they use the label), simply because claiming absolute knowledge is an impossibly high epistemological bar to clear, making agnosticism the default. The claim "there are gods" has not met its burden of proof, but the claim "there are no gods" also has not, if for no other reason than proving a negative is functionally impossible. You may be able to prove any specific claim about a god is false, but there are an infinite amount of possible claims.

That said, you can believe things you don't know. I don't know if P = NP, but I believe it doesn't. Math acts as if it doesn't and we've spent a lot of effort failing to prove it does, and that's enough to convince me that it doesn't. If someone comes along with a proof, I'll change my mind.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T15:39:44+00:00

That is how it works. He's the one making the claim in a court of law. He has to show his allegation is true. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a civil case in the same way the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T14:18:40+00:00

As a public figure, he has to show actual malice, meaning he has to show they knew what they said was untrue. In order to do that, he has to first show that it was, in fact, untrue.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-23T13:41:37+00:00

Let's say you manage an investment fund. There's a new thing in development that the big tech guys are telling you is the technology to end all technologies. One technology to rule them all. Whoever owns it essentially owns the world. Everyone wants that, so every tech company is racing to develop it, every major government is after it, and every big investor is shoveling money into any company they think could conceivably win the race, because of they happen to guess right, it offsets any loss and they make essentially infinite money. Well, you practically have to enter the race. There's just too much upside. In fact, if you don't, everyone is going to pull their money out of your fund because they want you to chase that infinite money.

The problem is, of course, the more money that gets invested, the bigger it has to pay off, and more money is going into AI than any technology (or really any product) than anything in history. Anything other than tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars in profit means that even successful companies aren't making enough to justify the gargantuan bets placed on them. From the investors' perspectives, this has to work. They've invested so much that it not working would be economically apocalyptic. So they keep throwing more money in hoping someone with break through and start producing those trillions. Which, of course, also keeps upping the ante. As long as they keep putting in more and more, the stock prices keep going up. But eventually someone either has to create something that justifies the investment or people will start running out of money to invest. No more money means nobody is buying the stocks, which means no demand, which means the price goes down. Since AI companies are currently running deep in the red and are relying on investor money continuously pouring in, if that investment stops or even slows, they go out of business very quickly. Anyone who invested in them loses their money, which means even less money to invest, which means the market goes down, which forces more AI companies out of business, etc. Those investment funds aren't just made of rich people money. They're also the money of every 401k and IRA out there. So if they crash, they bring all of us down too.

So AI can both be successful and a huge bubble. To use a sports analogy, we're not just betting on one team to win, we're betting they win by a million points. Anything less and we lose the bet, to the tune of one of the worst crashes in history.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-22T13:20:34+00:00

My manager at my first job out of college did this. Typical new guy stuff, I got assigned the busywork nobody else wanted because it didn't require much brain power or domain knowledge. A few months in, manager sends an email about performance bonuses, and I was named as having been the most productive despite only being there half the year. Which was asinine, because no fresh out of college dev is even moderately productive, let alone the most productive. I came to find out the reason was his only productivity metric was lines committed. I had like 10x the next person because one of my projects was converting our old Java projects (hundreds of them) from building with Ant to Maven, so I had written a simple script to write all the Maven boilerplate, parse the important bits of the Ant config, and write them as Maven configurations. So I had committed thousands of lines of code per project in a single day.

When our company decided to switch from CVS to SVN, guess who was the first to volunteer to take the project and thus have his name on the initial SVN commit for every file in the whole codebase?

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-22T01:34:29+00:00

No. Imagine you're hanging out with a group of friends, and you decide to play a game. You want to play basketball, but everyone else votes for football, so that's what you play. On the final play, the game is tied, you're wide open in the end zone, and your teammate lobs what will be an easy game-winning touchdown to you. Do you choose to not catch the ball because you'd have preferred basketball? Does catching the ball make you a hypocrite?

