@100ProofTollBooth's banner p

100ProofTollBooth

Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.

1 follower   follows 2 users  
joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC

				

User ID: 2039

100ProofTollBooth

Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.

1 follower   follows 2 users   joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2039

If birth control is bad because it prevents the creation of persons, then so is not asking out people on a date. (This is now very contrary to the RCC, which views abstinence as praiseworthy.)

Eh, this is a misrepresentation. The RCC views abstinence outside of marriage as not only praiseworthy but necessary - all sex outside of marriage is sinful. But, regarding "not asking someone out on a date", the whole idea is that God has an individual level plan for everyone to use their gifts - we need not all follow the same path. The point is to actively follow the path God has set before you and to do so faithfully. Perhaps you aren't meant to ask someone out, marry them, and procreate. Perhaps your role is more monkish. If you're playing too much Warhammer, you have to ask yourself if you're being slothful, negligent in your duties, or complacent and self-indulgent. I think you might be right that God isn't pleased with incels - who stew in their imagined slights by imagined women. But he isn't displeased with those who have actively chosen a celibate life (be they clergy or otherwise) - so long as its done with care, intent, and intention.

As an aside, I really do like your deconstruction of birth control as "fractionally as bad as abortion or infanticide."

Can We Circle Back With Rome On This?

WSJ Article on Pope Leo and his concern about AI

Request: Tech ninja's of The Motte, find the non-paywalled version of the above.

The article states that Pope Leo has a specific interest in AI and it's potential impact on humanity. This makes Pope Leo perhaps one of only a few billion people who are concern about AI and it's potential impact on humanity.

There's some background about Francis, brief commentary on Catholic Social teaching, and some pithy quotes. I'd like to avoid the surface level of discussion on "Well, what does the Catholic Church think of AI?" and try to poke at the deeper issue here -

Why does Silicon Valley feel the need to build a lobbying strategy for the Vatican? Obviously the Vatican does not have the legislative or regulatory authority of the United States Government or the EU. They aren't going to try to fine Big Tech for anything. If there is a condemnation of "AI" (a term becoming more meaningless by the day) it's going to be predictable - we must respect human dignity, people should not be commoditized, avoiding sin on the internet is as important as avoid sin elsewhere.

Looking at it from a positive endorsement perspective, perhaps Big Tech thinks they can get the Vatican to offer a milquetoast endorsement of AI? We know there are dangers and we must be wary and ask for Christ's help, but AI is a liberating technology for the masses (or something along those lines). But, does BigTech think that this would actually significantly help their bottom line?

I'd hazard a guess that it has nothing to do with the bottom line. And this is my worry. As a free-markets, pro-growth believer, I've always thought we should let corporations be corporations and do what they are designed to do; make money. Civil liberties, the vision for society etc is what should be left to government and culture (and war about both we shall!). Corporations, in my view, should just be big dumb money-makers. "All they care about is money!" says the sophomore year self-proclaimed communist. To which I have always said, "Good! Then they're staying focused on their job."

This seems different. This seems like an ideological campaign. It's setting off a lot of tropey conspiracy theories in my head about Silicon Valley transhumanist techno-religion beliefs. Is this a trojan horse where the Zuckerbergian Lizard People are smiling to the face of the people while plotting to replace him? Perhaps that's too dramatic.

So, I offer it up to the Motte. Looking for explanations and perspectives on this while positing, at the outset, that this isn't just about the money. Which makes it a lot more important.

This is all correct and an important improvement on what I originally commented.

Taking the issue up one or two levels of analysis, I believe there's a fundamental and close-to-irreconcilable tension between being Catholic and being American. I was listening to an SSPX sermon on the drive home from my Dad's last night and the priest points out that America is a protestant country founded on and steeped in protestant principles. Catholic integralism has approximately 0% shot of taking root in the American Federalist system. (That being said, however, Catholic political leaders, especially in the judiciary, have, for decades, punch above their electoral weight.)

