User Profile

Forum Activity by Esoteric Allusion

Ivan the Terrible
Esoteric AllusionTrump definitely behaves as though he has first stage Alzheimer's symptoms. He's impulsive, aggressive, and prone to random bursts of vulgarity and threats. Even his defenders routinely describe him acting like an impulsive toddler to his own detriment. Trump's language is reminiscent in dementia in that it lacks complexity in vocabulary and syntax. He displays significant word-finding problems with a over-reliance on filler words like "thing." This happens as cognitive decline progresses in Alzheimer's. When you see video of his previous self, his verbal communication style looks severely degraded. It's textbook. He at least seems like he's highly forgetful. And to top it all off, he's got a family history of the condition.

There's also little things like him reportedly being afraid of walking on stairs. That's a classic Alzheimer's sign. The reason people with Alzheimer's type dementia have a fear of stairs is because early on the brain deterioration hits areas of the brain that process depth perception and color contrast. This makes it hard to judge how steep the stairs are making them look scary and the prospect of walking on them difficult. As the condition worsens, they can look like bottomless pits in front of their feet and be terror-inducing.

But, just because it's textbook doesn't mean we can diagnose from afar. There's other options to explain this. Trump also is an unintelligent BS artist and his non-descriptive language just be what he resorts when he's in way over his head. Ditto for him seeming to forget simple things. His impulsive, offensive bursts just might be part of his long-standing personality. He might have always been stair-phobic. That would explain all of this just the same.

There are two disturbing things I think you can take away from his dementia-like behavior:

1) How could you possibly tell if the president - President Trump that is - was developing dementia? How would it differ from his baseline behavior? If he isn't developing dementia now, he could at some point in the future and I'm not sure we'd have any way of knowing. It's not like the public can demand he do a clock-draw for them. ?Not being able to tell if the president is going senile certainly isn't a good thing.

2) Merely acting like you have dementia and actually having dementia aren't all that different in terms of undesirable traits to have in a president.

I'd add a third, separate from Trump himself:

3) In our current political environment, a man who may or may not have dementia - but who gives the world lots of evidence that his mental state is in a freefall - can not only win the nomination of one of our two major political parties, but can then go on to win the election and receive the unflagging support of a broad swath of the country.

Partisanship has developed to such an extent that some would rather keep a dangerously mentally unfit person in office and refuse to acknowledge anything abnormal about his behavior rather than concede anything to the other side, or alternatively the Republicans have degenerated to such an extent that the most inspiring face of their politics among their base is a man who is suffering from a degenerative mental illness.

Remember when Trump claimed to have invented the phrase "prime the pump?" You see stuff like that all the time in dementia. It's wild that he's such a clownish, grandiose BS'er that you can't tell the difference.
Jun 27, 2017 2:17 PM
If Trump is suffering from Alzheimer's and his behavior represents him being right in the thick of it, he's extremely likely to fall completely apart within a 3-8 year window. So we'll eventually know if that's what is going on.

In the meantime, there are medications he should be taking if he's got competent medical professionals around him that would be a dead giveaway. That's something that could be leaked even if it shouldn't be. Also, he might not have competent medical professionals around him:

[img]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2466206.1450174344!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/harold-bornstein.jpg[/img]

Jun 27, 2017 3:08 AM
Trump definitely behaves as though he has first stage Alzheimer's symptoms. He's impulsive, aggressive, and prone to random bursts of vulgarity and threats. Even his defenders routinely describe him acting like an impulsive toddler to his own detriment. Trump's language is reminiscent in dementia in that it lacks complexity in vocabulary and syntax. He displays significant word-finding problems with a over-reliance on filler words like "thing." This happens as cognitive decline progresses in Alzheimer's. When you see video of his previous self, his verbal communication style looks severely degraded. It's textbook. He at least seems like he's highly forgetful. And to top it all off, he's got a family history of the condition.

There's also little things like him reportedly being afraid of walking on stairs. That's a classic Alzheimer's sign. The reason people with Alzheimer's type dementia have a fear of stairs is because early on the brain deterioration hits areas of the brain that process depth perception and color contrast. This makes it hard to judge how steep the stairs are making them look scary and the prospect of walking on them difficult. As the condition worsens, they can look like bottomless pits in front of their feet and be terror-inducing.

