@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 225


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
SubstantialFrivolity


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
I'm not even supposed to be here today

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 225


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think it's fair to blame some Jews (not even all Jews) of the first century for Jesus' death. The real error that Christians made was a) blaming all Jews for this, and b) transferring that guilt onto their descendants. No crime is so monstrous that an entire race of people should carry that guilt. There were plenty of Jews even at the time who were innocent of the crime (for example, Mary, all the apostles minus Judas, etc), let alone their descendants centuries later.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Letting everyone just "decide" is the last thing you want.




It may be the last thing that some people want, but it's kind of putting words in his mouth to say it's the last thing @LiberalRetvrn wants.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Having separate words for talking about biological sex and gender is useful.




No it isn't, because those aren't separate things to begin with. "Gender" is merely a synonym for "sex". And much like @Crowstep said, there was no confusion on this point until recent decades when activists have tried to redefine the words to point to an entirely new concept. But going by the old (and imo correct) definitions, it is incoherent to talk about "choosing your gender" because that is an objective fact about reality. Perhaps one day we will be able to effectively change someone's sex/gender, but we aren't there yet. So you don't get to choose at our current tech level.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for April 16, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Also not paying maintenance on your truck so you have to pay for maintenance out of your own pocket?




Yeah this was a red flag to me as well. @solowingpixy maintenance on the company owned vehicle is their problem, not yours. Stop paying their bills for them posthaste, and if the truck dies because they're too cheap to change the oil that is just how it goes. Sucks to suck, as the kids say.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair distinction. And yes, I was addressing #1. We had a thread on the motte a few months back where people were arguing that the solution to the obesity problem in America is to try to shame fat people even harder, which I felt was not a realistic solution (even aside from whether we should do it for kindness reasons).


I would say I agree that eliminating #2 is not feasible. I think all we can reasonably expect is that even if people feel disgusted by someone, they don't then start saying "wow fatty you really ate that donut like the fat fuck you are" to the person in question. But how they feel is not really a problem as long as they aren't being mean to others.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is kind of a tangent off your post, but Como Agua Para Chocolate always reminds me of how it taught me the amount of information we can lack from cultural context. When I took Spanish in college, the movie version of that was one of the works we could get from the library to practice our Spanish. And I knew what the title literally meant, but completely misunderstood the meaning behind the words. I had no idea that sometimes people will make hot chocolate by combining boiling water and chocolate (since here in the US we use powder and it's kinda 50/50 on whether we use milk or water for the liquid). So as best as I could figure, the title was referring to the feeling when you eat a lot of chocolate at once and it makes you really thirsty. A glass of water is super refreshing at times like that. So even though I knew the literal meaning of the words, cultural context meant I took away a very different interpretation than what the author intended. Communication is a funny thing sometimes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe. I suppose I can really only speak to my experiences in the US on this topic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Good thoughts, thanks. I think you're definitely right that acting locally is a great way to do good in ways you can be sure of the outcome.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I used to hold the view that you do, that nobody held the extreme form the obesity activists complain about.




I actually don't hold that view! I have seen plenty of that behavior (all over the Internet and even on this very forum), so that I know that there is a very real problem with people who just have seething hatred of fat people. Some try to couch it in terms of "we need to shame them so they improve", but that's a lie (maybe even lying to themselves) used to justify picking on easy targets.


I also agree that shaming does not work, nor am I proposing it. I've written impassioned arguments against shaming fat people, in fact. It sucks major ass to be obese, and it's full of constant shame every time one looks in the mirror (ask me how I know, lol). If the soul-crushing shame we already apply to fat people hasn't fixed it, no amount of shaming will.


So as far as that goes, I don't think we really disagree at all. What I'm trying to push back on is the overcorrection I perceive in activists all over the Internet (and which, in fairness, I may have incorrectly read into this discussion - prejudice can do that to you). I've seen way too many fat acceptance activists (ironically, including on TiA like you said) take positions that are untrue and unhelpful, such as:


    

  • You don't need to change, the goal is to be healthy and not to lose weight
    • 

  • People [meaning loving friends and family, not fat people hate posters] are bigots who can't accept that you are fine the way you are
    • 

  • You can't be expected to change, you have a medical condition that means it's impossible
    • 

  • You didn't do anything wrong in the first place, this is the result of external conditions in society (or genetics) which mean you have no culpability in where you are
    • 



Needless to say, I find these positions to be not only incorrect, but actively harmful to the people they purport to help. I think they're coming from a place of love (which is good), but that isn't the only thing that matters imo. You also have to not allow people to continue in the unhealthy direction they are going, at least not without being gently nudged into a better direction. What I'm advocating for is an approach where we are frank (but kind) with people about their own culpability in the mess they are in, while also not falling back on empty "just do better bro" advice. I think it's possible to both be honest with people that yes, they bear responsibility, while also being compassionate about the difficulty of the change they need to make and how they may need strategies that go beyond simple effort of will.


I'm going to make an analogy in the hopes that it'll help to make my position clearer. I view the obesity problem as being somewhat similar to the disease of sin in Christian thought. While in a sense sin isn't any individual's fault (due to original sin corrupting man and the world), each individual still bears culpability for the sinful choices he made. And while a sinner can't fix himself (only Jesus can do that), he still has to acknowledge that he is a sinner, do his best to sin no more (even though that won't be enough), and accept the Lord's help in fixing the disease of sin within him. So while the problem is beyond the individual to fix himself, there is a personal choice that must be made to turn away from the old bad path. I see the obesity problem as having a lot in common with that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is that staying poor is very often the result of bad personal choices. Not always, but often enough that trying to remove personal responsibility from the equation (as many activists do) is misguided.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, I'm happy to acknowledge that it varies. For example, I never had the supposed "teenage metabolism" even when I was a teenager. I gained weight from a very young age. But my frustration when people push back on CICO is that in my experience they usually blow right past "everyone's body is different and so the diet that works for one might not work for another" (which is reasonable), and into "CICO is nonsense and therefore people can't be expected to even try" (which is not).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Nobody brings up CICO as merely an underlying physical mechanism. The implication of CICO is always "therefore, the way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more, and it's your own fault that you are fat".




To be blunt: it is people's own fault that they are fat. It doesn't just happen, they made choices that led to that point. Perhaps there exists the occasional edge case where someone has a genuine medical condition that is hindering them, but the overwhelming majority of cases come down to bad personal choices and the consequences thereof.


And this isn't just about assessing blame - much like with addictions, you can't make progress until you acknowledge your own agency and the fact that you will need to make different choices if you want to get to a different place in life. The battle doesn't end there, and you might need to come up with different strategies based on your unique circumstances. But the fundamental truth is that it really is about personal responsibility in the main.




It's like saying "the way to get rich is to earn more and spend less".




That is in fact also true. Lots of people who are fairly poor bust ass, live within their means, and get ahead as a result. It's hard, and you can suffer setbacks from circumstances even when you do everything right. But the fundamental truth holds.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed, and hopefully nobody would dispute that. I think what's being pushed back on here is the very strong claim in the OP of "A blow to the CICO theory of obesity". Given that due to the basic laws of physics CICO must be true, it's not really accurate to say that it has received a blow. That does not mean that focusing on CICO is the best strategy for any given person to effect weight loss, but the basic physical principle is true for them even if they struggle to make use of it in their lives.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


FWIW, I've heard some priests and laymen say (and I personally believe) that humanity is something akin to a "father" or "priest" to all animals and to nature. We have authority over the natural world, but we also have an obligation to treasure it, to respect it as a gift, and to leading it to perfection by applying human virtues (charity/mercy, temperance, humility) to our interactions with it.




I agree with this. My take (which I guess my dad instilled in me) is that God gave us the natural world for our use, but we are stewards and not owners. So for example, I feel no qualms about eating meat because God put the animals there for us to enjoy. But I also wouldn't butcher animals I'm not going to eat, or kill animals just for the hell of it, because ultimately they don't truly belong to me. I believe that I am responsible for those creatures, and one day I'll be held to account for what I've done if I misuse them.


As regards the broader topic of environmentalism, I have been reflecting recently that my views mean I should be an environmentalist to some extent. I think that people do take things too far sometimes, but I owe the natural world some level of care even as I make use of its resources. What that means in terms of concrete policies I should support, I'm not sure. But I do think that I should figure out where exactly I draw the line between "responsible stewardship" and "overly strict" with some of these environmentalist topics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure. But the fact that I may have legal recourse does not make the idea not horrifying. I was explaining to you why I find it horrifying, not saying that there's nothing to be done.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I disagree that it's better than nothing. Such a "copy" wouldn't be the person you love, it would be a simulacrum pretending to be them. Even if it's many times more convincing than what we could do now, it would still be nothing more than a doll. The original, the being with actual value, is lost forever. If I can't have my loved one back, I wouldn't want to piss on their memory by pretending that a cheap imitation is a reasonable substitute for having them around.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are no practical rules to live by here, other than "have an honest and fair system from Day 1" and "anything that lets you sleep with food in your stomach can't be that bad."




I would say that your scenario (which is reasonable) doesn't change the moral valence of going around regulations per se. What it changes is the reason why someone is doing it. The hypothetical NYC real estate developer is in no danger of starving, and indeed is probably pretty wealthy. So when he lies to get his construction project going, he's just doing it to line his pockets. But the hypothetical Soviet citizen is probably going to literally go hungry unless he does something to work around the system. So it becomes acceptable to do a nominally bad thing because the reason why is sufficient. Kind of like how stealing to plunder riches is condemned, but stealing to feed your starving family (or self) is generally accepted as ok.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How do you repair a system that punishes you for trying to repair it?




Nobody said anything about that. Trying to repair the system looks like pushing to get the laws improved so that the system works better. There's no reason to expect one would be punished for that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First, that is not a good deed. Fixing the regulations would be a good deed. Going around them is (somewhat) bad on its own merits.


Second, even if it were good, doing a good deed only carries merit if you're doing it for its own sake. Doing it to line your pockets means you don't have any moral credit for doing the good deed. And since this isn't a good deed to begin with, that means that we're now talking about doing a bad deed for selfish reasons, which compounds the badness.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They are both wrong. The system is indeed set up poorly if it incentivizes people to circumvent it. But the people who circumvent the system are still wrong and deserve to be penalized for their actions in some way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's closer. But if you think anyone circumventing the planning board process is actually doing it because they want to better society, and not because they want to profit, I have a bridge to sell you. A fine property in the middle of the Mojave desert.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lying, and not following the law, are both immoral without a sufficiently good reason. "I want to make money" isn't remotely good enough of a reason to lie and break the law.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We aren't talking about "does this system produce good outcomes", though. We are talking about "is it wrong for someone to do bad things because that's what the system incentivizes", which IMO it is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What would you have preferred he do? Be the only honest real estate developer and go bankrupt cause nothing gets built?




Yes. "Everyone else does this too, it's how the game is" is not and has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. You are responsible for your conduct, no matter the circumstances you find yourself in.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If not, how is telling the contractor "The planning board is going to approve this project" a lie? Where is the falsehood? Where is the deciet?




First, because the planning board was not going to approve it at the time that was said. Second, and more importantly, you left out the very clear deceit I already cited: the developer is not in fact "just waiting on paperwork", he is engaged in manipulation to apply leverage to the planning board so that they will approve it.




Nobody said anything about a preexisting agreement.




It is very clearly implied, as otherwise the contractor would not go ahead.




They said an agreement would be made and that statement was correct. An agreement was made.




Yes, only because of the lies the developer told. That doesn't count as an accurate reporting of facts.


Your hypothetical scenario is not some clever bargaining flourish. It is a dirty lie that only a scumbag would engage in. I have pointed out the express and implied untruths that the developer says. If that isn't enough for you to call it a lie, then I lack the means to persuade you I guess.