site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1587 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for January 21, 2026

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode, there are necromancer towers scattered around worlds sometimes. Common folk will tell you about them and describe the problem as "bone-chilling horror". The description of walking, rotting corpses and other body parts is indeed pretty grim, and they can be deadly, but surprising to a first-time player, if you manage to get past the undead (presumably by slaying them), you can get to the necromancers in said necromancer tower. And you find that they're not hostile to you at all, actually. In fact, they might greet you, but more often are just talking about something or other with the other necromancers. They apparently just reanimate corpses whenever they see them without really thinking about it too much. Aside from that, they're just like anybody else. You can talk to them about the weather or how they're feeling or even get into an argument with them about their values, though you can't directly bring up that they're in some messed-up necromancer cult that gets people killed.

You also see that the necromancers write a lot of books. Tons and tons of books, and only some of them include the secrets of life and death, the learning of which would make you a necromancer yourself. But lots of them are just normal books. It seems that the hobbies of the necromancers are pretty much just writing essays and talking to each other. And building towers. They probably used the undead to build a tower, but the tower must be pretty nice. The undead horde out front means that the jocks can't get in to make fun of them.

I like to think it's a metaphor for this site. Yes, it's a scary icky right-winger zone, but it's actually just nerds who have a particular interest, and, above all, like to write essays, some of which contain the secrets of politics blackpills. Maybe you shouldn't be so worried about the necromancer tower. Besides the zombies, of course. The zombies will kill you dead. Stay away from the zombies.

Interesting site:

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx

It asks you 30 agree/disagree questions on a variety of "philosophical" topics, and then outputs a score calculating the inherent "tension" or cognitive dissonance in your answers.

The average score is 27% out of 100%, I score a pleasant 7%, but only because:

There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures And also that: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which don ot

I'm using a common-sense or consensus definition of evil, and I don't think this is an actual contradiction. So I'm pleased to say I have zero philosophical dissonance? Who knows.

I got a tension that I thought was dubious:

I said that people should protect the environment but also think that using a car instead of using public transport sometimes isn't necessarily wrong.

Maybe this is down to me expecting to be able to argue nuances or exceptions in a test that isn't made for that, but there's all sorts of reasons to go by car sometimes (avoiding infection during covid spikes or flu season) or immunocompromised individuals or whatever else. And personal car use isn't a great contributor to climate change afaik. Shipping/large scale transport and the whole food/animal products industry are far worse culprits.

Seems to be an exercise in semantic gotchas rather than interrogation of fundamental cognitive tensions. Honestly I thought there'd be more multilayered scenario trees to determine robustness of belief. I love trying to get the secret bad ending of those, or at least pretending one exists. Playing tbe Pathways UK game made me wish I could elope with a racist purple haired goth.

I at least give them credit, they don't label these things as "contradictions" or "inconsistencies" but just "tensions" and they provide in their writeups ideas for how you might reconcile them. I think some of their writeups missed several ways to resolve the tensions but ultimately it wasn't bad.

I took the gay bait. I went ahead and said homo = wrong and unnatural and let it tell me what contradiction that implied. They hit me with "you say homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, yet you say medicine is good, which is also unnatural. Hmmm?"

As someone who came of age during the gay marriage debates, I can say I hadn't come across this particular argument presented so crudely before. They probably knew they were begging for eye-rolls picking a (recently) controversial example like that.

Also like someone mentioned below, I thought being confronted with the Problem of Evil was cute.

you say homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, yet you say medicine is good, which is also unnatural. Hmmm?

The first "unnatural" means "certain things work not in a way that they usually work and supposed to be working", the second "unnatural" means "not as it would be happening in a world where humans do not exist or do not act in a particular way". So the trick is mixing up these two definitions and presenting it as "contradiction".

In fact, if anything, it's agreement more than a contradiction. Nature as such does not have any purposes or morals or values. Nature does not care whether humans are alive or dead, happy or in horrible pain. Nature just is. However, people do have values and goals. Staying alive and healthy is one of those values, and medicine helps that. Thus, medicine, while "unnatural", is good.

