search results matching tag: parry

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (38)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (1)     Comments (51)   

Oliver Stones thoughts on why Putin invaded Ukraine

eric3579 says...

If you haven't seen it , this doc may interest you.

"Ukraine on Fire"

Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access to the Black Sea. 2014's Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it? "Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which lead to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department. Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.

Can watch here if interested https://youtu.be/fCWBRg6_VsM

noims said:

I'm suffering from serious confirmation bias on this because it agrees with a lot of what I heard around the 2014 revolution and since.

...

LCD Soundsystem - Tonite

rabidness says...

Everybody's singing the same song
It goes "tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight"
I never realized these artists thought so much about dying

But truth be told we all have the same end
Could make you cry, cry, cry, cry, cry
But I'm telling you
This is the best news you're getting all week

Oh sure it's ruling the airwaves
What remains of the airwaves
And we're frankly thankful for the market psychology you're hipping us to

And all the hits are saying the same thing
There's only tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight, tonight
Then life is finite
But shit, it feels like forever
It feels like forever

Oh is everybody feeling the same stuff?
We're all wild
Except for you
And you know who you are
This is a love song

And you're getting older
I promise you this; you're getting older
And there's improvements unless
You're such a winner
That the future's a nightmare
And there's nothing I can do
Nothing anyone can do about this

And oh, I'm offering you a chance to get even
But oh, you know very well the dialect of negation
Sure enemies haunt you with spit and derision
But friends are the ones who can put you in an exile
But that's not right

And you're too sharp to be used
Or you're too shocked from being used
By these bullying children of the fabulous
Raffling off limited edition shoes

And what's it you do again?
Oh I'm a reminder
The hobbled veteran of the disk shop inquisition
Set to parry the cocksure of men's sick filth
With my own late era middle-aged ramblings

Every lover favors the same things
It's all "touch me, touch me, touch me, touch me tonight"
We maybe realize what it is we need before we die

And luck is always better than skill at things
We're flying blind
Oh good gracious
I sound like my mom

But out of the little rooms and onto the streets
You've lost your internet and we've lost our memory
We had a paper trail that led to our secrets
But embarrassing pictures have now all been deleted
By versions of selves that we thought were the best ones
'Till versions of versions of others repeating
Come laughing at everything we thought was important
While still making mistakes that you thought you had learned from
And reasonable people know better than you
That cost in the long run but they don't know the short game
And terrible people know better than you
They're used and abused of the once so dear listener
So you will be badgered and taunted until death
You're missing a party that you'll never get over
You hate the idea that you're wasting your youth
That you stood in the background oh until you got older
But that's all lies
That's all lies

lurgee (Member Profile)

Authentic Medieval Sword Techniques

MilkmanDan says...

@drradon -- It was cool to compare this with the limited stuff I can remember from taking an intro to fencing (foil) class in college.

There was a different parry for incoming attacks to each quarter of your body facing the opponent (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right). And that's just for 2 opponents both using the same general stance and weapon. I'd guess these guys would have different counters for each combination of stance/style, weapon of their opponent, and target area. That's a lot to remember -- although a lot would be relatively consistent across different combos.

I liked the high guard styles (two named "guard of the lady" stood out), because they seemed to pair nicely with "beat attacks" -- where you attack and swing to hit the opponent's weapon rather than their body. Gets their weapon out of position and leaves you in better position to make a second attack that they can't easily parry.

I wasn't very good at fencing. Bad footwork, not good form, and pretty slow on parries. But the one thing that let me win matches was aggression and beat attacks. The instructors and more skilled people could see it coming and dodge or otherwise counter it (especially after they figured out that was the one reliable tool in my box), but it was a fun technique to use for me. Cool to see these guys do pretty much the same thing, but just as a small part of a much bigger bag of tricks than I had.

Authentic Medieval Sword Techniques

Jinx says...