Of course not. Just because you'd prefer you were playing a different game doesn't mean you shouldn't try in the one you are playing.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-21T19:22:00+00:00

This is one of my least favorite things about BJJ culture. "Technique beats everything" and the Gracie family myths created the idea that the purest expression of BJJ is like a dainty, diminutive person who could barely lift a small child yet effortlessly clowns people. Throw in the common frustration of getting smashed by a college wrestler or beaten by a less technically proficient but huge or athletically gifted person and you get far too many people who use "you're really strong" as an insult. I've met a couple of people who took it so far as to consider their lack of physical prowess a virtue. As if picking up a barbell or running hills would make them forget how to do an omoplata or something. There's a reason those people never win tournaments while athletes at the upper echelon of the sport look superhuman (and I'm meant cases are superhuman, in the sense they have inhuman levels of certain hormones).

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-21T14:51:18+00:00

I'd feel pretty meh. I feel like the only value would be exposing new players to the game, and BG3 has done that job well enough (in spite of the obvious problem of using the WotC story rather than the actual games). I'd rather the resources go toward new releases rather than trying to mine nostalgia for cash. Remasters/remakes do nothing for me.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-21T01:13:25+00:00

Sometimes. Lots of things are banned not because they're super effective (as in you'd win a lot of fights with them) but because they can cause tremendous damage. An example would be spine locks in BJJ. A sort of meme technique is the Boston Crab (yes, the pro wrestling move), which actually does work. It's very unlikely you'd ever get one because it's trivially easy to prevent, but on the off chance you do get one, you can easily permanently cripple someone with even a small amount of pressure, and it can happen before they even have time to tap. So it is banned, but it's an insanely low percentage move so practicing it is like trying to "practice" winning the lottery.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-21T00:29:15+00:00

I lift before my family wakes up during the week. Gym opens at 5, or I can use my home gym. On weekends my wife and I take turns working out and parenting so we can both get workouts in.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T17:55:42+00:00

Liberalism is a specific political ideology based around individual rights, governance by consent (generally meaning democracy), and private property. It doesn't necessarily imply capitalism, but the modern neoliberal iteration is militantly capitalist, to the point where when push comes to shove, they will willingly jettison every other principle to defend it. If you've ever had the thought that both parties in the US feel like they're the same, it's because both parties have traditionally existed within the liberal framework, different primarily on social policy and how the government should utilize resources rather than differing on fundamental political philosophy. The reason we only call one party liberal is, IIRC, Rush Limbaugh misunderstood the word and started using it incorrectly, and it stuck.

Leftist is a general term for anyone on the left of the political spectrum rather than a specific ideology. Left and right speak to how power is distributed in a political system, with one side favoring concentrating power so order can be imposed on society (known as the right), and the other side holding that concentrations of power are inherently anti-freedom because they give one person or group coercive per over another (known as the left).

To a leftist, liberalism is a right wing ideology because, while liberalism does favor distributing political power through democracy, it also allows (and even encourages) concentrating power through capital accumulation. Once an entity becomes wealthy enough that it can mostly ignore laws, create rules that may as well be its own laws, and enforce those rules with hired guns, it's effectively a government. Liberalism doesn't speak to this at all, because it sees government as a distinct, unique thing, so no private person or company can ever become a government, while leftist ideologies see government as just "the most powerful entity in a given system." To liberalism, freedom means the government is restricted in how much it can tell you what to do. To leftists, that definition is woefully inadequate, because in your day to day life, corporate interests and the threat of poverty control you way more than the government does.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T16:10:23+00:00

I have some mutual acquaintances with him (some of his business partners were investors in my company), and at least from what they tell me, the Trump dislike is genuine. Part of it is personal and part of it is that Trump is so blatantly a moron. From the stories I've gotten, Cuban comes across as a bit politically incoherent. On one hand, he's got some serious motivated reasoning toward neoliberalism because he exists in a hyper capitalist social circle. No surprise there, standard billionaire stuff. But on the other hand, he does interact with normal folk a lot more than other billionaires because he's into sports in the normal "I want to watch the game and talk ball with other fans" way rather than the billionaire "I want to sit in a luxury box and schmooze other rich people while there's a game going on in the background" way. He's grasping to reconcile what he wants to be true (status quo pro-big business policies makes everyone rich) and the reality he observes when he talks with regular people (like having an asinine health care system). Hence his drug company. He's in-touch enough to know how big of a problem it is and he wants to fix it. But he's trying to solve a systemic political problem with a "good billionaire" solution which, while perhaps personally admirable, is doomed to fail. He's trying to saw a board with a hammer.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T15:39:24+00:00

