naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Can you say more about how Livelsberger was a leftist suicide bomber?
It seems like he changed his mind about those things, and indeed that the change was a sufficiently traumatic experience that he became radicalized against things he once believed. But I acknowledge that is not the only possible explanation for his actions.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Did everyone hear about the anti-natalist suicide bombing?
I feel like this warrants a lot more attention than I have seen it getting so far. Of course, antinatalist spaces are working to clarify the difference between anti-natalism and pro-mortalism, but bombing a fertility clinic is not merely pro-mortalism (unless you count embryos as human lives, I suppose, which none of the anti-natalists or pro-mortalists I know do).
But this looks like it was a suicide bomber on American soil in advancement of a radical leftist position. If you count Matthew Livelsberger (maybe you don't, since I guess he shot himself first?) this is our second leftist suicide bomber this year. Are these just not getting more attention because they failed to produce a significant body count? Because they didn't come with articulate manifestos? Because they were "lone wolf" actors? Because we want to keep the oxygen out of that room, lest a greater conflagration result?
Considered alongside the whole Ziz cult murder thing, I feel like I am watching the tentative re-emergence of something I have long associated with the 1970s or thereabouts (when it was all letter bombs and airplane hijacking)--radical intellectualism. From the 1980s through the 2000s, painting with a broad brush, my reflexive stereotype of terrorism was Islamic terrorism. This is very American of me, of course--this was also the operating era of the Tamil Tigers, for example, but most Americans could not say what country they threatened, nor point to it on a map. Terrorism--loosely defined as violence in furtherance of an ideology--is an idea that can be applied much more broadly than it normally is, but the central case seems most often to involve a racial, religious, or ethnic group acting in furtherance of identitarian interests. The connection between identitarianism and terrorism seems to me underexplored! But as a liberal who eschews both left- and right-identitarianism ("woke" and "alt-right," respectively) of course I would put it that way.
Anyway intellectual terrorism seems like a different sort of animal. It seems difficult to really get a group of people to cohere around pure ideas. The "rationalist movement," for example, is deeply fractious despite having managed to develop into something of an identity group, at least in San Francisco. But the left-wing prospiracy appears to have advanced to the point where it is sparking an increased number of violent radicals, declaring for causes that average people seem more likely to find confusing than anything else. To the average American, bombing a fertility clinic in the name of anti-natalism is like bombing a Chuck-E-Cheese in the name of anti-baloonism. "Well, that's obviously bad, but also... WTF? Was the bomber schizophrenic? Who's anti-baloonist?"
Here in the Motte we have rules against writing posts that are purely "can you believe what $OUTGROUP did" or picking the worst, most extreme examples of a group and holding them up as representative--so I want to add that I do not think anti-natalists are usually violent, or that bombing fertility clinics is especially representative of leftist political action. But of course the corporate news media gives no such disclaimers concerning, say, abortion clinic bombings or other right-coded "terrorism." Hell, they wouldn't even call it terrorism, when George Floyd extremists went around lighting things on fire in protest of a vibe. To some extent I guess I'm Noticing this particular suicide bombing in part because the FBI is actually calling it terrorism--and maybe in part because the intellectual, rather than identitarian, nature of the terrorism makes me a little bit worried. Because on reflection that doesn't actually sound like blue tribe terrorism, quite, even if it is "radical left" coded; it sounds like grey tribe terrorism. And while I am clearly not a member of either the Zizian or anti-natalist factions of the grey tribe, I think that distinction would be utterly lost on most people.
(Actually I experience something similar when people attack universities; many attacks on universities I regard as quite warranted, but sometimes I find myself wishing I had more of a platform, so that I could remind Republicans that there are still many conservative causes served by academia, and that some faculty members are broadly on their side and want to help. Please don't catch me in the crossfire...!)
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
This part was interesting from Frost:
Frost: In terms of who I’m watching for, it’s all the folks who have not yet gone on the record as being opposed to nationwide injunctions.
Who are those people?
Frost: Really everybody but [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, [Justice Samuel] Alito and [Justice Clarence] Thomas.
However, according to this CNN article:
Speaking at a university event in 2022, Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, addressed how nationwide injunctions – when coupled with forum-shopping – were hamstringing administrations of both parties, asserting that “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process,” Kagan said.
