coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
17hr ago
Respond to women in variable ratio intervals, and only in a way that increases their engagement.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
I like that he referenced Tertullian in relation to the mystery of the Mass, in criticizing evangelical worship for being insufficiently mysterious and reverent.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
Because if it’s rebuilt it’s like a whole thing. Sacrifices have to resume daily etc. And just the idea of the holiest of holies land becoming contaminated is a dissonant thought.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
Nuclear threats are for deterrence. You want the other country afraid to risk it. Israel’s highly religious minority cannot risk the grounds of the Temple Mount becoming contaminated, because it is unequivocally essential for their end of times prophecies. The entire religion is predicated on the Messiah returning and the Temple being rebuilt on these grounds. Some Haredi even believe that the Shechina is especially found at the Western Wall:
The real reason why the Western Wall was not destroyed was not the one that counts midrash – the reality is that the general assigned to demolish it was incapable of doing so. O midrash reveals that the Western Wall remained standing thanks to an oath from G-d promising its eternal survival. And, in fact, it teaches that the Divine Presence never withdrew from the Western Wall
When nuclear weapons are being launched, no one cares about offending someone’s sensibilities (lol). The threat may be enough to cause the ultra religious population of Israel to take a more diplomatic approach to Iran, unless their foolishness is the thing that causes the impossibility of their religious prophecy. That would be a big deal. An example of how serious they treat this stuff — the infamous tunnel under Chabad in NYC was to fulfill Rebbe Schneerson’s wish to attach two buildings together. So the literal world Chabad headquarters built a secret tunnel underneath Manhattan to connect the two buildings, and rioted when the police put an end to it, in order to fulfill the will of the Rebbe.
Iran should obviously see their current predicament as one of civilizational survival. Are they going to surrender to Israel for the rest of time, having no ability to ever fight back because of the pace of technological development, or are they going to try to retain sovereignty over their land? I know that if I were Iran, i would be nuke-maxxing and doing whatever it takes to ensure I have sovereignty in my country. Even if it is “offensive”
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
The whole city is not within the limits of the Temple Mount, and nuclear weapons are made in different magnitudes. So this could conceivably be accomplished with negligible loss of life.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
Iran could threaten the use of a salted bomb on the grounds of the Temple Mount, maximizing radioactive contamination. The ultra-religious have enormous political influence in Isael. This would act as deterrence in a way that targeting a major city would not, while minimizing loss of life. Al-Aqsa isn’t super important for Shia Muslims, but the Temple Mount actually needs to be the place of construction for the Third Temple.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Where is the line you draw in biological sophistication when you begin to care? A mouse? A bird?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Not only that, but there’s “pleasant suffering”, as in a boy playing a game with friends that roughs him up, or a climber scaling a mountain. There are people who live weeks or months of their life with a negligible amount of “pain signal pain” and zero “traumatic pain”. To deny that we can live with less pain is to deny essentially any motive for a human to do anything. It governs everything we do.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
The suffering of bees may be important to mitigate (I think that’s true — wouldn’t you care if someone were purposely buying bees only to kill them?) but the author must convince us —
-
the suffering of bees is of such high importance that it is worth writing on it to convince people to place a burden on themselves. (Unlikely. There is worse suffering taking place even if we consider only bees, like the effects of pesticides. It’s not worth discourse hours).
-
that writing something so unintuitive that people ignore what else you write is morally worth the future drawbacks of loss of influence.
-
that the suffering of bees is so important that we should forego the very term of pleasure. This is problematic to his utilitarian ambitions, because our motivation to live well and expand our wellbeing is tied to whether we are able to experience wholesome pleasures in life. If people feel better from a spoonful of honey, not only does their own suffering decrease, but (1) they have energy to reduce the suffering of others and (2) the reason to love bees over wasps is brought to mind.
-
bees are not designed to be destroyed by mammals, given that bears and raccoons destroy them in the wild, and given that fish are designed to be eaten by other fish. If the author does not believe that nature’s design should be respected, then his interest should be ensuring that killer whales aren’t able to kill dolphins in the ocean. But wouldn’t only a senseless person have a problem with the killer whale enjoying his design and eating dolphins, who significantly more intelligent than bees? So the suffering of bees is within our design — we should only guarantee that the suffering isn’t excessive, like with some easy regulations about whether all the young bees are killed off after the honey is made.
There’s possibly an element of Jewish thought in this reasoning + Singer’s. Because there’s an eagerness to heap up behavioral proscriptions, however numerous; there’s the love of rules and the eagerness to find extrapolations to the rules which defy normal intuition; there’s the arbitrary basis to begin morality; and there’s the obsession with trivia and edge cases over more substantive issues. That’s immaterial, but just interesting to note — it’s possible some of Matthew’s moral intuitions come from a different traditional framework.
I don’t think it’s possible to find real data about this, because the only way to determine cheating is for a reasonable observer to watch footage (otherwise, the algorithms would quickly catch them). You can’t generalize that across time for obvious reasons, and you can’t trust a cheater to answer a survey for obvious reasons. The next best evidence is to see what high-reputation people in these niches think about the question, and I’d guess most of them across different games would say cheating is out of control.