I don't know, but I've seen it before in other demonstrations or illustrations so they must have had good gloves . I figure that the blade was probably only kept sharp at the tip.

from wiki on the ineffectiveness of cutting slashes against full plate:
"To overcome this problem, swords began to be used primarily for thrusting. The weapon was used in the half-sword, with one or both hands on the blade. This increased the accuracy and strength of thrusts and provided more leverage for Ringen am Schwert or "wrestling at/with the sword". This technique combines the use of the sword with wrestling, providing opportunities to trip, disarm, break, or throw an opponent and place them in a less offensively and defensively capable position. During half-swording, the entirety of the sword works as a weapon, including the pommel and crossguard. One example how a sword can be used this way is to thrust the tip of the crossguard at the opponent's head right after parrying a stroke. Another technique would be the Mordstreich (lit. "murder stroke"), where the weapon is held by the blade (hilt, pommel and crossguard serving as an improvised hammer head) and swung, taking advantage of the balance being close to the hilt to increase the concussive effect."

ChaosEngine said:

I don't know much about HEMA, but why would you have a guard that requires you to hold the blade?

I can understand it on a single-edged blade but on a double-edged sword?

Authentic Medieval Sword Techniques

Fencing in slow motion

noims says...

Not far off, but it's all ok. My best friend - his dad - has gone to have a little chat with him. I'm sure it's all sorted by now.

As for the response speed (yes, I was tempted to wait a year or so before posting this), I do remember one night after doing well in a competition I kept being woken up by my right arm doing a parry-riposte. My muscles were acting completely independant of my conscious brain. It was one of the weirdest feelings I've ever had.

ChaosEngine said:

A student went over to the dark side and you swore you'd never teach people to kill again?

But now you have to come out of retirement to hunt down your former student because you're "the only one who knows him"?

I'm always impressed by the sheer response speed of fencers.

Fencing in slow motion

noims says...

As a (slightly retired) fencer I love this, but I'd say a couple of things about the description.

The 'whap on the back' needs to apply 500g of pressure for 15ms in order to count. The time rule came in a while back to discourage 'flicking' - that exact problem.

The idea of dropping someone 'before he strikes back' is central to the roots of foil (fleuret in the video) and sabre. Essentially, if your opponent is attacking you have to parry them as a priority. The foil was traditionally the practice weapon which prioritised blows to vital areas, and defence over attack. Unfortunately, this also makes them very hard to follow if you don't know what you're watching.

Great video though. Makes me want to pick up a weapon again. Feel free to imagine some tragedy that made me swear never to fence again.

Jon Stewart on Charleston Terrorist Attack

scheherazade says...

Terrorist attacks are more multifaceted.

First, they are an opportunity to generate work for the defense industry.

Second, they are usually for a reason. Often some angst over our own actions in foreign countries. For example, the news says AQ is a bunch of crazies that hate freedom, however AQs demands prior to 9/11 were to get our military out of the holyland. While that's not an offense that deserves blowing up buildings, it is definitely not the same as some banal excuse like hating freedom.

Thirdly, they are often perpetrated by some persons/groups that we had a hand in creating. We install the mujahedin in Afghanistan, knowing full well what they'll do to women, and then use their treatment of women as one excuse to later invade. Saddam worked for us, was egged on to fight Iran, was egged on to suppress insurgents (the 'own people he gassed'), and we later used his actions as one excuse to invade.

At the time, the mujaheddin was useful for fighting Russia as a proxy. At the time, Saddam was useful for perpetuating a war where we sold arms to both sides. Afterwards, they were useful for scaremongering so we could perpetuate war when otherwise things got too quiet and folks would ask about why we're spending big $$$ on defense.. (In the mean time hand-waving the much more direct 9/11 Saudi connection).

... Plus if on the off chance things do 'settle down' in areas we invade, that creates new markets for US companies to peddle their wares. You can reopen the Khyber pass for western land trade with Asia, you can build an oil pipeline, and you can prevent a euro based oil exchange from opening in the middle east. All things that benefit our industry.

