@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 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

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Honestly, the Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell post is one of my favorite ones that Scott has ever written, possibly my very favorite. He convinced me that reactionary philosophy is correct far more than his followup convinced me that it's incorrect. Which is damn impressive considering he doesn't even agree with it. I think at one point it kinda went off the rails because I don't really agree that the solution to our problems is to install a king back on the throne. But the entire analysis of society's issues where he goes "if you're in a hole, stop digging" over and over was dead on.

The problem with your argument is that denying the divinity of Jesus goes way far beyond the other examples you mentioned. There are a lot of dogmas in Christianity that you could deny and be super heretical: the Trinity, that Jesus was legitimately human, and so on. The Muslim example, or the early Christian practices differing from today, are in that ballpark. Orthodox Christians (small-o, not the denomination) would be aghast at a lot of things and say "this is heresy and you are bad", but at least those people would still be nominally Christian.

Denying the divinity of Jesus is in a whole other ballpark. That's the one thing Christianity is about at its core. The entire point of the faith, in every denomination, is "Jesus is God, and so we worship him". That's the fundamental split with Judaism (and with Islam too for that matter). If you don't agree on that, then you are not Christian and there's no two ways about it.

The whole idea of non-binary gender seems to me like it's a natural (and probably inevitable) result of the idea that gender is separate from sex. Occasional physical deformities aside, I imagine most people (though probably not all) would agree that we have only two sexes in mankind. So, if you take gender to be a euphemism for sex, then it naturally follows that there can only be two genders.

Decouple those concepts, though, and it's different. If gender is merely something to do with social norms and how you feel you fit into them, then it seems only natural that there can be more than two. There may be different combinations of social norms that one might group together in one package, and you as an individual may feel sometimes strongly drawn to one package, and sometimes to another.

Personally I think that the whole line of thought is nonsense. We have only two sexes, gender (as separate from sex) is not a thing, and so there's no "other" option for gender. But disagree though I do, I do at least think it's understandable how the non binary people are likely thinking about this topic.

I think it comes down to a simple question. What do you value more, minor social consequences at work or your integrity?

I don't personally think wearing the orange shirt is that wrong (just kind of stupid), but it sounds like you do think it's wrong. And it sounds like you're going to face the same social consequences either way, because it sounds like the other staff think poorly of you already. So, maybe wearing this shirt will get you a brief reprieve, but it probably won't change anyone's opinion of you either way. With that in mind, it's really a question of what is more important to you here.

Say what you will about the 7/11 post (which I remember well, and personally didn't like at all because it was so obtuse), but at least it took some effort to make. There is zero effort, or value, in a post which consists purely of "I asked these questions from ChatGPT, here's what it said". I can go ask ChatGPT those questions myself if I want to know the answer. Like @slothlikesamwise said, you really need to bring something beyond copy/pasting output from some chat bot.

Yes, we Québécois receive electricity and healthcare as government services. To be frank, I don't know why you'd do it any other way.

The same reason one does anything as a private service: because one believes that either it's not a proper function of government, or that the private market can provide the service better. Pretty straightforward tbh.

Or the fact that Congress seems completely unwilling to pass bills that have a single subject. Gotta tie everything together so that you can't block bad legislation without having unpopular knock-on effects! Bonus points if you make it so that the artificial consequence of your legislation is "the federal bureaucracy and the military shuts down", because there's basically no law so bad that a president will ever accept those consequences to veto it.

Yeah I feel the same. It's a pretty decent post right up until the end where it turns into combative moralizing. Honestly, this sort of thing is exactly why people give vegans shit. I'm fine with vegans, live and let live. But a lot of vegans don't seem to feel the same, and people don't like being preached at. Honestly even if @thejdizzler had concluded in a less hostile way that would've been fine too. Something like "since there isn't a hard nutritional need to eat animal products, I personally feel that the right thing is to abstain" would've been ok (at least in my book). But saying "what's your excuse" is just spoiling for a fight.

Freedom of association is not a right listed in the Constitution.

It doesn't have to be. This sort of reasoning is literally why we have the 10th amendment, so that someone can't go "well the right isn't enumerated in the Constitution so the government doesn't have to respect it".

I grow increasingly confident about my claim that insofar as the color tribes exist, the gray tribe surely doesn't.

I feel it should be pointed out that this was Scott's original take as well. He mentioned the idea of the grey tribe, but then said they're basically a specific faction of the blue tribe and weren't really their own thing in his analysis.

Seriously. I am pretty damn unconcerned about what people wear to work, for the most part. But the way he dresses is just straight up trashy. It screams "I'm an attention seeking person who actively tries to offend those around me". That's not really the sort of person I would hire for any job.

I actually was very pleased that the Amazon engineers let you set the device so that it responds to "computer". I had great fun for a couple of days going "computer, do this. Computer, do that." Unfortunately, it kept trying to respond when I was watching Star Trek, and it got annoying so I turned it back to the default of "Alexa". I want to be able to watch my TNG in peace, and all that.

Publishing is pretty woke so the wokest titles get prominently featured at your local bookstore, so sure, you'll find plenty of misery-porn with characters like you describe.

Also, for what it's worth - bookstores (even pretty liberal ones) will still sometimes recommend books that aren't woke. I was floored to find out that at my local (very liberal) bookstore, the book Woke Racism was displayed as one of the staff recommendations. Now, the fact that I was surprised indicates that it's uncommon, true enough - but it's not unheard of either.

Maybe I'm nostalgic for something that never really existed

You're definitely not. Time was that the extent of political argument in the open source community was about the issues salient to open source itself (licensing, copyright, etc) and nothing else. Beyond that it was about making software that did its job well, not about advancing a political agenda.

In another, similar vein, look at the show Kim's Convenience. I recall reading that the reason the show shut down was because they had someone on the crew (a camera guy, I believe) quit, and they couldn't find an Asian person to replace him. So rather than have non-Asians on the crew, they shut it down. But as a consequence there's one less depiction of Asians and their culture in the broader culture. The perfect was allowed to be the enemy of the good.

Also, real talk - the name Washington Redskins wasn't offensive, and they should've just kept it. People would've moved on to complaining about something else eventually.

I think 3 isn't that much worse than 2 except for the stuff on the floor. That's what really makes it bad. If the clutter was just limited to things on tables/counters, it would be messy but not beyond the pale.

Vaping is ugly and reminds people of cigarettes, which are An Official Bad Thing, so it’s an emergency if the youths are starting to get into it.

IMO that is the beginning and end of the crusade against vaping. It's pattern matching + disgust reaction, nothing more. For whatever reason people feel comfortable in really hating smokers (see the brilliant South Park satire where the "tolerant" characters jeered and taunted smokers, calling them "tar lungs" and chasing them off). Because people are disgusted by smoking, they file vaping into the same bucket and that's the end of it.

I personally felt like Hermione's crusade on behalf of house elves was meant to be eye-rolling. Well intentioned, but still cringy and ill advised. She gets told constantly it's a bad idea, offends the very people she's trying to "save", etc. Heck even the name of her movement (S.P.E.W.) is a joke on her overzealousness and obliviousness.

Searching in and of itself is not egregious. But they didn't just search. They broke down his front door, went around the place with weapons drawn, and disconnected his security cameras (which just screams shady). In short, they acted like jackbooted thugs for something which should have been a simple and polite "Hello sir, we are here to execute a search warrant, we need you to let us in to search your property".

I know a couple that is half black. Their kid has, to one parent, profound behavior issues that are totally "normal" to the other parent.

To be fair this sounds like a culture thing more than a race thing per se. My wife is black, but if we were to have children neither of us would accept it if our kids started acting stereotypically black (which is what it sounds like you mean?). But that's because we both have similar cultural values about how to behave properly.

Oh I have no doubt of that. Especially because of the user-hostile behavior I mentioned. These days it's hard to use the damn thing without it advertising some "feature" to you, in the form of saying "by the way, did you know you can blah blah blah?". And if that wasn't bad enough, they straight up put ads in the shopping list section of the app trying to get you to buy their food deals. It's pretty clear that they are trying desperately to get the sort of usage you state.

Yeah no. You really need to look around you with a more objective view if you truly think this is the case. I won't deny that sometimes I disagree with mod decisions about something which should be moderated but isn't. But at least The Motte actually has rules against this, and they are generally evenly enforced.

Just having rules against it is already better than 75% of the Internet. Go on Reddit political forums, or Twitter, or countless other places, and they have no rules whatsoever against such name calling. Leftists freely call anyone to the right of Barack Obama a Nazi, a fascist, a terrible evil person, etc etc - and they mean it. Not all leftists, to be sure. But it's a super common pattern and almost no discussion forums even try to contain it.

On the Motte, at least we try. It's not perfect. If you want to claim "the moderation here is imperfect and could be improved", I suspect everyone will agree with you (even the moderators). But this idea that the Motte is the worst example of bad behavior in political discussion is completely asinine, and has very little in common with reality.

I don't remember this ever being stated anywhere. This sounds like something people just made up out of whole cloth in order to justify taking more icons away from white men.

I'm pretty sure this is stated in the books somewhere, but at the very least it's in the movies in Casino Royale. It makes it very clear that 007 is Bond's job title, one which he hasn't always had (he attains it in that movie). So yes, there's no reason we couldn't have a black 007. What they couldn't have (without throwing logical consistency to the wind) is a black Bond.

On that, a surprising number of the establishment Republicans have kids married to black people. Haley, McCain, Boehner, etc. What's with that?

Those people happened to find that a black person was the right person for them to marry. Why the heck would there be anything else?

Of course, it's hard to blame Yud for being wrong when, when written, everyone else had ideas that were just as widely off the mark as he was.

No it isn't. When you are speculating wildly on what might happen, you rightly bear the blame if you were way off the mark. If Yud wasn't a modern day Chicken Little, but was just having some fun speculating on the shape AI might take, that would be fine. But he chose to be a doomer, and he deserves every bit of criticism he gets for his mistaken predictions.