site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   4517 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 18, 2022

Be advised; this thread is not for serious in depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Imagine being Glenn Ellison. You’re a highly respected academic at the top of your field, Department head of economics at MIT. One day you wake up and see your daughters face all over the internet. Half the world is calling her ugly, stupid, and evil. At the office, your colleagues are too polite to mention it, but you can see the disgust on their faces. What are you gonna do, blame it on the Harry Potter fan fiction? How does the daughter of the chief MIT economist not understand margin requirements or decreasing marginal utility? Everyone knows you failed as a father, and you just have to sit there and take it.

He'd already failed as a father by not getting her plastic surgery in her youth so she could possess a worthy level of beauty to fulfill her appropriate primary task as a female of worshiping and obeying masculine authority. (This is just not some dig either; I consider it a great political failure of society that aesthetic enhancement is not more available/common.) Everything after that is just one flavor of what would have assuredly been a harrowing outcome anyway.

  • -11

You look at the world around you and think it doesn’t focus enough on looks?

Yes and no.

No as in it's unfair to have a society that is so image-obsessed when eugenics to level the genetic playing field in regards to attractiveness (among other interventions) is hardly common or accessible. (Also no as in the natural hierarchy of beauty is often exploited solely in a manipulative way by malevolent forces, for example to paralyze men with addictions to pornography. And society also does its best to make everyone fat, which almost always results in a reduction in attractiveness.)

Yes in that we have a society that is delegates insufficient resources toward socialized beautification (particularly of females, who naturally demand beautification as that is a major part of the few apparent benefits that they can generally offer society as far as I perceive) for the benefit of all (but particularly masculine authority and power).

In an ideal world Caroline Ellison would have had any mockery-worthy aesthetic flaws (and I think she does possess a kind of "cute ugly" that isn't really much of a saving grace but at least has the possibility of being salvaged) corrected at no expense to her (or wouldn't have been born with them in the first place). The only small price (which is hardly a price in my calculation as I do believe that it almost certainly would have made her happier/resulted in a better life outcome for her anyway) would be her eternal submission to masculine authority, in particular the masculine authority of her specific masculine steward/owner, who would naturally make use of her beauty to enhance his own personal life satisfaction. Win/win.

The ideal society would beautify the entire volk, not use the beauty of some of its members to abuse others. (Of course some would inevitably still be more exceptionally beautiful than others for a variety of reasons, and this uniqueness and excellence would be celebrated in appropriate fashion (and not suppressed in some left-wing Harrison Bergeron-esque fashion), as this only serves the dignity of society overall and thus benefits everyone, but the median person would be beautiful enough, or at least not ugly, to not feel threatened by this.)

Physically unattractive but very intelligent woman. Definitely an unfortunate combination in the domain of finding love.

Tbf Bankman Fried is capital F fugly, So it was a match.

Sam is not a model, but when he wasn't overweight, he was fine. Plain, but no obvious faults and a friendly smile. No one would've said "it's obvious she's dating him for his money" or "he must have a charming personality".

Eh, I'd give him a 3/10. Her? Maaaybe a 4/10. She's pretty damn homely, but that "sultry wood nymph" picture indicated an okay figure? Plus, she's 21. 4/10 might be a little generous.

( @FarNearEverywhere was certainly correct in that "sultry" is atrociously optimistic phrasing. The girl is modestly dressed, and comes off as the kind of babysitter you know won't be abandoning your kids to make out with a boyfriend.)

In very short retrospect I regret having commented on their appearances at all.

Regardless of their failings, I shouldnt be concerned with their looks.

Sorry to be a killjoy but I don't believe this is what's happening (though there are American academics here, they should know better). Everyone is a hero of one's own story. And on top of that, academic elites are a highly conscious class as a whole, a guild on the level of a discipline, and a mafia on the level of a department. They are intensely clannish, prize loyalty over reason, and are largely incapable of taking responsibility or seeing things from the perspective of strangers. It's always the children, the profane masses, who are wrong. Doesn't matter if this is about replication crisis or collapsing an entire financial ecosystem. It is natural for an academic to fail precisely in the way he teaches not to, and to refuse to acknowledge it, appealing to his authority in the domain. Even more natural to excuse allies for the same. If anyone is disappointed, it's people who were already critical.

This is how I see it (modulo tone which I admittedly can't mimic well enough):

– Glenn... I was so sorry to hear about Caroline. Is she doing okay? If she has time, I can refer her to Pasternak, he's got an opening after getting rid of that crazy piece of shit. He's a real pro.

– Mr. Ellison, you should know we of the Nth Lab always have your back! Do not blame yourself and don't listen to those vile haters on the Internet! Tell Caroline we looove her!

– So G, I'll be blunt, this is a valuable life lesson for the kids. They got into a seedy market for criminals and tried to turn it into candy. Sounds nice, doesn't work like that – some things, some people, some communities are just rotten to the core, no point even trying to help. Yellen says they'll slam this crypto stuff with regulations over the next year and it'll die at last. And uh, you've other things on your mind, but just an advice: they should lay low now, maybe come back to Jane Street for a few years. Okay? Anyway, don't beat yourself over it, they'll come out stronger on the other side.

– What an awful situation. This ugly cunt Zhao, or what's his name, will rot in jail for what he did! I think she should go and set the record straight, even if it's stressful. What about an interview with The Economist?

– Ugh, so many Nazis have crawled out of the woodwork, on Twitter and other places... But you know how they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I've called Jonathan and there's an expert group forming to bring attention to those fuckers and put heat on the platforms.

– Caroline and Sam, you know how I've always thought about them, both brilliant kids, very talented, real doers. I've told you on Sam's Bar Mitzvah «that boy's gonna make a splash», and he sure did. It's such a great thing they met. A terrific project, too!. Losers love to see great people stumbling, so there's all this noise. Bah, everyone makes mistakes. I am sure Sam's going to get back on his feet and they'll do many more amazing things together. Just don't lose heart. Don't you and Caroline dare let the bastards see they're getting to you, you hear? It wasn't her fault.

Illforte pretending to be not Illforte and emulating «normal» humans is disorientating to say the least.

I've no doubt they are frustrated, and that there's lots of gossip, and unwillingness to actually allow those losers influence projects one cares about. But I am also 100% sure nearly everyone in those circles, at least outside one's private quarters, only blames hostile external forces for this meltdown – haters on Twitter, scamming crypto bros, Changpeng Zhao, maybe even journalists. This is just how institutions and senior academics reflexively attribute blame, in my experience.

Private conversations have impact. But what people say in public matters for which decisions they will be able to endorse.

According to her tumblr, her dad is Jewish and her mom is Catholic (she was raised Catholic).

When did he say Ellison was Jewish?

I think that was implied by the "Nazis crawling out of the woodwork" bit.

To be clear, that this will be/is being said whether or not Ellisons are Jewish, because Sam is and people assume they are too, and there is quite a bit of explicitly Antisemitic content being posted in relation to these events. I assume that MIT Department of Economics faculty do not take kindly to it; and as good liberals they are also driven to tar all attacks against their own with the discrediting Nazi brush – especially when the situation lends itself to it.

No idea if reaching out to Greenblatt is actually in the cards. The situation keeps getting sillier, Forbes has basically labeled her an alt-right figure:

In recent days, Ellison has faced a barrage of particularly nasty criticism from crypto boosters who blame her for overseeing the downfall of Alameda. But amid the vitriol she has found some defenders in an unlikely group of people who have celebrated the musings about race science and imperialism on a blog she allegedly wrote in college. Some of her defenders, who call her “Queen Caroline,” are followers of Curtis Yarvin, a neoreactionary political theorist and far right darling. Many of the people who have flocked to Ellison’s defense gather on Urbit, a peer-to-peer platform created by Yarvin, one of her online supporters told Forbes. [...]

The now-deleted blog, called WorldOptimization, is unsigned but a close associate confirmed that it was hers. In it, she wrote that "the sexual revolution was a mistake" and that she believed “women are better suited to being homemakers and rearing children than doing Careers." She also mused about race science, in one post saying the "genetic differences there are massive" when it comes to Indian people from different provinces and castes — which has become a source of discrimination in Silicon Valley. And at the top of her list of “cute boy things” was “controlling most major world governments.”

That's so strange, especially given that one anti-rationalist/EA journalist guy you linked once who also appears to be a big Urbit booster.

As with SBF, I suppose I have to ask: Caroline Ellison--secretly based? I've seen worldoptimization before back when I was on Tumblr, but they didn't seem so prominent in the Tumblr ratsphere (or at least, not compared to argumate or the-grey-tribe).

Some of her defenders, who call her “Queen Caroline,” are followers of Curtis Yarvin, a neoreactionary political theorist and far right darling. Many of the people who have flocked to Ellison’s defense gather on Urbit, a peer-to-peer platform created by Yarvin, one of her online supporters told Forbes.

Reportedly, this bit from the Forbes article came from someone who went full "Rahul Ligma" on them.

Argh.

The situation keeps getting sillier

Oh, indeed it does.

https://twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1593760608939167745

I admit I do not have any definitive reason to believe that they are, but Sam is; and the general pattern of association, occupations, credentials, the whole attitude and math-nerd-girl-geeking-out-about-moral-hypotheticals angle, makes this a priori likely. Anyway you can strip the Jewish aspects from my post – most of those lines do not hinge on it, Gentile academics are similar.

Contra @orthoxerox I don't think their appearances are much of a clue, Ellisons don't look distinctly Jewish in my book (in the way e.g. Zelensky or Yudkowsky do) – Glenn can easily pass for an Anglo, his wife for a Southern European, their daughter for a not very attractive product of such liaisons. The surname is also not definitive.

But maybe I just have poor Jewdar, miscalibrated in one or the other direction.

other than a few scattered examples of the word chutzpah, which of course has equivalents in many languages

«Of course». Well, that's about what I expected.

The late Leo Rosten, author of "The Joys of Yiddish," wrote that chutzpah means "presumption plus arrogance such as no other word, and no other language, can do justice to.

This assertion of exclusivity itself sounds like chutzpah, ironically, but I'd rather believe this expert than you. Very many words do not have exact equivalents in other languages, and there are such words which do communicate a great deal about the culture and are only properly interpretable in its context – usually according to native speakers. For example, according to Vladimir Nabokov, «No single word in English renders all the shades of toska. At its deepest and most painful, it is a sensation of great spiritual anguish, often without any specific cause...». An argument can be made that it's just depression plus a bit of narcissism, but that in itself communicates an important shade of Russianness (expressed both in our literature and suicide rates). Grozny, too, does not have an «equivalent» in modern English (but is evident in the Russian attitude to command chains).

Nor does chutzpah. Sapir-Whorf is wrong because it confuses cause and effect: much like evolution increases the density and diversity of receptors most vital for the species, a language develops finer distinctions to address things most relevant in the people's cultural and ecological environment. You know, Inuits have a trillion words for snow. Swedes have their Lagom – and their perfect taste. Jews have a ton of concepts that others have either not grasped at all, or found novel. Why do you think loanwords even exist – because they sound cool? Because native speakers narcissistically claim they mean something special?

I don't seen any argument that chutzpah is special

Except all arguments made by all Jews who've ever written on the topic, I suppose, starting with Rabbinical scholars cited in Wikipedia. Do you assert, say, that Catholics recognize the right of an individual to haggle with God? Do you not see how that is different from «courage, mettle or ardor» some Gentiles assume «chutzpah» refers to?

Or consider Bernar-Henry Levi, «The Genius of Judaism», speaking audaciously of what I believe can be seen as the intellectual foundation of chutzpah:

The idea of the wager, the sublime leap into the unknown of a Pascal who, tired of flitting between the computation of probabilities, pleasant diversions, and the silence of infinite space, decides to scale the wall toward the sound of the voices that he hears sighing in the shadows, to go faster than the music of the spheres though he is resigned to never knowing their ultimate secret, and even to travel beyond the light of the most powerful human understanding (his own) that the century had produced but that, despite its power, understood nothing: his wager took him beyond all that and, in a single bound, propelled him to the summit of creation and its end. But what could be more different from a Talmudic effort that never offers itself freebies, that skips no steps or rungs on the ladder, that forgoes no audacity of thought and will be satisfied with itself only once it has arrived at the end of the end of what it can think (not believe, but think)?

You pooh-pooh my examples. Care to show how they are unrepresentative, or point to a qualitative study of some rigorously defined form of chutzpah per religion or ancestry, say, comparison in rates of complex swindles and heists and exploits, adjusted for SES, perhaps? (Who would even have the boldness – if not chutzpah – to propose it?)

Look, this is very boring. I get it: Jews can be casually discussed as being special in positive ways, both well-evidenced and speculative (IQ, talents, «work ethic»), but cannot be special in negative ways (except ones that are compliments in disguise, like «excessively curious» or «too much empathy»). This is one of the cornerstones of Western culture, and all opposition to it is supposed to be defended with the rigor of a philosophical treatise, lest it be taken as evidence of a severe moral defect; while its affirmation can be as intellectually lazy as yours. «Of course there are equivalents».

But I'm not a Westerner and feel entitled to point out the obvious. There aren't.

would a non-Jewish fraudster like Frank Abagnale be a truffatore in the Italian tradition

Maybe he would. I, for one, agree that chutzpah, understood in line with my posts, is the correct term with which to label his actions. Or rather, the stuff he has asserted he had done, but apparently did not. Lying about being a cool sexy clever fraudster (but a harmless one! All victimless, baby!) to get book contracts, on the other hand, is not chutzpah – it's just, like, sad. It's telling that you have not reached for a less controversial example.

I'm curious now, do you even have any? Something on par with Soros or Madoff or Epstein or SBF or Bibi's scheming, if possible. Do provide it, before you leave.

Seems like this forum has a thing for Jew-related conversations, as well as the occasional Holocaust revisionism, which probably means I've overstayed my welcome.

There are definitely some of that sort here, but they are a minority. We allow people to present any idea here, even the most disreputable, so unsurprisingly, you will see the Holocaust revisionists and the pedo-advocates come out of the woodwork. I would not say this is a "flaw" per se (it is intentional that we don't censor any topics), but becoming the place where all the Nazis and pedos hang out is certainly a failure-mode we are mindful of.

Physiognomy, which is not very reliable. Putin's former son-in-law has a popular photograph of him that makes him look Jewish, but he is not, afaik.

...

...

Ive been seeing a lot of your comments on Bankman Fried et al. On here and on the main ssc sub. They are living in your head rent free. I think you should do a longer post introspecting why, but with more detail than you did for the first time where you mentioned that the fact they are your people is difficult to digest.

Yes his daughter is stupid and evil, without getting too philosophical about it. The most graceful thing he could do is take in the fact thay he failed as a father, whatever that means.

Aw come on, this is the greatest American soap opera since John Kelly took over as Trump's chief of staff and stopped the muslim bans. Even Musk can't compete, try as he might. What else do you want us to follow, Rings of Power?

I suggested him to make a longer more detailed post because I can sense there is a lot lurking inside of his head about this matter. Not to not post about it at all, quite the opposite.

I think you should do a longer post introspecting why

I've been thinking about that, but every day I wake up with a new theory about what happened or why it matters. A few days ago I almost pulled the trigger on writing a post on why I though they were trying to take over the world by cornering the market on crypto and hoping for inflation-induced demonitization of the dollar. I think at that point I couldn't accept the idea that they really were just that idiotic and unorganized.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats