2024-09-03
Spacefaring life
2024-09-02
2024-08-24
Nautical-but-Nice Fast Risk, juiced down
Overjuiced version - Previous Rules Set - Medium on Risk math
MBJp134
Introduction

Set-Up
Allied Armies Set-up
Player Set-up
Joining and Leaving Mid-Game
Turn-by-Turn Play
Reënforcing at Start of Turn
- Territory bonus (divide number of territories by three, minimum of three)
- Continent bonuses
- 2 armies per factory (on the factory territory)
- Card turn-in (armies, factory, ship, with territory bonuses--see below)
Card Turn-in
- Armies equal to two dice rolls
- A factory (to be placed at the end of turn)
- A ship with one die roll worth of armies on board to be placed in an ocean bordering one of the player's territories (if no territories have a coastline, no shipbuilding is allowed)
- ALONG WITH two armies for each card territory owned by player, on that territory
Mobilization Bonus at Start of Campaign
End of Player Turn
- Draw a Risk card and a poker card (if territory taken)
- Place any factories purchased at start of turn
- Replace any and all captured army tokens with tokens of player's own color (see below)
- Make a single troop transfer of one or more armies through contiguous territory
- After their turn, a player may choose to play an allied army
| Allowed Troop Transfers |
Play Allied Army
Playing Poker
How to Campaign
Committed Attacks
- They win and send in the committed troops and possibly more
- All the committed troops are destroyed and the attack ends
Flanking Attacks
Ships
Movement
Ferrying Armies
Patrol
Opposed Landings
Naval Battles
Sinking and Capturing Ships
Sea Roving
2024-08-17
TOOL The Master 映画
Overall
The production of the film, the mise-en-scène, the music, the acting, the props, and the sets gave the impression of a thorough and well-done job of filmmaking, and very understated. There was at least some CGI, for example, when Amy Adams' eyes changed from green to blue to black, so whatever else there was, it seems to have gone well-hidden.
I took this to be an analogy of the founding of Scientology and Lancaster Dodd to be L. Ron Hubbard. I wondered whether Freddy Quell were an historical figure or no.
Les Personages
Freddy Quell's drinking of toxic substances, the poisoning of the man at the farm, and subsequently giving similar potions to Dodd to drink made me wonder if it were a metaphor for his mental state, his relationship with Dodd, and Dodd's mental state. At one point Dodd's wife tells him he needs to stop drinking (since he got very sick after the "A'Roving" song scene, where he made the nose-and-ear gesture to Freddy to make booze), and then she went to Freddy with the same message, i.e., quit boozing or leave.
Dodd is ambivalent about Freddy's role as a semi-informal enforcer. One can wonder whether we are to assume that that was one of the reasons why Dodd was so keen to keep him around, i.e., his easy propensity to violence.
Joaquin Phoenix gives us a similar character and performance to Joker, his wiry skinniness, mentally ill, often violent, lacking restraint, in this case even more sexually obsessed and perhaps slightly less sexually frustrated.
I really liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal. His hair, his moustache, and the fact that he was a little bit unshaven. Sometimes he was florid, and other times not. I'm told that actors are able to modulate that. He was a great actor. He was able to flip between emoting calm, even in the face of chaos, sharp and sudden anger, and so on, and as I mention below, his in-group jokes, control of tone, and expressions served well to depict him as a believable cult leader.
Poignant Scenes
What do we draw from Freddy chucking his cameraman job? He was drinking his developing chemicals. He attacked the corpulent businessman he was photographing--why? He was drunk from the day before, hungover, after fooling around with the woman (did she work at the store?) in the dark room? Next he was working on a farm, and again getting into trouble with alcohol. It did a good job of painting him as a social awkward, emotionally disturbed, unstable, potentially violent person.
There were a couple of scenes where Dodd was speaking, after the wedding at the beginning, and also at the book release, where he talked about wrestling with a dragon, mentions "death" with a comic and falling intonation, and also at the book release saying how his discoveries are "very, very serious" and the point is the attendants laugh, even though what he says is quite banal, not particularly funny, full of in-group references, so laughing asserts loyalty, membership, and recognition.
Keeping adherents' attention, engagement, even through the banal and the boring, is, I think, characteristic of the behavior of a cult leader. Another part is speaking a lot, even if one say little, or talks nonsense. Apparently a standout sociological parameter which makes group members perceive one as "a leader" or such is the share sheer length of total time one is the one talking.
