Taar Koth

[Mack @kenzietuff]

Words used to mean something.

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@MadKamikazius Embrace the healing power of 'and'.

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@MisterChilango @Vikinghistory

[𝔃𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔞𝔯𝔦𝔞𝔰 𝔰 @OrdinariateUSA]

This wasn’t just an “oopsie, we overreacted” deal, either.

Since the 2021 mass graves allegations, EIGHTY-FIVE churches in Canada have been lit on fire. In response to these targeted religious assaults, Justin Trudeau, who claims Catholicism, said the attacks were “wrong, but understandable”.

Five years and millions of dollars later, 0 mass graves have been found. The same Left who DEMANDED the Church apologize for something unsubstantiated and eventually debunked, has yet to admit fault in condemning the church.

Zero apologies for a deliberate character assassination that led to violence.

Liberals have created a la-la land in their heads, where Christians are cartoonishly evil villains who keep indigenous kids chained up in their church basements. Even when their outlandish, baseless accusations get proven wrong, they plug their ears and go “nuh-uh”.

There is no “reasoning” with these people. They did this on purpose. They want to see churches burned and Christians living in fear. Their end goal is an eradication of our faith, and they’ll do whatever necessary to achieve it. Remember that

[Gabriel J. Benton ☦️🇺🇸 @OrthodoxPole81]

In 1697, Natives kidnapped Hannah Duston from her home in Massachusetts. Then they bashed her newborn baby's head against a tree. Today, people want to vilify her, because she killed her captors in their sleep and scalped them.

Hannah Duston simply did what any true English mother would do.

Pro-Tip: many American Indian tribes weren't exactly nice people.

[The Little Platoon @PlatoonPod]

I don't label myself The Right, but here's a moral argument: it is immoral to pursue policies that don't work - that will make people poorer and their lives harder - just because they make you feel morally superior.

It is immoral to ignore the evidence you don't like.

It is immoral to pursue fashion over truth and ego over practicality. It is immoral to ruin people's lives (including the lives of the poorest) to satisfy your own moral narcissism.

It is immoral to steal. It is immoral to justify theft on the grounds that a consensus wants to steal.

It is immoral to be an MP and be this abjectly stupid.

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@kenzietuff This guy:

[George Alexopoulos @GPrime85]

"Nolan is just reinterpreting the Odyssey, it isn't a big deal"

Here's why it's a big fucking deal: Say you're on a hike. You've never been to this mountain before, but your grandparents have. They were kind enough to leave you signs along the way. Your parents made sure to preserve and keep the signs maintained.

So you walk, trusting their wisdom. Ahead, a signpost arrow points left. But alas! When nobody was looking, some asshole flipped the so that now it's pointing right. Or a whole group of assholes remove all the signs entirely. Now you're lost.

So you call your friend and ask him for advice, but all his signposts have been messed with, too. Nobody knows which way is left or right anymore. What would you conclude?

That you are surrounded by assholes.

Culture is map. It's made by those who have lived before us, made mistakes and achieved triumphs. Maps are made so that those who come after us can navigate more easily, explore new territory, and pass the wisdom on.

Modifying signposts is something you do to an enemy to make them lose their way. It is generational sabotage. If you catch someone trying to do it, don't simply shrug it off.

Figure out why, make it stop, and put the signposts back in the correct place. The stability of the future depends on the wisdom of the past.

[Emerald Apple @AI_EmeraldApple]

How in the hell do The Odyssey's costumes look worse than the 1990's campy B-tier made-for-TV fantasy show?
Xena: Warrior Princess and Hercules both had better costumes that looked more authentic for the "period," despite the massive artistic liberty they took.
Also, the characters were way hotter too, even the extras!

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@Schweinzig @NCParker73 @Nerdrotics And sometimes that's just because the titles were nonsense in the first place and they just named it that because it sounded cool.

[memetic_sisyphus @memeticsisyphus]

So there’s this practice that’s ubiquitous in the world. People kill their own children for favor from the gods. The Bible depicts a man about to carry out the task, when a messenger from God tells him God will not ask this of him. This sets up a culture differentiated from all around it. One that rejects human sacrifice as a means of worship. A moral standard that is spread through its religion and its offshoots. A moral standard that so permeates our culture that now thousands of years later after the religious belief has waned but the morality still holds, an unbeliever points to the story as some horrible wickedness. He points to it as an example of how Christian morality isn’t different than the barbaric practices of others. He’s unable to see how silly his argument is and that’s a shame.

[Gain of Fauci @DschlopesIsBack]

You’re watching a master at work.

[Alyssa Hazel, Page Turner @AlysssaHazel]

The biggest mistake we made as a society was blindly trusting the public school system to educate our children.

The Second biggest was, when we noticed a decline, pouring more money into the admins who steered the schools into the iceberg in the first place.