The overwhelming majority of the time, voting in America, for theologically serious (TM) catholics, is a choice for the lesser of two evils. My guiding light, for some time, has been a candidate's perspective on religious liberty. Never their voiced position, mind you - religious liberty is one of those issues everyone always says they are for, but their voting behaviors often betray them later on.

Yes and no.

Biden / Pelosi style catholics are definitely solidly blue tribe and do vote democrat. There's even vestiges of old school machine politics for these kind of folks in states like Rhode Island and Massachusettes.

The problem is they aren't actually catholic. Just as "culturally Jewish" is a thing for totally non-observing "Jews" in the bicoastal cities, I believe "culturally catholic" exists as well for many democrat strongholds. To me, it's almost stolen valor. People like Biden etc get to say "faith is at the core of who I am" blah blah blah and infuse their speeches - and votes - with high minded moralism. But they aren't actually living or even trying to believe the doctrine of their faith. The Church is pretty damn clear on abortion and divorce, among other issues.

Theologically serious Catholics, nowadays, have to vote Republican because, of the two parties, it is the only one that isn't openly hostile to all of the bedrock elements of the faith. A lot of the politically motivated (and serious) American Catholics also get really into issues of religious liberties. One need look no further than the recent SCOTUS decision on tax-exemption status for faith based charities.

Apologies for being presumptuous.

You have two options. Option 1 is the Jock Wilink "bleak discipline" route. You do your workouts, without exception, every time you plan them. It will not get easier. You just develop discipline. If you miss a workout, it kind of doesn't matter, you immediately get back to the discipline. It's much a more of a mental shift than anything else, and pain and discomfort are kind of the point. Will this work? Sure, in tautological sense.

Option 2 is to find a way to enjoying the workouts in and of themselves. You aren't seeking the reward function of completing them, you are enjoying the process of doing them. This makes you outcome independent. Gym time is equal to fun time. This is what works for me. I did this by combining the "bleak discipline" approach with awareness of the exercises I intrinsically enjoyed at the gym. For whatever reason, I like doing deadlifts the same way that I like the color blue -- I just do, it's "built in." So, I dead deadlifts a lot. And, at first, I didn't do a lot of bench press. But, slowly, I was able to replace my total "bleak discipline" motivation with a mix of "hey! deadlifts are fun!" on the one hand with "okay, fine, I'll bench" on the other. Repeat this cycle a few times and, now, bench is a core part of my routine and I don't find it hard to motivate myself to do it (still like deadlifts more).

I don't know if there's a formal definition for this mental pattern. You're creating new, adjacent in pathways; you put "fun" as close as possible to "have to do it" until the circuit jumps the two wires. Yes, I know that's not how the brain works on a neurological level, but this is actually the same principle as cognitive behavior therapy. You're creating new thinking-acting repetitions until they become habits.

Doing hard things is hard and they don't get easier, but you can become better at doing the hard thing.

There are also indirect positive feedback loops to employ. I enjoy lists and handwritten stuff - so I mark off "workout complete" on a physical sheet of paper sometimes when I feel I'm dragging. Does that "help" in any objective way? Fuck no, but we don't care about the objective here, we're literally trying to alter the subjective experience. So, a wastepaper basket full of "go me!" stickynotes may be the best way to a new squat PR.

Again, very interesting and informative.

If I'm reading you correctly, my updated hypothesis has also been more or less invalidated. We aren't in a situation in which a meaningful percentage of blue collar (or any) careers create the demise of those who work in them. And from previous comments, we can also say with decent confidence that "disability grift" isn't a multi-billion dollar scam industry. Furthermore, with the amounts involved, there aren't really "disability queens" who are collecting thousands of dollars per month. It's an unfortunate group of mostly honest people who get a few hundred extra dollars to get by. Based on your comments on the end-of-lifers, it also seems disability insurance acts as kind of publicly-funded hospice care as well. Sad, but understandable.

