Posts by ironcyclist78

Look, there's already a thread for this, and I was thinking... 🙏

Before I finally heard them, I didn't realize how much weight words could actually carry. I had no clue you could weave such a heavy, layered, and gut-wrenching narrative through just 15 tracks, which is exactly what they pulled off with Operation Mindcrime. They ditched the party anthems and love songs for hard-hitting commentary on corruption, politics, drugs, prostitution, and manipulation—all mixed with raw personal confessions like "I don't believe in love, never have and never will." And the best part? There’s zero preaching or lecturing. Not once. Honestly, the music was almost more powerful than the lyrics. Fast, aggressive, and devastating.

That was my turning point. Even they couldn't escape the pull of commercialization with Empire, though they seemed to catch themselves in time. You really need to listen to Promised Land at least 20 times before you can even begin to wrap your head around that album. There's too much depth buried in there to catch on a single spin.

Now, all eyes are on Operation Mindcrime 2. The legend continues in a few days (or so the early April announcements say), and you can already get a taste by checking out the two bootleg tracks on their site.

They weren't the only ones doing something like this, but they were definitely one of the rare ones. Sure, they had their share of stumbles—Rage for Order being a prime example—but they've always been one of my favorite bands.

Jack Harris3 said:they didn't pick Reese Witherspoon after that nonsense she pulled at the awards ceremony...

What happened there? I missed that part...

It’s essentially a movie about June Carter.🙂 She has this presence—so strong and charismatic that she completely commands the screen, arguably more than Joaquin Phoenix does.

As for the plot itself, there isn't much that hasn't been done before.

But that dynamic between Carter & Cash? That’s the real deal. It’s beautifully executed, though I won't claim to know how accurate it is since I didn't know much about June Carter going in.

Debt. said:On a different note:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that an original Compact Disc only lasts about 15 years before it gives up the ghost. Burned ones don't fare much better. Then again, those are practically free. If you want longevity, go with Vinyl Records—they'll probably outlast us all by a few centuries. Just some food for thought.

I’m still leaning toward Vinyl Records. You forgot one thing, though: even when you buy them new—let alone second-hand—they can be scratched up. When that happens, they skip like crazy, popping and crackling like a broken-down old Chevy. With a Compact Disc, even a burned one that’s been passed around or slightly damaged, you rarely deal with those kinds of issues. At least, not for me.

That’s the main perk of a Compact Disc, but I have to agree with the earlier comments—nothing quite replaces the experience of a Vinyl Record. It’s about the tactile experience. You can’t replicate that physical connection through a screen. Don't even get me started on the price gouging happening with Compact Discs. And now I’m hearing they're hiking prices again under the guise of "copyright fees." Fooy!

cro Fag said:Fair enough,
but we're talking about school bullying here.

Bullying is incredibly common in America—
the surveys back it up.
Plus, recent pedophilia scandals show that the issue has spread through almost every major American institution.

Is there any way to fix this?

Or do we just accept it as business as usual in a country where nothing works and nobody bothers to fix things when they go south?
😕

Like I said, threads on bullying and pedophilia were opened pretty recently. I don't mind another one, but a lot of interesting points have already been made over there. Good luck finding new conclusions; I've already said my piece.

That said, reading through some of these comments (especially that quote from Discoverij), it got me thinking about general societal aggression and how much we tolerate it—and how we essentially "get used" to it. Maybe we can tackle that another time.

Good luck!

Bullying has come up here before, maybe four or five months ago, and I think someone already started a thread about workplace harassment over in the career section.

But the idea that we had to purge "aggressive types by passing laws and implementing behavioral regulations" just because "without those mechanisms, people simply wouldn't survive" doesn't hold water for me. Aggression is one of the most prominent human traits; frankly, the aggressors are often the ones who stand out most in any society. Unfortunately. They might not be throwing punches, but they have plenty of other ways to exert dominance.

Since we're talking about quotes, here’s another one I find myself agreeing with more than I'd like:
"Violence was, and perhaps still is, a prerequisite for human development. The human species conquers the world through aggression and greed. (…) Why do some men brutally abuse women and children? It is a regrettable peculiarity of the human race. Among other higher mammals, males fight each other for mates, but rarely mistreat the females or their offspring."
Yvonne Knibiehler, Sexuality Through History

Walter Wilson said:-----------------------------------------------------

😂

Glad I managed to get a laugh out of someone without having to dig through my collection of Groucho Marx jokes...

Walter Wilson said:It doesn't really have much to do with "roads," but whatever you say..🙂

Fair enough, I was using the road as a metaphor. I could have picked something else, but I thought the point I made—and explained twice—was pretty clear. I didn't view this thread as a debate over civil engineering; I saw it as a discussion about a specific aspect of human sexuality and the rights tied to it.

Walter Wilson said:And which roads don't have a way back?...😎

In this context, it’s those roads you take when you’ve made a specific sacrifice, only to feel strangely compelled to lecture others about it. If someone chooses to live a celibate lifestyle, fine—that’s their choice and it deserves respect. But there's no point in that same person trying to school everyone else on sex and sexuality, right?

I could expand on my "road theory" here 😁but let's stay on topic.

On paper, this movie had everything going against it. I went into the theater expecting a disaster, but it turned out to be the exact opposite—brilliant, original, and technically flawless. Looking back, there might be a hint of melodrama in certain spots, but I wouldn't call it predictable. If I had to sum it up in two words, it was intense—intense acting, an intense story, and intense attention to every single detail. I’ve never been much of a fan of Stephen King adaptations, but this one hit differently.

nimbletrucker9 said:Did Neanderthals have more sophisticated non-verbal communication since they lacked everything else?
That’s an interesting one..

