site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   2716 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 15, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Using this because there's not a recent or pinned Meta thread.

Could we fix the list code? There's this issue with the following layout:

  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit

(sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua)

  1. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

where the 2 turns into a 1 (click "view source" to verify that it's indeed a 2). Hits both "1)" and "1." style, so neither works.

I can't imagine theMotte's userbase is innumerate enough for this "correction" to actually get things right more than 1% as often as it fucks things up, so it would seem to be better to have the formatting simply leave the numbers as whatever they are.

Related issues and pull request in Marked.js (the Markdown parser that this website uses): 1 2 3

Issue created on this website's Github page

What is the deal with Jackson Hinkle? He is all over the top results when searching Israel/Gaza on Twitter.

What does Scott Alexander mean by "if from racism school dot tumblr dot com" in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ ?

racismschool.tumblr.com links to a user on tumblr named "racismschool". It appears to be empty now, though I can't tell if that's because they deleted everything or because I don't have a tumblr account. Presumably they're the person who made the thing that he's referring to in this post.

Is there a survey asking Muslims in Western countries what they think of Jewish people? Ideally it'd be something like Gallup or Pew, but I'll take anything.

United States only, but this Pew data seems like it should have what you want. Sadly, they just couldn't find enough Muslims to find out what they think of other Americans:

The survey did not include enough interviews with Muslim Americans to accurately measure their views toward Jews or any other group.

Dang. What a shame.

Relatedly, this Pew survey table is a work of art. The wholesome good cheer of Mormons and unrequited love of Evangelicals for Jews are pretty funny.

So, what are you reading?

I'm going through Plato's Protagoras. Have been reading about the sophists recently.

Paper I'm reading: Crombe and Nagl's A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force.

Code of the Woosters. I had somehow never gained any familiarity with the Jeeves and Wooster series. My girlfriend corrected this oversight, and now I get to enjoy some archetypal British humor. The prose is delightful…and also explains a few things about her approach to the English language.

Annals of a Fortress, Violette-le-duc. It’s a fictional history of a fortification in eastern France. The book was originally written after the Franco-Prussian War by a legendary architect and engineer. It would go on to influence a generation of military planners even as his other work inspired every architect from Gaudí to Le Corbusier. I have a translation from 110 years later, and I’m very excited to dig into it.

I really need to get around to reading some Jeeves and Wooster, I've been a fan of the tv series ever since I was a lad and my Dad has always gone to great lengths to impress upon me just how good the books are.

It's been absolute gold. Laugh-out-loud. We're alternating reading it to each other before bed just to experience the surprise and comedic timing.

Just started Kim Stanley Robinson's The Wild Shore. I don't know anything about Robinson other than that someone told me he was good and I don't know anything about the book other than it was on the library shelf and seemed like the kind of thing I'd like. After one chapter, I can say that I enjoy the setting and first-person storytelling.

Not to be snarky, but if you keep reading his work I can pretty much guarantee his politics will drive you up the wall. Red Mars and 2312 are sublime, I also enjoyed the gold coast quite a bit. You may get some mileage out of the years of rice and salt. The rest will probably not be enjoyable.

I just wrote yet another long comment pleading with the reader not to read Aurora by the same author, and a completely unnecessary refresh ate it.

I'll rehash the argument if anyone cares, but TLDR:

Moronic Author

Moronic depiction of AI or the challenges of interstellar travel

A literally moronic protagonist

Moronic characters who don't have the excuse of having a certified neurological deficit

Self flagellating environmentalism steadfastly refusing to accept that it's redundant given the tech level of the setting (itself barely better than today)

An authorial tract strictly devoted to showing "oh nos, instead of abandoning the cradle of civilization, it's turned out to be indispensable, we must stuff ourselves back in and turn on the lights, the night is cold and full of terrors"

Just read his other books, most of them are fine.

Seconded on every point. (I can't think of a way to make me hate a book and its protagonist any faster than the text spelling out that you're supposed to like the protagonist and that only bad people dislike them.) Red Mars + Green Mars (Blue Mars was not terrible, but felt a bit like an overgrown appendix of the former) and The Years of Rice and Salt are wonderful, though.

I think Aurora is the only book of his I read after enjoying the RGB Mars trilogy (+ The Martians short story collection in that universe). Those books go a bit off the deep end into the environmentalism and Marxism towards the end... but basically just I recommend skipping Blue Mars or noping out of when you've had enough. I also thought Aurora was overly preachy (and mind, this is coming from someone who literally goes by "token progressive" on this forum; I may disagree with him less you than you do, but it's still not fun to read), so it's good to hear most of his other books are good.

