Harlequin5942
No bio...
User ID: 1062
Enoch Powell's prediction of "the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" comes to mind.
That particular prediction was from a constituent, whom Powell was quoting in his speech. Powell's predictions tended to be more that the UK would see US-style racial animus (riots, terrorist groups, lynch mobs etc.) if immigration continued to go unchecked.
Interestingly, Powell's position was not so much that different races couldn't live together (he wasn't even a realist about race) but that, in practice, the rapid influx of ethnic groups would create social conflicts. My impression is that this was a consequence of Powell's Romanticist views about politics: a successful, harmonious country is one where people feel bonded together by history, common culture, and a sense of united destiny. At least in the UK, many of Powell's ideas have become the mainstream position, accepted by much of the left and all of the centre-right. Their only quibbles could be over the numbers, i.e. whether Powell was right about the particular proportions that could be assimilated in Britain without leading to US-style social conflicts. Unfortunately, quibbling about the numbers was enough for e.g. the post-1997 period to feature immigration on an unprecedented scale, though this was initially because of a deliberate effort by Labour to change UK demographics to destroy the cultural basis of Conservativism (cultural unity, historical connectedness etc.).
An extensive welfare state, by contrast, means you can choose to be a gay trans artist without worrying about the judgment of your family, community, or prospective employers.
On the other hand, the most extensive welfare states seem to be found in Nordic social democracies, which are notably communitarian, conformist, paternalist, and homogeneous. Some economists, like Scott Sumner, have argued that high levels of trust are the driving factors behind the generosity of welfare states in these countries, and almost paradoxically also caused them to be relatively low-regulation (the trust extends to people in business as well as people dependent on the welfare state). Social trust seems harder to foster in diverse, socially libertarian, and atomistic countries.
So the left builds up a welfare state house on communitarian foundations that they seek to erode via immigration, plus allowing and even encouraging individual non-conformity. I'm not sure if an American campus university social atmosphere can be sustainably combined with a Nordic-style social democracy. By contrast, conservatives can point to examples of societies that combined cowboy individualism with communtarianism (including parts of the Old West, though these were more libertine than many conservatives would like) and plausibly argue that communitarian values make cowboy individualism work better.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
How much "real teenage rebellion" did the Boomers engage in?
It depends on which Boomers. Most of them might have had a slightly long hair cut or bought Beatles/Rolling Stones records rather than Mozart/Sinatra records; more commonly, they bought a bit of both, as in the case of my parents.
On the other hand, if we're talking about the US in particular (e.g. France in late 1960s was much more radicalised, and many Czechoslovak Boomers found themselves face-to-face with Soviet invaders) there were plenty of Boomers who risked (and lost) their lives in the things like the anti-Vietnam war movement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_strike_of_1970
If you get shot by a National Guardsman, you must be doing something fairly transgressive. Of course, most Boomers didn't do anything like that.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
That says that the English rule is followed in Alaska. Is Alaska less litigious than the rest of the US?
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
The Old West was a big and complex place. It wasn't all saloons and Clint Eastwood.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
you’ll notice that a big chunk of modern bro country is dedicated to glorifying being a plumber in the suburbs of a third rate metro in flyover
This raises my respect for country music, since a lot of the happiest men I know fit that approximate description.
Polygnyous hypergamy takes some bizarre forms in academia, e.g. I knew of a famous academic who looks like Buddy Holly, with an astounding lack of either normal social graces or the ability to (successfully) imitate WASP norms, but who had two model-level grad students he was screwing (with their knowledge, but with their hope that "he'll choose me eventually") one of whom was semi-openly cucking her Gigachad-looking husband. And they were just the women I knew about.
Oh, and that's with a skin condition that means he can't use deoderant/cologne, plus (according to one of those beautiful women) a notably small penis.
Sort of encouraging, if you're academically successful and don't look like Gigachad.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Don't envy him: according to the Daily Mail, a Golden Penis Syndrome report says that he might feel "unduly in demand":
But, speaking as an academic... I can't disagree with what you say.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
I don't have the same experience of actual travelling becoming less interesting, but that's possibly because my method is rather scattershot. I don't care if one obscure village is actually the Best To Visit: if I am in the right mindset and I talk to local people, it will be fascinating for me. YMMV, especially if you're more interested in finding Big History or Amazing Experiences when you travel.
