it is strange to me that all these metaphors are required to illustrate the concept that white guys don't have to deal with a lot of things that non-white non-guys have to deal with.
people are bad at assessing relative degrees of suffering and privilege
this is true even if it's something not as complex or sophisticated as racial privileges
people have difficulty assessing whether they have, say, made a net contribution or net benefit from social insurance
well sure
but i mean dressing up the assertion that "you are privileged" into a gaming (or whatever other) sort of metaphor doesn't strengthen the assertion.
that is, metaphor is generally used to illustrate a difficult concept. i find it hard to believe that the assertion of privilege is being rejected by people because they just don't understand it.
I got the impression that it was more written for those whom get obsessed with the minutae of the word 'privilege' and want to argue that white men don't have that rather than not understanding.
I also think it's helpful because there are a lot of people who might be turned off from a discussion by bringing up that word. So talk about the same thing using different language and you might reach more people. Hell, if you only reach one more person, then I think that an internet article is worth it.
i think the rationalization of instinct is plentiful, but in this case it's evident that it's the underlying instinctive feeling of having one's desert attacked that is fundamental, since it is far more of a consistent element than the profferred rationalizations themselves
Well, the first part of my post is literally what the writer himself states as part of his reason for the article.
I think that it's plausible. I also think that what you say is plausible. Is there some reason that they both can't be right?
well - if the instinct is fundamental, then substituting another word, or otherwise complex analogy, doesn't really work either, unless you remove the implication that it will lead to a call to arms for an attack on one's relative SES
that is to say, "privilege" is just yet another word on a treadmill of ways to characterize some extant social inequality as unjustified. It isn't about the word itself. The article is not useful as introduction to the idea because it starts saying "yeah this is a broad attack on your status as a straight white male", which gives away the punchline. There's no effort to encourage a hostile reader to buy into the punchline
i haven't followed election stuff at all. have democratic or republican frontrunners emerged yet?
Dems: please please please can we have Elizabeth Warren? No? Are you sure? I mean Hillary is not good at campaigning and is also exceedingly old, but
*sigh*
ok
Pubs: According to recent polling data, Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner. You cannot make this shit up.
i do not know why libs keep flogging elizabeth warren. she doesn't have any particular executive experience and doesn't really seem inclined that way.
also she is a really bad campaigner. she only barely won massachusetts as a democrat ffs.
i have met her and played with her dog and she's a super nice lady and she has good opinions on a lot of things and her personality is such that she'll make a great progressive senator
but she is in no sense presidential material or even presidential candidate material.
Because progressives are excited at the prospect of seeing a progressive run for POTUS?
when we hang out again, we're going to Shake Shack. Just, FYI.
THE MIM HAS DECREED IT SO.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Hillary is a bad campaigner, she has a short list of accomplishments despite a fairly lengthy political career, she has numerous instances of shady relationships in the past, she's been on the wrong side of some major issues, and . . . above all . . . . I never have any idea what her position on any issue is before she says it, and I'm not sure she does, either.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I mean, I'll continue to vote for centrists and Obama has done well enough I suppose
but some of the stuff Warren has send about, for example, the inexcusable student loan situation are straight up #euphoric
+3
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
this card's effect is kinda confusing to me. My gut instinct is that the "next time" and "this turn" mean that the effect only triggers on the turn you acquire it.
as that means the effect is ignored for the vast majority of the game, I'm curious if I'm reading it right.
Any turn you play that hero is "this turn", and "next time" is there so that you can't do it multiple times in one turn. So, if I play him and kill 3 monsters in the center row I still only get one bonus.
Seems to address some of the concerns I've had throughout the franchise since its inception on the white screen, while simultaneously wading headfirst confidently into quite a few others.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Religion really needs to deal better with the dying process. Religious people shouldn't really be any more likely to ask for intensive care and other painful procedures, but they are. Kind of oddly, religious support from the medical team tends to increase the use of hospice care.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The federal government is due to book $51 billion in profit this year off new and existing federal student loans, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The record amount brings the government’s profit haul to nearly $120 billion over the past five years, according to CBO forecasts and Department of Education budget documents. The CBO estimates that the government will generate $184 billion in profit for new loans made this fiscal year through 2023.
“Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans,” Warren said of the profit figures during a conference filled with young people. “That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene.”