Homosexuality happens when natural mechanisms of sexual attraction do not work as they should for the purposes they were intended - namely, reproducing the species and propagate the genes. This would make it "unnatural" in a certain sense. Now, if we value those mechanisms and the cultural adornments of it that were created in a particular culture, we must derive that homosexuality is "wrong". If we say we don't care too much about whether a particular person participates in reproducing the species and propagation of their own genes, we would call it value-neutral, neither good nor bad. Possibly there exists a set of values - e.g. one positing humans are evil and must not propagate - which would see it as "good". But neither would have any contradiction with the medicine example. "Unnatural" thing could be good or bad, depending on whether or not our values compel us to go along or depart from the ways that would otherwise "naturally" happen.

Homosexuality happens when natural mechanisms of sexual attraction do not work as they should for the purposes they were intended - namely, reproducing the species and propagate the genes.

However, as even Freud realised, this argument proves too much, as it implies that any sexual activity not carried out for purposes of procreation is just as "perverted" as homosexual intercourse. This includes numerous heterosexual activities which are widely considered "vanilla" (PiV sex with condoms, sex then pulling out, fellatio to the point of orgasm and so on).

One could say that since humans evolved to conceal ovulation, so that males would have sex with females outside the females' fertile period, unprotected sex naturally serves both to make children and as as a way to signal that two people are mates. And then it seems plausible that sex with condoms, fellatio, etc could serve the same purpose.

I did not say "perverted". "Perverted" is a value judgement. But yes, any sexual activity precluding the goal of procreation is, technically speaking, "unnatural". That's why one has to be careful with using terms like that - condoms, of course, are "unnatural", and so are other ways of non-procreative copulation. But carrying over value judgement with this definition is a mistake, because "(un)natural" is a factual, valueless statement. If you want to discuss values - which is fine, the major point of philosophy is discussing values - you can not base it on valueless statements and then sneak in values under the table. You need to put the value axioms on the table openly.

You're right, sorry for implying you said something you didn't say.

numerous heterosexual activities which are widely considered "vanilla" (PiV sex with condoms, sex then pulling out, fellatio to the point of orgasm and so on)

While in a post sexual revolution western world these things are considered vanilla, the largest religious organisation of the world in its official teaching still condemns all these things (even if its members don't always adhere to those official teachings). I reckon most philosophically literate people who agree to "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" also condemn contraception. I guess there are a lot of Evangelicals today who think homosexuality is sinful and have less of a problem with contraception. This is actually a relatively novel phenomenon; all Protestants rejected contraception up till ~100 years ago or something. Luther and Calvin for instance strongly condemn any form of contraception in their commentaries on Genesis 38:9-10. I suspect the Evangelicals who have a looser attitude towards contraception and such while also condemning homosexuality (implicitly) subscribe to some sort of Divine Command Theory, rather than the Aristotelian Natural Law theory that is prominent in Catholic ethical teachings, and its the latter that tends to give us language about it being "unnatural", at least in a philosophical context. So I think for most people interested in philosophy the purported contradiction really does result from equivocating different meanings of the word 'natural'.

In Judaism, generally pretty much anything goes between married man and woman. Including many types of non-procreative sex, provided it does not become a habit and replaces procreative one, and not done with explicit intent to avoid procreation at all (so condoms will be frowned upon, for example). Of course, Orthodox Judaism does not allow male-male sexual relations (it's kinda unclear on female-female ones, I don't think there's an explicit prohibition but I am not entirely sure). Judaic language of course does not use terms like "natural" - one should do what The Lord said one should do, and "natural" doesn't come into it.

Orthodox Judaism does not allow male–male sexual relations

Obilgatory link to the Talmudic discussion of whether it is permissible for a man to insert his own penis into his own anus

PiV sex with condoms, sex then pulling out, fellatio to the point of orgasm and so on

Perverted, all of it.

The argument doesn't prove too much. People have gotten overly used to perversity.

Out of curiosity, have you never had sex with protection?

I didn't exclude myself from "people".

That said, the above argument is easier for me to make because I genuinely do enjoy PiV sex for the purpose of procreation the most, and everything else is just..."sure, dear, we can mix it up.".

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

Would you mind explaining your rebuttal?

I'm afraid I haven't made any innovations in the fields of sexual ethics or Epicurean philosophy.

I thought @JarJarJedi did a great job articulating exactly why comparing gay sex to medicine seems so intuitively bizarre, and he's right that it's down to the use of the word "unnatural."

Hah, took the test. Got the same score and same tensions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I believe you are right. A Morally consistent individual can perform evil actions. There is no contradiction.

Heck, that's the narrative crux of the Bhagvad Gita and the Mahabharata. For those unfamiliar with the canon, the climactic philosophical dialogue sees Krishna (god incarnate, head strategist and moral authority) convincing Arjuna (moral warrior) to commit acts of evil (kin-slaying) while keeping his morality intact. To drive the distinction further, Krishna later convinces Arjuna to perform an act that is both amoral and evil. (killing a nigh-invulnerable soldier while he is disarmed his back is turned). This time, the book forces you to feel collective disgust at this action.

I am disappointed tbh. I spend time answering those questions in the best way possible (and they are not written to make that easy, they are loaded with weasel words that make figuring out what they mean very elusive) and what they give me is "if God is good, why suffering exists?" Oh come on, that's weak sauce. No, I mean, theodicy is a real philosophical question, but not exactly a novel one worth spending time answering questions.

But at least it's real. The other "contradiction" is "these two beliefs are not strictly contradictory". Well, dudes, if they are not, why the heck are you listing them as contradictions then?

And the third one I got is a cheap trick on "will you be literally dead instantly if you don't get it? No? Then it's not "necessary"." Ugh. I wonder if that's the same definition of "necessary" that the philosophers use when applying for their next grant.

I got a score of 13 when compared to an average of 27. Interestingly, I correctly anticipated which of my responses it would say were in tension with each other. Obviously, I'm now required to pedantically justify myself as to why my responses are not really in tension with one another.

>So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends vs. The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised

I agree these are slightly in tension with one another. To justify myself, I would argue that many drugs cause harm to people other than the user (e.g. drug-induced psychosis causing people to behave violently) and also cause distributed harm to society as a whole. The comparison to legal alcohol and motor vehicles is a valid counter-argument to this line of reasoning, although I'm perfectly willing to argue that motor vehicles being legal passes a cost-benefit analysis. Does alcohol pass such an analysis? I don't think it's an obviously ridiculous question, but I concede that I may be falling victim to status quo bias in this particular instance.

>Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste vs. Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists

I feel on much firmer footing with this one. I don't believe that one artwork is "objectively" better than another (except, perhaps, in the sense that some art is unfalsifiable and some isn't). When I responded in the affirmative to the latter question, I simply meant that Michelangelo has widely been considered one of history's finest artists for centuries, without making any commentary on his "objective" merit as an artist. Accurately citing an opinion poll that found an approval rating of 60% for $Politician doesn't in any way imply that I personally approve of said politician, nor that the politician in question is "objectively" good at his job.

I got 7% with one disagreement. I'd say its more of a semantic conflict with their question.

Statements 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood vs On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form.

I think the answer is pretty straightforward. A person doesn't have consciousness and selfhood after bodily death but they continue to exist in memories, impact, legacy as almost an egregore. It's encapsulated by the saying from the Havamal and my favorite song Helvengen: "Cattle die, kinsmen die, You yourself will also die; I know one thing that never dies The reputation of those who died" and “Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name. In some ways men can be immortal.” - Hemingway

(I hate this spoiler formatting, I give up trying to get the last paragraph to be hidden)

I got one disagreement but once I saw it I changed my mind on one of the questions (an atheism one). So basically no disagreements. Maybe would have been more interesting to see more disagreements.

The "WW2 was a just war?" Also seemed like a bad question. I just answered it from Hitler's perspective. No he shouldn't have started WW2 for more living room for the Germans, or out of his weird race war ideology. For other countries defending themselves or acting in defense of others it seems like a just war though.

For other countries defending themselves or acting in defense of others it seems like a just war though.

It's a whole bucket of pickles once you get into just conduct of the war (Stalin was justified in fighting Hitler, probably not in mass rape), and in the leadup to the war (Stalin equipped Hitler and partnered in the invasion of Poland; the West supported Fascism over communism; etc.)

This isn't a simple question.

For sure. There is a spectrum from just war to unjust war. Killing enemy soldiers invading your country being very close to the "just" side, and killing enemy civilians in a country you are invading being pretty far on the "unjust" end of the spectrum.

The nature of WW2 meant no one ended the war smelling of roses.

I'm using a common-sense or consensus definition of evil

What's that? Whence consensus?

I know it when I see it. I think it's not particularly controversial that genocide is generally considered to be, at the very least, in bad taste.

Not controversial among whom? Europeans had been fine with genocide as "kill them all" until about 19th century when the "white man's burden" took over, but if you extend the definition of genocide to forced population control and cultural suppression, then well into 20th century. Many non-European cultures are still fine with the former one (of course, when applies to really bad people over there). They may not be stressing this point when talking to Europeans, but their actions and even their words when not talking to Europeans show that clearly. I don't think it's as non-controversial as you think it is.

No, Europeans weren't fine with genocide before that. If nothing else, the concept of "genocide" (as "kill them all" as opposed to "please stop being like that, here is a school") didn't exist before industrial states. The closest thing in the European world would be the sack of cities or the expulsion of defeated enemies like various Indian tribes, but that was always justified as some kind of defensive fair play. The idea of systematically exterminating a helpless population, who had committed no crime to warrant a temporary state of exception, was anathema to European Christian culture. In the colonial cases where pre-modern Europeans took tiny baby steps towards "genocide", it was condemned by clerics (and, usually, by bean-counters pointing out that it was a waste of perfectly good human resources). Even when Caesar commits genocide the Roman sources treat it as "damn you didn't have to do 'em like that, but I guess that's how larger-than-life you are".

How about this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_genocide

And yes, I agree that at least "kill them all" does not sit very well with Christian doctrines, but I don't think religious doctrines had ever been a major impediment to doing what people wanted to be doing.

Ah, Las Casas, the Genocide Studies Program at Yale, abuses of the encomienda system, and it turns out it actually wasn't smallpox. The greatest hits. I don't consider the Wikipedia page probative at all (the ESL involved is amusing but also suspicious: "However, descendants of the Taíno continue to live and their disappearance from records was part of a fictional story created by the Spanish Empire with the intention of erasing them from history.") The Black Legend runs deep, even if it's passed from Anglo-Dutch propagandists to anti-colonial academics.

I think it's entirely possible that, between diseases, resource exploitation, and the Malthusian conditions of the New World, the Spanish wiped out entire populations of natives, including many cultures smaller than the Taino. But "genocide" is the intentional destruction of a people based on their identity. If aliens landed their starship and crushed Switzerland, that would not be the Swiss Genocide.

I'll make two further points: first, I would hold up Las Casas as evidence that this sort of thing was not sanctioned by European culture of the time. The Church and Crown consistently attempted to reign in the frontier warlords and planters. Secondly, I have no basis to claim this and have looked up zero evidence, but I would bet that if we were to look at genetic evidence from Taino graves and at modern Dominicans, we would find a nontrivial fraction of Taino genes in the Dominican Republic (Haiti, obviously, is a monoethnic state founded on actual genocide, but the DR is a more representative sample).

But "genocide" is the intentional destruction of a people based on their identity.

Yeah, I am pretty sure if those were Spaniards it would go differently. But, OTOH, see England/Ireland, I think the Irish are still pretty salty about those times...

If aliens landed their starship and crushed Switzerland, that would not be the Swiss Genocide.

I think it's not a useful distinction. If somebody murders a lot of people and wipes whole cultures, it doesn't matter much, morally speaking, whether you thought "fuck you in particular, this culture, I hate you specifically because your language irritates me and your dances are ugly!" or you just thought "it'd probably more useful for me if this two-legged cattle just died, and I don't even care how they call themselves". This argument sounds like a pointless rule-lawyering, where you substitute naming question for substance question, and try to argue that because exact labelling and classification may be questioned, the substance - massive dying of people caused by somebody's actions - is not not as reprehensible, because some definition of some word does not cover this particular case with enough precision. I find such kinds of argument utterly useless.

I would hold up Las Casas as evidence that this sort of thing was not sanctioned by European culture of the time

No True European Culture, amirite?

Yes, it's not "true Christianity". But somehow things still happened... Just as slavery - according to many, many Christian authorities - weren't part of true Christianity, and yet, it happened too. As I said, people are very flexible in their religious beliefs when they want to be.

This is why I find the term "genocide" pointless outside of very central cases (basically the Holocaust and anything that looks a lot like it), because any discussion is literal rules-lawyering. Genocide needs to be intentional to be genocide, there's a whole Genocide Convention which says that. We can say that the Spanish were highly murderous without using the G-word (though I would assume there were cases where the Spanish intentionally slaughtered entire tribes, which one could reasonably call small genocides).

No True European Culture, amirite?

Let me bring back your initial statement: "Not controversial among whom? Europeans had been fine with genocide as "kill them all" until about 19th century when the "white man's burden" took over". I think it's fair to say that the Spanish actions being controversial at the time, chastised by the Church, the subject of heated debates in the metropole, and motivating policy actions from the Crown meant to put a leash on them means that they were at least "controversial" at the time and not a case of everybody being "fine with genocide".

I definitely do not extend the definition of genocide to include cultural conversion, and even population control is iffy, unless the overt or wink-wink goal is to reduce the population of undesirables to zero.

The Holocaust? Genocide. They killed just as many Jews as they could. Gaza? Not a genocide. If the population in Gaza increased during the period of relevance, then clearly it's a very half-arsed genocide.

Not controversial among whom? Europeans had been fine with genocide as "kill them all" until about 19th century when the "white man's burden" took over

I'm sure that you could find majority support for child sacrifice at certain periods of human history, or at least as a widespread belief and practice. When I talk about consensus morality, I'm talking today. Even outside the West, attitudes toward it lean more towards liberal norms as opposed to Hutu and Tutsi willingness to get one in at all costs.

When I talk about consensus morality, I'm talking today.

This definition is valid at, like, every snapshot point in time, then, yes? The same action could be "evil" at one point in time and "not evil" at a different point in time?

Yes.

I need to go hunting on SMBC, because he had to have made a comic about this. If not, he really needs to.

That is, I'm pretty sure you've just solved your problem of evil, in quite the unique way.

It certainly seems logically plausible that whatever god may have created the universe, at the time that he/she/it created the universe, thought, "Hmmmm, I wonder if it would be evil to create a universe where eventually, one day, maybe, depending on how things go, a two year old will get ALL?" Perhaps this deity looked around, took an opinion poll to gauge the vibes, determined from the (presumably otherwise empty) room that it seemed a-ok, and proceeded to create said universe. Guess that just wasn't evil, by a common sense and consensus definition of the term.

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about, but sure? Why not.

If moral relativism or the "problem" of theodicy are new to you, I suppose Google has sources that might be enlightening.

More comments

Whence a consensus that evil means "in bad taste"? I guess perhaps you're not incorporating consensus at this level of generality, so are you instead just asserting that your definition of evil is "something done in bad taste, as measured by some vibes about a consensus" or something?

The "bad taste" phrasing was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but the serious point stands. You can be a moral anti-realist and still condemn genocide, because "condemning genocide" doesn't require believing in moral facts. It just requires having preferences about how humans should treat each other, noticing that most humans share those preferences, and being willing to enforce them.

Those are all necessary and sufficient conditions in your definition of evil? We can go through them one by one, but maybe let's just start with the last one. If, uh, someone (who?) isn't "willing to enforce" a "preference", then it's, uh, not evil to go against it? What even is "willing to enforce"? Like, does the enforcement need to be realized? Can it be weighed against other things? If the someone (who?) is like, "Yeah, I'm willing to enforce this, but due to other considerations (other priorities, something inherently difficult about detection or enforcement, etc.), I'm not going to put too much time and effort into it," does that still count for determining whether something is evil or not?

7% here too, well with some apparent tension in there to do with free will and determinism to which I'd say to the creator of the test: go read some quasi-realist philosophy and come back to me bro.

This is fun. My only tension was:

Statements 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment? 61% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs. You agreed that: The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends. But disagreed that: People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead. As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment. The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

My disagreement is that just because you can walk, cycle, or use transit, that doesn't mean that your ends are fully met in doing so. "I want to get there faster" or "I want to get there in peace and quiet" are legitimate desires which are generally worth the harm. I read "necessary" as meaning "necessary to the end sought", not "necessary to survival" (which would be a very silly position unless you're properly Tedpilled). They address this in their explanation, but fail to convince me.

I'm a simple creature. I think that the the conversion of Mercury into a Dyson swarm counts necessary damage to the environment. No issues there.

I got 13% with two tensions, yours and also

You agreed that:So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends But disagreed that: The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised

The explanation of this tension is an equally "duh" one. Perhaps The Motte is simply not a good audience for this test, we've been forced to admit or explain any contradictions in our reasoning for too long to be impressed by amateurish traps like these. Even AC: Odyssey did it better (and made me understand why the citizens of Athens condemned Socrates).