The scene where he said "Pig Fuck!!" to the guy who was questioning their beliefs and was later beaten up by Freddy and Dodd's son-in-law. This kind of liberty-taking, i.e., using crass language or references in front of adherents, and against opponents, seems to be a typical feature of cults and cult leaders. Obviously the threat or the actual exercise of violence against opponents or dissenters is another.
Another feature is doing crazy, meaningless things, or talking a complete load of bollocks, as perhaps exemplified in renting the big yacht, doing the "pick a point and ride toward it" and "things that happened a trillion years ago," "Time travel," "curing leukemia" and so forth. Each of these gives adherents and scoffers alike a choice: do it and you're in, otherwise you're out. It's a well-marked and well-closed meme, if a stupid one. A fun thing about cults is that they exist entirely on the "religious", "dogmatic," or possibly "pseudo-spiritual" plane, so spiritual significance may be attached to anything with almost complete freedom, and memetic pairing, already something which the human brain is highly susceptible to, is a much more lightly constrained affair. You can pair total nonsense with existing memes, often recycled mainstream religious memes, like the Mormon's repackaging of Jesus, Satan, the children of Noah, among other things.
The scene where Lancaster Dodd was singing "I'll Go No More A'Roving" and the women in the room got progressively completely naked. I wondered whether this were really happening, or whether it were Freddy Quell's imagination, or some surreal fugue, as in a meta-reference to how cult leaders tend to take advantage of their female (or otherwise vulnerable) adherents.
Why do they do this? Is it to impress the male adherents, for example? And if so, how and why does this work? This is a whole big question. The way the scene was shot sort of put this whole hidden sexual underbelly of cults out there, visible, but uninterrogated.
The idea of accessing past experiences, if not past lives, is part of trauma therapy and re-evaluation counselling. Hence the shift of "can you remember" to "can you imagine" looks like a significant shift from psychic healing to demagoguery.
At minute 1:45, at the book release, Laura Dern and Dodd get into a tiff about the not-all-that-slight change from "can you remember" to "can you imagine". The well-balanced scene depicts it as on one hand seeming nit-picking by Laura Dern, but by the content of her issue and Dodd's explosive reaction, a seminal point.
It makes me think of things like how the Supreme Soviet, I believe it was in the 1980s, changed the Soviet Constitution from the classic Marxist phrase "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" to "...to each according to his work" and the "botched baptisms" performed by an American priest where he substituted "we" for "I" in the sacrament, and the Vatican ruled that those so baptized were not saved and had to be rebaptized since the invocation was not to God through the agency of the priest, but to the congregation, as was the priest's apparent intention, i.e., not a valid source of salvation.
I believe the priest may have been defrocked. One can presume that he hadn't molested any young boys, since in such a case the church would've surely leapt to his aid. Sorry for the off-color joke... Again, cults taking advantage of their most vulnerable adherents.
Words have meaning, ideas have consequences, but it is harder to show a way of saying things to be problematic or an idea to be false than it is to simply say it in the first place and have it sound good and have a few people back it, especially if those people are attractive or powerful...or violent. Standing up for basic values and even conservative traditions is one way to keep cultish madness in check. There may be others, but arguing with somebody who's talking sheer nonsense tends to give weight to their position by sheer dint of attention (the talking length principle again) and resorting to the defense of one's own position may often be at the expense of telegraphing to anyone paying attention that one's position needs to be defended.
2024-08-11
Nautical-but-Nice Fast Risk (overjuiced)
Previous Rules Set - Medium on Risk math
MBJp134
Introduction
Set-Up
Allied Armies Set-up
Player Set-up
Joining and Leaving Mid-Game
Turn-by-Turn Play
Reënforcing at Start of Turn
- Armies equal to roll of one die plus one more for each the largest bloc of contiguous territory divided by three
- Continent bonuses
- 3 armies per factory (on the factory territory)
- Card turn-in (armies, factory, ship, territory bonuses--see below)
Card Turn-in
- Armies equal to three dice rolls
- A factory (to be placed at the end of turn)
- A ship with two dice rolls worth of armies on board to be placed in an ocean bordering one of the player's territories (if no territories have a coastline, no shipbuilding is allowed)
- ALONG WITH two dice rolls worth of armies for each card territory owned by player
Campaigning during Player Turn
End of Player Turn
- Draw a Risk card and a poker card (if territory taken)
- Place any factories purchased at start of turn
- Replace any and all captured army tokens with tokens of player's own color (see below)
- Make a single troop transfer of one or more armies through contiguous territory
- After their turn, a player may choose to play an allied army
| Allowed Troop Transfers |
Play Allied Army
Playing Poker
How to Campaign
Committed Attacks
- They win and send in the committed troops and possibly more
- All the committed troops are destroyed and the attack ends
Flanking Attacks
Ships
Ferrying Armies
Patrol
Opposed Landings
Naval Battles
Sinking and Capturing Ships
2024-08-08
模倣子 Baby Got Back to the Future
Original A Medium article
I don’t know. I felt like all of the events mentioned were wrong and felt uncomfortable. All of the characters involved were disapproving of what was going on as well. Marty was disapproving of George with his binoculars, George was reticent about Marty’s plan to make him the hero, but they both understood that George beating him up would be both justified and welcome, and the substitution of Biff for Marty upped the ante on this, ie, George would not only appear the hero but be the hero in fact. We were relieved that Marty was no longer the bad guy assaulting Lorraine—we got the ick, but then got off the hook with all our built-up disgust now directed rightfully at Biff, and George placed in the do-or-die position he had to be in in order to commit as he did.
Marty getting sexually assaulted by Lorraine, yes, yes. A welcome bone thrown to men’s rights activism, perhaps. But Marty was relieved of the temptation, and the audience spared the ick, since he knew Lorraine was his future mother, in other words, the audience was able to suspend disbelief, freed from any patriarchal, misogynistic, male fulfillment fantasy, if you like, of the rapacious, concupiscent young woman (who was by the way, acting quite shy, coy, and reticent, if disingenuously) coming on strong to the young man cornered in a strange bedroom in his underwear. He HAD to resist, absolutely, so we could enjoy the situation without any fear of it going too far. That was, as they say, the joke.
Marty taking his dad’s place was a cute allusion, one might say, to how his parents met. His grandfather’s comment of “all these damn kids jumping in front of my car”
There was the one thing, that of Lorraine undressing with her curtains open, along with that remark, including George at the ready with binoculars on that very tree branch, followed by Lorraine accosting the ersatz George in the person of Marty.
You could make the argument that the film is making a case that Lorraine was “ asking for it” and being deliberately exhibitionist with the undressing through open curtains, but I would disagree.
It was how George and Lorraine got together, and this was presented non-judgmentally, consensually. Lorraine’s behavior, exhibitionism, drinking, smoking, coming on to boys, her cleavage-revealing clothing, her coquettish super-aggressiveness, in short, her overtly vivacious sexuality, were all presented as purely her free choice, an attractive and distinctive feature of her personality if anything, harming nobody, and by no means granting open license or consent to anybody.
Far from a “sluts get their comeuppance” the film was very clear. Biff was the bad guy. He was wrong, and deserved what he got, including a kind of damnation through to the end of time (which might actually be a strong, even biblical message, à la “and I shall lay my curse upon you, even unto the last generation of your house”). Even Marty pretending to affront Lorraine was a grey area, a necessary evil.
So no, I’d say that the message is more along the lines of, for reasons aforementioned, sex is wholesome, if at times, awkward, and the time travel narrative served to keep it squarely in the awkward and no further. On top of that, the film underscores the point that women own their own bodies and no license is granted implicitly, and that sexual assault and rape are absolutely beyond the pale, unforgivable, deserving of immediate, harsh, and of course, extrajudicial, retribution and punishment. I rather like the inherent evil and eternal damnation angle that seemed to go with that, especially if you include the other films—what does everybody think?
So, rapiest? Except for Biff attacking Lorraine in the car at the end, which was shocking, but also by the bad guy, a cautionary tale, and thwarted, I don’t see it. There are better ways to look at this film, in terms of these events with the context of the narrative. If you judge every single event in life from an omniscient POV, then everything is bad. Lorraine coming on to Marty in his underwear may have not been bad from her perspective but bad from ours and his (possibly for different reasons). Lorraine changing with the curtains open may have been good (for different reasons) for her and George and bad for Marty and still differently bad for her dad who hit Marty-ersatz-George. Only Biff attacking Lorraine is objectively bad from all perspectives, and nobody’s disagreeing on that one, including all the other characters in the film.
One might ask “is it appealing/unappealing?” (arguably the least important—but that may be as far as you got) “is it believable?” “Do I sympathize with the characters involved?” “Do I believe their motivations?” “Do I buy the structure of the narrative?”
I think most people would report a strong positive to all of the above, and I think that’s why this movie is so beloved. Your observations are effectively true, but in a way superficial, and I fear ultimately unimportant.


