site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3176 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 31, 2023

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

2
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hm, for the wine AskHistorians post, the liter being undiluted does make the wine's later dilution irrelevant. My mistake.

Searching elsewhere for roman wine consumption, from wikipedia:

Phillips estimates that on average, each member of Rome's urban population (man, woman or child) consumed half a litre of undilute wine per capita daily.[1] Tchernia and Van Limbergen estimate the same average consumption levels per diem, per capita throughout the Greco-Roman world.[9]

"Man, woman, and child" at "half a litre per day" is comparable to 1L/day for an adult man, I think? But following that citation, they took estimated wine production for Rome divided by the Roman population - and my sense is that, combined with the % ethanol of ancient wines, isn't necessarily that accurate. But all accounts seem to agree that alcohol consumption was widespread, to the point that during the Empire drunkenness was an issue.

Does it really, though? For almost all social interactions, the ability to be more earnest, more long-suffering, and less constrained by cognitive ruts is an advantage

If you're drinking alcohol consistently, throughout the day, as the post describes, it'll harm your intelligence and physical capacity for the intellectual or physical work you have to do. Said intelligence and subtlety might also be useful for social interactions - which aren't just a way to bond with the bros, but often involve competition, subtlety, and antagonism. Every part of social interaction is 'cognitive', it doesn't really make sense that a general depressant would aid in social interaction.

Throughout human history, almost every civilization that a Westerner would recognize as a civilization has both relied upon grain and developed some form of ubiquitous alcoholic beverage from it.

Eh, according to wikipedia the high levels of alcohol consumption in Rome only took place during the empire - and the rate of consumption significantly differed - a number (that I didn't check) was 1.8L/day/10 men in egypt.

So, are you just going to completely ignore things like bar fights and other obvious examples of how alcohol consumption often substantially increases men’s propensity to interpersonal violence? “Promoting collective action, good will, and forgiveness between strangers” might be the way that some populations and individuals respond to alcohol consumption, but many others find that it exacerbates violence and dysfunction.

The problem, though, is that what for one man is a moderate amount of drinking might be, for another man, enough to get him drunk enough to be a problem for himself and for others. And it’s not always clear to any particular person what the effects of a particular round of drinking will be; I’ve had outings where I found myself significantly drunker than I expected, because of situationally-contingent factors - what I’d eaten that day, the beginnings of a cold/flu that hadn’t begun to manifest when I woke up that day, etc. - and additionally a great many people are terrible judges of their own current state of intoxication.

We’ve all met plenty of people who, while visibly and obviously intoxicated, insist that they are sober enough to drive, or sober enough to take another shot. Being intoxicated, since it is a euphoric sensation, naturally incentivizes the consumption of more of the intoxicant in order to prolong and amplify that sensation. Sure, very experienced drinkers with a strong sense of their own tolerance - in addition to a strong penchant for self-control - can recognize signs of drunkenness in real-time and abstain from further consumption; I think that you’re significantly over-estimating the percentage of the population that fits that description, and under-estimating the percentage that get drunk without intending to and cause all sorts of problems.

... Manual memory management incredibly bad practice and is a main cause of software vulnerabilities everywhere. To make that concrete: people employed by the Chinese and US Government, as well as some private individuals, could right now send you a text message, or a link, that, just by viewing or clicking, allows them to take over your device, steal your data, passwords, spy on past and future conversations, etc. Dozens of vulnerabilities that could, and sometimes are, parts of these exploits are fixed in the most popular browsers, operating systems, and applications every month or so.

Your parody-argument as written is literally correct for 'unsafe languages' like C. People should stop using them for even moderately-complex, user/network facing applications. Beginner programmers don't notice pitfalls advanced programmers do and introduce RCEs, even advanced programers regularly introduce RCEs.

The notion that modern binge-drinking culture as found in American colleges and chav/bogan culture in the commonwealth is even remotely related to the notion that people should always have a standard drink flowing through them is palpably ridiculous

It’s pretty clear to me, and presumably many others reading your posts on this subject, that you are absolutely not interested in being persuaded even a tiny bit from your maximalist position on this. And that’s fine - given your statement that you’ve personally diluted wine to Roman specifications, I can tell that alcohol is a big part of your life, and the history of alcohol is a major point of interest for you - but it’s hard to escape the impression that you’re engaged in the genre of persuasive essay rather than in the spirit of actual dialogue.

Do you equally apply this prohibition to things like programming languages like C or stimulants like Adderall?

I’m not a programmer, so I have absolutely no opinion on programming languages, and I’ve never used Adderall in my life. You’re arguing against someone else and assuming that person is me. You’re also assuming that I argue for… well, it’s not exactly clear what specific policy position you’re attributing to me regarding alcohol consumption. I certainly have not advocated any top-down coercive measures to be taken against alcohol consumption in this conversation, so it seems once again that you are reading into my post something that I have not actually said.

Overall, you seem a lot more passionate about this subject than I am, and have far stronger opinions about it, so I don’t know what else there is for me to gain by confusing to engage.

Neither you nor curious_straight_ca has provided any evidence whatsoever that my arguments are unsupported, by either contemporary social reality or historical record

We've provided "evidence", in the sense that we've tried to use various sources and ideas to push back on your arguments. You mean we haven't provided good evidence. Which may be true, or may not be - but making incorrect arguments isn't against the rules, and the only way we can figure out which side is correct is continuing to make arguments.

More comments

Sure, sure, sure. This is the purest ad hominem and consensus building. "You're embarrassing yourself in front of others that clearly agree with me and you're a motivated drunk."

This is not an inaccurate summary of @Hoffmeister25's post, and he should stop engaging in consensus-building appeals to a silent audience.

That said, you're also being obnoxious and condescending.

Stop it, both of you.

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