You inevitably lose nuance in a setup like this. I think I said agree to drug decriminalization, but I'm libertarian-adjacent and think that the harms are bounded. I still wouldn't advocate for fentanyl vending machines in malls.

It's less that the authors are trying to gotcha us (I didn't get that impression) and more that such a mass-market product caters to normies and thus becomes simplistic in places. I'm curious to know if someone has a more sophisticated offering.

Neat, but I sat there for too long debating if the statement "WWII was a Just War" is true or false, because there are like twenty ways I can frame that question and I'm not even sure which one I land on any given day like I'm spinning the philosophical equivalent of a wheel in twister.

They acknowledge that there's going to be some degree of subjectivity involved, both in the questions and interpreting the results, but you're better off not overthinking that hard.

Then they need a pass button for questions that aren't true or false.

Just the Jus in Bello and Jus Ad Bellum question is essentially unsolvable.

New Year's resolutions check-in:

  • Posted my second blog post of the year on Monday (right down to the wire, it went up at 11 p.m.), about a particularly pernicious reaction to the Minneapolis shooting which seems to recur whenever a member of the opposing political tribe is killed or disgraced.
  • Went to the gym three times last week. Couldn't bring myself to go on Monday, so went yesterday afternoon instead. Can deadlift 1.73x my bodyweight for 6 reps, squat .88x for 10 reps and bench press .7x for 9 reps.
  • Have not consumed any alcohol, fast food, fizzy drinks or pornography since waking up on January 1st, although I have snacked between meals quite a bit.
  • Have completed five of 11 modules in the SQL course.
  • Have practised guitar for roughly one hour every day since January 1st.

How goes it, @thejdizzler?

  1. Work: Raw hours just not there: I let so many things cannabilize my work time and need to be better at not letting them. That being said, I am doing a very consistent job of actually doing stuff when I am working. I did all three replicates of an experiment last week, something that would have taken me a month a few years ago. Again things are trending up here.

  2. Fitness: hit 9 hours last week (11 if you include dancing). This week will be around 9.25-10 if all goes to plan (+2 hours dancing). I am feeling amazing, I would urge you all to try out this kind of training (really easy+high volume) and I won my first race of the year on Sunday ($50 purse).

  3. Intellectual stuff: published my second blog post of the year last week and the reception has been great. Have a few more posts cooking so may post a third thing this month. Still feeling overwhelmed with book club books and the hours aren't there for Spanish and Italian, although I start Italian class later today.

  4. Finances: On track for this month financially! Wish my work would release the W2 stuff so I can figure out how much I owe for taxes.

  5. Dating: Porn-free for the past week after last week's rant although not masturbation free. Matched with a very attractive (in my opinion, probably not objectively) Argentinian women on Hinge so may be going on a date sometime next week.

  6. Tarot continues to go well, although I am frustrated by my ex-roomate's current state of mind.

  7. Screen time. Is hovering around 2 hours on my phone. I took some pretty drastic steps to curb use (hard locks on adult content and locking the phone except for text, call, Lyft and maps after 9pm, both behind annoying passwords that would take me 15 minutes to get). Will report back next week but I imagine this will lower my screen time quite a bit. Computer time is hovering around 8 hours a day, including work.

Have your post flagged to read! Seems like great progress in the gym!

What’s up with your ex roommate?

So he dropped out of our PhD program about a year ago (probably a fair move, but the way PhD programs work he should have just gritted it out). Since then he's been working at his dad's IT company and neither enjoying it nor doing a good job. The things that caused him to fail in the PhD are the exact same things that are causing him to fail in this new environment (poor work/life boundaries, inability to ask for help, ego). His entire life has become consumed with this boring job that he hates so it's not very fun to talk to him right now.

Ahh that's tough. Yeah it's very hard to watch someone struggling to fit into a good work situation. I know because I was in that myself for much of my life. Still am to some degree.

What do you think of SQL so far? It's one of my favorite tools

It's pretty nifty, and my day job involves SQL-based databases so it's nice to get some direct experience with the tool itself.

If you want to push the boundaries of your knowledge, check out a tool like Codewars or HackerRank. They provide exotic problem sets that require creativity and performance considerations that'll make you very powerful.

Thanks for the suggestion!

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