JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
Some times Charlie was in the trees.
User ID: 4009
I heard stories that the government used to hand out bricks of cheese and other foodstuffs in plain boxes labelled only with the name of the item. We should bring this back.
This was definitely a thing when I was a kid.
Also note that Devereaux attacked a specific form of the Weak Men idea, and chose to describe it as the "Fremen Mirage" to distinguish it from other variants. He was careful to precisely define the problem space and set a scope. Since FCfromSSC attacked Devereaux because of his take on the Fremen Mirage, I chose to defend the same theory.
Unfortunately, that scrupulousness saved neither of us from accusations of strawmanning. Once again, that's the Motte. My take is that it is fine to attack a strawman when you:
a) Acknowledge what it is you're doing.
b) The strawman form is the most popular/virulent version of the meme.
c) The theory itself is so vague that there's scope to read just about anything into it.
As at least one of the people who accused you of straw-manning I have to say that I do not share your positive evaluation of Devereaux's "scrupulosity", and that it is my opinion that if you are going to build your thesis around attacking a strawman, it is only fair for those you are arguing against to dispute it on that basis regardless of how you may have justified it to yourself.
but there is the empirical problem of people having no sense of history or culture.
Speak for yourself, If anything I feel like this here might actually be the test or at least a critical component of it
Adding "inevitable" only worsens the problem,
I disagree, I would argue that by adding the word inevitable and positing a specific mechanism @FCfromSSC is both narrowing the scope of the original thesis and providing a valuable clarification as to the shape of the disagreement.
Likewise I have read your response to FC and reiterate my opinion that you are not engaging seriously with his points.
FC calls out Devereaux's rhetorical slight-of-hand conflating "literacy" with "decadence" and your reply was essentially to point out that Devereaux's slight-of-hand is in service of the desired conclusion. My reply to your reply is "yes, clearly". That doesn't invalidate FC's objection, nor does it absolve Devereaux of responsibility.
I feel like the rest of your reply follows a similar pattern. You either set up a straw/weakman to knock down. For instance you say things like "A claim being "inspiring" is very different from it being true." but if FC made the claim that something being "inspiring" was the same as it being "true" I must have missed it. Or (much like Devereaux) you try to redirect the objection by making it about something else as you did just now.
Instead, both you and Devereaux seem to be using "macroscopic factors matter" (has anyone here seriously argued that they don't?) as an excuse to dismiss your opponents arguments and observations out of hand.
It seems that FC dislikes it when Devereaux says so:
Of course the superb irony in all this is that not only is Devereaux's whole thesis predicated on an image of the Fremen that bears little resemblance to Frank Herbert's, but that a major theme of the book is the dissonance between what people know, what people think they know, and the ground-level truth. The Great Houses of the Landsraad know that the Fremen are a bunch of primitive screwheads because that's what all the reports say, but "knowing" something does not make it so.
Ironically given the title, I feel like this post is itself something of a weak or strawman.
I see you throwing up a big wall of text, but I don't see you engaging seriously with what I read as the core of @FCfromSSC's critique. Specifically their addendum of the word "inevitable" to the original thesis, that is "Hard times make strong men inevitable. Good times make weak men inevitable." and the rationale offered for why this addendum is a more accurate/realistic description of historical dynamics. Instead, both you and Devereaux seem to be using the argument that "macroscopic factors matter" (has anyone here seriously argued that they don't?) as an excuse to dismiss your opponents arguments and observations out of hand.
Like I said, You need to push your limits if you're going to expand them.
I think this misreading is a product of the adaptations more than anything else. The reader gets to see it, but the movies/TV series tend to either ignore it or reduce it to a couple of throw-away lines.
FWIW I think the first 3 books Dune, Messiah, and Children of Dune are excellent and tell a reasonably coherent and self-contained story about the rise and fall of Paul Atreides, it is after that initial trilogy that things kind of go off the rails. Meanwhile, Brian Herbert's sequels and spin-offs make for decent space-opera, but are really their own thing.
Growing up in a hostile environment is not the same thing as being poor and unsophisticated, and there is a very real sense in which "hostile environments breed the best fighting men" is trivially true. You need to push your limits if you're going to expand them.
And this is made all the more insufferable by the fact that his whole thesis is based on a false premise that the Fremen are "poor and unsophisticated". The Fremen of the books are niether, they are a sophisticated society with peer-level technology fighting a war on their home turf.
Hawaii and Nevada are also going to be confounded by having a large active military population. I recall hearing somewhere that Joint Base Hickam would be the second most populous city in Hawaii (behind Honolulu) if it were a city.
I had some comments I wanted to make in the previous discussion but waved-off because properly addressing the issue was going to be a 1000+ word task and I had other obligations vying for my time.
