@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC 

				
User ID: 890


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
PutAHelmetOn


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Recovering Quokka

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 890


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Controversial
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Some people have argued that to affirm a trans person is lying. I sympathize with someone who says, "if I call a trans person by his preferred pronoun, it feels like I am lying." If this is all that is meant, then I suppose the rest of this post isn't relevant. To me, the stronger claim is, "if society calls a trans person by his preferred pronoun, society is lying." I never bought that claim, because I never encountered a contradictory set of definitions for sex and gender.


But recently I realized the term passing is actually transphobic according to the definitions laid out.


This is pretty clearly a woman. I can tell because of the hair and clothes. I infer she goes by "she." If I had to publicly address her, I'd do so with she.


People typically speak of passing as a woman. Since I can infer she is a woman, it follows that she passes as a woman. But as far as I can tell, nobody would describe her as passing, because she looks transgender (i.e. male). Based on how "pass" is used, it seems to really mean pass as cisgender. To see passing in this sense, as a good thing, is deceptive. It also seems transphobic. Surely a less transphobic worldview would suggest she passes as a woman because I can correctly infer her pronouns, and that her womanness is just as beautiful as a ciswomans.


Inb4 replies castigating me for just now realizing this: nobody had ever crystalized to me that passing meant to misrepresent a trans person as cisgender because most discourse talks about "passing as a woman"


Am I missing something? Can anyone else steelperson all this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This goes the other way, too: I've seen LGBTQ friends complain about conservative signs that say, "we support all sexes, races, religions" for not "mentioning anything LGBTQ" and "even said sex instead of gender."


That is to say, it is simply tribal signaling. The reason I am annoyed by white-bashing isn't because I identify with my racial coalition. As you mention, much of my outgroup is literally caucasian.


The white people that support her simply see a neon sign that says "ingroup." You see a neon sign that says "outgroup" but is it really because they call out straight white men (ironically by not calling them out), or because calling out straight white men is the kind of things your outgroup does?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Awhile back, there was some conversation about how a new social media platform could replace twitter if twitter users really don't like Elon Musk.


Today, I read about Bluesky social and it reminded me of that exchange. Now, the article includes a quote from Jack Dorsey that throws out a lot of applause lights, like "freedom," "choice," and "independence." Has anyone else heard about this?


Something I think is interesting is the remarks about needing an open-source model instead of a company. Whereas companies can change direction and leadership (Twitter...), an open-source standard can be implemented by all sorts of groups.


It's also possible that there will be attempts to migrate The Conversation off of twitter and onto Bluesky. I personally don't think it'll happen, but I'm also not brave enough to give any specific predictions or confidence numbers. Is anyone else?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You're still focusing on the words as being vehicles for literal meaning the way a scientist would use language. What do you mean they can plausibly say they support anyone? The sign is a rather obvious signal of conservative allegiance posted in the 2020s. You don't need plausibility to get that documentary "What Is A Woman?" removed for hate speech when the signaling game is obvious to everyone except mistake theorists.


Absolutely nobody makes this distinction you're making between:


    

  1. 

    what the conservative sign did -- listing a couple of axis (axes?) and omitting other axes
    

    2. 

  2. 

    what the politician did -- listing a couple of directions on an axis and omitting other directions
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What good is the right's subtle dog whistles (according to you) if they still get called out on them? Think anti-Trumpers talking about how Trump dogwhistled to white supremists or the white working class during his 2016 campaign. How would you argue to someone that one side actually does it differently?


I'm not asking to explain why This Dogwhistle is different than That Dogwhistle, I'm asking to explain why we see the same calling out on both sides. (Actually, do we see the same calling out on both sides?)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Welcome to themotte!