But, just because it's textbook doesn't mean we can diagnose from afar. There's other options to explain this. Trump also is an unintelligent BS artist and his non-descriptive language could just be what he resorts when he's in way over his head. Ditto for him seeming to forget simple things. His impulsive, offensive bursts just might be part of his long-standing personality. He might have always been stair-phobic. That would explain all of this just the same.

There are two disturbing things I think you can take away from his dementia-like behavior:

1) How could you possibly tell if the president - President Trump that is - was developing dementia? How would it differ from his baseline behavior? If he isn't developing dementia now, he could at some point in the future and I'm not sure we'd have any way of knowing. It's not like the public can demand he do a clock-draw for them. Not being able to tell if the president is going senile certainly isn't a good thing.

2) Merely acting like you have dementia and actually having dementia aren't all that different in terms of undesirable traits to have in a president.
Jun 27, 2017 2:54 AM
Recently I had to discuss an accusation of theft with a person who has an autism spectrum disorder. The very first thing she said was, "You can't prove that I did it."

Improbably, team Trump is managing to seem more obviously guilty than that in the past couple of days.
Jun 26, 2017 4:47 PM
I've seen 5 different Trump-allied Fox personalities argue recently that there's nothing wrong with Russian collusion. Then there's Trump's recent tweets misleadingly deflecting collusion charges to Dems and claiming no tapes exist.

I've always thought making the story entirely about collusion is a big mistake, but this is yet another example of Trump behaving in such a guilty-seeming way.
Jun 26, 2017 4:39 PM
I binge watched GLOW yesterday. I thought the drama elements were uneven with some of the developments being more of a soap opera twist than organic writing. I can't tell if that was supposed to be a meta-joke since soap opera is a theme of the show, but I didn't care for it either way. The Bad News Bears comedy aspect was on point and I found it enjoyable throughout. Marc Maron's character is 1 and a half notes, but god damn can he deliver sad-sack quips with impeccable timing.

I agree with the comment above that it gets better in the second half as the characters develop their wrestling personas.

Speaking of meta, I couldn't tell if having a gratuitous nude locker room scene right after the scene lamenting lack of non-stereotypical female acting jobs was supposed to be a joke or not.
Jun 25, 2017 11:31 PM
Oh my god. I just looked into the story you referenced HK. That room was a joke. No wonder our GM hiring process was a dumpster fire.
Jun 24, 2017 5:54 PM
HurricaneKidWhelp EA I'm finally ready to admit our FO is a joke. Lasry's kid Alex?is a complete douche and knows NOTHING about basketball but as rich folks do, daddy gave him a SVP title with the Bucks.? Who cares I think, its his money and he cannot possibly have any decision making role within the organization. Last night he tweeted a picture of the Bucks?War Room with him and Mallory (20 year old hottie who offered Porzingis a private plane ride to Milw yesterday on Twitter)?with more prominent seats than our new GM Horst, though Rod Thorn appeared to be leading the meeting. JKidd was there with his?toddler running around and with about 75 min before our pick he had our draft board up. That's right, our douchey owners kid?tweeted our draft board.

I had always assumed three of the most prominent hedge fund managers in the world would run a clean FO and despite some obvious stumbles gave them the benefit of the doubt. But this changes everything for me. When half your draft room is owners/coaches kids you cannot hope that we take you seriously and you can be sure the rest of the league feels the same way.?They were just rich enough to buy better toys than the rest of us.

Fantastic. I didn't know about this story until now. We tweeted our draft board? That explains the stories of the Nets wanting to trade up to 15. They really liked D.J. Wilson and probably wanted to snatch him up before we drafted.

I've been under the impression that Lasry is a trainwreck and Edens is a good owner just based on leaked stories about what each owner has wanted to do.

The Bucks have a lot of important decisions this off-season. Things could go south quickly if the wrong moves are made. I hope we don't overpay Snell.

Thorn is a hack who had Michael Jordan fall into his lap.

Jun 24, 2017 5:51 PM
I remember the 2011 draft was viewed as a garbage draft with mostly borderline players. If you look at it in retrospect, it's one of the best drafts of the century. Since this is the near total reverse in that this is viewed as a deep, high quality draft, let's see if it also plays out in reverse.
Jun 23, 2017 4:31 AM
The Celtics couldn't outbid Minnesota on that trade? Maybe Danny Ainge just has a serious hoarding problem.
Jun 23, 2017 12:54 AM
Paquito
Esoteric AllusionI failed hard here. Don't make it worse than it already is.

