ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
1d ago
Yeah, I'mma need you to actually give a reason why you think I'm not engaging in good faith. Otherwise, this is pretty much just another bald accusation.
I just gave you a thorough explanation of what I believe, as you asked for. What have you given me in response? Where is your good faith?
In the words of my wife, she "knew", but didn't "know know".
After we got married, she just started eating about the same as what I was eating. Neither of us paid much attention. She didn't gain all that much, but realized she was gaining and wanted to stop/reverse it. I talked to her and set out some plans. Sure, she "knew" that how much you eat/calories had something to do with it, but she didn't "know know". She played along with my plan, but every other week, there was, "Maybe it's not working anymore!" "Maybe my metabolism has changed!" And so on. All these things correspond with the FUD that is constantly attached to the basic statements of the reality of the situation.
Guess what? It kept working. Every time. It wasn't until after multiple rounds of her thinking it wasn't working and me telling her to stop complaining and just do it that she "knew knew".
I think you've probably met yourself in the western world. I honestly would guess (I'm not sure, but I would guess) that you don't "know know". This is not a question about whether you or others are "vaguely aware". As I put it in my other comment:
Not in a, "Sure, calories theoretically matter, BUT [insert any of a million excuses people give to proceed to immediately ignore calories]," way, but in a genuine, "Ok, my weight actually does meaningfully correspond in the long run to the calories I consume and the calories I expend, even if my measurement of the phenomena is noisy," way.
I far more often meet people in the western world who believe some form of the former rather than the latter.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
I've already done so, twice.
I don't think you have. You haven't even given me a complete sentence.
If you believe I'm mistaken, please say what you do believe.
I wrote an entire long comment on what I believe.
Allow me to add some additional things I believe.
I believe that people shouldn't conflate describing a problem and fixing it. I also believe that people shouldn't falsely accuse others of doing so. I also believe that if you want me to take you seriously, you need to at least do a "Yes, but" instead of a "But".
Moreover, I believe that your entire initial comment was premised on this false accusation. If this accusation was false and irrelevant, then I believe that your entire original comment was irrelevant. I don't believe there's anything in it for me to respond to unless your accusation is true. Thus, an emphasis on determining its truth value. I believe I need more than two words to support your accusation. A complete sentence would be preferred. Alternatively, if you'd like to admit that your accusation was false, then I would be happy for you to have a redo on your original comment. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts that are responsive to my thoughts. I don't particularly like hearing your thoughts that are only oriented toward a strawman.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't see anything in there that describes any other sources of data that you think can, theoretically and practically, be brought to bear on this question. Nor do I see any indication of what sort of precision you think is necessary.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
If you can't think of any others, then just say that's the only one you can think of. If you have no thoughts on what sort of precision you think is necessary, then just say that you have no thoughts on what sort of precision is necessary. Ya know, instead of wasting our time.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
None of that is pointing to a place where I did the particular thing that you claimed was "the problem". That's two words and your own commentary. Two words is not enough to establish conflation of multiple things.
Please show me where I did as described by:
The problem with the calorie-based paradigm of weight-loss and gain isn't that its wrong, it's that its advocates conflate describing a process and fixing it.
At least a complete sentence would be preferred.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
What other sources of data do you think can, theoretically and practically, be brought to bear on this question? Is that literally the only one? What sort of precision do you think is necessary?
ControlsFreak
2d ago
The problem with the calorie-based paradigm of weight-loss and gain isn't that its wrong, it's that its advocates conflate describing a process and fixing it.
Where did I do this? This particular thing that you claim is done by such people whom you bin into a "camp". This particular thing that you claimed was "the problem". Where did I do that thing?
ControlsFreak
2d ago
The problem with the calorie-based paradigm of weight-loss and gain isn't that its wrong, it's that its advocates conflate describing a process and fixing it.
Where did I do that? This sounds like tilting at strawmen.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
You say many true and almost-true things.