As for travel guides becoming less interesting, I suspect that this is a mix of safetyism, junk content on the internet/the decline of search engines, and to a lesser extent an unwillingness to call a shithole a "shithole".
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Here's an interesting article that discusses, among other things, mechanisms in monarchies/tribal societies for holding kings and chiefs to account:
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
A male friend recently gave me the dating advice that what's important in a partner is that they are "naturally happy", which struck me as a hilariously insufficient and condescending criterion, better suited to choosing a puppy.
Insofar as that guy is suggesting that low neuroticism is a desirable trait, he's very understandable. Less neurotic people tend to have happier, more stable, and more lasting relationships. That it's important doesn't imply that it's sufficient and it seems like a strawman of his position to suggest that interpretation.
Who are the female counterparts to Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, popular among both boys and girls (and whose roles and stories do not particularly depend on their masculinity)?
Alice from Alice in Wonderland. Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz.
Sherlock Holmes isn't particularly popular among boys and girls, as far as I know, but the female counterpart is Miss Marple.
The closest parallel to Harry Potter is Hermione Granger, who is also a character in the Harry Potter series.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
There's also a question of realism. I believe that Sigourney Weaver is fairly strong - maybe not as strong as an average American man, but not far off. She's a tall, athletic woman. It's much easier to suspend disbelief with her as Ripley than Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor, or young Linda Hamilton vs. Old Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor firing a machine gun.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
this requires a certain level of natural unhappiness with the order of things
Does it? Big Five neuroticism is negatively correlated with success in just about every domain of life. It's likely to make people unhappy and it's innate, but it's not useful for being a high achiever.
Big Five disagreeableness, to some degree, is correlated with success in some domains (and it's useful for getting a pay rise etc.) but disagreeableness, to this limited extent, is not correlated with (reported) unhappiness, AFAIK.
Big Five conscientious people might seem less happy, because they tend to spend less time chilling out, but IIRC conscientiousness is correlated with higher variance of happiness (conscientious people feel guilty less often but experience more intense guilt) rather than the level of happiness.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Then you get "Rings of Power" and small Morfydd Clark supposedly able to one-shot an ice troll (that was smacking around her entire squad of male Elves up till then) and teaching the Númenorean youth volunteers which end of a sword is the pointy bit, and even without the ludicrous 'acrobatic' stunts it just does not work. It doesn't matter that she's an Elf, she is simply not convincing as tall enough and strong enough to be able to pull off all this Warrior Girlboss routine.
Yes, there's a reason why Superman is muscular, even though his strength is obviously disconnected from just his muscles: it aids the suspension of disbelief. Chalamet as Superman would not work, unless he put on 40+ pounds of muscle, and also wore platform shoes that were at least 2 inches...
What's the likelihood of life on Earth given theism and why?
If life existing in the universe is likely given theism, why is there not more of it? Or less?
These questions reveal that the relevant likelihoods are unclear. Trying to apply Bayesian reasoning without principled likelihoods is not rational. If you don't know the likelihood of life given theism, then you can't apply Bayes' theorem. So your reasoning apparently doesn't get off the ground.
Put formally, let H1 be "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent God", H2 be "the Christian God exists", E1 be the existence of life on Earth, and E2 be the existence of life anywhere in the universe.
Nothing in H1 seems to require or probabilify the existence of life, so P(E1 | H1) = P(E), supposing these terms to be defined.
H2 requires the existence of life (let's suppose - God wants to test mortals' souls etc.) so let's suppose that P(E2 | H2) > P(E2). However, P(E2) already seems to be extremely high, so this provides extremely weak evidence for H2.
H2 does not require the existence of life on Earth in particular: nothing about the Christian God implies the existence of life on any particular planet. Suppose that P(E1) is low. Since P(E1 | H2) = P(E1), the existence of life on Earth provides no evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
Hence, even making charitable assumptions about priors and likelihoods, the existence of life on Earth provides no evidence for God's existence.
life would be preferred by god because life is necessary for most, if not all, good things to exist, and a rational being would prefer the good.