People who think gender is defined circularly have a certain intuition about words - namely, that words don't really mean anything. These are usually highly systematizing people who would feel at home in a math textbook. In math, there is no particular reason why the particular words are used. Math could be done with random words as long as the relationship between the words is the same relationship as in our real math. This kind of person is over-represented in this forum many times more than in real life because of this forum's genetic history. Go back 15 years and some of the people on this website were reading a systematizer systematizing things


The reason why they would say these definitions are circular is because these definitions revolve around the use of the literal word "ma'am." If we played the randomize-the-word-keep-the-relationship, it starts to look kind of empty to say something like




A fnord is someone who wants to be called "ma'am"




So what is the meaning of the word "ma'am?"


In any case, I'm not sure "circular definitions" are the true objection to following trans-activist policy and culture proposals. You have a reasonable desire, which is for people to treat you a certain way. I think "transphobia" really is the best word for the reason why people don't treat a trans person like they desire.


Likewise, widespread shortphobia among straight women is the reason why society doesn't treat short kings like people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Am I misremembering or are you speaking figuratively? Didn't Rittenhouse kill 2 and wound one?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There is a certain beauty to some definitions of Rectangle. The one I am singling out is




a parallelogram containing a right angle




Why? this was the definition listed in my high school Geometry textbook. I remember it because the wording was a little peculiar. But, later I came to enjoy it. This is the kind of subtlety only a math nerd could appreciate.


I began to appreciate it once I learned how feminist theory defined patriarchy. The wording (doubtless there are many) I recall is, "a system of gender roles which is harmful to men and women" or some such. Some might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that gender roles are harmful. That's not quite correct. You see, a non-harmful system of gender roles would simply not be Patriarchy as a matter of definition.


The reason I wrote this post was because of the earlier discussion that "Rape is about power, not sex." I was reminded of many past times I've heard rape defined this way. You might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that men are motivated by power (or some such). But that is not quite correct. You see, a man who is motivated by sex is simply not committing rape as a matter of definition.


My textbook used the phrase, "at least one right angle," like Wikipedia uses a right angle. This is critical to leave the reader mentally itching, to leave him thinking that maybe a rectangle contains a mix of angles -- some right, and some not.




If a parallelogram has one right angle then it has four right angles




Behold! The full force of a theorem (not a definition)! So there is no doubt in the mind that there could ever be a parallelogram with mixed angles. This relation between the angles cannot be expressed with mere definitions.


Much later, I learned a name for this: The virtue of precision. Definitions should be as small as necessary.


What other imprecise definitions smuggle unproven claims?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


materialism is definitely losing steam (especially amongst the right) as we see more and more cracks form in the edifice of Expert Scientific Opinion(tm).




Huh? I've never seen anyone (on the right or elsewhere) go from "the institutions are politically compromised" to "there is nonphysical stuff."


As for discussion about symbolic beliefs: The famous quote "all models are wrong; some are useful" is actually redundant. It just needs to be "some models are useful." Useful means wrong, because if a model was right, you wouldn't give up and call it merely useful.


Anyways, symbolic beliefs are false. The Christians here are actually Christian, so why would they engage with symbolic (false) beliefs?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The scientific method rests on faith in God and Man.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your point about marathons supports a belief I have about womens' sport leagues. I am not sure how many others share it.


Competitions are mainly about status and the purpose of sex-segregated sports is not to keep the league fair per se. It is really because society intuitively understands that regardless of the differences between men and women, female athletes should not be penalized in status. The same is true for disabled athletes, which is why we have the special olympics and other sporting events like that.


That we don't have a competitive league for unathletic men like Brodski reveals that league segregation is not really about fair play. Arguments about "not putting in the same amount of effort" are essentially my point -- Brodski's weakness is low-status but an athletic woman's weakness is high-status. It is even difficult to say it in English. We still call them "athletic women" because all the words we will use for this concept (like "weak" and "athletic") are status-laden and graded-on-a-curve.


Because the way we talk about athletes (of all sexes) uses fuzzy terms instead of objective ranks, someone like Brodski can hear about women qualifying for marathons and being strong and he will continue to be blind to physical reality.


Contrast in Chess, where the definition of Grandmaster is actually the same for men and women. However, there is a different title called Woman Grandmaster which has fewer requirements. Presumably, being a woman is also a requirement to hold the title, but I am not sure. Maybe a man who can't quite make GM can call himself a WGM. It would be an unconventional for sure. But, nobody can deny that the purpose of the WGM title is the same as any other title, which is to assign status.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is he? Cofnas implies that facts will persuade EHC to flip sides, and Auron is saying facts and arguments have failed to do that. Is there an objective debate moderator who can determine if Cofnas is right because evidence wasn't presented; or if Auron is right because the evidence was presented, and ignored?


You're right that Auron does not give an alternative plan to co-opt EHC, but do you have one?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Some tests are meant to distinguish object-level ability. Take for instance, becoming a fireman or infantryman. It would be sexist to deny a qualified woman these positions because she's a woman. Furthermore, mumbling something about oppression or double standards is stupid, because you want your positions staffed by qualified applicants.


Whether or not something should be test or a competition can be contentious. For example, those college orientations where they say, "look to your left and to your right. One/two of you won't pass." Those always angered me because I figured a certification should be a test and not a competition.


Competitions are a little different than tests because it's not really about object-level ability. If it was, you would never have weight classes in boxing. After all, being heavy is simply part of the ability in boxing. And I think this is the primary argument for sex-segregating sports. But it's unclear what to do about a female (XX) who happens to somehow be naturally stronger. Why reward her, because she was born stronger than her peers? (I'm trying to sidestep any trans issues, that's a different issue).


As far as I can tell, the entire idea of rewarding winners in a competition has to do with spiritual merit, like determination, or how hard someone practiced.


Or something else I had issue with is how a lot of online games use "time played" as a kind of bonus, and let players grind up more powerful equipment to offset differences in mechanical ability.


Do people construct competitions that they'd be good at in a bid to win status for being good at them? Does TheMotte try to push "effortposting" as a spirtual virtue so that society rewards us?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Should we be agnostic about Russel's Teapot?


E: Mostly focusing on continuing your thought about agnosticism. Your point about guiltiness is right.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the end goal of this administration is to establish a type of authoritarianism where people are kidnapped and disappeared because of vocal opposition to the regime, what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that?




Maybe this is just my biased right-wing brain thinking, but my answer is the 2nd amendment. Government needs the ability to do violence, but it needs the people's overwhelming force to keep it aligned.


Private individuals should arm themselves. Officially, the opposition should expand private militia. If the government doesn't allow this, then the authoritarianism has already been established.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, some people assume materialism from a position of faith. Other people make no such assumption. I was more interested in why someone would change their axioms based on seeing the politically-compromised Science-as-Institution, since that was the literal reading I took from the OP. Maybe the OP was not trying to draw a causal arrow and was just doing the Journalist thing putting words together in a vaguely grammatically correct way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Step 1 seems very shaky to me, as it assumes the reward-structure of real, Earth theologies. These gods are likely to involve something like "Infinite reward for belief; Infinite punishment for disbelief."


If we assume God operates on the opposite payout, then Pascal's Wager clearly implies we need to be Atheist!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				not-guilty is not the same as innocent
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Russel's Teapots seems bogus to me. I would absolutely not like to be "skeptical" (not-guilty) about Russel's Teapot. I don't believe in such a teapot (innocent). Can it be proven?


When I continued to think about this post, this is the reasoning that occurred to me: I am not completely ignorant. I know a few facts here from experience:


    

  • 

    Teapots do not naturally form in outer space.
    

    • 

  • 

    Humans do not normally send teapots to outer space.
    

    • 



Based on this line of thinking, I'm comfortable with believing it doesn't exist (innocent).


The one can come to me and say I haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt but now it feels like we're haggling over the standard of proof, not the burden of proof.


Whereas your post gets the burden of proof right, it doesn't say much about standard of proof. Perhaps that is just a different topic?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Cranes, like the cotton gin, manufacturing plants or programming language compilers, are engineering tools used to serve a purpose. That is, an actual purpose. Whereas things we consider art tend to be done because it is fun or for status.