It crossed my mind too. Does anyone actually have an answer—and I mean a smart one, not just some random guess from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?

Anthony Harris14 said:Please, please🎉

Generally speaking, I think prioritizing nonverbal cues over verbal ones depends entirely on the specific situation and the context at hand.

That smiley face is a nice touch. I’m not sure what it’s meant to convey, but it’s cute.

Yeah, exactly—that’s what I was just talking about regarding what you just mentioned. Remember, you also said this:

Nonverbal communication has its place; in certain scenarios, it provides more info than words, but it all boils down to the context. It will remain just as vital today as it was 100 or even 1,000 years ago.

I completely agree with your first point. In fact, there are cases where mastering nonverbal cues is a matter of life and death—think tactical military operations.

As for your second sentence, I’ll take it and run with it: yes, it will be important, but how important? In my own small way, I’d argue that nonverbal communication wasn't actually as dominant 100 or 1,000 years ago as people claim it is now. Looking at historical patterns, it’s always been relevant, but generally, it hasn't outpaced verbal communication. Okay, I’m generalizing now (and I usually hate when people do that, so feel free to call me out). I get the impression there’s a modern push to put nonverbal cues on a pedestal they haven't earned. Ultimately, I might agree with Quinn regarding "proportional" importance.

And I’m fully on board with your final thought, especially since it’s much more precise than the other sentence I just dissected. From my perspective, that’s a fair way to look at it.

...But that doesn't mean Oestreich, the author of that piece, is automatically wrong. If someone sits down for a chat with Slobodan Maddox without having any clue about the actual complexity of the situation in Mexico, doista they might drop a total heresy regarding Maddox—something like independence. You laid out the premise well, but you didn't actually prove anything. You assumed a possibility and interpreted it through your own lens, which is fine. But what's the end result?

It’s the same logic I’d use to trip myself up. My own experiences that made me skeptical of non-verbal communication aren't enough to dismantle the entire theory behind it, right? Generally speaking, it isn't even enough that linguistics, by its strict definitions, doesn't explicitly validate the importance of such cues. But
then again, simply "being right" isn't always enough to establish your own truth or dismantle someone else's argument.

And so... you mentioned another interesting point earlier. I didn't quote it, but it's interesting enough that I'm just waiting for the right moment to turn it to my advantage (he he).

Anthony Harris14 said:Objection sustained—maybe he's just acting like it hurts...😁

Heh. Nuance isn't just for painters. You were actually spot on, but... (more to follow once we receive your formal written request)

Anthony Harris14 said:Looking at the subtext here, whoever said that to Slobodan Maddox clearly knew exactly what "independence" meant in this context. They didn't seem particularly worried about upsetting him or causing him to walk away from the negotiating table.

Objection, your honor. That's pure speculation...

placidfox52 said:Nonverbal cues matter, but context is everything. If someone tells you "I love you" while staring blankly at the TV, that 7% rule definitely applies—maybe even less. 😁 When the body language doesn't match the words, it’s hard to buy what they're saying, right?

Almost missed this one. Yeah, your point stands, and there are plenty of examples like it.

But look at it this way: if the person receiving the message takes it at face value, regardless of the tone, that message carries much more weight for them than it does for the sender. You end up with a misunderstanding that needs fixing. How do you fix it? With actual words. In this case, verbal communication acts as the damage control for the nonverbal slip-up. That's my point, and it applies to pretty much any scenario.

By the way, placidfox52, thanks for the interesting read. That theory about all communication styles and contexts being on equal footing is still much more grounded than the aggressive obsession with nonverbal cues we see everywhere.

The bit about emojis is interesting. Personally, I just use them to make the text easier to scan. For most of them, I don't really grasp what they're actually meant to convey or when the right time to use them is anyway.

Anthony Harris14 said:I was thinking about how somewhere on the path from experts to everyday people—the non-experts—every interesting new discovery becomes something that supposedly replaces everything that came before it.

That’s an interesting point. Pretty spot on, too. The real question is how long that "replacement" phase actually lasts. Look at any major literary movement or the boom of psychoanalysis. From my perspective, I wonder how long these current "breakthroughs" in nonverbal communication or emotional intelligence will keep both experts and laypeople preoccupied. Regardless, thanks for the insight. It gave me something to chew on.

wiredbison92 said:Of course Hitler had high EI. To manipulate the masses like that, you have to understand them inside and out...
And he wasn't just emotionally intelligent; he was smart, too. He was just a deeply disturbed individual who tried to "purify" the world... in the worst way possible.

Damn, I was actually expecting someone to jump down my throat—maybe one of those Daniel Goleman disciples coming at me because I brought up Hitler. But this response? Surprisingly rational and level-headed. Is the New Age movement finally losing its grip?

Basically, you laid out the flip side of the coin with such surgical precision that it didn't even cross my mind when I wrote my initial comment. It felt too absurd, too far-fetched. But looking back... yeah. A whole book could be written about that paradox.

Anthony Harris14 said:People hear about something once and suddenly think they’ve mastered it, dismissing everything else as garbage. They act like humans are going to stop talking altogether and just rely on body language.😵

Sorry, but since we're talking about verbal communication, could you actually put into words—not emojis—what you meant by that? I might owe an explanation too: I called this a fad because it feels like these theories on nonverbal cues mostly gain traction through cheap TV shows or movies. In both linguistics and psychology, I can't find any real evidence to back up that much emphasis.