The short version is that Devereaux seems to have either badly misread Dune or is intentionally misrepresenting it. The simplest and most obvious example of this being that the Fremen of Frank Herbert's Dune are neither "poor", nor are they "unsophisticated". There's a whole sub-plot about them being far more populous and industrialized than the Landsraad initially realize because the Fremen have been bribing the Spacers Guild to keep their settlements on the southern continent from showing up on satellite surveillance for the better part of a century.
I'm also generally skeptical of the idea that Devereaux (or anyone here for that matter) has a sufficiently coherent and intelligent idea of what makes "a good soldier", or what "strong" and "weak" mean in this context to be of any real use.
I dont believe any source is trustworthy in the sense of "oracle of truth."
That's not what I asked, I asked you if being "caught between a rock and a hard place" absolved him of responsibility. and If it made him a trustworthy source.
If anything, your reply reads to me like a list of reasons to be intensely skeptical of any claim he makes.
What's so difficult to understand? "Cross-dresser suffers psychotic break and kills 2 before committing suicide" seems pretty straight forward to me.
More stupid and incorrect than the idea that biological males can get pregnant and require menstrual support? Or pushing puberty blockers and other forms of "gender-affirming care" for minors over the parental objections?
I find it interesting that nobody on the blue team seemed to have any problems with his vaccine skepticism until 2020.
I think he's just caught between a rock and a hard place.
And you believe that this absolves him of responsibility? That it makes him a trustworthy source?
It's a line from the movie Mean Girls. Similar connotations as the Steve Buscemi "greetings fellow kids meme" only in regards to manufactured trends. IE this trend is clearly not organic it's being actively promoted/pushed on people.
Worst possible choice by what metric?
I would argue that it is more accurate to say that it is "uniquely Western" as we see similar attitudes present in the late Roman Republic, but to the extent that one's notion of "Western Civilization" is inextricably entangled with the influence of Christianity, I agree.
I am Charlie.
Calling LLMs “wordcel technology” is backwards in 2026.
I disagree, LLMs remain pretty terrible at any task requiring strict precision, accuracy, and rigor. And from what I understand of the underlying mechanisms this is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
Imagine the full range of legal opinions that exist on the internet, intelligent, retarded, and everything in between. Now imagine what the average of that mass of opinions would look like. That's effectively what you're getting when you ask an LLM for legal advice. Now for some traditionally wordcel-oriented tasks like "summarize this text" or "write an essay about ____" this is more than adequate, perhaps even excellent. But for an application requiring a clear and correct answer that isn't necessarily the average/default (IE the kind of things a "shape-rotator" might be hired to calculate), they are worse than useless because they give you something that looks plausible but may very well be completely wrong, and as such you will still have to take the time to work out the correct answer yourself if only just to verify it.
Do you believe that we are living in a state of "wild material prosperity"? If so, do you believe that people like Noam Chomsky and Gavin Newsom are the ones who created and maintain that state?
How would you respond if I were to argue that what prosperity we have is largely in spite of such people rather than because of them?
When talk about "the sort of "Khesterex" thinking that seems to have become endemic to blue spaces" I'm talking (in part) about spaces like this one, and opinions that I have read here.
I think the funniest meta-solution would have been to have Micheal Dorn spend the episode in ToS-style makeup.
Seconding the recommendation of Heinlein's Juveniles, Star Beast and Farmer in the Sky are both excellent reads for a kid of that age.
For my part I got into trek around 9 or 10, the gateway drug was re-runs of the original series that one of our local stations would play along-side Lost In Space, Twilight Zone and a few others. Regarding specific episodes, A Piece of the Action, The Corbomite Maneuver, and Trouble With Tribbles all stick in my mind. From there I got into the TOS crew movies, practically wearing out our copy of Wrath of Kahn on VHS.
Additionally my grandad had a whole shelving unit full of old paperbacks in his study/man-cave that included a bunch of the Star Trek expanded universe books as well as a lot classic sci-fi. Stuff like Doc Smith's Lensmen books, Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom stories, and a bunch of Heinlein and Bradbury's early stuff. Grandad would let me check books out like a library and between those two vectors I was well and truly hooked.
I've tried to infect with my own kids with the Star Trek bug but it hasn't taken. That said over the last year or two, my eldest and a couple of their friends (all middle-school aged) have gotten really into Stargate, and it's clear from talking to them and watching them play that Stargate is to them what Trek was to me when I was their age, which is probably worth a post in itself.
- Prev
- Next

In my experience there's a bit of a "barber pole" effect that goes on, the underclasses don't cook, they depend on a mix of cheap pre-prepared meals and charity. The working and lower middle classes cook for economic reasons, it's far cheaper to feed a family or a house full of roommates by buying bulk goods (beans, cheese, eggs, rice, ground-beef, that kind of thing) and preparing them yourself than it it is to buy pre-made. Middle class strivers and broke college kids often don't have time or space to cook so it's back to either pre-prepared meals or eating out. For the upper classes cooking becomes either a hobby, or a means of status competition, IE "look at this fancy meal I put on", "why yes we did just have the kitchen remodeled, again".
More options
Context Copy link