The difference is, that the existence of a crane doesn't affect the status of powerlifters. You can still appreciate a power lifter because you know he's not a crane. To the extent that Stable Diffusion etc. mimic art, you can't really tell.


Now, there are a lot of good reasons to have AI-art generators. Like cranes, they can help us engineer and build things faster. People here have mentioned that AI art is probably already being used for generic business presentations for when a slide needs to be livened up and it doesn't need to be too precise or fancy for the audience to get the point.


Fine, artists no longer get their money ripping off people making powerpoints, but AI art still threatens the status market they're engaged in, which as far as I know, has no analogue.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Firstly I will say I don't have a camel in this race because I don't care much what two strangers do to each other. I don't think Israel is Good but its tough to convince me they're Bad:


It seems to boil down to: (1) they're bad allies to the US; (2) they treat their enemies as enemies. Now I will grant you (1), since you're probably right and I don't care either way. But I'd like to push back on (2).


So Israel is Bad for valuing one citizen over a hundred Arabs. Does Gaza value the life of a Jew equally to one of its citizens? Does Iran? I haven't researched what Gazans and Iranians think of Jews, or read anything their governments say about various attacks and grievances. I have however seen some Gazan propaganda television teaching their kids to hate Jews, so I know where I'd put my money.


Finally, I agree with you that Iran and Palestine are entitled to take their revenge on Israel. It seems Israel already thinks their enemies want that anyways. So, I also don't begrudge Israel turning their neighbors into glass. Actually I'm quite impressed with their restraint.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Relevant: dissolving disease.


In the face of fatness, a consequentialist might posit 2 solutions to reduce suffering:


    

  1. 

    Cure fatness.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Restructure society so fat people aren't disadvantaged.
    

    3. 



Arguments over whether transgender, fat, autism, etc. are diseases seem like rhetorical techniques in order to enforce a preferred aesthetic on society.


Anti-memocide activists take option (2) in order to preserve cultures they like, such as the LGBTQ or autism community (what's the difference? snicker). Others, disgusted by these groups, suggest (1) we thin out those populations (without violence of course) to reduce suffering.


I imagine the disgust reaction to transgender and fatness happens first, and the designation of disease happens second. Of course, it's the same for actual diseases, like leprosy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The grandparent comment is skeptical that AI will ruin the online media landscape, comparing AI to brown third-worlders (Indians and Indonesians), who have been writing slop for years:




The idea that the internet will soon be swamped in AI generated nonsense isn't convincing either, since Indians and Indonesians were always cheap and could reliably hash out SEO slop for pennies on the dollar.




Whether AI is better than (the more expensive) white writers is relevant to if AI writing will lead to a paradigm shift or if its just kind of the same old at a slightly different scale.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I originally engaged because your step 1 name drops Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager assumes the reward structure (God wants to be believed).


It seems the phrasing of your step 1 should be more like "We should avoid infinite punishments and seek out infinite rewards." Then, you introduce the reward structure all the way down in step 5 or 6, where it is awarded the position of Null Hypothesis on account of the scriptures.


This argument seems to me like a rhetorical device, and not reasoning. Nobody decides to think about infinite rewards and punishments, and then stumbles upon sacred texts. People read the sacred texts and then start thinking about the expected utility of infinite rewards and punishments. Someone doing reasoning would notice if the texts are just an incentive structure, and if so, discard the whole infinite reward business.


I guess this makes me not on board with 1, as this is clearly a rigged game with a pre-written Bottom Line.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Someone who pushes the pill could say it's to increase gay representation. With a pill like this gays could become not a minority. That everyone would take the pill would be denied, so the future you outline here wouldn't concern anyone. Indeed, as concerned as you are, you must have an ulterior motive!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


limited by real social interactions




Come now, when you rig the game like this then of course porn is better than sex. I don't think that's under debate