@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 May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
See, this is why we should've kept all the bots and such from rdrama. You could have made it so that people have to put "I'm not self_made_human" in their posts, and it would be extremely funny for 5 minutes or so. Worth!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I would not say that "high school" means "went to a school campus and studied there", but rather it is a generic term for that level of education no matter where you get it. That is what I meant at any rate.


I did not fully flesh out my idea that success begets success etc, but what I meant was in terms of self confidence. When you succeed, you feel confident that you can do it again. Conversely, if you fail, you feel less confident that you will succeed in the future. And because people find confidence attractive, I believe that someone who gets off on a successful foot has a significant edge in terms of future success attracting mates, versus someone who gets off to a start with a couple of failures under his belt. I think that the guy who succeeds a time or two can more easily brush off future rejections, because he knows "I did it before so it's not impossible", whereas the guy who gets shot down a couple of times starts to believe "I guess I just can't do it", and that his lack of self confidence hinders his future prospects. In that way, it seems to me like romantic success and failure can be a vicious (or virtuous) cycle, where your past performance can influence your future performance. Obviously exceptions exist, but it seems like a decent general hypothesis to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think homeschool would've been the death of you. It's not like you don't get to talk to girls. I saw plenty of young ladies my age when I was in high school, even if we weren't going to school together, after all. I do agree that it's a practice thing, the biggest problem in my experience was that in this arena, success begets success and failure begets failure. You need to go into that interaction with an easygoing self confidence, but at least for me that self confidence was destroyed by past rejections and it took me a long time to try to figure out how to build it up. I truly don't think anything would've been different for me in this regard if my school situation had been different.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I was also homeschooled. I think it depends very much on the child and the parents. I'm pretty smart and was capable of learning from just textbooks with no real input from my mom, as was my brother. All we needed was an adult to keep us from dicking around all day. My sister is also smart, but has dyslexia and I suspect a touch of autism, and she struggled hard even with my mom spending a lot of time trying to help her learn. It's hard to know if the public school would've helped her, as we lived in a small town which wouldn't have necessarily had tons of resources, but it's a distinct possibility. Other parents fail their kids by just checking out completely, and of course a child isn't going to care about learning on his own if the parents aren't making him. So I think that there's a minimum threshold of parent involvement, where you at least make sure the kids stay on task, and possibly take a more active hand in teaching if the kids aren't able to just absorb textbooks.


Socially, I think it's not as bad as people say but it's not a complete non issue either. I was pretty socially awkward until late high school, and even the start of college. But again, it's hard to know how much of that was due to my innate tendencies - I was in the local elementary school for first grade, and I was socially awkward and got picked on then too. I would say that it didn't give me any particular trouble when I was trying to date and marry, at least. I had issues in that regard but it was due more to being overweight (and self conscious about said same), so I had a real lack of confidence which is not an attractive quality. But I seriously doubt that I would've done any better had I been in the local high school. And, of course, it could've been worse - my wife has social anxiety that she has to fight to this day because she got bullied in school, so for some kids it's hard not to wonder if they wouldn't have done better outside the school system.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The more senior the dev, the more they tend to resist even trying out new tools or workflows.




That isn't true at all in my experience. But it is true that more senior devs are less impressed by "new and shiny", instead being very critical about "what problems does this solve better than my current tools do".


One of the things that annoys me about mandating LLMs is that, generally speaking, you have to hold tech guys back from adopting new stuff. They are notorious for going all in on things which have issues for the company (security and compliance flaws, etc) and have to get walked back. They will even set up shadow IT departments just to get stuff done better. If LLMs are truly as useful as the hype says, there's no need to mandate using them. The people for whom they solve problems will trip over themselves to try to use them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Oh, I agree that almost by definition a great many people must be wrong about their religious beliefs. Whether that is a belief in a particular religion or even atheism, there are too many mutually exclusive positions for us all to be right. But it seemed to me that you were saying you doubted people's sincerity in how they arrived at their beliefs, which is quite a different matter. A person can be completely sincere in seeking the truth, genuinely set aside any biases or preconceived notions, and still be wildly wrong. Sincerity in seeking the truth is, unfortunately, no guarantee at all that one has indeed found it. I would therefore say that correctness and sincerity are orthogonal to each other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Remember the COVID lockdowns, when billions of school children were confined to their rooms not so much because there was a reasonable suspicion that they were positive, or because they would be competing for ICU beds if infected, but frankly because their freedom was a price the adults were willing to pay to delay the spread of the disease a bit while keeping the economy going?




I don't, because that isn't what happened. Certainly, we shouldn't have closed down schools; I think it was an extremely irrational thing to do which will prove to have had lasting negative repercussions on a generation of children. But the reason we did so wasn't because of a cynical desire to boost the economy at all costs, but rather because people were panicking about the virus and were desperate that Something Be Done. Many, many people were completely unwilling to consider any course of action except for the maximally safe one, and so we closed down the schools even though I don't think there was ever a significant risk to leaving them open.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I understand that you cannot know for a fact how a person's mind works, and that it is certainly possible for a person to be lying to you, or even themselves, about the thought process they followed to get to where they are. But it sounds like you're skirting dangerously close to an unfalsifiable belief here, because it seems like you are alleging that even if someone isn't consciously doing confirmation bias rather than truth seeking, that just means they're unconsciously doing that. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that would be a pretty large claim to make, and also one which is quite unfalsifiable (and should be scrutinized very hard indeed as a result).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, it is fiction of course, and not meant to be taken as an authoritative view on hell. But I would say that my experience with human nature has left me quite convinced that people will not necessarily give up on a mistaken belief, even if it's causing them suffering. An imperfect analogy here would be addicts. My brother in law was an alcoholic, and an outside observer could see how much suffering his drinking was causing for him. Not just that he couldn't hold down a job and all that, but it ruined many of his relationships, left him being angry and bitter on a daily basis, and was destroying his body. Everyone around him, literally everyone, clearly saw that the bottle was destroying him and that he would be better off if he could give it up. But he never could admit that he needed to stop, not up until the day he died. I realize that a human lifetime's scale is very different from forever, and that's what makes the analogy imperfect. But my experience has shown me that the human mind has a great capacity to double down, even in the face of great suffering. So it isn't impossible for me to believe that someone might choose hell for all eternity.


I will say that I think the "eternal conscious torment" theory is bunk. Like you said, it simply does not fit with a supposedly loving God. But even an infinitely loving God can't (or rather won't) force people to love him, so I think that hell as a self-inflicted privation of good, rather than a punishment, makes sense. Beyond that, though, it's hard to say. Perhaps the "souls outside heaven will eventually be annihilated" people are correct, perhaps the "all will eventually choose to submit to God" people are correct, perhaps the "after we die we don't get to change our minds because spiritual beings can't change their minds" people are correct. I don't know, but thankfully it doesn't keep me up at night or anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Religious believers, in my experience, choose a priori what they want to believe (whether it is that their enemies will burn, or no one will burn) and fit scripture to match it.




For what it's worth, that is not what I do. Not on this topic, nor any other topic concerning faith. I've gone from being raised a non-denominational Christian, to agnostic, to being a Christian again, to being Catholic specifically, all on the basis of my ability to discern the truth as best I can. I try to remain open to new ideas or arguments, and not just confirm my biases. I'm not perfect, of course, but I am genuinely trying. So inasmuch as your experience in life includes me (not much, sure, but not zero either), you at least know some religious believers who don't do what you have observed.




rae was a little harsh...




I think that "a little harsh" doesn't quite cover it. Rae came in here purely to vent his spleen in a way that was unproductive and frankly a real dick move. I didn't bother to get into it with him because there's no point arguing with someone that angry about the topic that they will go out of their way to shit on someone else's beliefs, but it was a really crappy thing to post.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am fond of the CS Lewis formulation of hell (as I am with many other topics in Christian thought): people in hell are there by choice, not because God bars them from heaven. The suffering of hell, then, is not a divine punishment, but ultimately self-inflicted (since God is the source of all good things, by choosing to set yourself apart from him one chooses to forego good things and only suffering can be left). I think that Lewis illustrates this interpretation of hell quite nicely in The Great Divorce, where he envisions hell as a dreary gray town where most people are insistent on staying, even though they hate it there, because they believe that the bus that takes one up to heaven is some manner of trick and that they are better off where they are. But for those who do choose to go, they find in the end that hell was really purgatory for them, once they left it behind.


As far as the topic of universalism goes, I can't say I really know one way or the other. I certainly hope that all will be saved, and I like Bishop Barron's phrasing of "we may hope that hell is empty". And I must confess that the victory of Jesus over sin feels somewhat hollow if, in the end, there are those who will not be saved, even if it be by their own choice. However, I do believe that God respects our free will, even if we choose to be apart from him, even if we never come to our senses and realize that we made a bad choice by remaining apart from him. And given human nature, it is difficult to imagine that every single human will ultimately choose to humble his heart and say to God "thy will be done". So it is therefore hard to imagine that hell will be empty, in the end. But I do hope it will be, even though I doubt if I'll ever have certainty in this life.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why are you even in this thread if you don't believe in God? If you don't, the entire topic is moot so you can ignore it and go about your day.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair, I didn't encounter players who just wanted a feel good ending but I'm not surprised that some existed. And yeah it's a lot more text, but if there's one thing the Internet doesn't have enough of, it's nerds spewing words about Mass Effect. ;)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah video game development has slowed to a crawl. It's genuinely bad; I would much much rather have games that look 50% as good (still very good!) and take only a year or two to develop instead of the status quo where they take a decade.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, it seems like some game devs like to treat the player as a sucker for... playing the game that they bought. When the player is railroaded (as he basically always in video games, with varying degrees of success in hiding the rails), and you shove the player's face in "haha look how awful it is when you did the things we forced you to", the player is going to resent that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Good post. But I think you're off base when it comes to why people don't like ME3. It isn't because the ending is a dire stakes, Hail Mary play which has a huge cost for the galaxy. No, it's because the ending a) is the culmination of a plot that existed only in ME3 and is retarded anyway, b) it gives you a decision that has nothing at all to do with what came before, and c) it makes no sense with the previous rules of the setting anyway.


First, the Crucible. This partly comes down to that you said about how the writers didn't have a plan for the trilogy (more accurately: they had a tentative plan, but the writer in charge left/got kicked off the project and his ideas got rejected so they threw out the plot threads they had built). But they don't get a pass for that. So the Crucible never gets mentioned until ME3, and players quite reasonably go "wait what" when the plan to stop the Reapers is something they've never heard of before. But even if the writers had brought it up sooner... it's retarded. There is no way in hell that you could have a tech project where every Reaper cycle progresses it a little bit further. The researchers of all these different species wouldn't even be able to understand what came before (remember: Shepard is literally the only one in the galaxy who can speak Prothean, no way a research team is going to be able to decipher Prothean blueprints), not to mention the fact that it's going to be nigh impossible to do tech development while in the midst of a galactic genocide, not to mention that it's going to be nigh impossible to keep it secret every single cycle so that the Reapers never discover it. So even if they had started to build up the Crucible earlier, it's a bad idea.


Then we have the continuity with what came before. Your previous choices don't matter to the Star Child. It's not the natural consequence of the rest of the game's narrative. It's this completely separate thing tacked onto the end which has no relation at all to your adventures with your space homies. People want the ending to come from somewhere, especially in a series which prides itself on being responsive to player choice, and this didn't.


But even if the ending had related to what came before, it would still suck because it disregards the rules of the setting. First of all, the supposed reason that the Reapers kill everyone is... because otherwise organic and inorganic life will kill each other and the Reapers would rather cull the universe every so often than have a dead universe. But that makes no sense. The game shows you, time and again, that organics and inorganics can learn to get along. It's not easy (as with any people who have tension), but it is possible. Legion and Tali learn to get along and respect each other. Joker is banging your ship. It's clearly possible for the two sides to get along, but the game contradicts itself and says "no it's not"without any evidence to support that. Then you have the mass relays blowing up. In the Arrival DLC for ME2, we are told that such an explosion is so violent that it would kill everyone in the system. And yet, at the end your people land on a planet which is pretty close to a mass relay, but they... somehow survive the cataclysmic explosion. The ending is simply not playing by the rules of the setting on multiple levels.


One very common criticism leveled at ME fans at the time ME3 came out was "you just want a happy ending". But that isn't what people really wanted. They wanted an ending that made some semblance of narrative sense, and which cohered with the things that came up to that point in the series. The ME3 ending did neither of those things, which was the real problem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 8, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


A lesbian friend of mine once said the term woman was often meant derogatorily. As in "That woman said..."




I think there's something to this, though I would say that "often" is overstating it. People will sometimes use "woman" as a form of address or even an interjection of frustration ("women!"), which does carry a hint of derogation. Of course, the word "man" sometimes gets used by women in the same way, so it's not a one way phenomenon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Is the taste of the food the only thing normal people care about at a restaurant?




Not the only thing. But it is 90% of what people care about.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Trust is a binary. While you may not extend trust to a person in all areas, for any given area, you either trust someone or you do not. There's no middle ground.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Trust but verify




That isn't trust. Trust, by definition, means that you believe someone without verifying. "Trust, but verify" is an incoherent expression that would be more accurately stated as "I don't trust you so I verify the claims you make".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No. A healthy relationship works on "trust". That's it. Not "trust, but verify" (which is in fact a lack of trust), not "trust, but don't you dare verify". Simply trust.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Given the responses from the Male Motte, the most I can say is that male and female intuitions on this topic are just diametrically opposed.




I think it's more that people who were in an unhealthy relationship have a warped sense of what is acceptable. Like you, I would be very upset if my wife demanded a proof of fidelity out of nowhere (say if she wanted to randomly inspect my phone to make sure I didn't have any untoward text messages on it). That isn't something which should happen in a healthy marriage, and if it comes up at all, the marriage has problems.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That is not remotely emotional blackmail. It's perfectly normal to be upset when your spouse doesn't trust you and demands to check up on your behavior just in case you're up to something.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
See also: "goblins in Harry Potter are anti-Semitic, because the grotesque, hooked-nose race who runs the bank is clearly meant to portray Jews". It's remarkable that people are willing to make that claim with a straight face and apparently without awareness of how it reflects on them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah I agree. I don't think she does have bedroom eyes, just was clarifying what the term means.