My sense has long been that Kagan, as the only remaining Democrat-appointed justice who wasn't purely an affirmative action pick, is an the awkward position of being a genuinely capable jurist saddled with the burden of morons for ideological allies. But when supposed court experts go on Politico to explain who thinks what, and somehow a journalist at CNN manages to know more than them about the state of play, I have to wonder whether the experts are actually ignorant, or simply crafting a narrative.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Any advice on getting one?
There are many ways, but in my experience the most decisive step toward getting paid large sums of money to tell other people to do things they would do better without your interference is to get an MBA.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
One could argue that both the Enlightenment and the later Progressive moment falsely took credit for quality of living improvements that were actually just the result of the Industrial Revolution
I mean, this is pretty much Marx's whole schtick, isn't it?
My own view is that ideas and material reality are mutually intertwined, but I doubt "it's both, really" is a position that will raise anyone's eyebrows. The hard part is explaining exactly how each influences the other, and I've never encountered a fully satisfactory approach to that question. Clearly, sometimes people think new thoughts and do new things. Clearly, sometimes their success in doing so depends on the conditions of material reality. And equally clearly, sometimes the conditions of material reality are the result of people thinking new thoughts and doing new things.
But mostly, Nothing Ever Happens, which makes the fact that anything has ever Happened at all, all the more puzzling. This is at heart the same argument Parmenides ("change is an illusion") had with Heraclitus ("sameness is an illusion"), which Plato "resolved" by saying--of course--"it's both, really."
Great post!
I don't have any problem with the idea of "luxury beliefs" in the sense that some beliefs appear to indeed be things that it is costly to believe, and that some people are able to bear the cost while others are not. I think that what makes them tricky is that the costs themselves are arguably grounded in what other people believe. Where "luxury beliefs" get controversial seems to be when it is a matter of controversy as to whether the costs are themselves a consequence of the belief, or a consequence of e.g. social norms.
Post-WWII, American culture underwent a radical shift. Progressivism to that point had mostly been about the perfectibility of mankind through social programs--public education, proper nutrition, clean water, etc. were things that many American communities still lacked circa 1920. In the century from 1870 to 1970, the percent of illiterate white Americans over the age of 14 dropped (PDF) from 20% to 1%; the percent of illiterate nonwhites dropped from 80% to around 4%--and those percentages went to about 0.5% and 2% in the ten years following. Similar strides were made in nutrition, hygiene, clean water, etc. and we were exporting these advances, too--engaging in imperialism modernization efforts around the world.
But today if you've "caught the vision" of progressivism, you needn't pursue it very long to discover that the low-hanging fruit is well and truly plucked. Of course new children are still being born (for now...) so there's always more work to be done, but the extent of visible progress achieved by the progressive project within living memory circa 1995 was unprecedented and jaw-dropping. We'd conquered nature so thoroughly that the only thing remaining to hinder our own progress was... other people!
Prototypical progressive thinkers--I'm thinking specifically of John Stuart Mill, here--were very interested in the idea that we should all have maximum liberty, constrained only by the compatibility of that liberty with everyone else enjoying liberty in similar quantities. "My right to swing my fist ends where your right to swing your fist begins," I suppose, though there is probably a more pithy version of that floating around somewhere. At the root of this is the idea that we are all the best judges of our own flourishing, provided we start from a place of adequate education.
So here in the 21st century, we have responses to your identified categories.
- Gender transition is a way for people to flourish by breaking the bonds of restrictive social constructs. The only costs are those imposed by transphobes.
- Sex positivity is a way for people to be honest and open about what actually brings them pleasure. The only costs are those imposed by slut-shaming.
- Drugs are a way for people to pursue their interest in feeling certain ways. This is more complicated and may not apply to certain highly lethal drugs, but the costs imposed on e.g. marijuana or nootropic users are predominantly imposed by moralizing busybodies.
- Psychotherapy is a way for people to flourish with the help of trained professionals. The only costs are those imposed by... psychophobes? Do we have a neat slur for people who think therapy is for the stupid and the weak?
- "Do what you love" may be the single most obvious good that any human could choose. If you read Freddie deBoer's manifesto, his whole "imagine a world where..." is a story about people being free to just do what they want, when they want to, without any consequences being imposed on them by society--indeed, with all possible consequences being absorbed, costlessly and without a single judgmental comment, by society.
I think that some of the rising conservatism I see in today's young people--which of course the Cathedral has already tarred as right wing extremism--is a growing suspicion that these claims about the source of oppression being socially constructed, which it may have been understandable for people to believe as recently as 50 years ago, no longer plausibly hold water.
- Gender is more than just a social construct, and a true sex change operation would involved extensive (impossible at current tech levels) brain surgery, to say nothing of the endocrine system. Sorry, you're going to have to wait for better tech.
- Sexual feelings are more than just a social construct; pair bonding has biological roots and slut shaming is a defense mechanism against defections from the stable equilibrium of general monogamy.
- Psychotherapy might be beneficial for the truly damaged, but most likely you're depressed (or whatever) as a result of trying to believe things your biology tells you that you shouldn't believe. Psychotherapy is a way to maintain in humans the view that their inability to thrive in the new progressive world is their problem, not the progressive world's problem.
- If we all really did what we love all the time, we would all starve to death in short order. Or if we really did manage to make robots do everything for us, our antifragility would lead to widespread psychological breakdown due to a universal crisis of meaning. Humans are evolved to do the work of humans, not to perpetually enjoy only the enjoyment of humans. Loss of the latter means the extinction of the former.
I'm intrigued by the fact that these are all actually fairly empirical disputes--they're just not the kinds of questions it is easy to get clear answers on. Sociology is tricky even when you don't have political activists thumbing the scales, and these days the scales are so covered with thumbs as to render the payloads utterly invisible.
This all applies, I think, to polyamory as well. I can imagine a society in which humans were more like bonobos--where we had sexual interactions as part of all of our social interactions. The first step, I suspect, would have to be the eradication of sexually transmitted disease! But psychologically this would require a transformation that seems to run deeper than culture. Sexual jealousy is universally attested. There are apparently people who can make polyamory work, and for whom it arguably works very well (though a question arises--if you have to make it work...). But for those for whom it doesn't work, I don't think the problem is poly-shaming or other cultural roadblocks. The problems seem more biologically grounded than that. My question is whether the rationalists now doubting the viability of polyamory will realize that this has structural implications for some of their other beliefs.
(In particular--the sneer faction of the ratsphere has always been comparative conservatives about polyamory, and yet they are if anything more progressive than the modal rationalist when it comes to, say, transsexuality. I notice that I am confused.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
This post is fine, but given its relation with CW issues, should be posted in the CW thread.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Seldom have I heard a story where I had so little sympathy for any side.
Right?
...don't be surprised if the shitstorm hits you.
A shitstorm and somehow, between the various parties, a million dollars in crowdsourced donations.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
This reminds me that I have an effort post to write about some people I have known...
I don't have any particular beef with the Mormons--if anything, I admire them on a cultural level. But my understanding is that the current leadership is pretty committed to burying anything that makes the faith stand out from the undifferentiated mass of non-denominational Christianity generally.
Really, writ large, the history of Mormonism has been a history of retreat from anything that made it interesting or unique. The continued existence of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy (in remote cities across the western United States) is clear evidence that the LDS church could have survived a steadfast refusal to conform with the demands of the U.S. government on that score. But the LDS chose growth (and financial stability) over their own revealed doctrines. More recently, the church took a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage with California's "Prop 8," only to retreat almost entirely from the issue within less than a decade (about half of Mormons today approve of same sex marriage, in complete disregard for their own history and teachings). Indeed, for most of the 20th century the LDS indulged in quite a lot of blisteringly anti-Catholic rhetoric, and mocked the wearers of crosses and crucifixes ("if they shot Jesus, would you wear an AK-47 necklace?")--only to take up the cross and incorporate "holy week" into their worship services in the 21st.
Of course the Mormons are not alone in any of this; the Great Awokening has shifted the ideological landscape a lot, such that the boggling inanity of stuff like "Queers for Palestine" has become de rigueur. But the LDS church seems to be speed-running the history of Christianity in reverse, starting as a sect of innovative and progressive doctrines (open canon, anti-slavery, apotheosis, polygamy, theocracy, miracles) then gradually reverting to a blandly Protestant cultural mean (no more polygamy, replacing "translation" with "inspiration" in explanations of the Book of Abraham, literally whitewashing their own history by painting over artwork in their temples), then landing on their own implementation of an infallible papacy (in the form of a well-heeled corporation sole).
This... probably sounds more critical than I intend it to be. Mormons are as good as any, and better than many, at building communities. Their doctrines have never been any more ridiculous than those of Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims (and if a ridiculous doctrine produces a valuable outcome, is it actually ridiculous?). North America would certainly be a more interesting place today if the Rocky Mountains had become a polygamist Mormon Theocracy, as the sect once planned. But the way history is unfolding, I would expect the LDS to be culturally and theologically indistinguishable from, say, progressive-ish Methodist congregations, within a century or two. The LDS will eventually ordain women and wed gays because their open canon gives them an excuse to do so, and their demonstrated preference is for continued growth and prosperity, not adherence to revealed doctrines. Indeed, Conquest's second and third laws of politics seems to apply:
- Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
- The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
I have seen the LDS do more in the last 20 years to appease its critics than to cater to its own existing membership (or teachings!). There is a commonplace that one should have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Likewise, Mormonism's open canon was in the 19th century its evident strength, but in a world of mass media and "social justice" that same open canon has become a clear organizational liability. I am skeptical that recognizably religious Mormonism can long survive the--good, even perhaps noble--intentions of its corporate leadership.
Whether that is good or bad (or matters at all) is a separate question, of course. That parousia failed to occur promptly at the turn of the millennium came as a serious blow for many apocalyptic sects--this is, I think, an underappreciated aspect of the cultural changes that have happened since. I knew so many Christians, circa 1999, who clearly harbored serious hopes, verging on expectations, that 2000, 2001 at latest, was going to be the year the heathens burned. Churches have been forced to adapt (most have failed to do so), and the Mormons are no exception. The idea that Restorationism (of which the Mormons are an important, but not unique, example) results in "far less confusion over having to litigate and reexamine each and every piece of modern practice and belief" does not, I think, hold up to the test of history.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
One thing to note that I believe is true - the NAACP's fundraiser used this incident as an issue, but the funding was just for them.
This is actually a kind of interesting question--the reports I read initially said that the NAACP fundraiser was intended to cover presumed legal expenses for the family to pursue justice. Crowdfunding "to cover legal expenses" does seem to actually just be enterprising lawyers doing lawyer things--a very Chicago moment, if you've seen that musical.
However the NAACP GoFundMe page now claims that 100% of the money is going into a trust for the kid and his family. Be that as it may, trusts have operating fees, so there's still a grifting angle.
Really? You've never benefitted from someone's freely accessible work and considered giving them a donation?
Nope. I'm a total Internet freeloader. (My lived experience is that the World Wide Web was much better when it consisted entirely of research, passion projects, and skills-based gatekeeping.)
What about this website?
Sweat equity... so to speak.
And in the general case, how is crowdfunding bad?
This is fair, I should have thought more carefully about how I said that. Let me walk back my assertion. I don't have anything against crowdfunding in the general sense of, essentially, microtransactions or patron models for goods and services. It is the crowdsourcing of "charity," political or otherwise, that rubs me wrong. This is presumably related to my general distrust of "charities" generally; I am definitely of the view that most "charitable" organizations are in fact enormous grifts, too.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Is that similar to what you experience, or does your dislike of "grifting" stem from something else?
Yes, that does sound somewhat relatable to me. I'm not sure I resonate with the idea of my actions being "optimal," though, so much as... meaningful, I guess? I try to act when I have good reason to act, rather than just signaling my virtues. But I think maybe many people, maybe most people, exist primarily (if never quite wholly) in a support network of sending and receiving signals. As someone who is quintessentially "bad with people" it seems like that option is not open to me. I have to get by on competence--or at least I imagine it must be so. This does not appear to be true of others. It might be easier for me to accept this if those others were not so frequently active hindrances to my own projects.
I recognize that this is to some extent just the human condition.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Most of those are "little 8 year old Timmy has cancer" not "CW grifting".
I regard both of these as examples of grifting.
Do you also have a deep-rooted envy of lottery winners, because you do not have a gift for sheer dumb luck?
Oh, it's much worse than that. I know a lot of people who make a lot of money doing fuck-all. Often, they are active hindrances to things getting done. "Bullshit jobs" and the like--but also many people in education, government, large corporations, et cetera. I'm not even sure "envy" is the right word, exactly, but I'm trying to be open to the possibility that it is just a kind of envy. Except that I don't actually want to be them--I just can't help but wonder why I so often feel the need to work when so many of my fellow humans seem to get by just fine without it.
It's on the news because it's rare.
...so? I'm not sure what conclusion I should draw from that. This may be an extreme case of grifting, but that just makes it helpfully illustrative; I'm annoyed by smaller, more common examples, too.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
This is unclear to me--some of the articles I read seemed to suggest that he had a video of the woman chiding the black boy, but the only video I can find is after the fact, when he decided he wanted to be a social media hero. Just as it is unclear what he was doing at the park in the first place--one report suggests he was the boy's uncle, but another suggests the boy was unsupervised.
Grift Upon Grift
A white woman named Shiloh Hendrix took her child to the park.
What happened next is not totally clear. This is the only direct video evidence I could find, since so-called journalists are apparently allergic to providing direct links to original sources for direct evaluation (God forbid they should create a hyperlink to a source containing uncensored slurs I guess). In this video a man accuses Shiloh (who is holding her young child) of calling a black child a racial slur. She tells him that the black child was stealing from her son, and, uh, firmly invites the videographer to go away. Instead, he demands that she say the slur to his face. So she does, several times, and he tells her that the word is "hate speech." In some other places I have seen the video continue as he follows her to her car while continuing to berate her. (If there is actual video of her saying anything at all to the black child, I have not been able to find it.)
According to Shiloh's GiveSendGo,
I recently had a kid steal from my 18month old sons diaper bag at a park. I called the kid out for what he was. Another man, who we recently found out has had a history with law enforcement, proceeded to record me and follow me to my car. He then posted these videos online which has caused my family, and myself, great turmoil. My SSN has been leaked. My address, and phone number have been given out freely. My family members are being attacked. My eldest child may not be going back to school. Even where I exercise has been exposed.
I am asking for your help to assist in protecting my family. I fear that we must relocate. I have two small children who do not deserve this. We have been threatened to the extreme by people online. Anything will help! We cannot, and will not live in fear!
As I write this, she has received $735,837 in donations, prompting some commentary. She hasn't been charged with any crime yet, but someone is considering it.
The "other side" of the story has been told... inconsistently, I guess. Also from the Yahoo writeup:
The man who recorded the video, who has identified himself as Sharmake Omar, told NBC that the child in the video is on the autism spectrum.
Several stories (but not all) mention the supposed autism; some add that the black child had three siblings keeping his parents busy at the time and was therefore unsupervised, explaining his reported misconduct as mere childish curiosity.
Omar said the child has autism and that he knows the boy’s parents, who were supervising their other three children at the time.
Well, hopefully Omar knows the boy's parents; after all, according to another news report Omar is the black child's uncle. Or is this a folksy "every man from Somalia is my uncle" sort of thing? Unclear! Incidentally, Omar was recently charged with felonious sexual misconduct, only to have those charges dropped for unclear reasons. Well, "in the interests of justice," whatever that means in this context:
Mohamed Hussein Omer, 41 of Rochester, and Sharmake Beyle Omar, 30 of Rochester, are charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Investigators say the two men had sex in January 2022 with an underage female who had run away from her foster care placement. Court documents state when the victim was examined by a nurse, she was sleep deprived, dehydrated, and had nothing to eat recently.
Sharmake Omar was arrested in February 2022 and pleaded not guilty in August 2022. Mohamed Omer was arrested in August 2022 and pleaded not guilty Thursday. Both are set to stand trial beginning May 1.
UPDATE: The Olmsted County Attorney's Office has dismissed the charges against Mohamed Omer "in the interests of justice."
In fact this doesn't actually state that the charges against Sharmake have been dropped, but everyone seems to think so. Presumably just one more piece of relevant information denied to me by the transformation of facts into culture war ammunition. EDIT: This link shows the documents dropping the charges.
In response to Hendrix's GiveSendGo, the Rochester branch of the NAACP opened a GoFundMe and raised about $350,000 before closing it down (apparently at the behest of the black boy's family).
It's difficult to know how much to read between the lines, here, in part because the lines themselves are so blurry. Omar is apparently a single man and possible child sex offender who was filming at least one otherwise-unsupervised child at a public park. His story about how he is connected to the child is inconsistent. Given the current state of American politics with regard to immigration law, a family of Somalians deliberately avoiding the public eye seems well advised, but also raises further questions about broader demographic trends and the impacts of those trends. Meanwhile, Ms. Hendrix's unapologetic utterance of the killing curse has turned into a bit of a financial bonanza for all involved (except, apparently, Omar...).
Of course the culture war angles are attention-grabbing, and the toxoplasma of rage ever present. But at the risk of going full "boo outgroup," can I just say--I really, really hate crowdfunding? It seems like a horrible mistake, a metastasized version of the cancer of social media, virtue signaling with literal dollars that feed nothing but further grift. Regardless of their reasons, I'm thankful to the Somali family for shutting down the NAACP's grifting fundraiser as quickly as they did. I'm gobsmacked that Shiloh has managed to milk three quarters of a million dollars (and counting!) out of being accosted over a minor literal playground scuffle.
I mean, I get it--the money is tempting, and if you aren't getting yours, someone else will be more than happy to scoop it up "on your behalf." Racism is big business, for which the demand vastly outstrips the supply, and overtly slur-slinging white moms are... well, usually they're rapping or something, not dropping the honest-to-God Hard R. And on a child!
...for $750,000, though?
To be completely honest--I was irritated earlier this week because one of my social feeds was inundated with requests for money for some kid who was super sick and then died. Did he not have health insurance? Oh, no, he was insured. Why did he need $50,000 then? Well, his parents had to take some time off work, you know. Didn't they have paid family medical leave? Oh, well, yes, but you know how "incidentals pile up." Burials ain't cheap! And everyone was so heartbroken, because kids are so great! And this kid was great. Just brightened the room and everyone's lives. Obviously $50,000 isn't going to bring him back, or help his parents heal, but at least we can all show our sympathy and support... better than "thoughts and prayers," eh?
So probably I was kind of sensitized to this when I ran across the story of Shiloh and her anonymous (autistic?) antagonist. How many humans live out their lives by, ultimately, convincing lots of other humans to just bankroll them? How much of my frustration with these people boils down to a kind of deep-rooted envy, that I must labor while others take their ease, simply because I do not have a gift for grift?
As a matter of principle, I do not give money via crowdfunding. I don't even use Patreon, much less GoFundMe or GiveSendGo or whatever. I regard it as a moral failing when I see others do so, no matter how apparently worthy the cause. I am prejudiced against the entire enterprise, but I cannot rule out the possibility that it is because I have no expectation of ever benefiting from it--even though this is at least in part because I would feel like a charlatan if I did.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
Thoughts? Is he way off base here?
I have no idea, but this unroll is the only thing I've seen that has made me want to watch the Minecraft movie. My Zoomer students all seem to have enjoyed it, though the only explanation they could give was "I just thought it was a good movie, actually, and that kind of surprised me."
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
I'll second this. I'm enjoying the game. It offers up the feeling of the Final Fantasy 7 through 10 era of JRPGs without feeling derivative. I've always enjoyed Super Mario RPG style "quick time event" turn battles and am happy to see the mechanic again. The music is great, the visuals are great, the writing is great. I don't totally love the level design but it's not bad, just not my preferred style.
I am also enjoying everyone's attempts at naming the putative subgenre. My favorites so far are "Je RPG" and "Final Francetasy."
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
There are typically about 200 posts nominated by users per month. I don't add anything to that list; I just whittle the list down to a manageable size based on a variety of factors. Typically I aim to include 10 or fewer posts from each week, with a presumption toward posts that spawn good discussion and other quality posts, against rule breaking posts, against including any particular nomination, for content that is particularly effortful, kind, insightful, well written, represents an unusual or surprising viewpoint in this space, teaches something interesting, etc.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
It's definitely true that my AAQCs have leaned towards the moments where I'm more partisan, or firmly opinionated, and less where I'm diplomatic or synthesizing, which is a fair critique of the AAQC system.
I suspect the nomination pattern happens the way it does for for much the same reasons as the fact that Scott Alexander's fame is largely built on the foundation laid by posts he tagged "things I will regret writing." It may also, in some deep way, be related to the problem of "glazing" in LLMs. Synthesis is all well and good, but sometimes people just want a clearly stated, totally unapologetic position statement.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
I'm not sure what to think or say about the rest of your comment, but this part stood out to me:
See my thinking is that qanoners are overwhelmingly middle class and below, and a lot of them are the kind of people who couldn't go to college even if they could afford it, which they can't.
Anyone can afford to go to college. Anyone. It's just not that expensive. Yes, it's a lot more expensive than it used to be, and yes, the ROI is not as obvious or inevitable (though it was never inevitable) as it once was. But "working class" people buy more expensive things all the time--houses, boats, cars--and those things continue to cost money (beyond loan interest--there's also upkeep). A wisely-curated program of education will in almost any economy be a better long term investment than any of those things.
What is not really plausibly "affordable" about education is failing. Every semester, without fail, I have at least one student who never shows up for class. Then, at the end of the semester, they tell me how they are running out of money and can I please pass them or else they will have to take the class again and they can't afford it...
The people who "can't afford" college are the people who lack the intellect and/or conscientiousness to learn at a higher level. College costs way too much to go there when there is not a reasonable expectation of success.
I think the bigger problem is that our educated and wealthy people are worthless morons.
I think this is almost always false. Our educated and wealthy people are only human, and in my experience almost all of them can have their substantive thinking overwhelmed, at least on occasion and maybe more than that, by the need for social signalling. That is a different problem than being morons. Indeed, I think most normies are pretty smart, within a baseline context of human flourishing--they're just that much more susceptible to focusing on sending the right signals rather than identifying substantially veridical facts.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
And in that search, Catholicism is virtually the top sect we are most hesitant to consider, behind "Unitarian" which at least near us codes to "Whatever goes man" loosey goosey "spiritual but not religious" non-faith.
My experience has been that you are most likely to find "spiritual and religious" where the religion is tied to the geography, or at least the community. The clearest examples of this are all old-world; Shinto in Japan, but also Lutheranism in Germany or Anglicanism in England.
This is difficult to replicate in the United States, but it seems like the most authentic Baptist congregations are in the Bible Belt; the really convincingly Lutheran Americans are all in Minnesota (or thereabouts); if you live in Utah then you may as well be Mormon. Catholicism in, say, California seems to be two faiths, really--depending on whether your congregation is Woke, or Hispanic. I don't have much experience with Jewish worship but my impression is that it's a lot more immanent in Manhattan than it is in, say, South Dakota.
Of course I say all of this as someone who is not looking for a church, but who has spent a lot of time thinking about religion and who sometimes has reason to wish I were more susceptible to faith than I am.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
Some of this is CW material (birthright citizenship, e.g.) so you should post this in the weekly Culture War thread. Though as a new user you are likely to get a fair bit of pushback given how much this post flags as AI influenced.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
What do we do
"We," who? This is consensus building language.
Indeed, your post is arguably both weakmanning and "boo outgroup." If you want to talk about a particular strain of thought, be more proactive about providing evidence for that strain (where did you find this "quote?") so people can readily judge the extent to which you are or are not nutpicking. Then, actually talk about it, rather than dropping a contextless quote and a handful of quips.
Please don't post like this.
Right--putting myself in the shoes of their critics, I would guess that this falls under the "you get no points for being a decent human being, being a decent human being is the baseline expectation" clause. Of course, this clause is only ever applied in one direction, and also I am suspicious of the claim that there is anything "baseline" about humans being kind to one another, but nevertheless--the rhetoric is the rhetoric.
That said, I have to wonder how much of the decrease in violence against abortion doctors can be explained by pro-life activism self-policing, and how much can be explained by the successful psy-op of raising two or three generations of citizens who just don't think that killing the unborn is a very big deal, and often think that subjecting women to authority, ever, for any reason, is peak oppression.
More options
Context Copy link