Given all of this, I'm actually, now, tempted to think that system works about as well as a system like this could. It's inefficient, sure, but it feels like it's mostly doing a service to those in need (perhaps to an unsatisfying emotional degree) and without a disproportionate drain on public resources.

I'll make the humble request again to get your input on that.

I look forward to his polyamorous wedding with Aella after a tearful, twitter-gangbang based reconciliation. Just like in the movies!

Are you 'Throwaway05' as well? The phraseology and semi-trolling strategy seem similar.

Positive vs negative discipline.

Positive discipline is doing things that are good but that require the completion of a behavior; working out, reading more, writing more, learning a new skill, whatever.

Negative discipline is abstaining from things - mostly that are bad from you - but, more generally, that you want to abstain from for whatever reason in order to shift habits. Drinking and drugs, obviously, are the big ones. But this is also dieting, masturbation, social media consumption, etc.

Positive discipline activities give you a generous feeling of accomplishment and instant reward. "I worked out today!" Negative discipline is more complex - while it creates, for me, a sense of "momentum" and the feeling that I'm "on a streak", if I focus too much on it it warps into an "oh no, don't break the streak!" feeling of anxiety or anticipation. So, the mental model I use is to treat it like a savings or investment account - set it up to be automatic, then don't think about it. Check in on the "balance" every once in a while and smile as it will often be larger than you remember.

Watch real football.

2025 NFL Schedule Press Release

Is this the same Nicholas Decker who wrote the "when to kill Trump" essay or whatever?

As an adult, cars I owned have all been F-150s from 2000-2010. Part of this is due to the fact that I don't fit into most sedans (height) and even the ones that I do physically fit into, the resulting vision angles are so extreme that I feel it's unsafe for me to drive them.

Pickup trucks are big and so I fit into them. I like how they age - if you have a 10+ year old truck with some dings and scratches in it, it looks like you've really worked and used it. I'm suspicious of Trucks that are treated like show cars - glossed to hell and back, not a scratch in sight. If you're keeping it that pretty ... why not just get a literal show car?

There's a lot of debate on Ford/Chevy(GM)/Ram/Toyota. Based on a decent amount of research and a lot of conversations with mechanics at bars, the answer is that for the 150/1500 series, they are more or less all the same. The Toyota's are probably more reliable, but the Tundra is kind of ugly. The real fuckery over the last 10+ years has been all of the digital systems integrated into the engines to manage fuel economy. Truck engines really weren't designed for this and so people are having all kinds of maintenance and reliability issues.

This is why my next truck will be a 250/2500 series. As these are full "heavy duty" work trucks, the manufacturers don't try to play games with the engine, transmission, suspension, or fuel systems. Everything is big, overbuilt, more simple, and more reliable. The downside is they are, out of the gate, more expensive and, if you do need major maintenance or repair, that will be more expensive too.

It has nothing to do with EVs in particular. Emissions mandates and general "green consciousness" have really fucked up the pickup truck market. 150/1500 Series trucks are over-engineered now and, therefore, don't have great margins. The solution? Luxury trucks. Some new trucks can easily hit 70k or more because of a large number of non-mechanical bells and whistles; leather seats, infotainment etc. I would LOVE for there to be a dead simple V8 150/1500 for $25k off of the assembly line. This would be the "work boots" of trucks.

But government regulation has made that impossible. So now, new Trucks have subscriptions to Apple TV.

Here's the security video. The link is foxnews, so there's .... oh so much javascript and other crap. The victim is fully blurred out and there isn't any gore or shocking content, but still probably technically NSFW.

The interesting thing is that there are half a dozen children who act as nothing more than curious onlookers. I could give you 5 paragraphs on Kitty Genovese, but that would be wasted here on the Motte.

Compassion and empathy do not require acceptance or being a door mat.

This is my nomination for one-liner Motte And Bailey of the year (so far).

We have good evidence to believe that free will is mostly BS

Citation needed.

it is still true that childhood abuse ruins your life outcomes.

Citation needed. Also, there's literally a cottage industry in within hollywood that does nothing besides making films about people who overcame their childhood to do amazing things.

We have some knowledge of things like the impact on your brain chemistry and psychological development

Citation needed.

We can point to incredibly poor outcomes and paucity of truly effective treatment.

Citatio--nevermind.


Let's say you come back with bulletproof evidence for all of your claims. Think through the implications. How do we as a society ever hold anyone accountable for anything? What "counts" as trauma? Who decides? How do you account for individual variation in the ability to cope with negative emotions?

The whole point of our legal system is that it is based on the premise that there is the law and only the law. Your personal circumstances have little to do with how you are judged against the law*. "Your honor, I had a really hard childhood. I think you should take that into account during this armed robbery trial." That would be pants-on-head insane because it would mean every single law and every single interaction with it would be an inherently subjective exercise. There would, in effect, be no laws. No laws, no society ... you get the picture.

Compassion and empathy do not outrank truth.

By implication, you're also preemptively condemning literal children to a life of low expectations and patronization. "Damn kid, your mom was a crackhead and dad beat you? Well, don't feel bad about being semi-homeless for a while, it isn't your fault." Or, in this specific Aella case, "Sure, sure, honey, you're a multi-millionaire with a massive online following, but you go right ahead and have a public meltdown." Why not encourage them to rise to their potential? Why not deliver the much, much better message of "despite what has happened in your past, you can create a good life and be a valued, pro-social member of whatever community you choose**"

Pairing all of this with your initial dubious claims we have yet another example of the satanic nature of current therapy. It's the embodiment and fulfillment of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. It takes otherwise healthy people who may need some encouragement and turns them into fragile, dependent slaves to the cult of "self-care", "triggers", "boundaries", etc. Many are literally permanently drugged and then reminded that such drugging is "necessary" to keep them ..... stable? I'll take volatile but responsible and competent over "stable", flaccid and burdensome.


  • Caveat around edge cases here. Self-defense, other in extremis circumstances.
  • Except if that contradictions biology.

Thanks! Learned a lot. Dispelled some notions. AAQC rec'd.

Unfortunately, this actually makes me more pessimistic than if you had said "50% of claims are bullshit." This is because what you're describing really does look like a political solution to medical problems. It does seem insane that certain jobs, if done repetitively over 20+ years, will, with high probability, lead the laborer to breaking their own body to the point of disability. I don't think those jobs should be "highly regulated" so that people can work them and remain healthy; I think they shouldn't exist for humans at all. I don't want more coal miners (i.e. humans who travel under a mountain) - I want coal mining robots.

If you had to guess at a ratio, how much of state disability is:

  1. People who genuinely need it, but are also trying to maximize what they get
  2. People who genuinely need it, and will take what's offered without much pushback
  3. People who the "disability industrial complex" - who use family/friends experience, attorneys, and "community organizations" to bilk benefits that they do not need nor honestly qualify for.

Please and Thank You.

I was trying to draw a parallel between "those in the know" in the tech industry and the same in the finance industry.

People who work in data science and engineering know walmart labs. Great reputation. People who work in finance know Allen and company. Great reputation.

People who do not work in those industries have never heard of either Walmart Labs or Allen and Company.

I don't buy it. He'd have to time the jump perfectly and then there's still a lot of "how did you avoid debris / fuel / landing on something hard"

I've never even heard of Walmart Labs

whereas everyone in the industry knows...

Ask your friends at Goldman Sachs about Allen and Company.

Posts a thoughtful essay on defending Aella while also discussing the many sided argument about her public persona, her personal history, and how we should think about judgement in the twitter sphere.

Or some fucking bullshit like that.

I have been helped quite a bit by therapeutic modalities, even though it took me years to find ones that worked with good practitioners.

Your choice of words alone in that sentence suggests a verbal IQ (if not general IQ) in the top 5% (and I'm probably underestimating). You're posting on a niche forum that hyper-indexes on good argumentation. The most liked posts on here routinely surpass 500 - 1000 words.

Therapy didn't help you, you helped you. I know, that's an outlandish claim to make. I don't know your whole story. How could I be so presumptuous blah blah blah. But this is yet another part of therapy culture I find so contemptuous. For the success stories out there - like yours - I believe 99% of them are just that person improving their life. The therapist was in no way necessary. But the therapist then takes the credit. And invites well-intentioned and genuinely praiseworthy people - such as yourself - to proclaim the advantages of therapy. At best, at the absolute best, you could maybe view a therapist as a coach in the sports sense. They help you stay disciplined, offer nurturing advice, whatever. But who went out and did the thing? You did.

Where therapy isn't a satantic self-religion, it's a grift. Where it isn't a gift, it's non-sexual emotional prostitution. Where it isn't even that (in the academy) it's a rent seeking non-scientific field that shits out pop self-help books backed by "TeH scIencE" and propagated over social media. Evil turtles, all the way down.


Semi-related tangent: Can't find the article / essay, but I remember a ACX style post about how most alcoholics who aren't a) extremely low agency (i.e. retardation levels of IQ) and b) past the point of the dangerous chemical addiction wherein cessation can be fatal, will self-resolve their alcohol consumption to manageable levels over the course of their life. Alcoholics Anonymous is more or less a placebo. I'd love to find that article again as I have enough people in my personal orbit who essentially have been functioning alcoholics for several years at a time, become completely sober for several years, and then resolved to totally responsible occasionally social drinkers after about a decade mixture of the preceding two phases.

I don't know if she's capable of that, though. Again, doing untrained psychoanalysis over the Internet, but by all accounts her method of dealing with her traumatic upbringing was "do a shit load of LSD and permanently fry my brain" which is not really helpful.

If she's compounded her trauma through years of maladaptive behaviors, then the question has to be asked: to what extent is she culpable for her own behavior? If that answer is "below the level of generally agreed upon adult responsibility" then we're talking about involuntary psychiatric commitment.

But we're not talking about that because she's obviously a high agency, capable individual. That's my whole point - she's making these choices on her own. And, thus, my compassion is effectively zero because I know she can change but she chooses not to.

Nitpick and I know it wasn't your intent, but I have a hard eye for Walmart hate.

Your average Walmart does a little more that $1milion / week in sales. The average customer is a suburban woman making between $40-$80k per year. The average supercenter employs 300 people.

The trope of "lulz Walmart is for fucked up redneck towns" is categorically false. Walmart is an amazing, massive company. They were FAANG before FAANG was a thing, having picked up RDBMs for inventory management in the 1980s. They promote from within to an extreme degree. Walmart Labs, for data science and engineering, is as prestigious and as lucrative as a FAANG job currently. Their buyers are some of the best negotiators, marketers, and logisticians in the world. The conslutants (no, I spelled the right, go back and read it) from McKinsey etc. would give their left nut to get an in house job at Walmart - most don't.

And walmart sells what people want and need for ridiculous prices. In a modern consumer economy, it is the triumph of scale and American purchasing power. Walmart is why, how, and where we go to not only feel like but actually live better than 99.99% of all historic royalty in human history.

Amazon imports junks from all across the world. Google and Facebook make you the product by using surveillance capitalism to capture and re-sell your data. Walmart sells you a ridiculous TV for less than $500.

That said, her entire schtick is stirring up controversy, posting provocative things as "thought experiments," and bragging about her gangbangs.

I truly love this sentence. The first 75% of it is kind of ho-hum internet drama and then it hits that hard left turn to close it out.

And it's 10,000% accurate. Aella is a twitter clickbait troll. But she's "attractive" (sincere personal opinion: she is not). Okay, there are other attractive twitter spammers. Hmmm, how do differentiate? Rationalist community! Pretty good, but I need that x-factor, that pizzazz!

Oh, i'll just fuck a bunch of people and talk about it all the damn time.