site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   651 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 28, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you know men who get "man flu"? Are you a guy who gets "man flu"? If you don't know what man flu is, my understanding is that it's the idea that men are lazier than women when they're sick. I heard this and wrote it off, like most gender war stuff. Men don't help around the house enough, women earn less than men for doing the same work. But I keep seeing guys defending the idea that viruses make them sicker than women.

This is completely anathema to me. My father would go years without taking a sick day. He would get sick every few years during his busiest work event of the year, when he'd be pulling 12-hour-plus days. Growing up, I don't recall ever hearing about anything being put off in our social circle because a man was sick. My mom, on the other hand, was down all the time with one thing or another.

My father-in-law is the same. In 2021, he clearly had COVID. His wife was in the bedroom for days; he was out shoveling snow, cooking, and then making everyone play cards with him.

The only time I take "medicine" is when I'm at work events pretending I'm not sick. Afrin and a constant supply of cough suppressants..

It's not that men get sicker, but that when they do need to be taken care of or take a load off, the contrast is more stark. Let's say a husband and a wife are both under the weather 10 days in a year, with 2 being ugly. If the man takes those 2, and quietly shoulders the rest, while the wife, is at various levels still in commission for her remaining 8, one might misread the batting average.

My wife is open that she needs to lean on me more than I am allowed to lean on her because she's the woman (generally, not about being sick). (I agree!). She's self-possessed enough to recognize that gender dynamics aren't even. So the thing is that occassionally, a man gets knocked on his ass, and it looks like he's being a bitch.

As an aside, I cannot recall the last time I took a sick day at work, if perhaps ever. However, the person who took the most I ever met was a former male boss. Nice guy but extreme stereotype of a leftist. Used phrases like 'adulting'. So maybe it's also about the type of company the type of person who uses the phrase keeps?

The "no sick day" pride thing is confusing to me. My employer allows a certain number of sick days, why would I not take advantage of those for days when my productivity would be affected by being sick or my recovery would be impaired by working? Not to mention knock on effects of getting my co-workers sick.

There's no bonus for not using any sick days.

Unless your company is unusually weird, you have to lie to take advantage of them though -- which you kind of should do anyways, but it's not great.

So read this court case today. The gist is simple: two fine specimen of humanity from Arkansas sold their baby to a stranger for $1000 and a case of beer (there was a written contract and everything, they are not some kind of savages!). A neighbor noticed and informed the police. The rest is predictable. But then we come to the sentences.

The man:

Urban pleaded guilty to one count of attempted accepting compensation for adoption, but prosecutors dropped one count of endangering the welfare of a minor. A judge accepted Urban’s plea deal, and he was sentenced to three years in the Arkansas Department of Corrections with an additional three-year sentence suspended.

The woman:

Ehlers pleaded guilty to both counts — attempting to accept compensation and endangering the child’s welfare — against her. But Benton County Circuit Judge Brad Karren suspended the charges in her plea deal and placed her on state-supervised probation for six years, according to court records.

So this is where I wonder - they guy pled guilty to just one count and got 3 years inside. The girl - who did absolutely the same thing, they did it together and in concert, and who pled to the same count and one more, worse one if I understand correctly - got essentially nothing, if she manages not to sell another baby within 6 years, she's free. So she clearly got much lesser punishment for at least the same - and formally, by charges, actually more severe - crime. Because she's female, I understand? Nobody think this is wrong? I really hope they don't plan to give the baby back to the "mother" and that's not the reason why she's not in jail.

Not a case of beer, a fucking six-pack. I hope it was at least not Bud Light.

Also quote, from that article you have linked:

Both parents signed, then added a disclaimer.

“After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds to never contact again,” court records showed.

These are not applicants to Mensa.

As for the different sentences, without knowing the circumstances I'll withhold judgment, though each sentence for each individual seems bizarrely light to me for what, again to me, is an unimaginable crime. Simply that the male and female got different treatment does not bother me.

It appears that they were charged under 'accepting payment for adoption' not child trafficking. The former is, yes, a crime, but normally addresses 1)running adoption agencies without proper licensing and 2)paperwork violations to enable fraud(relating to taxes, parental rights, custody disputes, etc). It's entirely possible it just has low sentences because they got charged with 'sketchy shit' and not 'heinousness'. As for why they were charged that way, probably because the DA thought it would be easier to prove.

I bought a mechanical automatic watch from Temu for 26 euro. I am sucker for observing movements in action. I was pleasantly surprised by the polish and the clarity with which you see the mechanism working inside. What are yours - I am amazed at the bang for buck findings?

I have been bemoaning the price increases for Seiko 5 watches for.... years. What was $50 is now close to $200. Heartbreaking.

All that said - link?

It's a total redditor answer but the Victorianox Fibrox knife is so good for around $50. I'm blown away with how affordable great guns are these days - S&W's M&P Pistol Line is extremely well regarded, will outlast the apocalypse, and can be had used for maybe $150, or a new PSA Dagger for $260 (!!!). A decent AR-15 is $400 new sometimes, and even the optics (that would have been more expensive than the rifle years ago) are cheap again.

I still think there's proverbial gold all over Harbor Freight as well.

Yeah Seiko has skyrocketed. As someone who likes a good-looking watch but couldn't care less about thousand-dollar mechanisms, it's unfortunate (although looking for alternatives gave me a much better sense of how OpenAI is planning to monetize shopping recommendations).

Some chinesium brand RUIGE, 2025 model

Like guns, musical instruments today are fantastic quality for the price. A new $300 Squier is better than a MIA Fender equivalent from the 90s, in my opinion. Manufacturers with less of a "lifestyle" position are even better.

CNC machining has been a real game changer.

I'm not in the habit of asking the internet for advice but my wife and I have stumbled into something that has put us way out of our element and quite frankly the nature of the question severely limits even the number of people in our lives we can solicit advice from so You get to weigh in.

For whatever reason, my wife is a magnet for LGBTQ+ people. Roughly half of her friends fall into this category. I have theories as to why this is the case but they are unimportant. One such couple is a married lesbian/bisexual pair who we have been good friends with since college. There's a running joke about us having a threesome with the bisexual, who is really quite fetching. It works as a joke for us because my public stance on group sex is "Dear Lord spare me from that awful group sex. All that commotion."

