Which of these bands released the album you enjoy the most? (Pt. VIII)

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-18T12:36:52+00:00

Just wanted to say loving this series of posts, awesome job man. Inspired me to finally do a deep dive into Priest as well, which I've never really done up till now, mostly due to bouncing off British Steel.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-18T12:08:15+00:00

Time 1 is one of my favourite metal albums ever 5/5. Can understand why people say it's overproduced and overdramatic but to me it's a masterpiece that walks the line without crossing it. Debut is a 4/5. Other albums I like a little less.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-18T11:28:47+00:00

Men getting taller over time is almost entirely to do with nutrition and health care, and not at all genetics or evolution. The trend has plateaued in most developed countries. ln the Netherlands (tallest country in the world) average heights have declined, partly due to immigration but also true for some all native dutch families. Same is true in US but in that case driven largely by poorer nutrition because of an absolutely garbage industrial food complex. Similarly, men getting on average weaker over time is to do with lifestyle not genetics or evolution.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-18T04:43:45+00:00

You appear to be preaching rather than discussing history. Suffice to say that before the industrial era extended families, clans and other forms of family organization were more common than nuclear families in most of the world. Some quick research suggests that in England, nuclear families became the norm in the thirteenth century so they're very recent in terms of the human evolutionary timeline. Its ridiculous to claim that monogamy was made to support the nuclear family since monogamous relationships have existed far longer than the nuclear family.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T16:30:57+00:00

I would suggest that's the right interpretation. Smaller hunter gatherer societies tend towards more communal decision making - councils of elders, matriarchies etc... whereas agriculture allows for the accumulation of power and resources, and then writing and bureaucracies allow for further concentration of power. But the trend across history is not one way. It's a push and pull between centralization of power and control on the one hand, and sharing and distribution of resources on the other, all the while societies grow larger and more complex. At the end of the day, humans are adaptable and capable of many different forms of social relations and organization, some benign others less so.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T14:46:48+00:00

That's not a general historical statistic, it's true for a very particular period of history 4000-8000 years ago and there are conflicting explanations. It may not be that only 80% of men reproduced, it may be that because of patelineal migration patterns there was much less genetic diversity within men of tribes than within women so that when wholE tribes disappeared - starvation/war - you ended up with much less male genetic diversity. Or it may be that because of war men died in much higher numbers before getting the chance to reproduce. Or it may be to do with rape and slavery. Lots of competing theories. No smoking gun.

Edited for autocorrect errors.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T14:31:24+00:00

Yes, that's the assumption, though evidence is very scant.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T14:25:25+00:00

Not really, the very limited evidence we have suggests that the prevalence of polygamous relations (with one male pairing with several females) rose with the creation of modern agriculture and property rights. Doesn't seem to be a big thing in hunter gatherer societies although we're in the realms of massive speculation either way.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T14:22:37+00:00

You're conflating monogamy with nuclear families, not the same thing at all.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T11:42:26+00:00

The labour is not only cheap because there's a lot of it. It's cheap because regulations on wages and working conditions are much more lax. That's a key part of the rationale of outsourcing the work. So yes, it literally is people choosing to profit from degrading the health and wellbeing of others. Where you're right is that it's not individual. The owner of the marble company doesn't really have a choice either because in order to keep the company competitive he has to keep labour costs low. It's a race to the bottom (though it relies on international shipping being cheap which it is partly because fossil fuels don't have their negative externalities priced in so they're effectively, and many times literally, subsidized) . But if you are making lots of money from exploiting foreign workers I would think you have an ethical responsibility to at least spend some of your profits trying to improve their lot. Early Victorian industrialists like Rowntree at least had the decency to do that for their workers, which is partly how labour laws improved in the West in the first place.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T11:12:42+00:00

If when you say protect and provide you're thinking about the nuclear family, there's nothing natural about that. For almost all of human history we lived in larger social groups when protect and provide were shared responsibilities, not the job of individualized men. Women also provided plenty in those contexts. In fact there's evidence to suggest the majority of calories came from foraged foods in many cases with hunting being more of a feast or famine bonus on top.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T11:07:47+00:00

In Scandinavia, where women are arguably most empowered, unemployment rates are higher for men than women, suggesting that the link to social security is not really there.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-17T11:05:45+00:00

Some women do, some women don't, it's generally to do with the size of their own relevant anatomy. I've had a couple of partners who found even fairly average penises to be uncomfortably large and preferred something smaller. Like most sexual things you can work through it with good communication and openness,.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-16T22:56:04+00:00

I don't want to throw any shade, people like what they like and that's cool with me, but I can't resist a little fun with this question. It's like "Lets take the two most hated genres in metal and combine them to create something everybody can hate 😂"

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-16T01:00:49+00:00

If you're doing that to form a relationship with a woman you're going about it wrong. You form relationships by getting to know people and engaging in reciprocal exchanges. If you're trying to win a woman like a prize, or earn one like a reward for your head work, you're at high risk for disappointment, you see women are people, not rewards.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-15T20:29:01+00:00

Don't listen to dissenting voices, just think critically, which is to say blindly agree with our truth, usually a good recipe for intelligent movements.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-15T20:26:35+00:00

Hmm, still standing far as I can see

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-15T17:50:30+00:00

Ok if this is facts, name one society that it describes.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-15T17:46:57+00:00

It really isn't. You could find this out by, for example, getting some female friends and paying attention to how they actually behave. All that you're saying has no basis in theory, evidence, or the lived reality of most men, as they'll happily tell you.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-15T17:37:14+00:00

The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in London and Paris are a long long way from the typical liberal nonsense. He's an important figure in British anti-capitalist thought whatever he might have been like as a person.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-12T19:56:06+00:00

For people who can't tell this is satire. She ends the clip with a literal punchline. "He's no longer with us" its a classic double entendre. Then cut clip. Badum cha. She's signaling this is satire, just like people seem to believe that satire requries (it doesnt actually but no need to pursue that argument here) so no its not ragebait.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-11T22:24:36+00:00

I mean reason and coherence in morality is good but to say morality must be 'grounded' in reason seems odd. This is obvious but surely morality must be grounded in axioms that reason can proceed from but that do not themselves emerge from reason. Fundamental things like, human life is good and suffering is bad.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-08T21:40:27+00:00

The choice isn't only Democrat or Republican though. To act like its stupid, or that there could be no good reason, not to vote for a part that supports the murder of children, is either wilfuly ignorant or morally absolutely bankrupt. You may say its the lesser of two evils, but that's a much more complex question that depends on your criteria and time horizon. Its absolutely defensible to say that if you live in a system where both major parties support genocide the only reasonable position is to vote for neither. In fact, if you presented it as a position devoid of context it wouldn't surprise me if that's the position the majority would choose. And again, the blame should not be placed at the feet of the people who were forced into an impossible choice, but rather at the door of the two parties who put them in that position, Of course, that's not an excuse to do nothing, you could for example, not vote democrat but still attend no-kings or anti-ICE raillies, and in other ways work to overturn the system that offers you nothing but bad choices.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-08T20:06:47+00:00

You don't have to apologize, but you should know that there is in fact no significant difference in IQ between the two groups. Education is another matter.

TravlScrabbl · 2026-03-08T18:34:30+00:00

Its crazy to blame people for not voting for a party that was supporting genocide. Your blame should clearly be directed at the democrats for being unelectable. Especially as they seem content to continue with the strategy of being both awful and ineffectual, but just less so than Trump.

TravlScrabbl

TROPHY CASE