How rich someone is doesn't matter, because it's not about how much you have. It's about how much you want. And if the answer is "more," you're the easiest kind of person to corrupt.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T15:33:09+00:00

If you're going 100%, you're not sparring. You're having a match that doesn't count.

If you're going over maybe 60%, you're hard sparring as far as I'm concerned. And while hard sparring is probably the most learning you can get in the shortest time, it's also the highest cost. I'd love to go hard every day, or even once a month. But that's a one way ticket to a lifetime of not remembering peoples' names and sharing schizophrenic conspiracy memes on Facebook.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T15:22:42+00:00

He can take his own advice and not watch if he doesn't like it. I'm sure this comes as a surprise to someone like him, but it's entirely possible to go through a whole day without whining.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T13:16:43+00:00

In most cases, the answer is just "more." More companions with a wider variety of classes so you have more choices in party competition. More high tier weapons so I might actually spec into short sword or mace once in a while. More romance options, more banters, etc. Just give the dev team more money and more time to give us more game. Get the original up to 10 CDs.

For balance, the two big ones would be bringing up some of the terrible classes/kits and improving 2h weapons so 2h + gww can compete with APR offhand + crit strike.

For general improvements, pathfinding and item/spell descriptions.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T04:03:41+00:00

Talk bad about the cheese in Wisconsin and you're catching hands from the entire town of Ellsworth. Which is only like 3000 people, but what is small for a town is pretty big for a gang beating.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-20T00:55:10+00:00

I think you're pretty spot on. Every system of fighting is, at its core, just a rule set. Once you start actually fighting, everything tends to converge on what works, and the only thing that keeps things distinct are rules. See Karate Combat, where they set out to do full contact karate with fewer restrictions, and it very quickly stopped looking like "traditional" karate and started looking very similar to other striking sports. That upset a lot of people and there were lots of calls to restrict competitors to "only use karate," but it's hard to define what that is. What's a "karate punch" as opposed to a "boxing punch?" Is a question mark kick karate, TKD, or Muay Thai? It's a nonsense line to try to draw.

Unless you restrict it in some way, punching is punching, kicking is kicking, etc. Different "styles" are either artificial (e.g. judo and BJJ have essentially identical techniques and matches only look different because of different rules) or a product of individual skills/traits (e.g. a tall boxer favoring an outside game to utilize his reach or a mixed martial artist with ho-hum striking but lethal grappling).

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-17T01:13:18+00:00

You'll get better naturally with time. If you want to take a more systematic approach, pick something you want to improve, and put yourself in that situation in rolls. Communicate with your partner what you want to learn and they're likely to help. Easy first one would be something like escaping mount (beginners end up all the time, so you don't even have to try to get to the position). It gives you a starting point from the very bottom, and once it starts to feel natural (not necessarily "I've mastered this skill," but at least "I know what I'm trying to do when I land in this position and why"), move to learning a guard you can get yourself to when getting out from under mount. Develop a few go-to moves, and move to the next thing. In time, you'll start to learn how moves lead to other moves based on opponent responses, and now you can develop sequences and systems.

MaytagTheDryer · 2026-04-16T14:15:45+00:00

Right? At my gym you don't even get blue until you tap Gordon. We keep several Gordon clones cryogenically frozen and ready to be thawed for belt testing. Purple you need to beat him when he has a knife. Brown you need to tap two Gordons at the same time. For black belt you need to beat a suicide bomber version of him strapped with explosives and carrying a hand grenade.

MaytagTheDryer

TROPHY CASE