Well it looks like the chickens have come home to roost. They invited us to dinner last night, which they hardly ever do, and asked us if we would be cool with me fathering a child with the bisexual. My wife choked on her drink and I made a joke that I'd only agree if we did it the old-fashioned way rather than IVF which didn't land because that was, in fact, their plan. My wife understandably rejected that idea outright and couldn't even be mollified by a promise that it only be missionary with the lights off and I'd try super-hard to think of her, so now the question is do I contribute genetic material into a plastic cup some time in the near future.

I'm willing (and kinda want) to do this. We have a gaggle of kids of our own so it's not like I'm going to run off to play dad. We also have come to the conclusion that lawyers are going to be heavily involved beforehand to keep us free of financial obligation and limit any parental rights my wife and I may have claim with the possible exception of the couples' untimely death.

But even so, this seems like a big ask from them, and kind of risky w/r/t our marriage. The couple is pretty enthusiastic about my involvement though, so my wife is quite concerned that a "no" from us will damage the friendship irreparably. Why me specifically? I'm well-liked, have a family history of longevity, I'm smart and conscientious enough to be a physician (at least by training), and (perhaps somewhat cynically) a 6'4" formerly muscle-bound football player. Like Sydney Sweeny I've got good genes even if I'm a 4/10 in the face with abnormally long alien limbs. Plus we live in the same area so we'd have the chance to be involved at least somewhat. We see these two semi-regularly. That may be a downside though! We do have a plausible out that could spare us in that I'm over the age of 40, which I think is when most sperm banks won't take donations.

Thoughts? It hasn't even been 24 hours since we've been thinking about potential problems so I'm sure you guys could come up with new ones to think about. We're kinda Christian but this kinda stretches the whole "love thy neighbor" thing a bit.

I understand you don't hold to the same interpretation of Christian morality that I do. I'm not going to pretend that from a deontological perspective I think this is ever ok.

But an angle I've not seen addressed directly in the comments- are you really OK with your kid growing up without a dad in the house? Really? Are you OK with having a kid and not being dad? Are you really OK with that?

The other commenters have addressed the... abundant... practical issues. A few have touched on the moral issues that apply under a more conventional Christian morality. But are you really just... accepting of the possibility, nay, probability, that you might could be unable to fulfill your duty as a man to the next generation, more or less on purpose? You don't gotta be Thomas Aquinas to see how that just ain't right.

Immediate reaction? HOLY CRAP NO! This is the perfect storm for blowing up your life, you and your wife's marriage, and the lesbian couple relationship. If you and your family remain friends with this couple, how are you going to introduce the kid to your kids? Or do you intend to pretend this child is not related to you? If Mom and Mom break up (and this happens) are you prepared to pay child support? Because forget any "oh but we got lawyers involved and there's a contract", that will be worth spit when she brings you to court to garnish your wages for the child you fathered in full knowledge and "the old-fashioned way" so you can't even argue it was anonymous sperm donation to unknown person(s).

There's a million ways this can go wrong and you making a joke of it to your wife is going to be marked as a red flag (so, what, you don't mind cheating on me? were you thinking of this before? were you thinking of her before?)

Let the friendship crash on the rocks if needs be, you have your marriage, wife and kids to think of.

I'm willing (and kinda want) to do this.

Hoo-boy. Hoo, hoo, hoo-boy. You just ran your head into the noose there about "well yeah I'm kinda hot for Bi Girl there, wifey, but don't worry, it'll just be meaningless hot fantasy sex with a lesbian, there won't be feelings involved". Better start looking up some expensive presents for your missus and pray to God she doesn't read anything posted here.

Run away, fast, and when your wife complains that you've damaged the friendship, just say "You're welcome."

so it's not like I'm going to run off to play dad.

No? I have my doubts. Extract yourself from this immediately. If you just want the thrill of sex with someone besides wifey, you can do that on your own, outside anyone's knowledge, and avoid the absolute shitshow of this situation.

If you want to remain anonymous, but aware that some Australian states made a law that retroactively allowed donor kids to find out who their biological parents were (and it was considered a human right to do so). This opened up a whole can of worms where some donors who only donated under conditions of strict anonymity had their personal lives disrupted by donor kids looking them up.

In other words, a future government may decide that 'the best interests of the child' overrule the conditions under which you originally donated.

Legally you're probably in the clear, dependent on which state it is.

Pragmatically... if they're friends... you're going to see this kid regularly. Your kids will presumably also know of/find out of this kid's existence.

Your wife will eventually see, as the kid grows, a child that looks like you... but not like her.

From my perspective there's too many ways this spirals emotionally out of control over the next couple decades. This isn't a 'fire and forget' scenario where you don't have to know there's a kid out there.

And the fact that they were suggesting it be done via direct injection is bold to say the least.

And it may depend on how you philosophically/theologically conceive of your 'duties' to your children. Are they innate from nature? Prescribed by God? Or merely socially constructed and can be accepted, transferred, or cut off at will.

For example, what if the alternative was they paid you and your wife to bear another child and then allow them to adopt it at birth? Would you feel weird handing over a biological child of yours to a different couple?

Isn't this at least half as weird as that? If you learn that the kid has a genetic disease would you feel at all responsible? Or, if the kid gets seriously injured at some point, how emotionally distant do you think you'd be?

And here's a vanishingly unlikely 'worst case scenario': what if all of YOUR kids end up dead before you... would you feel compelled to make this kid your heir of all your assets (after your spouse, of course) on account of the genes?

Just trying to feel out the emotional boundaries and your overall openness.

From the 1000 foot view, its good that this will help with TFR, but that doesn't mean it has to be YOU.

I also had the absolutely horrible idea that the situation could be somewhat defused by playing 'semen roulette' where there's six prospective fathers she chooses and the genetic material that gets used is then picked at random. Obviously one can figure out the truth later. Would that make it MORE or LESS awkward?

There's some gay guys (and arguably the entire sperm donation industry) that work on paternity roulette logic. Even for gay guys where it's just so they don't really have to think about who's the 'real' dad, though, it's kinda messy, and not just literally. These days, you can figure out the answer for a couple hundred bucks, obviously, but even if everyone involved credibly commits to never doing that (and the alternatives aren't obvious), it's just denying the questions, rather than actually handling them.

These things all have answers. Especially for soccons who care the most about this stuff, there are sometimes even doctrinal answers, but even most gay guys who only truck with the church when nailing complaints to the door have pretty good ideas about what they wished their fathers had been like. Dropping the odds to 1/6th only really gives an excuse to forget about or delay obligations and responsibilities, rather than making them actually not exist.

