PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
My read is: avoid a two-flavor pair if either flavor on its own would be good enough. This means the answer can't contain vanilla, since vanilla by itself is the tried and true.
The best answer would be something silly, like peanutbutter-pistaccio, but thats not an option.
If it doesn't contain vanilla, then between e and d the last problem is decide if mint or coffee will work best with the caramel.
The prompt only gives info about mint in the presence of chocolate chips (no info on whipped cream) and about coffee in the the presence of whipped cream (no info on chocolate chips)
At this point, I reread the prompt which says "what of" not "which of" so multi answers are allowed: e and d are tied.
If I had to tiebreak, I choose e because the word "sometimes" feels less frequent to me than "less commonly." But really the wording is ambiguous.
I must be missing something.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Diablo II
Went and googled this because "Diablo" makes me think "relatively recently" but I did not know Diablo II was older than WoW! I figured RNG loot mechanics have been in roleplaying games forever, not even that WoW created it. Or is there a qualitative difference between gambling money and gambling time?
For extra clarity, couldn't you just curate & edit the output of ChatGPT and replace "the author" with "I" and fix the resulting grammatical errors? If your goal is to translate your thoughts into the tone expected in this place, then using tools to help you sounds like a great idea! If your goal is to own the sensitive readers here, I think that counts as waging the culture war, right?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I understand why explaining "woke" stops the conversation, but what's wrong with explaining "pronouns?"
Volunteering preferred pronouns, or asking someone what pronouns to use are partisan behaviors. People saying it isn't partisan doesn't matter. Similarly, a Christian asking to pray for you or asking you if you've prayed about something would probably annoy you.
Why do I look stupid?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It seems the DR figure parrot is generalizing the outgroup. The parrot realizes that the same people who are Jewish apologists attack white overrepresentation, and sees it as hypocrisy. He says, "these people like Haz," so the parrot isn't responding to Haz in particular. There's a few problems with the parrot's argument:
-
Haz probably doesn't whine about white people (from my brief scroll, he seems far too sophisticated for such normie takes).
-
Whites owning slaves or not is only analogous if it was common non-whites owned slaves, too. In that world, the focus on white slaveowners would be unwarranted. Alternatively: it is analogous if all the powerful people in today were Jewish.
This is part of a general pattern where, "Not all Jews are like that bro its just a few that are in power" is shot down as special pleading because absolutely nobody buys that when applied to white overrepresentation. There are other arguments why You Can't Compare Jews And Whites, like the argument from historical oppression, but everyone seems to start with the argument from "don't generalize." Eventually, Jewish apologists will learn this and the conversation can move forward.
I know nothing about the "FTX collapse" so I googled it and started looking up the Early Life section of all the names I could find, and Fried was in fact the only Jew I found. My guess is Jackson was surprised that Fried is Jewish and was banking on everyone else being so surprised that they would just agree, "Jew Powerful" without noticing anyone else.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Firstly, thanks for the tag! I was debating whether to post my comment top(per) level or here, and because I'm a karma whore, I chose the latter.
I appreciate the link and learning something new! It reminds me of people who argue that Kanye's mental illness can't create whole-ass antisemitism, only exacerbate existing prejudice. I'm inclined to agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure it addresses the cognitive algorithm nara and me are independently describing.
The drunkenness reveals the urge to be mean to someone (maybe it's because they're black or maybe because they punched me). If I was sober, I wouldn't be mean to them. But because I'm gonna be mean, I'm gonna execute a meanness strategy. Noticing they are black, I choose the Gamer Word because it lets me inflict violence (so I've heard) without even bruising my knuckles! I imagine I can execute this meanness strategy sober, too.
This sort of argument originally occurred to me because of the times I've been hurt by what people say to me, and every time I can recall, it was because they were set off by something (not alcohol, in any of the cases). Rather than say, "gee I guess all these people secretly hate people like me," I just decided it was because they were heated and angry.
I'm not sure what kind of evidence could distinguish either of our theories. In both cases, there is a need to distinguish why some drunk people yell epithets and some don't (equivalently: why some schizos post about Jews and some don't), and each of us go towards un-factual conclusions to support our moral intuitions.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It's probably an attempt to shift the Overton window, not unlike your insistence on using "Black" over "black."
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Must be semantics then. I don't use the word "woke" to mean "generic socially left wing" but I guess if other people do then some peoples' test scores will make them look bad.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It took me awhile to realize what you are saying here. For those who are as dull as me: OP falsely thinks "religion is abundant" implies "religion is a fitness improvement" but it actually implies "religion is fit." For example, religion could actually hurt its hosts, but the idea itself spreads & doesn't kill hosts too quickly.
Indeed, the phrasing, "religion is a fitness improvement" is actually confused, because I don't think it makes sense to talk about a fit organism only a fit gene. Organisms are completely irrelevant to the overall picture of things. A gene that causes an organism to reproduce way more, and also die early and feel pain, is by all accounts bad for the organism but that gene is good for itself. Maybe this is the insight that leads to hot-take phrases like "selfish gene." Can a gene be a parasite?
