@ControlsFreak's banner p

ControlsFreak


				

				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					
joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1422


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ControlsFreak


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1422


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If I think that the Nazis are bad, which of course I do, I can fight them. Recognizing that my morals are not materially more true than their's doesn't stop me.




What, then, do you mean by "bad"? Like, if you were to say to another human, let's call her Alice, that you thought the Nazis are bad, what does that entail? Does it mean that you have a reason, which you think should be convincing to Alice, to believe that... oh, I don't know, that their morals are materially less true than yours? Are you just merely expressing some feature of your personal morals, completely isolated from anything else in the universe? Like, what's going on here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The second warning is much much more based on the first instance of behavior than on anything you did the second time around.




This seems to imply that what someone is allowed to say here is dependent upon who they are, not what they say. This can't possibly be right, can it, @Amadan? This would be an utterly perverse policy that encourages people to drop accounts that have been identified as "bad" and create new ones that are allowed to say things that are apparently total legal to say. @Amadan, can you at least see that there is some confusion here about what you've done? That the problem is that you haven't spoken plainly, not that I'm just lying?!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, do you think I "relitigated" my ban in the original comment? I thought I was simply pointing out a double-standard... the exact same thing that was being done by the comment I responded to (but which did not receive a mod comment). Is the problem just that I brought receipts? If I just removed the hyperlinks, does the comment suddenly not get modded?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe I'm wrong, and @Amadan can correct me if I'm wrong. But I read:




But if you're really looking for another ban to whine about, do this again.




And I thought that the implication was that there was something wrong with this comment.


Do you think that the only problem was my "characterization" of the previous action? If so, that would be pretty incredible, in my mind, because not to put to fine a point on it, I disagree with their chosen characterization of the previous action. I have also been told that it will not be "relitigated". Point of fact is that it has actually never been "litigated" a first time! There was just a ban, and then nothing. We could just continue on having different characterizations of the past. We could have a discussion to clarify and come to a reasonably joint characterization. What I think is not really something we can do is simply to declare that any characterization I give that is not simply quoting something that I disagree with is a bannable offense because I supposedly "know perfectly well" that my own opinion has magically been declared wrong without discussion, such that even having a different opinion is "lying" about it.


I mean, it is within @Amadan's prerogative to simply declare that my perspective is bannable without discussion, but I think that should be explicitly stated as such. And it should be abundantly clear that this is what is happening, rather than that I am "lying" about something I supposedly "know perfectly well".


EDIT: In fact, it would be perfectly useful if this were declared. Because right now, I think it's apparent that there is total confusion as to what Amadan is going for. Like I said:




Was it less well-written than the original? Was it secret that it was a parody? Did I make reference to something that completely confused you and made you have no idea where it came from? What's the problem now?




It would be helpful to know that these are not the problem, if that is the case. For example, is it bannable to adjust wording in someone's argument in order to demonstrate that the form of an argument can be applied to a different set of particulars, implying a conclusion that is different from the expectation of one's interlocutor? If so, it would be extremely valuable to know this. I was under the impression that such argumentative method has been well-established since Plato's time, so if it is unacceptable here, I just want a clear statement, so that I know what to avoid in the future. Right now, I have absolutely no bloody clue what the actual problem is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My biggest mistake was overestimating both the philosophical knowledge and the Internet Atheist meme history knowledge of the community. (The former bit is from world famous philosopher Rene Girard. The latter bit came from the Internet Atheism Wars, and I suppose it would be vastly more well-recognized ten to fifteen years ago. I guess I'm getting old now.)


...but, of course, that's not the reason that was given for the modding! And perhaps even more importantly, it's completely inapplicable to this modding. What is your hypothesis for why I'm off-base this time? Was it less well-written than the original? Was it secret that it was a parody? Did I make reference to something that completely confused you and made you have no idea where it came from? What's the problem now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I asked about this time. But just like when you mod comments, you sometimes make notes about how there is parsimony with prior comments by the offender... when we "litigate" this modding, it would be helpful if the mod comments are parsimonious with prior mod comments.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I remember you, too.


My version brought data.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I have been around long enough to know that 95% of the time, "It's holistic," means, "It's bullshit." Interestingly, I've even seen this attempted in peer review. Thankfully, the Editor in Chief didn't buy it and told the academic janny to do a better job. He needed something real, specific, and actionable.


You wrote:




No one post is terrible, but most of them are obnoxious and unnecessarily antagonistic.




Point me to one. Make it something specific. Something real. Something actionable. Something that can actually be put into practice to improve future posting. Without something, the most likely conclusion is, "Atheism is the sacred at The Motte."


Notice that last time, your complaint was that I didn't make it obvious enough that I was riffing off something. [EDIT for appropriate bold:] This time, that is exceedingly obvious. Last time, you complained about me responding to follow-on questions. This time, I have said nothing else up to this point. Give me something real. Something actual. Something actionable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The even harder trick is keeping the looters out once you've established the party. Once it is established that the party is where all the loot is, one hardly even need consult with Willie Sutton.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
When you try to claim that Christianity gets treated with kid gloves, you get bland shoulder shrugs and some upvotes. When you point out that actually, it's atheism that is treated with kid gloves, you get banned. The modding happens because atheists don't even bother trying to defend their absolute bollocks metaphysics since they know they'll get trounced, so instead they fight with oversensitive interpretations of the rules (declaring that actually responding to people's questions is "obnoxious" and "unnecessarily antagonistic").


If anything in this forum is 'sacred' in the language of Robin Hanson, it is atheism. It shall not mix with the profane things, like arguments about the culture war.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Regardless of the extent that social contagion didn't become top-of-mind for the readership until maybe then, I recall comparison between trans/anorexia as far back as 2015 (you have to read down a few comments, but the context probably starts around there). Perhaps there was already some undercurrent of folks implicitly believing something like social contagion for anorexia at the time, even.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Teach a Man to Revolt: Dreams of a Dark Bill of Rights
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Interesting case! Thanks for linking to it!


The way I read it, I think the gov't position was something along the lines of, "We still needed people living in these quarters to work in the prison, so we kicked out the people who weren't working and put in folks who were." I think the (somewhat unstated) position of the plaintiffs was, "Bullshit. You wanted to be dicks to us and make life harder for us because we went on strike; it's just a hardball move."


In any event, I think there's a sort of meaningful difference in intent here, regardless of how along this spectrum you think this case falls. In particular, what the gov't did was kick them out of their places. The OP speaks of the intent being "so as to observe all their private interactions and cripple their ability to interact and organize." Kicking them out could be used as a method of making them easier to observe, given some other argumentation, but I don't think there's much like that here. Instead, kicking them out would seem to make them hard to observe in most cases.


And frankly, I'm a bit unimpressed with the cites trying to connect the Third Amendment to a right to privacy. TBH, Griswold sort of just throws that in there, and it's the sort of free-floating prenumbras bullshit that really reads like motivated reasoning rather than any sort of serious historical scholarship. In Engblom, I don't actually see what invoking the word "privacy" even adds. It would be far simpler just to directly state something like, "Just like we don't require specific ownership rules for papers and effects for the Fourth Amendment, we don't for the Third, either." (Of course, I can genuinely see how the text of the Third Amendment specifically refers to the "owner", so I wouldn't be surprised if at least Gorsuch votes the other way.)


I guess what I really want is some history, not necessarily law. Some historical evidence that the Brits targeted revolutionaries to quarter their soldiers. It seems on first glance like this strategy would be a mixed bag, but maybe they did it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for July 12, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Actual GPT-4 API/Bing are much better, if they're making subtle errors in the code, then it's still running, and the problems are far beyond my capacity to deduce.




Does anyone have a sort-of ranking overall for the different bots, specifically for coding purposes? Are any of the free options even worth bothering with? I've been avoiding really jumping in lately, mostly because my primary coding language for work lately has been the very high-level language called GradStudent, so I haven't really needed to. But I have a personal project coming up, and I'm kind of wanting to do it in a language that I'm only somewhat familiar with... and it involves an API that I've never used before... so I figured it would be the perfect opportunity to dive in to AI-assisted coding.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If there’s nothing better, then provisionally accept what we actually have, and go from there.




But why should I do this if, as posited, I have good reason to think that the data sucks?


Let me give a sort-of example from my own area of expertise. It's not actually a data-driven field; it's very deterministic mathematical theory. For decades now, people have been solving certain problems one way, using one method. The method has significant flaws. Some of the flaws are well-known; others, more damning ones in my mind, are just being revealed now. (I hate to say it, but it truly is, "Being revealed by a series of papers in which I'm a coauthor." I can lessen the arrogant-sounding sting a little bit by wholeheartedly acknowledging that it was a collaborator, not me, who came up with the initial counter-example that kicked off the whole shebang.)


We've been able to fix the problem, using a completely different method (established in a different context)... but so far, only for one specific version. There are numerous other variants of the problem. The thing is, for several of these variants that we've looked at, I can demonstrate that the (very bad) problem exists! I can show actual examples demonstrating why and how the prior methods fail to do what we had previously expected them to do. But we haven't yet 'fixed the glitch' for all these other variants (working on it!).


In sum, I know the bounds of what the prior method actually accomplishes, but I also now know what it doesn't accomplish. This has been hard for some people I've talked to in the field to grok, because they're so steeped in the old method. (I've had this conversation quite a few times, and it really breaks their brains at first, but if I get them to really focus on a particular example and I get them to really consider what would happen with the counterexample, I have a 100% rate of convincing them so far (profs in the field).) If someone were to say something like, "Yeah, ok, well, we know the prior method isn't perfect, but there's nothing better yet for this particular version of the problem, so let's provisionally accept it and go from there," I'm going to say, "HELLS NO!" Instead, I'm likely going to go find a particular counterexample for this variant, show exactly how the existing method is broken for this variant, and simply say, "We can't actually proceed further until we fix this."


I know this is shrouded in a small amount of mystery, but it's related, because we want to say, "Method/data says X." We think that, "Method/data says X." But it turns out that the method/data actually only says Y... which turns out to be very far from actually saying X. I'm not going to provisionally hold X when it pretty clearly says only Y and we don't actually have proper evidence for X.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s perfectly reasonable to propose an alternative theory, or point out an obvious flaw in the data we have. On the other hand, if you’re completely dismissive of the data in hand, you’ve completely lost the ability to think rationally about the issue because you’ve moved from asking whether something is true based on facts to a piori claims that “of course my claim is right, the data you have is flawed, and if we had (what I get to define as) the real data, it would agree with me.”




What do we do if all the data we have access to really is horribly flawed?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Teach a Man to Revolt: Dreams of a Dark Bill of Rights
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Interesting read! One question.




The 3rd Amendment is an Anti-Surveillance Amendment.






The British Military would force lodge soldiers in the homes of suspected revolutionaries and key persons of colonial America so as to observe all their private interactions and cripple their ability to interact and organize.




Do you have any cites to further reading on this? The 3rd is basically never litigated, so there are basically no briefs that I'm aware of saying, "Here's what we think the original meaning is." Is there an interesting law review article somewhere? A historian somewhere? I'd love to nerd out on it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In my reasonably high-degree-of-difficulty degree program, there were a decent number of women. Don't get me wrong, we were still on the 'wrong' side of the ratio, but there were more than a few. After the program, I saw some of them go and use their degree to significant effect. Some others stood out in the other direction. One in particular openly said that she had essentially zero plan to use her degree for any work; her plan was to get married, have kids, and stay home with them. Sure enough, she did exactly that. I hate to say it, but if I were the woman who didn't get accepted to the program, the one who would be next in line had this woman not taken the slot, I'd probably have been pretty furious with her. (I liked her; we were friends and worked together on some pretty cool projects.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think that a lot of people, of both sexes, are more able to make changes to their careers than they think. Three examples from my life: My parents divorced when I was a child. My mother had essentially no marketable skills. She started off doing temp receptionist work and gradually moved her way up and through various companies, eventually getting to a head of IT role, with significant remuneration. My wife grew up in an area that seemed to have not-so-bright employment opportunities. Was working menial jobs like McDonalds/call center. Was laid off, decided to take a one-year HR program, has already worked her way up to a director role. For a male example that is kind of extreme, I knew a guy who got an engineering degree, decided he wasn't doing enough to help people, so he became a nurse. Eventually decided that his passion was pig farming, so he up and did that.


EDIT: Fourth example: I knew a guy who was selling cell phones to businesses. Decided he didn't like it; went to night school for a year or two or however long it took (I don't actually know) to become a barber. Now owns a couple barbershops.


There's a regular stream of folks who comment here asking specifically about this - how do I make a switch in my career to something that isn't so dead end? Something that's not just stuck due to a dumb career decision I made when I was 18? Hard questions are things like: what percentage of people who are in this position get serious about trying to make a change? Is there a differential between rates along the lines of sex? Why is that? Tough questions, and I'm sure folks will be quick to jump in with conclusions, but without data. In any event, I imagine that a significant number of them could make significant changes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think we should jump straight to any particular conclusions for public policy. As a theoretical consideration, I do think it's a useful pairing to arguments concerning the Veil of Ignorance. The idea is that if folks want to try to get to conclusions about public policy via arguments leveraging the Veil of Ignorance, they ought consider this aspect somewhere along the way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I was just in a rural Francophone area that really did feel like it had its own culture/community... a few years ago. This trip, literally everyone I talked to, regardless of where they were on the political spectrum, brought up, on their own, some version of, "...man, there has been a lot of immigration recently. It's changed things."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, he said that, but it's pure ipse dixit. He think it is "because all laws treat some groups differently than others". Ok. Does somewhere in the EPC, it say, "Laws can't treat some groups differently than others"? No! It doesn't say that! He just made it up! Show me where, in the literal text of the EPC, where it says, "Laws can't treat some groups differently than others."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Try reading at all. I have been abundantly clear.




you haven't given a reason for why [your preferred literal meaning is] the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Bullshit. Where? Now you're just resorting to lying about what I've said?


EDIT: So you don't forget:




you haven't given a reason for why [your preferred literal meaning is] the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the literal meaning is that there can be no distinctions whatsoever.




You've said this, yes... but you haven't given a reason for why it's the literal meaning. Whereas I have given at least three reasons for why it should not be considered the literal meaning. But at this point I am pretty sure you understand that, and are just pretending otherwise.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You are arguing that "equal protection" does not mean there can't be any distinctions in any way, which I and everyone else agrees with.




Congrats! You agree with the literal meaning of the words! You had claimed that the literal meaning of the words was something else, but you haven't even tried to explain what that is and why that is even a plausible literal meaning. You haven't even tried, because you can't, because by far, the best literal reading of the words is exactly what you just agreed to.


I mean, you could try. You could just show me where, in the literal words, it says "the laws must treat everyone the same equal". You could just show me, in the literal words, what "protection" these not valid laws would be providing. You could at least try to explain some other meaning that you think is the "literal" one... but you haven't, because your original claim was completely moronic. No plausible literal reading of the words simply takes "equal" to stand completely on its own, completely excised from every other word, and magically interprets it all the way to, "Law cannot make any distinctions whatsoever."