So in practice, as far as big industry is concerned, there's a utility in 'fighting terrorism' (and perpetuating terrorism) that just doesn't exist with internal shootings. As such, unless another 'evil empire' shows up, the terrorism cow is gonna get milked for the foreseeable future.

Sure, there's a rhetoric about preventing terrorism, but our actions do nothing to that effect. It's just a statement that's useful in manufacturing consent.

There's a particular irony, though. That is, that while such behavior is 'not very nice' (to put it mildly), it does however provide for our security by keeping our armed forces exercised, prepared, and up to date - such that if a real threat were to emerge, our military would be ready at that time. While that seems unlikely, when you look back in history at previous major conflicts, most were precipitated rather quickly, on the order of months (it takes many years to design and build equipment for a military, and the first ~half a year of any major war has been fought with what was on hand). So in a round-about, rather evolutionary way, perpetuating threats actually does make us safer as a whole.

To clarify the word 'evolutionary' : Take 10 microbes. All 10 have no militant nature. None are made for combat. It only takes 1 to mutate and become belligerent in order to erase all the others from existence. If some others also mutate to be combative, they will survive. The non combative are lost, their reproductive lines cut off. As there's always a chance to mutate to anything at any time, eventually, there is a combative mutation. So, all life on earth has a militant nature at some layer of abstraction - those that exist are those that successfully resisted some force (or parried the force to its benefit. Like plants that use a plant eater's dung to fertilize the seeds of the eaten fruit).

The relationship holds true at a biological level, interpersonal, societal, national, and international level. Societies that allow the kind of educational and military development that leads to victory, are those that have dominated the planet socially and economically. For example, Europe's centuries of infighting made it resistant to invasions from the Mongols, Caliphates, etc, and ultimately led to the age of colonialism. For the strengths built with infighting, are later leveraged for expansion. As such, the use of "terrorism" to perpetuate conflict, is ultimately an exercise in developing strength that can later be leveraged.

Our national policy is largely developed in think tanks, and those organizations are planning lifetimes ahead. So these kinds of considerations are very relevant.

TL/DR : Yes, agreed, the terrorism thing is B.S. on many levels.

-scheherazade

modulous said:

Terrorist attacks are really rare too. The US government seems happy to 'turn the country inside out' to be seen to be catching and preventing them.

star wars prequel-nostalgia critic gets owned by Mr plinkett

Xaielao says...

How much can this be repeated? The saber fights in the OT were FAR more realistic. The new ones they are barely paying attention, flipping and twisting and spinning and twirling their weapons around in a flashy, showy obviously choreographed dance.In the OT they fought much more slowly but with precision, focus and skill. Each blow had purpose beyond pretty colors flashing on screen. Nobody EVER turned their back on their opponent or (for fuck sake) leaped over them. It helps that the sabre fighting was choreographed by the legendary Bob Anderson who coached Errol Flynn and played Vader in the sabre fights himself.

I know, in this day in age everything in the movies has to be fast, showy and mesmerizing but those original Star Wars sabre duels are so memorable because they were raw and realistic. You think when life or death hangs in the balance you ever actually turn your back to your opponent? Or swirl your weapon flashily? No you make every strike, country, parry and guard a deliberate action. It's about outmaneuvering and out thinking your opponent, not how many blows you get in per second.

star wars prequel-nostalgia critic gets owned by Mr plinkett

Jinx says...

Couldn't agree more on the lightsaber fights.

I think it was Lucas himself who asked that the lightsaber should be moved as if it had real weight even though it was made of, well, light. I think the fact the actors appear to have to exert themselves to throw and parry blows makes the whole thing seem more intense despite the slower pace of the fight. Vader crumbles under the shear force of the enraged Luke's blows - does anybody ever get overpowered in this manner in the prequels? I understand this logic that Jedi at the height of the Republic would be more skilled with a blade, but it results in two characters flailing around striking the air in front of their opponent with blows that appear to have no force behind them at all.

