Scandinavia and the World
Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9423704:


Still a long way 17 11, 12:44am

@Gelderland
Yeah, brevity is not my strong suit, lol.

Ah, well, for me, sentimental/nostalgic reasons don't really play any role in my enjoyment of playing or watching sports, but they can for other areas in my life, so I guess I get it.

Oh yeah, sports is a big thing in schools in the US. We have PE class (physical education), where we play sports, and it's an extra-curricular activity that many participate in. Being a part of the "revenue sports" (basketball and football, and in some places, hockey and/or baseball) teams is a huge social status booster. Those are revenue sports, as the tickets to attend the games more than pay the costs, at least at the college level, and many times at the high school level. It's a big part of the fabric of our society, for better or worse.

Broomball is a cross between hockey and soccer. The ball very similar to a soccer ball, but much smaller (5 1/2 inches diameter for a broomball, vs between 8 1/2 and 9 inches for a soccer ball), and orange (usually). It's played on ice with a stick, like hockey, but on foot, like soccer. The goal is bigger than a hockey goal, but smaller than a soccer goal. Most of the rules are like hockey, although the goalie is more like a soccer goalie than a hockey goalie. Of course, most of the principles of all three sports are the same, play together to score goals, trying to get open passing lanes, or on defense, trying to plug those lanes and cover either a zone or a person. The equipment is like a stripped down version of hockey equipment, although some wear soccer shin guards instead of hockey ones.

Yeah, it was pretty fun, although exhausting, too, much more so than I would have expected. There was no limit to how fast we were allowed to drive, just what we and the car could handle. The only rule was we couldn't pass unless the person ahead of us signalled to allow us to. We were supposed to if the person signalled that they wanted to, although we picked times when it was safest. I took the first two turns at over 100 mph, usually, although I couldn't get any of the other turns that fast, as they were all tighter. I did spin out once on the last turn, which was the one I found the toughest, even though the third turn was actually 130 degrees.

Yes, stereotypes is something human nature simply does, it's unavoidable, we're hard wired to generalize to simplify our lives. It's not necesssarily a bad thing, it depends on what the stereotypes are, how they are used, etc. They can be very destructive, but they don't have to be. I've been to Iceland, and have known a few from there, so I have some ideas of what they are like, but there isn't one in American culture, as Americans barely know what the big countries are, much less a nation of just over 300K. I can imagine that would be an annoying stereotype. And I would not say that it's more likely that a Dutch person has drugs, just that it's more open when they do. I'll have to say, the drug dealer that attempted to sell me some when I was there was the friendliest drug dealer I've ever met. And very low pressure, it's rare to find salesmen in stores that take a lack of interest as well, even when not on commission. It's the only pleasant drug offer I've ever had, lol. I don't really find Dutch all that similar to German, though. Written, I can't imagine confusing them, it's tied with English as the least similar to German of any of the Germanic languages that are still used. I actually would find it easier to confuse it with written Finnish, given both languages propensity for strings of vowels, which are the most immediately noticeable feature of both. Of course, it is still more of a Germanic language beyond that one similarity, so, I guess it's like German written by a Finn, lol. Spoken, it's closer, but I've still never mixed up the two. It does help that I took five years of German... Plus, Dutch is the Germanic language I can understand the fewest words in. I never mistake it for anything else other than Afrikaans.

I just rarely watch movies. As you pointed out, the "artsy" movies can be pretty boring, and the "Hollywood" movies can be pretty silly, so I limit my exposure, and just do a little mix of everything, but not much of any. Yes, recognizing places you've been in real life is fun. That's not that uncommon when they shoot scenes on site, since I've been to virtually every major US city (I've been to 50 of the 51 metro areas over 1 million, for example, and 279 of the 304 cities that are over 100K - plus 2 more that I'm almost positive I've been to - those numbers are all as of 2013 population statistics), and many of the major cities in Europe. So it's hardly unusual for me to see places I've been in movies. But it is very rare to see places I've been to on a daily basis as settings in movies, as while many movies are set places I've been, very, very few are set in places I actually lived.