Count calories all you want (and most people don't want to spend tons of time doing that), but what you eat is gonna determine whether you feel fine and satiated or hungry and miserable. Being hungry and miserable all the time is a great way to quit a diet. So why not skip the part where you count calories, eat the right foods, and don't feel hungry and miserable all the time.
Because the vast majority of people have absolutely no bollocks idea what the goal even is. They've been constantly lied to on this topic. How do you pick "the right foods" to eat? What are some plausible metrics? I would interpret from your comment that one plausible metric is "good satiety", but how do you even measure that? Do you have some normalization? Is it satiety per liter? Per kilogram? ...per calorie? You sort of can't even get off the ground if you're someone who has been taken in by the lies and doesn't believe that calories can possibly matter because I guess the body magically adjusts and makes them meaningless anyway or something.
Once a person actually acknowledges that calories matter. Not in a, "Sure, calories theoretically matter, BUT [insert any of a million excuses people give to proceed to immediately ignore calories]," way, but in a genuine, "Ok, my weight actually does meaningfully correspond in the long run to the calories I consume and the calories I expend, even if my measurement of the phenomena is noisy," way. Then a person can start to make meaningful choices and tradeoffs with eyes wide open. They won't fall for things like, "I heard once that nuts are the right foods, so I constantly snack on nuts all day."
Many people are never going to read a study on satiety of various foods. But if you get them to actually acknowledge that calories do matter (again, not in the fake and gay way where you immediately follow it by saying they don't matter), many folks can figure it out. "Oh, I can have that much of Food A and it's like the sort of equivalent of this much of Food B?!" And maybe they won't reconstruct satiety studies on their own, but they will likely be a lot more open to you bringing it up. At that point, they have a goal, and you have a valuable piece of information that can be very useful to their goal. If, instead, they think it's just about picking "the right foods", why do they care about that? "Haven't you heard, man? Avocados are like, a 'superfood'. That means they're the right food."
There are a lot of different ways for a person to ultimately put in place a selection of foods that satisfy their nutritional needs and also fit within their caloric budget. They may depend on many lifestyle factors. There is no one single "right way". If you're telling people that you have the magic one single right way, then first, you have to compete with all the other folks who have their own single magic right way, like the avocado guy or whatever. Those guys are also saying that calories are bullshit. Second, your magic right way may not actually fit with another person's lifestyle.
Instead, a person needs to understand that there are many ways, but calories do matter (yet again, not in a bullshit way where one immediately follows it by saying calories don't matter). One can certainly try different ways that are out there, but it is sure a useful diagnosis tool. "Joe is telling me to eat nothing but avocados. Since I know I'm targeting X calories, that means I can eat Y avocados. I guess I'll see if I can make this work?" Versus just randomly shooting in the dark aimlessly.
Once a person uses this diagnostic and is able to wrap their head around what the tradeoff space actually looks like, in terms of things like satiety as well, then they may not actually need to count calories anymore. But it's an invaluable tool for the people who are serious and real, whereas the vast majority of folks who forever chase the latest "right food" will never have enough grounding to even know what the point is.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
What sources of data do you think can, theoretically and practically, be brought to bear on this question? What sort of precision do you think is necessary?
ControlsFreak
4d ago
Have I changed my opinion on weight loss? No.
So were you right? Has your experience been like what you had expected?
I expect the required measures to be extreme; exercising for several hours every other day, chugging water all day to kill hunger, moving to a cold climate to burn more calories maintaining body temperature, eating bland food like Soylent and MealSquares, avoiding social occasions like birthdays and weddings so that you are not tempted to break your diet, etc. In the worst case, they might have to move to an isolated rural area in Alaska to avoid just driving down to the Walmart for a snack raid. It'd be something like a medical residency, where you endure four years of hell in exchange for a greatly improved rest of your life.
Did you do that stuff?
ControlsFreak
28d ago
When I read something that, presumably, is the human author's thoughts, only for it to turn out to be LLM's output, I feel a similar betrayal of trust as when I read something purportedly factual that turns out to be fictional, even if not actively meant to deceive. This is definitely true if the entire output is LLM-produced
I think the kids these days are using the term "meat proxy".