Would a rational being prefer for there not to be evil? Life (organic or artificial) seems required for evil. You can postulate that God would prefer the existence of good to the non-existence of evil, but that's not implied by theism per se, and hence doesn't factor into P(E2 | H1).
And even if it did, E2 is not the evidence that can have a significant confirmation of theism or Christian theism - E1 is. That life exists somewhere in the universe is highly probable given the laws of nature and the size/composition of the universe. However, I would be very surprised if you could provide a rationale that P(E1 | H1) or P(E1 | H2) are different from P(E1). Nothing in Christianity (AFAIK) implies that God would create life on Earth in the time it developed, rather than the trillions of other suitable points in spacetime.
The other two bits seem to be about what you think are comparative merits of a theistic explanation, but I'm not even convinced that theism predicts the existence of life.
What do you think the probability of life given non-theism is, and why?
I have no idea. I don't have the information required to make a sensible probabilistic model of the problem, and I can't determine a series of coherent, evidence-based likelihoods (outside of special cases) without that model.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
It's akin to the restrictions created by Christianity: to some degree, they can make for a better story, but not when they become too tight. So C. S. Lewis could, operating within a fairly but not entirely stuffy kind of Christian ethos and worldview, produce great children's stories that appeal even to the unconverted, but hardcore fundamentalists are infamously bad story tellers.
This trend goes back about as far as human culture: Aristophanes was conservative in contrast to Socrates and Plato, but not entirely pious. He wouldn't mock Zeus, but he did mock Dionysus. Constraints, to some degree, are good for creativity - that's one of the secrets of good poetry - provided those constraints stay within constraints. Even great conservative films like Ben Hur or The Dark Knight have a pinch of deviancy in them, perhaps because it's hard for profoundly creative people to stay within orthodoxy in all respects. Also, even great children's stories make one think, and the compatibility of orthodoxy (whether conservative or progressive) with thinking is a matter of degree.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
A fundamentalist Christian film is unlikely to portray a lot of casual sex and drug use.
If nothing else, pretending to be unwoke/sinful is bad for the actors' moral fibre.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
I have a slightly different view, but pretty similar: 1 is brilliant, 2 is bad, 3 is good, 4 was almost unwatchable. I think I would quite like 3 even without Sean Connery, though it would be only "average". 2 was saved from being terrible for me only by some memorable action scenes (like the bridge stuff at the end) and some great set design.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
True, it's interesting how some sins (excessive alcohol use, violence as long as it's not too graphic) are more acceptable to many people than sex or drug use.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Is this mistaken? Sure, the success rate with uncreative existing IP-parasitism may be low, but what about the success rate with creative films?
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Yes, South-East Asia would be lost to the Chinese, but that’s a reasonable price to pay. In the collapse of American identity and self-confidence, there would be (for the first time in a long, long time) the opportunity for radical political change.
Every Reagan Revolution has its Iran Hostage Crisis.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Makes sense.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Not portraying casual sex or drug use is more because it’s foreign to the writers.
Not sure what you mean here.
Finance wasn't exclusively upper class in the UK even in the past. During the post-WWII years, I have a grandfather who made it pretty far in finance coming from a family of mid-ranking naval officers. Like a lot of people in finance in those days, his main assets were that he was reliable, risk-averse, sceptical, and disciplined in a relaxed, gentle, unambitious way. He worked in London, but lived in a modest cottage in the Shires, and he got a fair number of clients just because of his reputation from "the War". Ironically, he almost never spoke about the War, because he had lost too many friends and family, and killed too many people himself - not an easy thing to do for a gentle giant.
The shift in the 1980s/1990s period, AFAIK, was that UK finance became more open to working class people, women, non-white people, foreigners, and even Irish people^. Most of all, the big money jobs were increasingly for those who were ambitious, risk-loving, optimistic, and disciplined in an intense, obsessive way. And naturally most people entering finance hadn't even been in a serious fist-fight, let alone built up a reputation in war.
^ This comes up in David Lodge's Nice Work, where the middle class academic woman (the book's main character) is finds out that a seemingly ditzy working class London lass (her brother's girlfriend, as I recall) is earning much more than her in the supposedly reactionary world of Thatcher-era finance. The working class woman comes from a family of bookies, and so thinking fast with numbers is to her like waking up early is to a farmer's daughter.
More options
Context Copy link