Inside Competitve Longsword Fighting

MilkmanDan says...

I did fencing in college, but only foil -- didn't get into it enough for epee or saber. Rating quality of a hit and control both seem like they would be good additions to the judging in fencing to me.

"Right of way", which can be gained by attacking first or reclaimed by making a successful parry and counterattack is a decent substitute, but the concept of "control" as they describe it sounds more pragmatic/real.

ChaosEngine said:

Good to see the last criteria of control. I see a lot of "sword sports" where you win by scoring a hit regardless of how open you are to a counter attack.

enoch (Member Profile)

radx says...

Three in a row, if I may.

- Washington Post cranks the propaganda up to 11 in its editorial: Putin’s propoganda keeps Russians in the dark about Ukraine and more

- Robert Parry gives a quick overview of the desolate state of media affairs vis-a-vis Ukraine: Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine?

- US intelligence veterans go public with a warning about the ongoing propaganda war: Memorandum For: Angela Merkel: Beware of Fixed Intelligence on Ukraine-- Think WMDs

How to wield a longsword

Chairman_woo says...

I agree. Normal/medium sized two handers seem to pretty much all be designed to allow you greater control rather than to add power (an axe or mace is always going to be better for that).

Wieldyness is much more important for them than power. As Lindy himself mentions in another vid swords like the Katana and longsword are backups and personal protection weapons not primary weapons of war. Convenient to carry around, and handy for parrying blows & grappling but second fiddle to almost any dedicated battlefield weapon (Spears, Naginata, maces etc.).

The most notable exception that springs to mind is the Roman Gladius, but it could be described as a glorified short spear with bonus cutting abilities rather than what most people think of as a sword. Rapiers and scimitars could also be thought of as more like spears and axes respectively in this sense.

And then there's the huge specialised warswords like claymores and Zweihanders but as lindy suggests in yet another vid they are a specialised tool for berserker charges and maybe advancing through a pikewall. Certainly not something you'd want to have a duel with or carry around at your waist.

Longswords and Katanas are like modern pistols. Good side-arms, but almost never a primary weapon of war. (Hollywood fails again)


Also.....Longsword totally > Katana. A well made longsword can hold just as sharp an edge as a Katana, has quillons to hook and lever an opponent and a straight focused point that can puncture steel plate. Katanas can maybe dismember someone easier, but that's about it.(all IMHO obviously)

ChaosEngine said:

I'm far from an expert, but I've spent a lot of time practicing with a bokken (wooden training sword) and the technique he shows here (control/pivot with the right hand, cut with the left) is pretty much identical to a Japanese sword cut (at least as practiced in Aikido and Iaido).

Of course, we all know that Katanas are crap the BEST SOWARD EVAAR!

How to swordfight like a true Viking

MilkmanDan says...

>> ^mentality:
Isn't high level fencing aggressive because it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first? That sort of scoring system seems to naturally favor the one with the aggression and initiative.


Generally yes, it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first. There are "right of way" rules to establish who has the initiative and the right to attack, and in fencing as a sport there are actually judges to make rulings on whether or not a touch should be thrown out because the attacker didn't have the right of way. It can get confusing.

Basically, whoever attacks first takes the right of way, but their opponent can take it back by successfully making a parry. It gets gray when both people attack at nearly the same time, their swords/foils/whatever touch but not enough to deflect a touch, and both attacks hit. Usually they wear vests with sensors to light up and say who got hit first, but I think a judge can overrule that if they think that the person that got hit first had tried to parry/riposte the original attack.

I'd tend to say that just further explains my stance that it can't really be "realistic"; if it were an actual duel we wouldn't need judges and electric vests to say that person A or B touched first and therefore "won". Instead, they'd both be dead and we could safely say they both lost.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon