@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

I feel like the culture war has gotten better in that we have figured out how to sort of deal with it, the superweapons have lost their effectiveness. The fanatics aren't always running the show, cooler heads are getting more attention. But its also gotten worse because it spread to the normies and out of academia and limited intellectual circles.

IMO, God-willing, we're just ahead of the curve here --- early adopters of the Culture War, if you will. I think this is a generic narrative arc of an aggressive meme. I'm not even quite sure how to define the current one (it's been difficult to name, even, but feels motivated by the existence of the Internet, among other forces), but there are past examples like "what if we decided we didn't have a king, but that we're defined by Frenchness?" or "what if we used this new printing press to openly question the moral authority of the Pope?". Both of those took hold among the masses and caused decades of conflict (large hot wars, even), before a new lasting coexistence equilibrium was established.

I feel like I've seen some signs that we might have hit peak Culture War. Flame wars aren't edgy anymore, they're almost passe in my IRL social circles. We're re-learning the wisdom of not discussing politics or religion in polite company. The CW ideas aren't new to most of the populace because they've been everywhere for years, and there are fewer newcomers to the memes to become radicalized torchbearers. Maybe things are going to start cooling down.

Shakespeare didn’t write one hundred plays and then choose the best few dozen to publish.

Some writers, Stephen King comes to mind first, are famous for writing prolifically and then substantially editing down their products. Although maybe not quite that ratio.

IIRC humans can get theobromine poisoning, but the required dosages are such that it's a non-issue outside of small children and the elderly binging on chocolate.

Temperance

If you mean "temperance" as in "Women's Christian Temperance Union", I recall reading that Biden and Trump are both teetotalers, and that W. Bush stopped drinking before he ran for president.

Sadly, your conclusion about the other virtues seems well-founded.

I feel like one of the pitfalls of eugenics (then and now) is an assumption about what good genes even means (beyond Sydney Sweeney, apparently). There seems to be a lot more agreement about bad genes: see general consent on the borderline-eugenics of genetic counseling for various diseases, or the general acceptance of anti-incest rules.

You're probably right that Nazis lost out by dismissing a bunch of human capital and (over?)valuing blond hair and blue eyes, but I can't avoid thinking that statement is smuggling in some value judgements about what we should consider the ideal human form. Sure, intelligence is generally valued, but I see a rather open-ended question about the relative merit of maximizing paperclips chess scores, baseball ability, or height that I'd personally prefer to defer answering.

I sometimes feel like we over-medicalize things in modern society: we want to defer "hard" ethical decisions to "experts", and doctors are some of our favorite experts.

I noticed this acutely when I was called for jury duty a while back (I was not selected), and voir dire included some questions about considering about applying a legal label ("sexually violent predator") that does have a very loosely defined medical component, and I could tell a tangible number of potential jurors really wanted to hide behind "what does a/the doctor think?" in terms of something the legislature, in it's great wisdom, deserved a jury trial rather than a medical panel. Frankly, given the weight of the decision, I see why: there are plenty of horror stories of doctors involuntary committing people, and a jury seems a potentially-preferable way to evaluate such status.

There were also quite a few jurors that questioned their own fairness on the topic of heinous crimes. I didn't get selected (the defense busted the panel, as it turned out), but am I weird in thinking that sometimes "fair" is, after carefully weighing the evidence of guilt, "throw the book at them"?

The Rwandan genocide managed a comparable body count with mostly machetes. It seems more a matter of whether the regime's forces (who I'm sure have enough small arms) are choosing to use lethal force, either as a top-down policy or more local spontaneous decisionmaking.

I read this one recently: I liked it overall. Without spoilers, I thought it interesting that the plot twist, to the extent there is one, struck me as very "of it's time" in how it reflects on the human condition, but in a way that I don't think could be written today because waves at culture war, nor would the conclusion be deemed quite as satisfactory in that light. At the time, it was pretty well received by critics, too: an interesting display of shifting political winds.

I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts, though.