Don't worry ab...


Esoteric AllusionWe should go around calling people pedophiles on a hunch.

WTF EA

Pedophile.
Jun 23, 2017 12:53 AM
Double post
Jun 22, 2017 7:08 PM
ZubenI find this infuriating, but I've had this conversation many times and never failed to make the basic argument that EA failed to. It bugs me that he shat the bed on this one as hard as he did. Also, Nabokov is as likely a pedophile as anyone else I guess, except probably less so because he wrote a book about how shitty being a pedophile would be. The idea that it's "for" pedophiles is LOL.

Hold up now. I did explain the narrator is monstrous, unreliable, and not a direct reflection of the author. I could've done it way better, but I crashed and burned. My argument for why he's not a pedophile was more or less what you said. Most people aren't and his authorial interests don't really change our calculus much. We should go around calling people pedophiles on a hunch. But by that point I was being shut down by the "you don't know that" coming from multiple people. That's because I said he's not instead of "probably not" and got backed into prove a negative territory.

I failed hard here. Don't make it worse than it already is.
Jun 22, 2017 7:08 PM
Three points:

1) I didn't respond intelligently as I could have. I was very defensive and red-faced. This is because I was under suspicion for being a sexual deviant for bringing up the book and saying I liked it. Also the comments felt so wrong-headed that I got flabbergasted. My more robotic, cool-headed analytic side wasn't exactly shining through.

2) I should have stressed this more, but the main person who I was interacting with professinonally works with pedophiles/sex offenders. It's not just that she thinks authors and 1st person narrators are the same thing. It's that she thinks she can read into the text and tell that he's a non-offending pedophile sating his abnormal appetite by writing pedo-fantasy.

3) When I tried to defend my position, she accused me of mansplaining things. She often does this in a half-joking half-serious fashion. We get along fine and she's not being hostile about it. Still, I'm the *only* male in the group and that stuff throws me off because there is a legitimate subtext of possible sexism on my part if I try to explain something to woman.

Social services, folks.
Jun 22, 2017 4:35 PM
Hypothetical question: Let's say some ultra-wealthy liberal/libertarianish tech billionaires bought up major sources of right-wing media and moderated it. So, suppose Fox News was overpaid for by a billionaire and they cleaned house to make it more like BBC-America or something along those lines.

How much of an effect would this have on the prevalence of coordinated, right-wing propaganda on the conservative information diet? Could another investor simply enter that market niche and rapidly recreate a Fox News? How quickly?
Jun 22, 2017 5:57 AM
In Trump's campaign rally, because we're doing that now, he bragged about having the president of Goldman Sachs in his cabinet and the importance of surrounding himself with rich people. The audience clapped and hoooted like trained seals. It's a minor thing, but we're under a year out from when Clinton was absolutely crushed, including by the Trump campaign, but especially by media coverage choices, for far more tenuous connections to investment banking. That's not to say those connections weren't a valid point of political interest, but it's doubtful she was going to go hard on appointing their leadership to major posts while giving them the keys to set policy for their industry.

It's just disheartening to see none of that matter even though in the abstract I know issue like that are actually meaningless to most people.

Jun 22, 2017 5:43 AM
A draft version of the Senate AHCA has got out. It, to my surprise, is significantly harsher than the house bill in exchange for a longer roll-out of cuts so the real effects take place after elections happen.

Planned Parenthood is defunded in that draft version. I'm not surprised by that.

It's increasingly looking like the core Medicaid program, not the Obama expansion, really is going to take some significant cuts. That's probably going to devastate people with long-term disabilities.

Jun 22, 2017 5:39 AM
Janson JinnistanIn some thread about separating a work of art from a morally-challenged artist, I mentioned an anecdote from Hunter S. Thompson about how at a lunch somewhere, Nabokov had brought a young girl companion. ?Ergill called me out on this, and I spent quite a bit of google time trying to find any corroboration for this lifestyle, and not only couldn't find it, but had a hard time finding the Thompson quote, which was from a magazine interview somewhere. ?I conceded that it was unlikely that Nabokov was actually a hebephile (for accuracy).

The book should be defended, and the confusing of fiction and autobiography is a sin against literacy. ?But...some things work best in inner dialogue.

(Q: did you happen to be the oldest person in the room?)

Same age rangeish. The person who never heard of it is 10 years or so younger than me, though.