Whether knowing the ending will ruin a movie depends on the movie. There certainly have been movies based on books where I read the book first, and still loved the movie. I also watch for the plot, but the acting and "way of filming" isn't a big deal to me. It certainly can ruin a movie if bad enough, and it can make a movie better or worse, but it'll never save a movie for me when the plot is weak. Dialogue is also very important for me, almost as important as plot. I can deal with a bad actor, but stilted dialogue is a deal breaker (unless it's to the point of actually being amusing, but that's rare). It's only some movies, though, that require suspense to be good, but as I mentioned, Apollo 13 was one of them. And Titanic was one of the worst movies of all time, it was just terrible, which gives historical movies a bad taste in my mouth, given how few I've watched, that one really brings the average way, way down. But yes, sometimes true stories can be very good when they get enough of it right that the parts they make up don't ruin it, or when enough of it is made up that it's obvious that it's only loosely based on history, a fictionalized account of an individual, real or made up, set in a back-drop of a real historical situation can be very good. I have far more experience of books like this than movies, but it's the same principle. It's hard to generalize too much, though, it's more of a case by case situation. Working with history, I think, is more dangerous, as there are more places for the author/screenwriter to go wrong than if it's all made up, but there can be some very rewarding results when done right. Defining that, though, is tough.

I haven't seen Noah, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in the movie. But I can understand that an otherwise good story can be ruined by one or two silly choices for subplots or minor characters. Of course, it's not a movie where historical accuracy would even be possible, given the uncertainty of what did or did not occur. The source material isn't very detailed, and its veracity has been questioned, for good reason.

I couldn't imagine having seven, although since I've been living with someone that has four kids, and now a grandkid (and at one point, all five were living with us), I'm starting to have some idea. But seeing how chaotic four kids is, it's still tough to imagine surviving eight.

I have the problem, too, with deciding who is going to win ahead of time. So it doesn't work when I can choose, playing chess with myself would be pointless. But in some board games, you can set up scenarios, where there are specific rules about what your opponent can or can't do, where chance plays a role, and where you can still play one side to win, the other not to win, and still have a challenge. It's kind of like the board game equivalent of playing blackjack against the house, where you know what their constraints are, and they have a statistical edge, but you have strategy on your side, but with more freedom of strategy than blackjack allows (and much more interesting scenarios). For example, I'd play against the bank sometimes in Monopoly, so my opponent would have much higher resources to begin with, but I could make choices, while the bank had to follow my pre-set options (which, to make things challenging, might be a pretty decent strategy, but of course the flexibility I had still gave me something of an advantage).

I don't generally watch Youtube videos, but Wil Wheaton might be entertaining, he sure is on The Big Bang Theory. I used to go to board game meetups, where you would have many options for games to play, that broadened my board game horizons quite a bit. It was fun.

Blue collar isn't necessarily part of any class, although it tends to be upper lower class or lower middle class. It's more of a term for people that work with their hands, manufacturing, repairing, that sort of thing. White collar are desk jobs, as traditionally, they had to wear white dress shirts (this has changed to some degree, but the terms remain), while, say, a mechanic, would often wear a blue shirt that still had a collar, but wasn't nearly as dressy. It's not to be taken too literally, but it's definitely an important term, at least in American socio-economic discussions. Blue collar workers sometimes make more than white collar workers (my brother made far more than me when he was a BMW mechanic and I was a bank teller, but he was blue collar and I was white collar), although white collar workers on average make more. But blue collar is definitely not the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, retail and fast food would be lower (status for sure, and usually pay). And white collar generally does not include the truly rich, but it's possible for a white collar worker to be rich, blue collar would never be above upper middle class and even that is rare (the moment one enters the upper class, the term "blue collar" would not apply, period).