“The government should not be making profits off the backs of our students," she said. "Period.”
vibratingdolphin.jpg
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
4 minutes of The Winter Soldier
(That's what we're calling Captain America 2 to sound less nerdy)
the universal affliction of the intellectual is a sense of epistemic duty - that is, when someone comes up to you and presents an attack on your position, you feel obliged to have at least convinced yourself that there is some good reason to think that the attack is invalid. If you're not a very good intellectual, then this reason will come in the form of a snarky soundbite or otherwise dismissal, but the key is that you still feel obliged towards that instinct
now recognize that this isn't a universal instinct - it almost certainly isn't even a common one. that's why concern trolling is the foundation of all rhetoric. Up and saying "FYI, this is going to make an attack on your stance" is discussion for nerds by nerds and amongst nerds
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
this card's effect is kinda confusing to me. My gut instinct is that the "next time" and "this turn" mean that the effect only triggers on the turn you acquire it.
as that means the effect is ignored for the vast majority of the game, I'm curious if I'm reading it right.
Any turn you play that hero is "this turn", and "next time" is there so that you can't do it multiple times in one turn. So, if I play him and kill 3 monsters in the center row I still only get one bonus.
gotcha, thanks.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I have also come to observe that a lot of speech patterns people might see as impediments can sometimes be affectations, either conscious or subconscious. I don't think that lisping and lilting is neurologically linked to being a gay dude, for example, but lots of gay dudes talk that way. It has become the stereotypical "gay voice" and I have known people personally who are homosexual and only speak that way around other queer people and/or in a queer-oriented environment. It's not their "true"voice, because among their friends who know and accept them for who they are, they don't speak with that voice or mannerisms. They only "camp up" a bit around other queer people.
It's an affectation, because in the queer subculture they want to belong to, it's a norm. And because it's a norm, it becomes an expectation.
I think you can find people doing this kind of thing with any subculture they want to belong to. They might not even be aware they're doing it.
yeah i definitely agree about the gay lilt. it's pretty common for gay guys not not have it at all unless they are in a context where they consciously or subconsciously feel that being gay is all right.
i guess we all probably do it to some degree or another. i lived in england as a kid and picked up the accent a little when i was there. of course i don't have it anymore, except when i am spending time with english people, and then it emerges after a few hours. it's humiliating and i feel like such a poseur but there it is.
also if i am around southerners a lot, that accent starts to come out (my mom is floridian).
on one hand it's hard for me to imagine nerdy dudes affecting an method of speech that would get them branded nerds (not generally a positive or convenient thing) but on the other hand i guess i don't want to be considered a southerner or a filthy brit but that accent comes out for me.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
the universal affliction of the intellectual is a sense of epistemic duty - that is, when someone comes up to you and presents an attack on your position, you feel obliged to have at least convinced yourself that there is some good reason to think that the attack is invalid. If you're not a very good intellectual, then this reason will come in the form of a snarky soundbite or otherwise dismissal, but the key is that you still feel obliged towards that instinct
now recognize that this isn't a universal instinct - it almost certainly isn't even a common one. that's why concern trolling is the foundation of all rhetoric. Up and saying "FYI, this is going to make an attack on your stance" is discussion for nerds by nerds and amongst nerds
whatever you're just a doge
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+3
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I have also come to observe that a lot of speech patterns people might see as impediments can sometimes be affectations, either conscious or subconscious. I don't think that lisping and lilting is neurologically linked to being a gay dude, for example, but lots of gay dudes talk that way. It has become the stereotypical "gay voice" and I have known people personally who are homosexual and only speak that way around other queer people and/or in a queer-oriented environment. It's not their "true"voice, because among their friends who know and accept them for who they are, they don't speak with that voice or mannerisms. They only "camp up" a bit around other queer people.
It's an affectation, because in the queer subculture they want to belong to, it's a norm. And because it's a norm, it becomes an expectation.
I think you can find people doing this kind of thing with any subculture they want to belong to. They might not even be aware they're doing it.
yeah i definitely agree about the gay lilt. it's pretty common for gay guys not not have it at all unless they are in a context where they consciously or subconsciously feel that being gay is all right.
i guess we all probably do it to some degree or another. i lived in england as a kid and picked up the accent a little when i was there. of course i don't have it anymore, except when i am spending time with english people, and then it emerges after a few hours. it's humiliating and i feel like such a poseur but there it is.
also if i am around southerners a lot, that accent starts to come out (my mom is floridian).
on one hand it's hard for me to imagine nerdy dudes affecting an method of speech that would get them branded nerds (not generally a positive or convenient thing) but on the other hand i guess i don't want to be considered a southerner or a filthy brit but that accent comes out for me.
I sound completely different at work with a bunch of Central Virginia rednecks than I do with my family, who are all from Ohio and Michigan.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i haven't followed election stuff at all. have democratic or republican frontrunners emerged yet?