The implication that people who like the novel are pedophiles *really* put me on the defensive. I kept pulling up novel rankings from major publications to try and give a sense of just how widely respected the work is, seemingly to no effect. Eventually, that folded into me assuming too much by insisting that Nabokov wasn't a closet pedophile. I went down hard.
Jun 22, 2017 4:42 AM
Little Ash
Esoteric AllusionAt work today a potential new hire named "Lolita" was discussed in a meeting I was in. I made a joke about the idea that she must be really old or her parents made some bad choices.

A coworker of mine explained that's disgusting because it references a book by written by a pedophile that is enjoyed by pedophiles. Lolita is my favorite novel and I immediately got defensive and pointed that fact and that it is widely considered to be one of the finest novels in the English language. I started pulling up "best of" lists to point that out. ?Another coworker pointed out that maybe this woman's parents never heard of the book. I said it's very well-known. She said she's never heard of it. The other coworker again explained the basic gist of the novel, but took the narrator as a vehicle for Nabokov's desire to write lurid scenes of child exploitation to have a virtuous outlet for his pedophilic desires. It should be noted that she works with sex offender programs. I explained that the narrator is unreliable and a monsterous person, and the author should not be confused for the story. She again reiterated that the author is a pedophile. I said he isn't. The room then chimed in and explained that I have no way of knowing that. ?I started to talk about why I would doubt that is the case, but at that point I lost the room and I think it was agreed I have no right to say this pedophile book wasn't written by a secret pedophile.

I've made some bad choices.


Was it ever established the co-worker who summarized the book as a pedophilic bit of erotica, ever read the book (beyond maybe just snippets of it)? Or just knew the plot? I wonder if she feels the same way towards the movies.
Also, chimpanzee at a zoo painting the bars of its cage and all that.

She said she read it and wasn't impressed, but found it disturbing. I referenced the movies, but no one, including her, had seen them. I was drowning at that point, though.

I was very surprised and confused about how all that went down.
Jun 22, 2017 4:35 AM
HoboJoe
Esoteric Allusion
HoboJoe
Esoteric AllusionI'd trade Porzingis for the #3, Zizic, Brown, and their next high-end pick.

Seems like a lot, but I think Boston would be smart to cash in their chips for that. Porzingis is a freak of nature that I'm sure Brad Stevens could maximize. ?Win/Win.


If Phil is seriously considering trading Porzingis because he wants Jackson that's too much to give up. Philly isn't trading for him period and LAL isn't trading number 2 plus another big asset. Phoenix isn't trading #4 and Booker, and Sacramento has nothing to trade other than #10, and Jackson will likely be gone by then anyway.

Phil has said before that his biggest mistake was not picking Jae Crowder. If I'm Boston I offer #3 (guaranteed to be Jackson), Crowder, either Smart or Bradley, and a later round first or two. No one else with a shot at Jackson is beating that offer.

You know, they could just not trade Porzingis, right? That's a joke offer.

Of course Phil shouldn't trade Porzingis. But the operating assumption is that Phil wants to trade him to get Josh Jackson. Phil is not getting a better offer than that Boston deal unless LA trades #2 and Ingram or if Phoenix trades #4 and Booker, neither of which are happening.

If Phil comes back and says he'll only do it for #3, Crowder, Brown, and Zizic I'd still do it. But the operating assumption is that Jackson wants Jackson, so why bid against yourself if you're Boston?

You're writing this post like you are actively engaging in a negotiation. You just should write what you think is reasonable, not a low-ball offer to see if Jackson will bite. Phil Jackson isn't posting here. Yes, Ainge should offer Marcus Smart if he thinks Jackson will bite at that. Assuming Jackson is going act as an idealized GM, like how we ordinarily discuss our opinion of reasonable trades, then he should expect more than what you offered. If not, pull him off the market.

There's supposedly a offer frenzy for Porzingis out there and I think you're wrong about the quality of offers he can pull in from non-Celtic teams. Porzingis should command a very high price. He's one of the best trade values in the entire league and has a rare body-type skill set that you can build a team around. You need to demand a lot for that or not trade him.

I think the Celtics would be wise to start cashing in their assets so they can translate what are ultimately lottery tickets into actualized talent that fits within a competitive window. If the Knicks are going to trade a young franchise player, they should ask for a lot tickets if that's what they are getting in return. Read a list of #2, #3 picks and see what the range of possibilities are there.
Jun 22, 2017 4:09 AM