ControlsFreak
28d ago
Do you have a run-down of this that you can share or write up?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Altman and Amodei want more money, so why shouldn't the workers themselves want more money?
Matt Levine has written lately that AI labs have a fundamental problem about compensation and motivation. You have to pay an AI researcher so much money to hire them that they could, if they wanted, approximately immediately retire and never work again. How do you even retain them in the first place? He remarks on how certain parts of the financial industry also have this problem, and they've historically had some 'solutions' to it (e.g., acculturating people to having strong desires for otherwise minor positional goods WRT a small group of peers), but how those solutions don't quite yet apply to the AI folks. He writes:
The AI labs have found a better and more counterintuitive solution to the problem, which is convincing their employees that what they are doing will kill everyone on earth, so they have to spend all of their time working on it rather than getting manicures.
It is not entirely clear to me that if a person becomes convinced of that, then they should either spend all their time working on it or quit. I would also imagine that there would be a variety of motivations, probably similar to what one sees in the financial industry. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to discover that there are a decent number of people in the financial industry who ended up eschewing minor positional goods and just retiring off of the bank they made in a few years. Yet clearly others (e.g., the top leaders of investment banks) want more money. I don't think there is any contradiction here.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
You're getting a lot of push back, rightfully so, on grounds that you almost certainly support Democratic party actions that similarly raid the public purse for their preferred spoils. And sure, complaining about when the other guy does it is as gay as the day is long, but it appears an observable truth to me that such mere complaining in this form has not been beneficial for either side. Nor are the discussions that tend to follow, as they mostly descend into finger-pointing.
I don't know that I've entirely given up on finding a true solution, and perhaps there are others, but let me suggest that there might be one. The core problem is a credible commitment problem. Both sides see each other complain when they're out of power, but cannot believe that they will commit to not doing likewise once they regain power. If FC's particular brand of doomerism is not controlling (and it might be), then perhaps the most suitable tool in our Constitutional Republic for the task would be a Constitutional amendment.
So draft a suitable amendment. Provide a text. Argue convincingly that this draft text, if adopted, will actually constrain Democrats when they're in power as well as Republicans (this will be a hard task). Show that you can garner enough Democratic votes (in Congress and the States) to adopt an amendment that will almost certainly gore many future Democratic party oxen as well. Honestly, you will probably have to gore some current Democratic party oxen, too. Do some productive herethetics and show that if you split the issue differently, there can be more people on the side of, "Both of these parties need to knock it the hell off," than on the side of, "We'll gleefully do it for our team and constantly complain when it's their team." I'm personally happy to be on the side of, "Both of these parties need to knock it the hell off," but I probably doubt that you are. So just show me a draft text to make it apparent which group you're in.
If you find this unpalatable and cannot bring yourself to credibly commit to goring enough Democratic party oxen in the process, then the answers to most of your questions become readily apparent. The same goes for the other side.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
The NYT article on the topic did not mention this. It calls out the laws promoting Canadian online content, and says, "A person with direct knowledge of the talks said that the American side was flexible on this point, and did not make any asks regarding the French language explicitly. A Canadian counterpart said that, even if that were the case, the topic was still being debated until the last minute before the talks broke down on Friday."
So, maybe? Maybe not? I would think that if NYT had solid confirmation that the US went after bilingual labeling laws, they would have included it. Of course, that article is also a snapshot in time concerning the information they had at that moment.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I think this would likely imply that wokeism is Christian... and anti-wokeism is Christian. Communism is Christian and libertarianism is Christian, and I guess socialism and other points in between are all Christian. Fascism is Christian and anti-fascism is Christian. Monarchism is Christian and republicanism (classical) is Christian. And on and on. Is this right?
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I mean, I read the connotation the other way? I think it's at least obvious that the statement shouldn't say that they "will" destroy it, because that would imply absurd results in some cases. So at the very least, since your first alternative word fails, I think you should propose a second alternative word that better captures the connotation you would prefer. Otherwise, I would conclude that the original captures even what you think it should be saying better than your proposed alternative.
I would also note that later in the quote, he says:
If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served.
Of course, if he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may also discover that it still serves a good purpose. Thus, it "may" be the case that the conclusion is that it should be destroyed, and it "may" be the case that it should nonetheless be preserved. It boggles the mind to say that it "will" be the case that it should be destroyed (or that it should be preserved) without having any interrogation of the specifics.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
Suppose they come back and tell you that they see the use of it, and that use is actually pretty darn good. Still useful, in fact, moreso than the alternative. As a kicker, upon realizing the use of it, they might even agree with you that the use is good enough to justify not destroying it. Should the result still be that they "will" destroy it?
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I think in order for you to make the argument that none of the people in that list were ever influenced
I don't think that was the matter in question. The way you had originally put it was, "what base theology did Wokeism form from"? This is quite the shift of goalposts.
you'd have to put forth the idea that tabula rasa exists into adulthood. That your mind, your beliefs, your values are entirely your own. You tread un-walked ground and nothing of the culture that you developed, grew, learned in steeped into your core.
If this is the test for the original question, then don't we have to conclude that your own particular sect of atheism also formed from the base theology of Christianity? Or did you uniquely possess tabula rasa into adulthood in a world otherwise full of mere mortals? It's making the question meaningless. Certainly not about theological development.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I'm still pretty doubtful that if one examines the continental->critical philosophy pipeline that developed into wokeism, one would find a pool of Christian theologians doing Christian stuff, even if heretical.
Scoop out the Holy trinity
There are still plenty of non-trinitarians, and they aren't the ones who created wokeism, either. You have to go full atheism first. At every step of the development of wokeism, it's people who went full atheism first. As The Rightful Caliph observed later in the process:
Most movement atheists weren’t in it for the religion. They were in it for the hamartiology [the study of sin, in particular, how sin enters the universe]. Once they got the message that the culture-at-large had settled on a different, better hamartiology, there was no psychological impediment to switching over. We woke up one morning and the atheist bloggers had all quietly became social justice bloggers. Nothing else had changed because nothing else had to; the underlying itch being scratched was the same. They just had to CTRL+F and replace a couple of keywords.
I suppose one could try to argue that it's impossible for an atheist sect to have a hamartiology, but I think it would require argument for why Scott is wrong.
Do you really think that if one scratches the likes of Marx, Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, Derrida, Foucault, etc., one primarily finds a bunch of Christians doing Christian stuff? Nah, they thoroughly rejected any sort of god-based anything, went full atheism, and then built an atheism-based epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. They weren't Christians doing Christian stuff and deciding to just scoop out the trinity and keep what remains. It's incredibly different on almost every level, down to the base. It seems that there's maybe one kinda similarity if you squint really really hard, but even that has a totally different basis and totally different implications.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
You missed answering the second part. What is "most"? What is the denominator? Can you count them on one hand? I hate to do it, but if you persist in avoiding the question, I probably have to assume that you've only ever read one, and that one was probably cherry-picked to make you angry rather than thinking rationally.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
Were those a requirement of the funding agency?
Yes. And the funding agencies were (and maybe still are) routinely including this stuff. Maybe the government ones aren't now, but they will again as soon as a Democrat is in charge. There's no way to keep that from happening without dismantling the system entirely.
Then the "system" that you're referring to dismantling entirely here is the government, right? Right?
Most of the ones I've read were fed to me... by people outraged at their being canceled because there was clearly no DEI in there. But there was.
"Most of the ones". I'm trying to parse this. If you've only seen one, and it was 1/1, then that would be more of an "all" than a "most". If you've seen two, and it was 1/2, I'm not sure that's "most" rather than "half"; if it was 2/2, probably we're back to "all". Maybe you've seen three, and it was 2/3? Were these two fed to you by someone else filtering and pointing you specifically to those two folks complaining about being canceled, at which point you read the proposals and saw that there was, in fact, DEI in them? How'd you come across the third? What was it like?
For what? What rule? Be serious.
More options
Context Copy link