[Nonstop Winning 🇺🇸 John Rose @RealJohnRose]

I'll actually make the argument since this post is kind of terrible:

Celsius is a naturalist temperature system, just like Kelvin. 0 and 100 degrees Celsius represent phase shifts of water. Systems like this work well for naturalist ends, such as scientific endeavors.

Fahrenheit, not even entirely* on purpose but as a matter of circumstance, ended up scaling numbers more favorably towards human experience. Dan's focus was composite (highly divisible) numbers. Why? Because humans actually hate speaking and looking at fractions and decimals. Round numbers, wherever they are, are easier for us to understand, measure, and mentally track. The central temperature difference being recorded for humans was to put 64 degrees between water freezing and average human body temperature.

Since 64 is 2^6, It's really, really easy to continuously divide on, say, a glass thermometer. You don't need precise measurements. Because the increments are so easy to bisect, a human is able to intuit the temperature distance between hot thing (internal body temp) and cold thing (water freezing)

Pure water freezing at 32 (2^5) means you can more easily intuit the temperature difference between different brine solutions (0 being the coldest mixture he could produce in his lab)

People that grew up on Fahrenheit don't typically know this trivia, but they understand the reality of the numbers. They *feel* it's easier to understand temperature differences (because the scale was made for them to mentally gauge, not perform hard calculations) They feel the temps 0 to 100 encompassing the general range of a human being's temperature experience to make better intuitive sense (If it's close to or under zero, I'm in danger. If it's close to or over 100, I'm in danger)

And as it turns out, while not exactly what they mentally imagine, Dan Fahrenheit was actually making the most human-friendly temperature system possible. While the "composite whole number" aspect of the system fell to more precise calculations later (human temps went from 96 to 98.6) the chosen range works excellently for mental/napkin math and rough estimates made while doing actually productive things requiring more of our attention/brain power.

Celsius and Kelvin fail in these categories. No offense to people adjusted to the Celsius longhouse, but we will keep our very human measurements. Not out of some irrational competition with Celsius, but because we psychologically favor them for non-scientific purposes 100% of the population is engaged with at all times.

And also because we do what we want. We're American. Our world, not yours lol.

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@theelderdrake @andrewhunt_ The only difference will be the emotion felt upon Chani's death.

[Drake @theelderdrake]

We know. They turned Chani into a scowling girlboss. In the books, she was one of Paul’s most loyal supporters. The one who saw him clearly and stood with him as he stepped into destiny.

And yes, it’s obvious what they were trying to do. Undercut the hero. Reframe the story through a more modern lens. But reality is, there are older truths at work here… truths neither Herbert nor Villeneuve can fully suppress.

Why? Because no matter how much you try to deconstruct it, the core of the story remains intact. The call to adventure still beckons. A young man is summoned out of obscurity into greatness. He faces trial, suffering, sacrifice. He becomes something more than himself. Courage. Heroism. Purpose. Destiny. Those truths prevail.

You can try to frame that as a warning. You can try to surround it with doubt, irony, or critique. Herbert himself tried to do exactly that. He wanted Paul to be seen as dangerous, as a cautionary tale about charismatic leaders and messianic power. But audiences don’t experience it that way. They feel the ascent. They recognize the pattern because it’s older than the author. Older than the genre. Older than the medium itself. It’s myth. And myth doesn’t bend easily to intention.

You see the same phenomenon in Starship Troopers. The director made it as satire… an exaggerated parody of militarism, nationalism, and propaganda. It was meant to be absurd, even grotesque. But what do people actually take from it? Duty. Brotherhood. Sacrifice. Service.
The idea that citizenship is earned through commitment to something greater than yourself.

The deeper layer wins. Because again, these are not modern constructions. They are ancient truths. The desire for meaning. The pull toward struggle. The admiration of courage and sacrifice. The instinct to follow strength, to rise, to become… more. You can dress it up in irony. You can try to subvert it. You can even openly argue against it. But if the structure is there, if the archetype is present, it will assert itself. The audience will feel it, whether they’re supposed to or not. The arc still resolves in the same direction: Toward greatness, destiny, and transformation of a man into something more.

The story is not ultimately Villeneuve’s. And it was never fully Herbert’s either. It belongs to something older: myth and legend. The story escapes its author, because it points to something ancient and true.

[Taar Koth @KothTaar]

@DaddyWarpig @The_Dark_Herald The AMC Fathom Events have been great, several Ghibli movies, the Fifth Element, Lawrence of Arabia. Easy to find something actually worth seeing in the theater.

[Patrick Neve @catholicpat]

this is a load-bearing tweet

[Disparu @disparutoo]

Nolan modernising The Odyssey has grown on me over time.

When Himesh Patel turned up as an Uber driver, I clapped.

[Disparu @disparutoo]

The CNN writer who was praising the "subversive, bracingly modern" Odyssey during his review has gone protected 🤣