In CS2, nearly all of the leaderboard: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6GA4AM1Szxc https://youtube.com/watch?v=m8wsCU0NR38
In Trackmania, nearly all of the leaderboard (I think this is the most competitive racing game): https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDUdGvgmKIw
Chess . com : https://youtube.com/watch?v=SG5PMVyCi8U (though here it is significantly easier, almost trivial, to find and ban cheaters)
There are also many in the speedrunning niche.
I can’t say I understand the conflation of academic and game cheating, either
They are similar from a psychological perspective involving honesty and rewards. You want to win in order to gain status and feel a sense of success. Among males, video game success translates into reputational benefits, bragging rights, plus the basic biological pleasure of defeating an opponent in a bout. This is no different from academic success, except perhaps that the rewards of academic success occur on a longer timeframe, making the rewards of cheating a little less salient.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
9d ago
Is there a new cheating epidemic?
-
Some major game titles are now unplayable in the higher rankings because of cheating: CounterStrike, Call of Duty, Tarkov. This occurs to a comical degree
-
High school teachers say most essays are now written with AI
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
15d ago
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
That’s too anonymous; I’m opening myself to embarrassment if I’m wrong.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
If the argument is “Iran is a religious extremist country”, then we should see religious extremist TFR, which coincides wherever there is religious extremism, always. In such diverse places as
-
Minnesota, where the Salafi-infused Muslim households have a TFR of 5, and the women wear niqab with more frequency than Iran
-
Brooklyn New York, where the Haredim have a TFR of 6
-
The rare regions of traditional Catholicism in France
-
TLM-attending Catholics throughout America (simply represents the most extremist branch of Catholicism)
If you’re telling me that Iran has a religious extremist problem, and yet they can’t manage to get their women to have more than 2 kids or wear a veil property, I am going to conclude someone has lied to you. Because this is the hallmark, textbook sign of a society filled with Abrahamic conviction. Especially among Muslims, where the particular sphere of women has always been greatly delineated. Religious extremism means “clerics tell me what to do and I obey”, and if not even the women obey then no one cares. So I conclude that there is no extremism, based upon this fact in addition to other facts.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
I’m lodging my prediction that there will be American boots on the ground within five months.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
”undeclared” is doing a lot here
Not at all. The Symington Amendment and the Glenn Amendment forbid America from providing aid to countries which have no IAEA oversight.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
TFR is closely tied to religious conservatism everywhere in the world. Iran’s TFR has been down since 1984. Their small blip from 1974->1980 is even less than than 1945 to 1957 America and its decrease coincides with an economic slump. The fact that the Iranian revolution even happened disproves the idea that a majority of Iranians were even on board with the secularization trend.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
What metric would you trust?
-
TFR is going down, indicative of women no longer internalizing the values of Islam
-
Hijab is becoming less common. The requirement is for the veil to fully cover the hair, but from watching any video of Iranian streets most women totally ignore this — it just barely covers the back of their hair
-
a majority of Iranians use VPNs
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
The linchpin is Israel: a country with an undeclared nuclear weapons program in violation of international law, who some speculate killed our President in 1963 in order to secure nuclear weapons, who stole our own uranium to create their weapons, and a country that we provide aid to in violation of our own laws which prohibit us from providing aid to countries with undeclared nuclear programs in violation of the IAEA.
Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons and behavior in the region compels every sane country to pursue nuclear weapons, especially when they see what happened to Iran, a country which could have pursued but did not pursue nukes. Saudi Arabia apparently has some agreement with Pakistan to obtain nukes whenever requested, because they originally invested in its nuclear program. According to Russia yesterday, there are other countries interested in supplying Iran nukes, perhaps China, or perhaps this is a bluff.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
Iran originally decided to pursue 60% enrichment after Israel attacked their nuclear sites in 2021. This attack happened 3 years after Trump ended an agreement to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, which was criticized by NATO, EU, France, the UK, etc, but was clearly requested by Trump’s Zionist funders. Iran’s radiopharmaceutical industry is genuine — they commercialize isotopes that only Germany has been able to produce. Iran needs to pursue its own cancer treatments because sanctions prevent access to state of the art treatments.
I hope Iran gets a nuke now. We can’t have religious extremist states have nukes — Israel is well on its way in becoming majority Haredi, whereas Iran is on a clear secularization path. A nuclear Iran would counter the power that Israel exerts in the region and may even prevent the genocide of Palestinians.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
The promises to Abraham which Cruz references are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christians as follows:
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. […] All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
I think the easiest argument against any kind of dual covenant is that the first recorded preaching by Peter is to Jews in Israel, in Acts 2. They are told to repent, be baptized and believe in order to be saved.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
Israel has already moved their goals from “destroy nuclear sites” to “destroy ballistic missile capabilities”. But it isn’t easy to destroy all of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, perpetually. This is something that Cruz would know if he had even a passing curiosity in the country which his funders want destroyed. A 1 minute YouTube short would inform someone that it has a topography uniquely suited for hiding missile development and launch sites, with 370,000 square miles of mountainous terrain.
The “Iran is almost out of missile launchers” is eerily similar to “Russia is almost out of missiles” of 2022. Except the difficult part of launching hypersonic missiles is not the launchers, it’s the missiles, and they already have those in abundance.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
Like so —
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up… may the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus.
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Finally: all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing
Christians should have the easiest time doing this, because that’s the whole message of Christ. The gospel traces the start of a Brotherhood while the Epistles outline its governance. If no one can do it, it means they have to learn and revere Christ who did it, and then encourage each other in Christ, and then select the most Christlike to head the group, and so on. And that’s precisely what we see in the first Christian church. They are learning, encouraging, criticizing, expanding. You get the sense that the brotherhood was based exclusively in positive reinforcement and perhaps some “training”, and only reserving punishment for the very damaging things. If this is so, then status is mostly positive sum.
In the first Pagan letter about the “contagion” of Christianity, we see that some modest oaths were involved —
They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to do some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food — but ordinary and innocent food.
There would obviously be sin present at the table but sin already exists wherever friend groups and social networks congregate. Every college has a dozen fraternities nominally dedicated to some trite values but really dedicated to Bacchus, and people enjoy this greatly even though there’s drama and occasional fighting. If Christians can’t do a greater job of uniting men together when all the men revere Christ, then religion itself is a failed project. But this isn’t so. I think it would be quite feasible especially with good selection filters and rules in place.
I agree that, because nothing like this exists, it’s good to do the next best thing. But just from historical study + psychology, nothing going to be effective like this.
are you going to
I am going go continue reading and longing. Maybe one day a compelling substack post.
What can we learn about optimal cultural leadership in light of the 2013-2021 social justice period?
Religious leaders did not adequately stand up against the mass movement. Although many conservatives see value in religious institutions as a cultural defense, mainstream Catholicism and Protestant denominations did not substantively address the social justice craze. In some cases they placated or even promoted it.
Academics did not adequately argue against the mass movement. It is not the case, for instance, that the experts in western history, literature, or philosophy were more likely to argue against the mass movement in any substantive way. This is problematic: if learning the best of western culture does not lead to protecting said culture in any genuine sense when it matters the most, then how great is the actual utility of such learning?
The main “public critics” of the period have little in common except that they were passionate and somewhat neurotic men. Yarvin, Peterson, Weinstein, Scott Adams(?). My memory of who was most dominant in this period is somewhat hazy, maybe someone with a better memory can correct me. There were more psychologists among critics than philosophers. You had people like Stefan Molyneux passionately criticizing the proto-movement well before its zenith. His Twitter attests to his neuroticism.
Random people online were able to sense a threat that leading experts weren’t able to sense, and made arguments that leading academics did not make. Why?
It’s difficult to come away with clear takeaways. IMO: (1) it is beneficial to increase anonymous discussion, as this laid the groundwork for future criticism, and allowed for arguments to spread which would otherwise be banned. (2) It may be essential to increase the number of passionate and neurotic men, over men with other skills, as the major critics were more often passionate and somewhat crazy. A “passionate” temperament is occasionally inaccurate, and may result in behavior that leads institutions to weed them out — but their utility in sensing and addressing threats compensates for the occasional bout of craziness.
There is a funny review of Jordan Peterson from 2013, possibly the first time anyone commented about his personality online. It was made on the anonymous literature board of 4chan in 2013, long before his rise to fame.
Editing for clarity
The question is geared toward users who believe that wokeness constituted a threat — to institutions, America, truth, etc. I suppose there are some users who do not believe that wokeness was a threat. I can’t recall seeing such a comment in years on this forum, but if you’re such a user, you are of course welcome to comment and critique in any way that you’d like. Feel free to comment on the premise, the points, a tangent.
Why were the individuals leading the fight against wokeness outside of the traditional framework of understanding and designating cultural authority? The study of philosophy, the study of history, the study of great works, the study and authority of religion — these things did not create any of the influential “fighters” publicly arguing against wokeness. If they couldn’t detect, grasp, and eliminate the threat, then how important should we consider these pursuits and domains? Why did they fail when they were needed? Are these pursuits less valuable in moral formation than generally conceived? Many conservatives believe that these mainstays of Western education are important to study; yet the students of these were impotent against the threat. There are conservatives who studied these, and who teach these.
”Institutional capture” doesn’t factor in here because there are non-woke members of these domains, perhaps a few percent or a few tens of percents, but none of them were to be found among the influential critics of wokeness.
It appears to me that temperament played a larger role than anything else in deciding who was instrumental in tackling the threat. Do you agree? Do you disagree? From Peterson to Musk, the great “defenders” against it were passionate and somewhat crazy personalities. They cried publicly. They had strange personal lives. If that’s the case, should temperament be considered a greater deal in the selection of authority?
I think this clarifies. There’s a mismatch between “the study of Western things leads to great moral conduct!” and the reality of how everyone behaved during a mass movement which veered toward moral hysteria. “Traditional education” did not avail anything. This is interesting, provided of course that you agree with the premise.
More options
Context Copy link