@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
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I do think Covenant being Jew-coded is a red herring. Even as a child I noticed the names are spiritual in general, and not belonging to specific religion. This is why the vehicles have names like Banshee, Ghost, and Wraith. So it never would have occurred to me that it was a hitpiece on actual religions.


In fact, since the religious lore features as part of the plot, I would say they just wanted their aliens to have an interesting motive, not just a boring "we want your resources" like in, Independence Day (1996) or something.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The only problem here is focusing too hard on the Covenant = Jews [in particular] angle. You admit there's also Christian and (was?) Muslim imagery too.


The Covenant were not driven from their homeland, there is no diaspora, and I think its a stretch to compare the Forerunner heresy to that white nationalist idea that actually Whites are God's chosen people (which I assume you were gesturing towards).


Otherwise, I think your sincerity analysis is right: it is like a Xenophobic US Military versus weird foreign religious nuts. You are right of course, for the simple fact that Halo could not get made in Woke era. I could imagine an academic whitepaper calling Halo problematic. It would fit perfectly with a Last Jedi-esque subversive TV show that angers manchildren or whatever. That paper would indeed call the UNSC white-coded [pejorative]. Even if the most famous Marine, Sgt Johnson, is black!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Very nearly so! Except -- Rogue One was made under Disney (and also came out after The Force Awakens), so it's a bit gerrymandering to compare it to Halo. Still, like most conventional star wars fans I actually enjoyed Rogue One.


Also I am obligated to say how much I like both Rogue One and Reach, and the fact that their stories are so similar. Nerds on the internet talk a lot about this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What do you mean, "draw the same conclusions [about height]"? Height and intelligence are very, very different: it's not taboo to talk about height. So I would never draw the same conclusions about height in our world.


To be clear, I think intelligence makes a difference in the world even without society. Intelligence was evolutionarily useful. That is the kind of world we live in. I suspect the moral valuation rule came after.


The post is mostly about intelligence taboos and how it upholds a (n evil?) normative belief: that belief that intelligence is linked to human dignity.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It seems I've miscommunicated what I meant by "moral status." Maybe most people call it "moral value."


I am not saying that this society thinks that smarter people are better people. I am saying it thinks smarter people are worth more as human beings. It is rude to call people stupid, because in this society it is like calling them worthless, or not-human. This is horrible, maybe even evil. Specifically, "this" is the moral valuation of society that sneaks in the ought. Other things like beauty, athletic ability, kindness -- these afford people status, and are celebrated of course. But the reason it's not very taboo to insult people along those dimensions, I think is evidence that society's actual moral valuation rule is intelligence.


(Another way you see this is in laypeoples' discussions of consciousness, in that some people start talking about moral value at all, which is quite strange. But it makes perfect sense that intelligence and consciousness are both fuzzy signs of human exceptionalism.)


Some people are pointing out specifics of the thought experiment, like that its unrealistic. Yes, its not our world. It would require height to actually be functional and useful to all domains, the way intelligence seems to be. That world would be very strange. To give an example, everything would have to be on very high shelves for inexplicable reasons. In fact the rest of the society would be completely alien indeed. I was not interested in those details -- who cares why intelligence is useful in nearly all domains in our world? I am more interested in how the taboos ironically uphold the moral valuation rule, and with a focus on who specifically upholds the taboos.


There are a couple of strange personal attacks toward me, accusing me of being racist, or that I live in a bubble. "Rationalists are weirdos who talk about IQ all the time" is a very standard attack. Of course, in this society, discussion of intelligence (not that IQ measures that exactly, although it is certainly the closest proxy we have) is like discussing who is human and who is sub-human. Attacks of these nature are once again examples of upholding the moral valuation rule. Do people get attacked for "talking about beauty" or "talking about athleticism?"


But the real evil here lies in society's arbitrary moral valuation rule, not in the facts, right?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This thought experiment is perhaps "overfitting to a desired conclusion," (and is certainly an unsubtle allegory) but I want to see what other people think. Where else has this comparison been drawn?


In a world where moral status (or, as you will soon see, we could call it moral stature) is defined by a person's height, what might we expect?


Well one thing is it would be very rude to point out that people have different heights. To minimize cognitive dissonance, we would notice that rulers and yardsticks are banned, or at least tabooed. The taboo of course has justification:


    

  • a person is too complex to reduce to a single measure
    • 

  • this thing you call 'height' is so multi-factored. I mean, there's the length of the shins, the size of the torso. Even peoples' heads have different shapes.
    • 

  • we don't even know that this 'height' thing is real, it is socially constructed
    • 

  • in the past, people who are obsessed with measuring 'height' were the most evil
    • 



I think they definitely would not go around saying "tall people are morally better." And if you tried to gently tell them "Well you certainly act like they are: tall people make more money and have better life outcomes! And you don't call it unjust!" they will probably get angry and call you evil for suggesting that people have different heights. They will say, the injustice is that life outcomes are inequal among the abled and disabled; between men and women; between supposed racial groups; and so many other axes.


They seem to be making a category error. How can a fact of height differences be evil? So you smuggle a ruler into the room. And you point out that Alice is in fact taller than Bob. "It is just an empirical fact" you say. Of course the reply will be something like, "You think your words are disentangled from context, but the social function of your sentence makes a moral claim." This response is inevitable, even if you bookend your remarks with the notice: "THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THIS CLAIM IS TO POINT OUT EMPIRICAL FACT"


At first you think, well its society's social context that is smuggling in the moral "oughts." The problem is certainly not with reality. But then you realize they are kind of right? The social function of this claim, indeed has moral content. In this society, height simply is the gauge of moral status. Stating otherwise doesn't make it go away, just like saying 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it true -- that's reality for you. It's at this point you realize your neck is getting a bit strained, because you're constantly looking up -- everyone else in this room is very, very tall. These arguments evolved in Tall Clubs around the nation and are handed down from the credentialed Tall to the less-credentialed mid-statures.


It makes you wonder why all of their interventions to the low-status involve treating symptoms and correlates, instead of identifying how to change the moral valuation, which is the root cause of it all.


So by now most of you are thoroughly short on patience, having realized immediately that "height = intelligence." But the real point: the academic and intellectual authorities that are loudest about the problem are the ones stringently enforcing the taboo holding it all up! Is that a coincidence?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The asymmetry appears to be, "Wanting [or not] to talk to people who disagree with you." Worth noting that the original OP did not use the word "polarization" but explicitly mentioned "talking to people with different political opinions."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My guess is being surrounded with elites in an exclusive area and being constantly reminded that "I am elite and exclusive." I have never trained for the Olympics, but I would guess there is also a high associated with being at the Olympics even when not at the village, because they have trained so hard for it for so long.


If she is referring to sex in particular, then what is it about Olympic sex in particular that makes it so much better than the sex she has (probably) been having up until then?


I think there's an argument that the incel community is not really mad about sex, because if that was the case, they would just hire prostitutes. To the extent that is true, this girl is blissful not about sex, but about status.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That does not sound like the kind of post pre-2021 Scott would write. Older Scott posts would challenge the contextualizer and call it "guilt by association" or something. And, post-2021 doesn't sound right either because newer Scott posts don't seem to be about political dynamics.


If you end up finding what essay (Scott or not) I'd be interested in reading it


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
She may have had sex, but people don't talk about sex like this. She is describing something better than sex.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If I know what they want to hear, and I don't want the consequences of telling the truth, then I'll lie.


There are a lot of times (dating, family, maybe your best friend) where you want to be yourself and in those cases, it only makes sense to tell the truth.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't understand what you are saying. The sentence structure is too complex. I think what you're saying is people would rather be defeated morally and socially rather than defeated physically. That's true! I wasn't pretending the domain of discourse is all there is! That's why its a big problem of the social powers and military powers seem like they are not on the same side.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
He is right about the 'horns of the dilemma' and non-violence. Another example of these kinds of protests is hunger strikes, employed effectively by British Suffragettes. If you Google this, AI will helpfully tell you the government's response was 'brutal.' I guess letting the poor girls die is the humane thing to do. Oh, wait!


Anyways, in case it is not obvious: 'nonviolence' as a strategy is simply part of using media as a political weapon. It is strange to call such an insurgency the 'weak side.' It is more accurate to call them 'militarily weak, but politically strong.'


The reason a person like this writes an ode to this strategy is because they know at a subconscious level that this particular weapon (sympathetic media) is wielded by their side.


He writes that non-violence, done properly is disruptive and unignorable. It seems to me that these qualities make it categorically similar to violence. Indeed, protesting is kind of like "political-violence," although I am using it here in a very nonstandard way. Gosh, I feel like one of those college kids who redefines words, saying "silence is violence."


Basically, the common sense idea that "violence is very bad, I wouldn't ever EVER do violence ever" is a left-adaptive meme because it means political power (=protesting, media control) wins, and the left has that.


Once we see these dynamics laid bare, why shouldn't someone like me just say, "I will judge actions based on their effects in the zero-sum power war: it matters not if you detonated a bomb and killed people, you are committing an un-ignorable act in the service of a side."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for January 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The protestors do not pose a military threat to the government. Rather, they pose a rhetorical, political, and optics threat. Civil disobedience, hunger strikes, tying oneself to a tree, blocking roads; these are all ways to bait someone (usually government) into a heavy-handed reaction. The theory (and practice) is that the reaction drums up sympathy for the protestors and their cause. The force comes from the one-sided media though, not the protesting itself. Protest should be understood as a tool that the citizens (at the media's direction) use against the government - very similar to 2nd Amendment.


Protest organizations clearly say that it is about creating scenes with Law Enforcement.


So, yes these protests are social functions. And yes, there is no need for the protestors to actually think they are fighting fascism. If people really actually believed the were fighting a fascist regime, we'd see more deadly attacks on Law Enforcement and less protesting. The rhetorical and political power of the media can indeed cause governments to act (or not), so it's kind of reasonable for protestors to think they are invincible. They are of course, the rightful side of legitimate American power. Do not mind how they call themselves the underdog - that's part of the theatre script.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The law is intentionally set up to allow for Terrorism Lite to work, especially when it is being committed for certain ends. The law is not meant (by those who write it) to equally protect the abortion protestor and the pro-choice activist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My understanding is what was rejected was an Emergency Warrant. I have no idea how often Emergency Warrants are used. Maybe an Emergency Warrant would have been approved if but for Lemon's politics/status? How would we know?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


not sure what a stationary patrol is




of course this means keeping watch while standing still (not moving). I agree, it is uncommon usage.


As to the question in your OP: if the Lt. Governor is committing crimes then indeed there could be a criminal conspiracy. Some people in discussions have thrown out the word insurrection. I am wondering if there is a principled difference: for example, is insurrection a kind of formal and legal term that describes the state of minnesota itself and not any of its individual leaders. I suppose in a trivial way being a sanctuary city or state might be insurrection. I'm not sure this signal chat stuff really adds any more to that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Good Genes is indeed incoherent. Genes can only be fit or not. And fitness is relative to the environment. Therefore, to say Good Genes exist is to say Good Environments exist.


Another way to phrase this is that there is an inverse of eugenics. We could posit a kind of "eu-envirics" focused on changing the environment.


(Insofar as the laws of physics have certain requirements, genetic defects that cause e.g. stillborn births are in all practical sense Bad Genes)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To what extent do you (or legal or ethical theory) conflate or distinguish between force, and violence? Restraining someone is certainly forceful, but is it necessarily violent? If you had cheap, harmless sleep rays to aim at patients, would this be considered 'violence?' Such a technology "feels" unethical, even though it seems like it offers safety improvements.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The officer should face zero consequences. This is just politics. I am not insane. Thank you for your opinion.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I hated the prose too. Like another commenter said though, it is intentional. If I recall, one jarring word choice was something like the word 'vessel' to refer to a person's physical body -- over and over and over again. My guess is this is meant to characterize the narrator. so, I don't knock off points for it, just to say: I won't be reading it again.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Of course it isn't better than what we have now to people who prefer democrats. Why else would Gillitrut post what he did?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.


These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:


    

  • Tribally back the officer => Narrative is less likely to create popular pressure to see conviction etc.
    • 

  • Anything else => agent gets Derek Chauvin'd.
    • 



Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah, so close, you could have said, "I know it seems confusing, but driving into someone is using deadly force..." and then your post would have been perfect. I do wonder if you would have gotten modd'ed for that comment; I won't speculate on that.