Dems: please please please can we have Elizabeth Warren? No? Are you sure? I mean Hillary is not good at campaigning and is also exceedingly old, but
*sigh*
ok
Pubs: According to recent polling data, Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner. You cannot make this shit up.
i do not know why libs keep flogging elizabeth warren. she doesn't have any particular executive experience and doesn't really seem inclined that way.
also she is a really bad campaigner. she only barely won massachusetts as a democrat ffs.
i have met her and played with her dog and she's a super nice lady and she has good opinions on a lot of things and her personality is such that she'll make a great progressive senator
but she is in no sense presidential material or even presidential candidate material.
Because progressives are excited at the prospect of seeing a progressive run for POTUS?
i guess in the same way that conservatives are pushing for a guaranteed loser like cruz?
this card's effect is kinda confusing to me. My gut instinct is that the "next time" and "this turn" mean that the effect only triggers on the turn you acquire it.
as that means the effect is ignored for the vast majority of the game, I'm curious if I'm reading it right.
if you kill a monster before you play that card, no bonus
you play the card
if you kill a monster that turn, you get an extra 2 stars
if you kill a second monster that turn, no bonus
if you kill a monster some other turn, no bonus
if you kill one of the unlimited monster thingies (cultist?), no bonus
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
i haven't followed election stuff at all. have democratic or republican frontrunners emerged yet?
Dems: please please please can we have Elizabeth Warren? No? Are you sure? I mean Hillary is not good at campaigning and is also exceedingly old, but
*sigh*
ok
Pubs: According to recent polling data, Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner. You cannot make this shit up.
i do not know why libs keep flogging elizabeth warren. she doesn't have any particular executive experience and doesn't really seem inclined that way.
also she is a really bad campaigner. she only barely won massachusetts as a democrat ffs.
i have met her and played with her dog and she's a super nice lady and she has good opinions on a lot of things and her personality is such that she'll make a great progressive senator
but she is in no sense presidential material or even presidential candidate material.
Because progressives are excited at the prospect of seeing a progressive run for POTUS?
i guess in the same way that conservatives are pushing for a guaranteed loser like cruz?
If both sides pick a loser, one of them has to win, right?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
i haven't followed election stuff at all. have democratic or republican frontrunners emerged yet?
Dems: please please please can we have Elizabeth Warren? No? Are you sure? I mean Hillary is not good at campaigning and is also exceedingly old, but
*sigh*
ok
Pubs: According to recent polling data, Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner. You cannot make this shit up.
i do not know why libs keep flogging elizabeth warren. she doesn't have any particular executive experience and doesn't really seem inclined that way.
also she is a really bad campaigner. she only barely won massachusetts as a democrat ffs.
i have met her and played with her dog and she's a super nice lady and she has good opinions on a lot of things and her personality is such that she'll make a great progressive senator
but she is in no sense presidential material or even presidential candidate material.
Because progressives are excited at the prospect of seeing a progressive run for POTUS?
i guess in the same way that conservatives are pushing for a guaranteed loser like cruz?
If both sides pick a loser, one of them has to win, right?
i haven't followed election stuff at all. have democratic or republican frontrunners emerged yet?
Dems: please please please can we have Elizabeth Warren? No? Are you sure? I mean Hillary is not good at campaigning and is also exceedingly old, but
*sigh*
ok
Pubs: According to recent polling data, Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner. You cannot make this shit up.
i do not know why libs keep flogging elizabeth warren. she doesn't have any particular executive experience and doesn't really seem inclined that way.
also she is a really bad campaigner. she only barely won massachusetts as a democrat ffs.
i have met her and played with her dog and she's a super nice lady and she has good opinions on a lot of things and her personality is such that she'll make a great progressive senator
but she is in no sense presidential material or even presidential candidate material.
Because progressives are excited at the prospect of seeing a progressive run for POTUS?
i guess in the same way that conservatives are pushing for a guaranteed loser like cruz?
If both sides pick a loser, one of them has to win, right?
We can always have a repeat of 2000.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I mean, I'll continue to vote for centrists and Obama has done well enough I suppose
but some of the stuff Warren has send about, for example, the inexcusable student loan situation are straight up #euphoric
student loans are a tough topic. it's fine if the government charges less interest on student loans, but the degree of interest charged isn't really the problem.
in fact, it's entirely possible that lowering the interest rates to, say, 1% would just cause even larger loans to be taken out, thus driving up the cost of tuition even further.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
this card's effect is kinda confusing to me. My gut instinct is that the "next time" and "this turn" mean that the effect only triggers on the turn you acquire it.
as that means the effect is ignored for the vast majority of the game, I'm curious if I'm reading it right.