From a purely 'scientific' perspective, I wonder what the odds have to rise to before a guy no longer feels interested in confirming or dis-confirming his paternity. 1/1000? 1/10,000? I feel like if there was a 1/1,000,000 chance of it being my kid, without some additional Bayesian observations, I'd not consider it worthwhile to check into it.

From the child's perspective, however, I'd guess that learning that there are 10,000 possible fathers out there only steepens their drive to identify the one. From their view its not a 10,000 to 1 shot of being related... its a 100% chance of being related to one of the 10,000.

Honestly that right there is the factor that makes this entire thing a boondoggle.

It doesn't matter HOW emotionally distant or HOW legally protected you are, no matter how they raise the child it is entirely possible and probably more likely than not that they'll decide to bring this issue up and confront you about it and thus force an emotional reckoning, no matter how you or the other couple wishes it to be handled.

You're placing bets on how this future human will behave, what they'll believe, and how they'll handle this piece of knowledge, and whether it will thus impact your own life many, many years after the decision is made.

You don't have a say about how socially acceptable this particular arrangement will end up being in the future, either. Granted, you can't be certain that heterosexual monogamous marriages will be looked well upon by then either but I think the precautionary principle still favors not getting so experimental with another person's wellbeing.

This argument can probably be extended to cover all surrogacy/sperm donor situations and a good portion of adoptions, I guess.

Like @ThomasdelVasto this seems clearly against Christian morality to me (especially them wanting you to have sex with this woman to impregnate her). So if that's important to you, do not pass go, do not collect $200. But even aside from that I wouldn't do it. This seems like it has way too much potential to blow up in your face, most notably with the possibility it will cause your wife to feel jealousy which eats at your relationship with her. I would politely but firmly decline this one.

I mean, yeah, it's adultery but given OP didn't even mention that, I don't think this is the sort of Christian he is. So appeals to traditional morality don't seem relevant here.

Aside from that, this is a very, very, very bad idea and someone in another comment raised questions of inheritance. You have no idea the amount of warfare that happens over wills in families. This would be his kid and thus, depending on the laws of the particular state, entitled to a share of the estate upon OP's death. Is his name going to be on the birth certificate? If there are lawyers involved with contracts pre-conception, no way he can later duck out of "that's not my kid, I have no idea what they're talking about". If he wants bloody war among his kids, his widow, their half-sibling and half-sib's mother, then this is a great way to set it up.

... I philosophically prefer surrogacy where the donors stay in the picture, so caveat that I'm going to be biased in favor of donation, here. That said, potential problems:

  • You've already discussed your side of the relationship woes and you've got a much better idea of what they look like than I can guess, but they are a pretty important thing.
  • There's a lot of messiness with lesbian/bisexual woman politics, because there's such extreme potential for jealousy, and because a non-trivial number of bi women do either get out of college or just randomly sort into het relationships. Unless she's routinely seeing a guy on the side before you, I'd honestly say you've dodged a bullet not getting your dick wet, here, but if you do this, you can never be just that friend she'd never consider again, either to your own wife, to her wife, or to her. Doesn't matter if the only thing involved was a jar and a turkey baster. You don't have to and probably shouldn't go full Pence rule, but you still should be aware there will be new eggshells around.
  • You can't really sign away parental rights/responsibilities; courts routinely compare a child's interests against contractual statements and throw the paper away. That's unlikely to come up, given the background you've mentioned here, but it's potentially very expensive -- and worse, may be something you'll constantly be weighing when considering things like offering to babysit the kid even if you ultimately decide to help out. Informal donation provides less protection, to my frustration. Divorce or death are the 'obvious' sources of problems here, but even something like a surprise illness can end up a big question mark pointed your way.
  • ... but you can kinda sign away parental rights, and the couple really should insist on you doing it, and there's a point where that's gonna hurt and you're gonna have to bite your tongue. Maybe the breadwinner of this couple gets a job in another state or country and you go from seeing the kid once-a-season to once-a-year, maybe once a teenager the kid gets into hobbies the parents are okay with and you aren't (or vice versa!), there's a hundred different possibilities. You will be, at absolute best, Uncle Guy. Some guys can handle that perfectly fine, some guys can handle it for daughters but not sons, some guys don't even see how it could be a problem, but it's not an obvious problem until years down the line.
  • Conversely, if you do become Uncle Guy, you might find that people you're fine seeing once-a-season are really obnoxious to see once-a-week. (Or even really obnoxious to your wife for them to be good friends with her, and nearly-family with you.)
  • It's harder, though not impossible, to get genetic screening done through informal donation. That may or may not matter to you, or to the couple; it can even matter for different reasons for each side of the equation.

All of that said, I've seen it work out perfectly fine for a good few people, and not in the porn premise (or polyamory) sorta way. The problems are downstream of you not just getting a kid, but a whole set of informal relationships, but those relationships remain when good things are happening, too.

There's a lot of messiness with lesbian/bisexual woman politics, because there's such extreme potential for jealousy, and because a non-trivial number of bi women do either get out of college or just randomly sort into het relationships.

The only group of people that lesbians seem to hate more than straight men are bisexual women. I recall being algorithmically given some tweet where a lesbian separatist was insisting that the lesbian domestic violence rate normalizes once you exclude lesbian/bisexual pairings; no idea if that's true (it's rather self serving).

(I don't think gay men generally hate straight women, but I'm pretty sure there's tension between gay men and bisexual men because bisexual men are seen as having an easy path to normalcy, though my impression is that this is mollified somewhat by the likely long-standing fact that bisexual men are a big chunk of penetrative partners. My entirely politically incorrect, and probably also factually incorrect, theory is that crossdressing and affected femininity emerged as a kind of cultural adaptation to this fact that pulls in some straight-leaning bisexual men. The loneliest person I know is a gay friend, who is both the archetypal femme who went to cosmetology school and has mostly women friends, yet is, apparently, a top. He's the sort of man who would be a ladykiller if he played for the other team and were 10% less obsequiously feminine, so his professed loneliness startles me a great deal.)

I can also say that I had the strange honor? of having been propositioned by multiple women or trans men in marriages with women to cheat on their wives with them. Turned it down, very much not my thing. But it was more than slightly creepy how eager and graphic they were in their apparent desire for the male anatomy. Neither homewrecking nor "I'm the guy who turned her" are my kink, though it really must be said that these ladies were not for turning. They were already, well, turnt.

I can't say my LGBT friends have always been the closest, but dang did they give me some great stories.

You can't really sign away parental rights/responsibilities; courts routinely compare a child's interests against contractual statements and throw the paper away. That's unlikely to come up, given the background you've mentioned here, but it's potentially very expensive -- and worse, may be something you'll constantly be weighing when considering things like offering to babysit the kid even if you ultimately decide to help out.

Oh yeah. Eighteen years down the line, Baby is now old enough for college, "well seeing as how you're the dad and we're all such close friends, of course you'll help out, right?" and that's just if nothing else crops up (such as medical expenses) in the interval.

I'm old fashioned so for me this situation looks kinda weird. I mean it's one thing if the kid's biological father is unknown (like sperm bank) and the kid grew up with this family and their are the parents and that's fine. That happens a lot and it's culturally inoffensive, out of sight, out of mind, you know. But if the father lives right over there, and you can see him every other day you go to the store, and still he's not your real parent but these guys are, and the real father is not part of anything because he his real kids who he loves unlike you... can you see how it gets weird? I mean I know nothing, maybe it can be made to work, people live with weirder things than that. But there's a huge risk it will be a mess.

And, on top of it, it really doesn't matter what you sign. What matters is what the judge would decide when push comes to shove. What one lawyer says another lawyer can contradict. If a man fathers the child, there's always a potential for this man to be called up to support the child. The judge would decide according to child's interests, not yours.

You’d be intentionally fathering a kid that you legally disown and disinherit. This will not be the lesbians child. It will be your child. As much your child as your “own” kids, the ones who got to be a part of their parents’ family. Surely you can imagine that coming back to bite you or him/her in ways which you might not predict now. What if he resents not having a dad or siblings. What if they move away or you fall out. The idea that it could irreparably damage a friendship to not father their child is insane and doesn’t speak to a healthy stable friendship or one that can be counted on to last. It sounds extremely manipulative. And to bring a kid into that. Your own kid, whom you may never be able to fulfill your fatherly responsibilities to….

Purely selfishly this is a bad idea with the risk there. On a more moral level, I think it’s a monstrous idea and even if you don’t agree with any of my moral preconceptions, maybe it’s helpful to at least know that my opinion is out there.

Run, don’t walk away.

Doesn't matter what the lawyers say or what you sign; a judge can decide to throw it all out and put you on the hook for child support because it's in the child's best interests. Sperm bank donors have strong precedent protecting them from this, and the knowledge from the legal system that the entire institution would collapse if they allowed donors to be sued; you don't.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but be aware of the very real risk that they divorce later down the line and whoever gets custody chooses to come after you; like Parfit's hitchhiker, they cannot credibly precommit not to defect at a later time once it is in their interest to do so.

This is my comic book fantasy that I play in my head once a month so, congrats on that to start.

I think the advice of really leaving this to your wife and applying, if possible, negative pressure to ensure she actually wants to do it is the only way out of it sane and married.

Another piece of food for thought: If you don't get to enjoy the act of procreating with the "fetching" bisexual, you're getting a big chunk of risk in exchange for the thrill of expanding your contributions to the gene pool. That may be worth it but... who knows.

As fucking weird as all of this is, I want to put forward that it's less weird than a random sperm donor. If you know a guy who you like and has good genes, where some of that warmth in feeling will translate to the kid... isn't that obviously a superior choice to a crazy dice roll?

where some of that warmth in feeling will translate to the kid

That is the big problem here, though. "Sure I'll knock you up, but that's it, kid is a stranger to me thereafter" is one possibility. "Kid is not a stranger, wife and existing kids resent the hell out of this situation" is another. "Wants to be involved in kid's life, moms don't want that" a third. "Wants to be involved in kid's life, mom of kid okay with that, wife of mom emphatically not okay because oh, so this is why you were so eager to have him knock you up, huh? guess it's true what they say about bisexuals!"

And that's before we get into "and we all live in the same neighbourhood and people are gonna notice kid looks like me and tongues are gonna wag" down the line.

This whole comment is pretty much where I am at. I think my wife should have the biggest say, I'd rather like to spread my genes around generally even given the risks, and I also agree it's less weird than a rando donor. Melissa Ethridge and her partner had David Crosby, ugly motherfucker as he is, act as donor for one of their kids.

I guess I'm leaning towards "there's too much that could go wrong over right" here. We're not on a time-crunch at least so we can carefully consider the matter.

I'd be very leery of the legal aspects to something like this. I have some vague recollections about a donor in a similar scenario still being on the hook for child support.

I'd be more concerned about this particular aspect if the two of them weren't doing as well as they are, financially speaking. Like I said though, lawyers will be involved if we proceed, possibly even good ones.

Oh you sweet summer child. Okay, this is from the UK, but "good lawyers were involved"? 🤣 Yeah, and if mom decides she wants/needs you to contribute, good lawyers will also be involved there, too.

The Child Support Agency (CSA) has demanded child support payments from a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple to conceive two children. The couple have since split up and the biological mother, Terri Arnold, claims she is unable to work because her second child suffers from a disability that requires regular hospital visits.

Andy Bathie, 37, from North London, claims he was assured by the couple that he would have no personal or financial involvement in the children's lives. The firefighter is now having his pay docked by the CSA despite the fact that he has no legal rights over the children. Rejecting claims that Mr Bathie is being unfairly treated, Ms Arnold told GMTV on Tuesday that although the couple did initially make such an assurance, he had changed his mind and had seen her daughter one weekend every month for two years.

Mr Bathie agreed to donate his sperm to the couple as a friend rather than go through a fertility clinic after they approached him five years ago following their marriage in a civil ceremony. However, only men who donate sperm through a licensed fertility clinic are not the legal father of any child born. A spokeswoman for the CSA said: "Unless a child is legally adopted, both biological parents are financially responsible for their child - the Child Support Agency legislation is not gender or partnership based.

Only anonymous sperm donors at licensed centres are exempt from being treated as the legal father. This does not apply to men who donate sperm as part of a personal arrangement."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, currently before the House of Lords, proposes to recognise same-sex couples who marry in civil partnerships as equal parents of children conceived through sperm donation.

This is from Sweden:

A court in Sweden has ruled that a man who donated sperm for artificial insemination, enabling a lesbian couple to have three children, must pay child support after the two women separated.

The regional daily Nerikes Allehanda newspaper reported on its website that a county court ruled that the man was undoubtedly the children's biological father and hence obliged to pay child support of nearly €300 per month after the women's 10-year relationship broke up.

The verdict poses a legal dilemma, however, because under Swedish law a sperm donor is not regarded as the legal parent of children conceived with the help of his semen.

Sperm donors are normally strictly anonymous, but in this case the man was a friend of the couple, and his identity as the father is in no doubt. The man has appealed.

And there are American cases as well:

One case out of Pennsylvania concerned a man who donated sperm to a friend. Carl Frampton was close to the woman he donated his sperm to, and, he didn't just donate sperm. He provided limited financial support and developed an interest in the children, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The court eventually ordered child support.

Similarly, in New Mexico, a man was ordered to pay $250 a month in child support. Kevin Zoernig donated his sperm to a lesbian couple. The insemination was conducted informally, and Zoernig acted as the donor.

Zoernig, however, also did not just act as the donor. The children stay with him every other weekend during the school year and half of the time during summers, according to Fox News.

These cases seem to show that courts can order sperm donors to pay child support. On the other hand, it also appears like courts are only doing so when the donor has a higher-level relationship with the family or the children.

So if you have anything to do with the kid, and it would be hard not to given that everyone would be 'good friends' and living nearby, then you are likely to be on the hook for financial contributions.

I'm laughing about the lawyers bit because I remember, years and years back, reading reports of a court case. Lesbian couple went to court with heart-rending story about wanting non-biological mom on the birth certificate. She is my partner and as much a parent to this child as I am, sobbed biological mom, and their lawyers wrung every drop of pathos out of it that they could.

Okay, judge rules that law can be changed and non-bio parents put on birth certificate.

Fast-forward a few years. Couple have split up. Now biological mom goes to court to get ex-partner off the birth certificate because (I'm paraphrasing here) no way that bitch is having anything to do with my kid, she's nothing to us.

Law in these instances means whatever they want it to mean. Don't bet your life on "but we had a contract!"

Absolutely not. That is simply adultery, whether it's via a "cup" or not.

We have a gaggle of kids of our own so it's not like I'm going to run off to play dad.

The kids that would result from such an arrangement are going to realize you're the actual father, as will the rest of your friend group. There's a decent chance the kids are going to view you as their actual father, possibly with bitterness once the lesbians inevitably separate.

From a pragmatic perspective, it will look exactly how it actually is: that you're fathering children with another woman. It's not a good look, and there is a going to be a lot of drama and gossiping about such a thing. Furthermore, lesbian arrangements also tend to fall apart quite frequently (you can look up divorce statistics on this), so it's pretty unlikely you won't be swept up in the drama of that, with the kids getting to witness all of it. Your wife is also unhappy with it, so this would not just be unfaithful at a spiritual level, but also on an emotional level.

I think you should listen to your wife and put all this to the side, ideally distancing yourself from these women. They are in a disordered arrangement that is at odds with both the natural order (as indicated by their inability to conceive in such an arrangement, and by the abnormally high divorce rate), as well as scripture.

We're kinda Christian

What does it mean to be "kinda" Christian? Do you think it's true that Christ is God or not? There's not an in-between position on this question. If you don't think so, you're not Christian. If you think it's true, then how can you ignore Christ's words on this matter?

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You describe the woman as "quite fetching" and say you kinda want to do it. I can't read your heart, especially from this post, but I just don't see where the motivation is coming from here given how risky it is, how much expensive legal trouble it is, and how much your wife doesn't like it. If you do feel lustful intentions about this there is already a problem starting and you should repent (ideally in confession if your denomination supports that) and, again, distance yourself from that couple.

One last point, do you go to a church? You should talk with your priest or pastor, rather than atheists on Harry Potter rationality forums. It sounds like the far bigger decision/problem you have is whether you actually accept Christianity (and therefore Christ) or not.

We're kinda Christian but this kinda stretches the whole "love thy neighbor" thing a bit.

Well, from my perspective this obviously violates Christian morality.

Either way, to me it seems extremely risky. You are tying yourself to these people in a very deep way, and it sounds like you and your wife are somewhat split on it. I'd recommend against it personally.

This feels less like a Mottepost and more like a psychological thriller film pitch from the 1990s.

Does OP or his family have any pet rabbits?

"Dear Penthouse, I never thought it would happen to me..."

"The hot lesbian couple who my wife knows asked the most amazing thing... clearly it's true that the right man can turn 'em straight!"

Honestly - leave the decision to your wife, but you take the blame if it is negative. And don't even think about joking about sex. The damage is done, but don't make it worse.

My wife understandably rejected that idea outright and couldn't even be mollified by a promise that it only be missionary with the lights off and I'd try super-hard to think of her, so now the question is do I contribute genetic material into a plastic cup some time in the near future.

Please tell me that is was not you that attempted the mollifying ...

I did not make any jokes during the exchange after realizing they were serious; the scenario in which I do joke about missionary with the lights off didn't happen irl. The whole situation is awkward as hell and I default to jokes in those conditions. Sorry.

I think I'm going to leave this to my wife like you suggest. They're more her friends anyway and if we never interact with them again it's probably a reasonable sacrifice on the altar of "a stable marriage".

So, what are you reading?

I'm adding Lewis' The Screwtape Letters to my list.

Chains: Unbound Book 11 By Nicoli Gonnella.

edit: fixed the book title

Recently finished Card's Worthing Saga, which was interesting, though I was a bit disappointed by the ending.

I also read The Folding Knife, which was wonderful, though tragic.

Tried to start the series Manifest Delusions, but had to stop despite the cool premise because of the absolutely gratuitous nasty sex and violence. I really hate how common that is in modern fantasy.

Also just started The Courage to be Disliked.

Seven-eighths of the way through Cryptonomicon. Determined to finish it before the year is out, which means thirty-six pages a day.

• Do you have a favorite piece of sacred music?

• Is there any piece from a video game or anime which feels like sacred music to you?

Pretty much any version of the Tantum Ergo, so long as it doesn't get too baroque. The O Antiphons of Arvo Part, even though we're into Christmastide now and well out of Advent. Of course the Miserere by Allegri (even if revisions over 'is this the original original version or not?')

Video game music - from Path of Exile, Church Dungeon. Got killed a few times here because so distracted by listening to the music 😁 Reworked version of this.

The Darksiders 2 OST by Jesper Kyd (not surprised that he's already been mentioned) is the first thing that comes to my mind and it is utterly sublime. I still listen to multiple tracks from it!

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Christmas carol "Oh Holy Night". Something about it feels hopeful in a way that almost no other sacred music ever has to me.

Jesper Kyd manages to really nail the aesthetic in the Darktide OST.

I've pointed to Cash's Hurt and Air Traffic Controller's Blame, and I'll point to them again. Fastball's The Way is... reeaaaaally fucking dark if you look up the backstory, but it does make the song a little bit more poignant.

For video games and anime, I'm a bit of a basic bitch. Gurren Lagann's Libera Me From Hell and FLCL's I Think I Can aren't ultimate songs -- I'd say not even the best songs from their respective shows -- but the ethos they describe and how they reinforce the themes of the shows are extremely powerful. The Chrono Cross soundtrack is from a pretty meh game and there's nothing special about Scars of Time beyond just being good, but I'd listened to it on repeat a lot in a specific time and trance state, so I don't think I can resist reacting to it now.

I have a real soft spot for Handel's Messiah.

This whole playlist by Fr. Apostolos Hill, especially "Open to me." https://youtube.com/watch?v=nNXfVzRnRyc&list=PLGKKxM9Gk6HeNDYFEsfhzmepx1IEz24OU&index=3

Crucem Santam Subiit

I don't play videogames or watch anime, so no.

Serious Sam 2 - grand cathedral music.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_4wc2ywFWW4

Also mountains of thunder world of warcraft

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HA11M02xevE

  1. This puts me in a mood and has since I was like 16.

  2. The theme from Halo or something idk

Carlo Gesualdo is one of the few renaissance composers who boasts a “homicide” section in his Wikipedia article, though his life overlaps with Caravaggio who also boasts such a section. A very interesting time for sacred art.

Sacredness is a feeling of deep and important meaning. I'm not religious, so my feelings of sacredness aren't either.

Cat Stevens father and son song. I forgot the exact name. Had a very sacred feel at the time and place in my life I discovered it.

Hello Darkness my old friend song. Gained a more sacred feeling after reading a book series called arkendrithyst (sp?).

The song Africa, but not by Toto, by a choir called perpetuum jazzle or something.

The theme song from Neon Genesis Evangelion, "Cruel Angel's Thesis" always sounded like that to me. Enough so that I get low-key annoyed when people play it in a casual setting.

video game or anime

Elfen Lied's Lilium comes to mind. Also, Starcraft 2's version of Aria has a religious quality to it though the lyrics are quite Roman.

Posting less as a question and mostly for self-accountability.

I made a prediction that we might see a feature length film produced by a small team using AI by the end of this year.

Well, the year has ended and I can't find any such releases that have been made publicly available. So comfortable saying my specific call is a bust.

But.

In the 11th hour, one of the creators (Gossip Goblin) I've been tracking since like July published something that at least validates my logic.

Woodnuts

If it were 80 minutes instead of 10, I'd argue it adequately fulfills prediction. Instead, I'll just argue that it proves my point that in principle a small team could have built out a feature film, insofar as its just a matter of repeating the efforts that produced the original 10 minutes to add to the length.

It avoids the standard AI 'tells.' The character's appearances are consistent throughout. There's no weird physics or physical deformities (that aren't intentional), the SFX quality is arguably a step above modern CGI in many cases (Avatar movies notwithstanding). There are some truly impressive cinematic shots in there.

Now the main hints are the short length of the individual shots, the lack of 'action' scenes to speak of, the general surreality of the environment, and the fact that they relied on narration rather than characters actually speaking dialogue. Don't think that dialogue isn't mostly solved, though.

The previous top contender was Kira (still extremely impressive on its own).

So I'm still betting on us seeing that first feature-lengther in fairly short order. And not TOO far after that, the ability to produce feature-length films from a single, fairly-detailed prompt.

Anyone else have a guess as to when such a film drops? (again, I don't say it has to be released on streaming or broadly viewed, just that it has to exist and be released in a publicly-reachable way)

Bonus Question:

When will we see an existing movie completely reworked via AI? Or perhaps just a couple of characters recast.

P.S. My other longer term prediction about AI replacing newly minted lawyers is still in play, and I did get some validation on that one.

the SFX quality is arguably a step above modern CGI in many cases (Avatar movies notwithstanding).

If nothing else (and that's an if that won't hold); AI is to CGI as CGI was to stop-motion (and many other practical effects). CGI is soon to be over as the state of the art way to produce special effects. It will be reduced tremendously in it's purpose

I think that is a correct analogy.

My guess is that there might be an opening where very low-fidelity renderings are used to map out the action on screen, but AI is doing the work of dozens of other animators in texturing, lighting, simulating and 'rendering' the actual image on screen, with a human just nudging it along and rejecting outputs as they go.

The missing step seems to be fine-grained control over the details, but creators like Gossip Goblin have been able to keep an extremely consistent style, so either that's a solved problem or they've got their prompts refined to a point that they aren't having to toss out much.

The quality available at what has to be a fraction of the cost of traditional FX is going to lead to rapid uptake.

Something like SCAIL and LoRA abuses can probably do that today and is probably already getting used in that sense today, but the current version of the technology goes a little nuts for segments longer than 9 seconds, and it's painful to do even short segments using the existing workflows, on top of being egregiously slow on consumer hardware. I've seen people take it into a couple minutes by doing really aggressive generation of prompts to make a flipshow to start with, but anything longer than that tends to either end up needing to compromise on weird physics or ugly scene changes.

And the current implementations have some limits; pose info can't do talking heads well, going beyond three characters with pose info gets rough, and some particular pose changes can go full-on Exorcist. SCAIL's lipsync capabilities are worse than WAN animate, and while it's possible to combine them, it's even more finicky.

But compared to the cost and unpleasantness of traditional mocap, or even makeup? If you can possibly use this tech, there's a lot of good arguments in its favor.

I think full AI is first going to infiltrate areas like the 'kids cartoon slop' genre. I remember a whole bunch of bad 3D CGI cartoons coming out in the 00's and 10's. I actually think full AI would do a better job considering the quality of the man man garbage.

The Will Stancil Show suggest that yes, this is likely.

I've been spending a lot of time with my father recently. Because of the cancer, he's not as energetic as he was, and he's watching football as a comfort and a way to pass the time.

I've noticed that a surprising amount of the advertising is using AI animation. I'm not exactly an anti-AI, "it's killing art" type, but there's something about it that's absolutely revolting when I see it in action. It's like everything is a worm-ridden mass of semi-biological matter that writhes and wriggles across every single frame. It's an aesthetic that would be more fitting in a particularly unpleasant horror short than a commercial trying to sell me Coca-Cola.

The crazy thing to me is that nobody else in the room even seems to notice it. Maybe I'm just some kind of freak, but it occurred to me when you said this:

The character's appearances are consistent throughout. There's no weird physics or physical deformities

Is that actually true, or is it just that you aren't bothered by it?

I've noticed that a surprising amount of the advertising is using AI animation. I'm not exactly an anti-AI, "it's killing art" type, but there's something about it that's absolutely revolting when I see it in action. It's like everything is a worm-ridden mass of semi-biological matter that writhes and wriggles across every single frame. It's an aesthetic that would be more fitting in a particularly unpleasant horror short than a commercial trying to sell me Coca-Cola.

I want you to ask yourself the difficult question:

Are you only picking those ones out because they were noticeable and thus you peg them as AI.

And is it possible you've been watching other ads with AI that simply didn't trigger that response, and thus you haven't registered them.

I don't really consume a lot of ads in my daily life, so it's hard to tell. I don't really watch much TV, and my computer is pretty locked down with both ad blockers and a pi hole

All of the ads I've been seeing are gross and off-putting, but the few that are clearly AI are especially bad.

Hahah fair enough. I'm similarly locked down and I usually only see actual ads when I'm at a restaurant these days.

But I know I've been momentarily fooled by some videos I come across online... which leads me to worry about whether I've been completely fooled already.

Married Christmas Celebrating Mottizens: what did you and your spouse get each other for Christmas?

I got my lady a wooden thread spool holder, a couple of ring necklaces, and a salt shaker from IKEA.

She got me a whittling kit, complete with knives and blocks of wood and a book that teaches you how to whittle.

What's a ring necklace?

Basically a necklace to hold a ring. If you google ring necklace you can find a lot of images, can't remember how to embed them here.

My lady works in a lab so she has to frequently take her ring off, and the necklace helps her not lose/forget it lol.

We do 4 gifts within our immediate family:

Something you want Something you need Something to wear Something to read

I gave snow boots (need), long sleeve shirts (wear), zoo membership (want) and project hail Mary. I got gloves, a new mower battery, an earthquake table game, and a reader ESV bible (no verse marks or footnotes single column layout).

Mostly consumables (food, drinks etc). My wife insists on doing stockings for eachother so that's pretty easy. Plus I bought her a voucher for a massage place.

A few if my friends started a book club last year. But their taste, and the current book market even more!, is decidedly feminist/leftist.

Any counterweight recommendations? Nothing too controversial/radical to not scare the normies though.

What kinds of books?

Do you have a few examples of what they're recommending, what might squeak by, and what would be right out?

First the viral book-tok hit „A little life“. There are good ling rants about it on reddit:

https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/g7ctg9/why_a_little_life_is_not_worth_reading

A girl I’m subscribed to made a half hour-long video about it. I saw Antoni from Queer Eye wear t-shirts with the characters’ names on them on the show. … A Little Life has been on my mind every single day for over two weeks now. At first, this was because I was in the middle of the story and was immersed in what was going on, anticipating where it would go. Then, it was because I’d finished it and was consumed by how devastating it was. Now, it’s because I’m genuinely angry that I let myself get so emotionally invested in a book that is in actuality terrible in every sense of the word.

Spoiler: This bestseller is practically emotional torture porn about a gay friend group and the gay protagonist who is sexually exploited (of course as a child also by monks) and how he collects traumatic experiences until he suffers so much that he can’t bear it anymore and suicides himself. I am terrible unfair here, but sometimes I think women have a strangely dark place in them and like to read about fucked up stuff (also why true crime podcasts are predominantly consumed by women). Bonus point: All books by the female author are about suffering homosexual men which weirds me out as a strange kink.

Then there is a fiction book with the plot that all women one day lay down on Earth (planking) in a silent strike instead of working in underpaid jobs / doing unpaid care work.

A book about a grand story of an immigrant family and the unwelcoming discriminating experiences they make over the decades in the host country full of Nazis. Though that was a little bit a submarine: The true theme was how the parents impose their backward rural-muslim culture on their kids which fucks them up. in the end an unknown trans kid which was adopted away shows up.

Then there is a non-fiction book about how in current times one can’t just live privately anymore, but must be personally involved politically against the new far right in europe.

These people seem beyond help, but Matthew Gasda's The Sleepers could be a fun cat to throw among the pigeons. It leads with the "queer romance" and only gets subversive later.

If you want to stay inside the lines but be a little subversive, maybe consider Blood Over Bright Haven. The first half of the book feels like the same trauma porn and girl power mashup that you describe above, but the protagonist has a pretty heavy heel-turn as the book progresses.

Does anyone here have recommendations for making long drives more tolerable? I've been on the road a lot lately, and by the time I get toy destination, I'm pretty wiped out.

Can I convince you to join the cult of Aubrey Maturin enjoyers? The original book series behind Master and Commander spanned over 20 books and I've enjoyed most of them thoroughly. The audiobooks have become my go-to 'long drive/fall asleep' listening for most of this year. If you can make it through the nautical jargon of the first book, it becomes smooth sailing. Also there's plenty of different versions floating around the place.

"It is the dawn of the nineteenth century; Britain is at war with Napoleon’s France. When Jack Aubrey, a young lieutenant in Nelson’s navy, is promoted to captain, he inherits command of HMS Sophie, an old, slow brig unlikely to make his fortune. But Captain Aubrey is a brave and gifted seaman, his thirst for adventure and victory immense. With the aid of his friend Stephen Maturin, ship’s surgeon and secret intelligence agent, Aubrey and his crew engage in one thrilling battle after another, their journey culminating in a stunning clash with a mighty Spanish frigate against whose guns and manpower the tiny Sophie is hopelessly outmatched."

Podcasts, audiobooks, radio dramas, and music. Some recommendations:

[1] https://files.catbox.moe/ihpyci.mp3

[2] https://archive.org/download/EscapePodCompleteMP3Collection/EP200_AllYouZombies.mp3

[3] https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/rationallyspeakingpodcast/rs135-9.mp3

You mention radio dramas, but no Wolf 359? That's the best one ever man. @birb_cromble.

I've tried it, but I keep bouncing; just tried again and between the burp/yawn in the intro, the annoying MC, and the stupid AI, I couldn't make it 3 minutes in. Not for me.

On the other hand, I really should have mentioned We're Alive, which is very a solid zombie apocalypse serial. If you enjoyed Dawn of the Dead (2004), Resident Evil 2/3 (1998/1999), or Highschool of the Dead (2010), you'll probably like it.

Well this will keep me busy for a while. Thanks

I used to regularly do 8 hour drives back in the day (driving home from law school, and vice-versa). I still often do 2.5 hours, sometimes twice a day.

Audiobooks, especially a semi-educational one (but not an overly dry one) are great for this, doubly so if you have a passenger to enjoy with.

Listening to Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann on an 8 hour trip honestly made the whole thing fly by.

If its a 2-3 hour drive, full comedy specials are a great option. There are some classics out there.

The whole tedium is that there's nothing you can do other than stare out the windshield hoping your fellow travelers aren't about to do something stupid.

How long are we talking? Strategy for a three hour drive is different than a six hour drive.

I like a big pleasant beverage, I'll stop at Wawa and get an extra large diet coke or Dr pepper. Zyns are pleasant and calorie free. Drinking also forces me to stop and piss, which adds the element of looking for a likely empty spot to tap a kidney.

Line up a variety of podcasts/music/audiobooks beforehand so when you get bored of one thing you just change to the next.

Three to five hours, mostly, with most of that being rural interstate.

Any recommendations on podcasts? I've never really looked into them at all. Tagging @Southkraut too in case he has any input as well.

  • @atelier mentioned Fall of Civilizations, and I also recommend that one. Very well-made. One caveat though: I actually prefer to watch it on youtube because they add lots of nice imagery there.
  • Literature and History: Excellently made, but sadly very woke. Practically every episode is at least 25% the author making casting shade on bronze-age people for not having modern-day morality. Sometimes that's a full 100%. Very unfortunate.
  • History of Ancient Greece: Less skilled speaker, unfortunately nasal, but it's more dry and technical and without the constant woke commentary. Just the way I like it.

I just realize I said "podcasts" earlier, but in actual truth I mostly do audiobooks.

Over the last few years, I listened to

  • Dune. Fair for its day, but not actually as good as people nowadays make it out to be.
  • Brigador. Good.
  • Flashman. Good.
  • The Sienkiewicz Trilogy. Very good.
  • Ciaphas Cain. Tolerable Flashman knockoff, but not actually all that good.
  • Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Decent.
  • Conan the Barbarian. I liked it, but I can see how someone might not.
  • Moby Dick. Excellent as always.
  • Neuromancer, read by William Gibson. Terrible, the man can't speak.
  • History of the Peloponnesian War. Excellent book, but audio is not the right medium for it.
  • All the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges. Good.
  • The Worm Ourobouros. Absolutely excellent.
  • Der abenteuerliche Simplicissimus Teutsch. Interesting, but not actually very good, even by 17th century standards.
  • Les Trois Mousqetaires. Surprisingly good, but tough going because my French isn't all that good anymore.

Most of those I got from librivox.com. Fair warning: The quality there varies wildly.

Fall of Civilizations is my favorite.

Hardcore History is fun and good production value.

I like Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World but you have to pick out the episodes that interest you.

Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman both do good work on interviews, and it's looooooooong with deep archives. I've never kept up with either podcast, but occasionally I'm in the mood and dig one up.

Welcome to Nightvale is fun and mindless if you like supernatural-lovecraft-comedy

Everyday Driver and Consumer Reports Talking Cars car podcasts are my favorite car podcasts when I'm in the mood, because they review real actual cars a human might actually drive.

The History of Rome is old but amazing, I've listened to it all the way through three times and I'll probably listen to it again this summer. It's so much detail. Hardcore History is a little 2edgy4me sometimes, but it is a classic for a reason.

The Secret History of Western Esotericism is absolutely incredible as a project, the SHWEP goes into so many things that if you're like me and read widely in the classics you have heard of but don't know half as much about as you'd like. I keep meaning to get through the whole thing.

You Must Remember This is a history of old Hollywood podcast, the series on Manson and Hollywood Babylon and Dead Blondes are my favorites, but every one of the series is pretty good, though it's painfully woke at moments. Acquired is a great podcast doing a long form history of famous companies, I find the guys hosting so incredibly cringe and lame that I can only enjoy episodes about companies I actually care about, the number of time these two quarter zip fucks call somebody a "badass" or a "gangsta" or something is too high, but the episodes on Starbucks and Rolex were great.

For stuff that's more to my personal rather than universal interest, The Philly Special podcast with my boys Sheil Kapadia and Shawn Syed is my favorite Eagles podcast I listen to multiple times a week. The BJJ Fanatics podcast does an interview with a great BJJ practitioner every week, and while they don't all hit, when I want that content they do a pretty good job.

I'll also throw in the Shakespeare Network on youtube has audio recordings of every Shakespeare play, and I'm working my way through them. Yale Courses on Youtube has lecture series on a wide range of topic, one of which must interest you at any given time.

Schizo podcasts help pass the time better.

I only listen to audiodrama fiction podcasts, some of my favorites:

The Magnus Archives — horror, monster of the week with an overarching plot format, the framing device are case reports read aloud
Malevolent — an original story in Lovecraft's world, the framing device is the protagonist talking with an entity that possessed parts of his body
SAYER — sci-fi, a sadistic AI in charge of a space station, the framing device are instructions from the titular AI SAYER to personnel
Edict Zero — FIS — sci-fi, cops, criminals, conspiracies, hackers, no framing device, just dialogue

Full Self-Driving in a Tesla? I think they're rolling out unsupervised driving too, so you can even be on your phone or whatever while it does everything.

Other than that, I'd just try to relax as much as possible. Be a 'defensive' driver, even if it's a little gay. Listen to something fun or educational.

I have this, it's a total game changer.

Otherwise, I'd say plant your cruise at something just slower than most of the traffic, park in the right lane, and let others do most of the work.

Podcasts and Coffee. I'm still dog tired by the end of it, but it feels better in the doing.

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