Back on topic, religion/ideas/memes having evolutionary considerations does not defend the accusation of arbitrary. In this case, "arbitrary" doesn't mean random, since the constructivist will agree that the norm is caused by specific historical circumstances. I think when a social constructivist calls it arbitrary, he just means he doesn't value the cause-and-effect process that generated it. Rejecting social darwinism is good actually, because evolutionary fitness etc. can be at odds with our goals.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I thought it was black people less likely
Fourth, black people might avoid weird nonconformist groups because they’re already on thin enough ice in terms of social acceptance. Being a black person probably already exposes you to enough stigma, without becoming a furry as well.
But, I swear someone mentioned weirdness points but Scott & the comments don't seem to.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Which means even places that are aggressively trying to attract more "diversity" are generally going to remain majority white and therefore will always be "too white."
Motte: It's bad that this all-white cast doesn't represent the real U.S. racial demographic
Bailey: It's bad that this all-white cast is > r% white, where r is less than the current U.S. white ratio. (i.e. it's bad that America is so white)
When people argue that some too-white institution is bad because it doesn't match local/national demographics, I suspect they are saying that because it is a convenient explanation that their audience will accept (It's not the True Rejection). I'm not sure this is done consciously or intentionally. I probably overuse this class of explanation. I really like it. It's probably not charitable.
It's concerning that your steelman suggests that people really, consciously think the bailey, because the proper and honest solution here really is a kind of Great Replacement, so that we really can realize <r% whites in all our local institutions, to avoid deeply-embedded white supremacy. Whites are a kind of invasive species, requiring population control for the good of wider society.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Why wait for a wave of people to link NSFW without warning before making it a rule? If one person did it and its objectionable, isn't that enough to just make it a rule?
I suppose that "having a rule for NSFW warnings in the sidebar" contributes to a mood or culture that TheMotte doesn't want (i.e. is a bad look), which is why it seems your ideal world is where no such rule is listed on the sidebar, but also people somehow know not to post NSFW content without warning.
How do you phrase the question exactly? Is it the same phrasing I made? The reasoning I used was already that obvious to everyone here, eh?
Of course your experiences are exactly what I'd predict. Maybe I didn't emphasize it enough in my post, but those are the only 2 responses possible from honest progressives.
The dishonest ones who use "human rights issue not political issue" as a rhetorical device don't react that way. Of course, if you go over everything they'd ever said on the issue, you probably could construct an argument (go down path (2)). The reason they are dishonest is because the question dissolves the trick.
If somebody is saying, "Don't debate me" then giving an effective debate in response to that will obviously make them angry.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I think this is mostly true, and to elaborate: It's the idea that racial bonuses could be non-egalitarian on average.
I'm not a DnD player but I suspect that on average, all racial bonuses are the same like +1 to attribute or feats, or whatever it is that races get. If it wasn't so, some races would be at a numerical disadvantage. That the racial bonuses are comparable is only out of the kindness of the game designers' hearts (or game balance or whatever).
But it is not logically necessary. You could imagine the racial bonuses were not comparable. It's almost like dissolving a question. By removing all racial bonuses, it changes the entire shape of the world, and dissolves the notion of differences between groups on average. You can't even think of group differences, like you said.
If orcs are stronger than humans, that's a mere stereotype. Players are free to make their orcs high STR, but it will be at the cost of other attributes during character creation. It's driven by Just-World aspirations that all individuals are fundamentally equal, even if there are individual differences.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
To be honest, I am a little put-off by your phrasing that science is what we are better off "believing."
When I think, "things we are better off believing," I think of a case where believing and not-believing make a difference. For example, maybe there is a self-fulfilling prophecy involving the prescription "You should be confident." In that case, I might say we are better of believing "I am confident." Science is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, because results of experiment do not depend on beliefs.
Science is stories about the world that we are better off acting on. This phrasing seems better to me. In this way, can't I argue against theism (whatever you mean by that) by saying "acting on theism doesn't make us better off"?
Actually, similarly to the old adage that theism is Not Even Wrong, in this new formulation of "true," theism is Not Even Actionable. I don't think this parallel is a coincidence.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
I understand why no finite amount of evidence can give you a statistical confidence of 1, but you go on to say that
there is no statistical law that would justify belief in the law of universal gravitation with even one tenth of one percent of one percent confidence, based on any finite number of observations.
Is this just because gravitation is claimed to be "universal" e.g. for all we know, gravity could suddenly change to work differently tomorrow, or work differently as soon as we leave the solar system?
it is a miracle that the scientific method works
Is it? Maybe since I live in this world, I am corrupted by it and I can't imagine it any differently. But: I cannot imagine a world where the scientific method doesn't work.
I think the Sun rises every morning because so far it has, but even if it didn't rise every morning, there would be hidden order to it. Maybe it rises every other day. Maybe on some mornings it rises, and on other mornings it doesnt - maybe I never learn to predict whether the Sun rises on a particular morning, just like how we can't really predict the weather, or which way a leaf blows in the wind. But if I spend decades failing to predict the Sun's rise, then tomorrow I expect it to be difficult to predict. If the Sun did alternate between periods of "rising every day for 10 days in a row" and then "a period of complete unpredictability," I've still summarized it with some compression, so I'm not totally ignorant.
I suppose a world that doesn't have this hidden order would essentially have to be free of cause-and-effect. In that world, I'm not sure how I could exist as a lawful being within it. Maybe there's an anthropic argument here?
Overall, your post seems to be a weaker form of what a lot of philosophical skeptics claim. Skeptics say things like "you can't know things with 100% confidence" and your post seems to just zero in on "the laws of physics, the source code of the universe." I'll reply to you the same way I reply to philosophical skeptics, which is: while it would be nice to know what is True, I'd rather send rockets to the moon anyways.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
believing "some spaces should be for cis women and trans men only" seems straightforward to me, or its reverse, because those lead to policy positions. What does believing, "transwomen are women" mean? It doesn't seem to lead to any policy positions, and if it can be "believed" alongside all sorts of other policy positions, is it really a belief? seems to me like a floating phrase, disconnected from policy. What am I missing?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Do the more reasonable ones ("firing white people is racist") have idiotic positions? Could you name a specific position? What does "believes in critical race theory" really mean?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Those who believe it only believe it unconsciously. Few believe it consciously, and of the ones that do, I'd expect 0 to be secular progressive NYT writers.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Am I misremembering or are you speaking figuratively? Didn't Rittenhouse kill 2 and wound one?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
What does centrist really mean here? Can you give an example of fringe and centrist?
I don't know of centrism is a theoretical position that lets us come up with fringe opinions, and I suspect we use it to mean like "a median belief"
Fringe and centrist should have the property that: the left and the right feel about the same about it, but also nobody holds the belief? Does that mean the left and the right equally condemn it? Would a fringe centrist belief be "Murder is good?"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Whites still get plenty of status and power in institutions, as long as they're the right kind of white. For example, if your kids pretend to be are LGBTQ, they might do very well for themselves.
-
Do you lament a particular culture dying out and being replaced with another monoculture? Are you rural, christian, or some sort of free-speech absolutist libretarian?
-
Do you hate the particular woke monoculture for some reason?
-
Do you care about skin color specifically, removed from other things like: how your children are treated?
-
Do you want your kids to believe, act, or virtue signal a particular way to carry on your legacy?
Unless one of these bullet points applies to you, I don't see why you're concerned. But, maybe there are more possible bullet points I missed.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
What are "your views" that you tell them? Would you be able to off-handedly mention if the topic comes up, "Yeah, I think Ben Shapiro is basically right" and also not act like Ben Shapiro?
Your comment about Brooklyn doesn't really strike me as "supports trump" or problematic on the object-level. The reason someone would get mad at that trolling is if she thinks gentrification is too sacred to be joked about. Most people don't feel that way, and if they do a little bit, they would probably swallow (haha) their mild discomfort as a form of settling.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It's possible that this is an effective strategy. But it's also possible it isn't. I know many young progressive women who know "libertarian" and "centrist" and the like are crypto-right-wing dogwhistles. I don't know how common that perspective is. Maybe that perspective is what "a deep understanding" entails.
Whatever it is that is causing normies to be shallowly progressive (Cathedral?) could add "centrist is a crypto-right-wing dogwhistle" to the doctrine, couldn't it? What would your strategy be then? "I'm no centrist; I'm a moderate-to-strong leftwinger." Doesn't exactly exude enthusiasm.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Is all this culture war crap basically because all the attribute names (STR, INT) can be interpreted to mean things like "Strong" and "Smart"?
Do people get all up in arms about Charisma? What do most people even think when they hear "Constitution?"
This is what I do:
put importance on empirical results and logic & axioms. So far I've never been called problematic for that.
use mistake theory. Act as if conflict theory is a blind spot I have. Make my opponent explicitly state their C.T. positions.
frame as if I am wanting to learn.
explicitly state positions that are too inferentially-distant to be clocked as problematic.
The one time I experimented by not doing this, I got yelled at, so generally speaking I think these pointers work. I'd say I learned what not to do in that scenario.
This might not work for everyone. For example, wanting to learn can be a cancellable offense ("Just Asking Questions", "Go Educate Yourself"), but it helps if you're debating your friends, who think you're an ally. (I still haven't decided if I'm actually fooling anyone with my less-than-enthused attitude towards the Movement. I also haven't decided what's worse: I'm fooling people or it always has been about humiliation. Could I fool myself?)
More options
Context Copy link