You play the card. If you defeat a monster in the middle that isn't a cultist, you get the effect. If you don't use it that turn the effect goes away.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I mean, I'll continue to vote for centrists and Obama has done well enough I suppose
but some of the stuff Warren has send about, for example, the inexcusable student loan situation are straight up #euphoric
student loans are a tough topic. it's fine if the government charges less interest on student loans, but the degree of interest charged isn't really the problem.
in fact, it's entirely possible that lowering the interest rates to, say, 1% would just cause even larger loans to be taken out, thus driving up the cost of tuition even further.
um easy solution free public college for everybody fyi hth abolish the harvard system
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I mean, I'll continue to vote for centrists and Obama has done well enough I suppose
but some of the stuff Warren has send about, for example, the inexcusable student loan situation are straight up #euphoric
student loans are a tough topic. it's fine if the government charges less interest on student loans, but the degree of interest charged isn't really the problem.
in fact, it's entirely possible that lowering the interest rates to, say, 1% would just cause even larger loans to be taken out, thus driving up the cost of tuition even further.
And I've always heard that other than a few niche issues -- primary financial stuff -- Warren really isn't very progressive, or at least isn't as progressive as the base she's gotten from her work in that area.
And we were standing there getting some shrimp or something together, and all of a sudden both of us went, `Ah!’ And we turned around and looked, and there was Strom standing between us with one hand on my mother’s behind and one hand on mine and just smiling and beaming and just feeling so pleased with himself. And, of course, my mother, who’s very Southern, just the way Strom is and from Savannah, Georgia–we’re both from Savannah–Mother said, `Oh, Strom, you old devil,’ you know. And we just thought it was the cutest thing, and we told everybody about it, that wicked old Strom Thurmond.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
it is strange to me that all these metaphors are required to illustrate the concept that white guys don't have to deal with a lot of things that non-white non-guys have to deal with.
people are bad at assessing relative degrees of suffering and privilege
this is true even if it's something not as complex or sophisticated as racial privileges
people have difficulty assessing whether they have, say, made a net contribution or net benefit from social insurance
well sure
but i mean dressing up the assertion that "you are privileged" into a gaming (or whatever other) sort of metaphor doesn't strengthen the assertion.
that is, metaphor is generally used to illustrate a difficult concept. i find it hard to believe that the assertion of privilege is being rejected by people because they just don't understand it.
I got the impression that it was more written for those whom get obsessed with the minutae of the word 'privilege' and want to argue that white men don't have that rather than not understanding.
I also think it's helpful because there are a lot of people who might be turned off from a discussion by bringing up that word. So talk about the same thing using different language and you might reach more people. Hell, if you only reach one more person, then I think that an internet article is worth it.
i think the rationalization of instinct is plentiful, but in this case it's evident that it's the underlying instinctive feeling of having one's desert attacked that is fundamental, since it is far more of a consistent element than the profferred rationalizations themselves
Well, the first part of my post is literally what the writer himself states as part of his reason for the article.
I think that it's plausible. I also think that what you say is plausible. Is there some reason that they both can't be right?
well - if the instinct is fundamental, then substituting another word, or otherwise complex analogy, doesn't really work either, unless you remove the implication that it will lead to a call to arms for an attack on one's relative SES
that is to say, "privilege" is just yet another word on a treadmill of ways to characterize some extant social inequality as unjustified. It isn't about the word itself. The article is not useful as introduction to the idea because it starts saying "yeah this is a broad attack on your status as a straight white male", which gives away the punchline. There's no effort to encourage a hostile reader to buy into the punchline
I call this "HuffPo Syndrome", articles and blog posts that are presented like they have some insightful point to make that will shake someone's beliefs or views and challenge them to rethink their arguments, but the way they are written are effective at making those points literally only to the people who already agree with them. Trying to present them to the people they claim to be "for" would be completely ineffective because they are needlessly adversarial and rely on notions you already have to be predisposed to.
These articles don't exist to change hearts and minds. They exist so people can post them on Facebook and just say "THIS!" as if that explains it all, and all of their friends (who, being their friends, will mostly agree with them on this stuff) will click Like and comment "so true!" and share it with "people need to read this!"
Its choir-preaching for page-views and nothing more.
+5
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
there's nobody that is all of
A: is "presidential material"
B: is capable of winning a presidential election
C: willing to run for the presidency
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think a Warren vs. Cruz/Ryan/Paul/Rubio election would be interesting because Warren is feisty enough to call people out on insane positions, especially on economics and women's issues, which Republicans certainly have some strong and unpopular positions on.
If you can't win against the party that can't successfully back away from accusations of being rape defenders and hatemongers without tripping over their own clown shoes, you don't deserve to win.
Posts
well - if the instinct is fundamental, then substituting another word, or otherwise complex analogy, doesn't really work either, unless you remove the implication that it will lead to a call to arms for an attack on one's relative SES
that is to say, "privilege" is just yet another word on a treadmill of ways to characterize some extant social inequality as unjustified. It isn't about the word itself. The article is not useful as introduction to the idea because it starts saying "yeah this is a broad attack on your status as a straight white male", which gives away the punchline. There's no effort to encourage a hostile reader to buy into the punchline
but democrats already run for president
that is how you get the attention of a nerdy crowd
@Organichu
@Elendil
when we hang out again, we're going to Shake Shack. Just, FYI.
THE MIM HAS DECREED IT SO.
but some of the stuff Warren has send about, for example, the inexcusable student loan situation are straight up #euphoric
Any turn you play that hero is "this turn", and "next time" is there so that you can't do it multiple times in one turn. So, if I play him and kill 3 monsters in the center row I still only get one bonus.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Seems to address some of the concerns I've had throughout the franchise since its inception on the white screen, while simultaneously wading headfirst confidently into quite a few others.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
vibratingdolphin.jpg
(That's what we're calling Captain America 2 to sound less nerdy)
http://www.fandango.com/movie-trailer/exclusive:captainamerica:thewintersoldiersecuretheship-trailer/155540/2440466900
now recognize that this isn't a universal instinct - it almost certainly isn't even a common one. that's why concern trolling is the foundation of all rhetoric. Up and saying "FYI, this is going to make an attack on your stance" is discussion for nerds by nerds and amongst nerds
gotcha, thanks.
yeah i definitely agree about the gay lilt. it's pretty common for gay guys not not have it at all unless they are in a context where they consciously or subconsciously feel that being gay is all right.
i guess we all probably do it to some degree or another. i lived in england as a kid and picked up the accent a little when i was there. of course i don't have it anymore, except when i am spending time with english people, and then it emerges after a few hours. it's humiliating and i feel like such a poseur but there it is.
also if i am around southerners a lot, that accent starts to come out (my mom is floridian).
on one hand it's hard for me to imagine nerdy dudes affecting an method of speech that would get them branded nerds (not generally a positive or convenient thing) but on the other hand i guess i don't want to be considered a southerner or a filthy brit but that accent comes out for me.
whatever you're just a doge
I sound completely different at work with a bunch of Central Virginia rednecks than I do with my family, who are all from Ohio and Michigan.
i guess in the same way that conservatives are pushing for a guaranteed loser like cruz?
That doesn't count because *long drawn out fart*
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
if you kill a monster before you play that card, no bonus
you play the card
if you kill a monster that turn, you get an extra 2 stars
if you kill a second monster that turn, no bonus
if you kill a monster some other turn, no bonus
if you kill one of the unlimited monster thingies (cultist?), no bonus
If both sides pick a loser, one of them has to win, right?
God, I grew up in Dallas and when I moved to East Texas people kept asking me where I was from like I was totally foreign.
sadly that's how things have gone for centuries.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
We can always have a repeat of 2000.
student loans are a tough topic. it's fine if the government charges less interest on student loans, but the degree of interest charged isn't really the problem.
in fact, it's entirely possible that lowering the interest rates to, say, 1% would just cause even larger loans to be taken out, thus driving up the cost of tuition even further.
um easy solution free public college for everybody fyi hth abolish the harvard system
tbf Dallas is about as far from East Texas as Richmond is from Detroit :P
And I've always heard that other than a few niche issues -- primary financial stuff -- Warren really isn't very progressive, or at least isn't as progressive as the base she's gotten from her work in that area.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
How Kickstarter raised $1 Billion
Pretty cray
I call this "HuffPo Syndrome", articles and blog posts that are presented like they have some insightful point to make that will shake someone's beliefs or views and challenge them to rethink their arguments, but the way they are written are effective at making those points literally only to the people who already agree with them. Trying to present them to the people they claim to be "for" would be completely ineffective because they are needlessly adversarial and rely on notions you already have to be predisposed to.
These articles don't exist to change hearts and minds. They exist so people can post them on Facebook and just say "THIS!" as if that explains it all, and all of their friends (who, being their friends, will mostly agree with them on this stuff) will click Like and comment "so true!" and share it with "people need to read this!"
Its choir-preaching for page-views and nothing more.
A: is "presidential material"
B: is capable of winning a presidential election
C: willing to run for the presidency
pick two.
If you can't win against the party that can't successfully back away from accusations of being rape defenders and hatemongers without tripping over their own clown shoes, you don't deserve to win.