Err, it seems I was misremembering, I haven't actually read any other books by him, it was Aurora being so terrible that likely put me off the Mars trilogy, but if you think it's bearable I'll take a look! So far he's been batting 0/1 as far as I'm concerned.

KSR is a sort of utopian Marxist, and so he very much thinks that technological advancement is married inextricably with social and cultural change (similar to another sci-fi great, Iain Banks). This makes for some very interesting science fiction because his future societies are not merely the 21st century, but in spaaaaaaace. He's an interesting author to read through the decades because the futures he writes about shift as the technology and culture of his own time shifts. I might write a short thing in the culture war thread about one specific element of this

Turns out writing a book eats up the free time you had for reading them!

At least it's going well, I'm genuinely happy with progress made, especially tying up dangling plot threads in a satisfying manner without too much in the way of ass pulls as reverse dental floss.

A mark of success in rational fiction, or thrillers in general, is when the audience successfully predicts or theorizes about upcoming plot twists.* A good sign they're invested, and it makes it easier for the author when they spot something you didn't consider so you can write that in ;)

Then again, I'm not irony poisoned enough to "subvert expectations" just because people are smart enough to see things coming. It's heartening, it means your world building is internally consistent and you're expressing your intent correctly. Hard enough to do in a very hard scifi story, harder still when you have superheros, the latter genre certainly being tempting when it comes to explaining shit away or having something show up to break a convenient deadlock.

*Hell some readers have predicted all 25 of the 6 plot twists till date!

A mark of success in rational fiction ... is when the audience successfully predicts or theorizes about upcoming plot twists.

As a reader, the sweet spot is when I pick up on something a few pages before the protagonist. That's more luck than author's intent, since an equally smart person reading the same book but after lunch instead of before will be a few chapters behind the curve, but it's the most fun I have.

Maybe second most, after seeing a movie with a friend and whispering "are they really X?" but then the people on screen really do X—before my friend has time to reply.

Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. I had procrastinated on getting started with learning about investing for too long, and finally started reading a book on the subject. So far I like the commentaries more than the original chapters that were written in, I think 1949 and updated in 1972. The financial results of 1965-1970 feel distant and seem less relevant to me. But I like the sober, honest tone of the book and hope to take timeless wisdom from it.

I read this recently as well. I'd echo that the book feels like ancient history. Graham recommends a 50-50 stock bond split which would have been disastrous over the last 20 years. Zero interest rate policy has made bonds an extremely poor investment vehicle. The risk of holding 0 coupon bonds is huge, while the reward is tiny. People who bought that paper lost their shirts.

Graham would probably agree if he were alive today!

As an investment guide in 2023, I didn't find much value honestly. The good bits have already been distilled into common wisdom.

Were there any chapters in the book that you found worthwhile to read?

I've started on A Random Walk down Wall Street and I like it. Might go back to Intelligent Investor for a couple of chapters. I think 8 and 20 were praised by Warren Buffett.

I can't remember unfortunately.

There is a very important general point here, which is that if asset markets are telling you to adopt a particular investment strategy, and you do not have a good personal reason not to, then you should do what the markets are telling you.

Low interest rates (strictly speaking, low real interest rates) are asset markets telling you to invest in real assets (equity of non-financial companies, real estate, your own business) and avoid financial assets (bonds, cash, arguably bank equity, at the margin even paying down debt). The market is telling you to invest in real assets because not enough other people are, so if you follow the market's advice both you and society should benefit.

What I want to know is how you become a market-whisperer who can discern what they are saying. :D

This is a solid book. I also recommend Peter Lynch’s One Up on Wall Street if you’re interested in more investment books.

Thanks for the rec!

Any news on the Trump trial, since everything seems quiet and nothing seems to be happening. Is this because nothing is indeed happening, or is it because they're getting everything ready for the Big Moment?

I keep up with legal issues mostly through Ken White and Josh Barro's podcast Serious Trouble (https://serioustrouble.show). White is a former US Attorney, defense attorney, and long-time legal blogger I'd highly recommend as a reliable source.

How do the rest of you keep up with legal developments, mottizens?

This looks like a bunch of hippies and psychonauts in Kentucky attempting to use a legal loophole to take psychedelics in an organized, deliberate way. It doesn't look like it now is a cult, but the ingredients for one forming are present.

Doesn’t seem any less defensible than mescaline or ayahuasca. Which is to say—federally allowed, state ambiguous.

I wish it was easier to search cases-by-law-cited. I want to know if Kentucky’s RFRA has been used for anything other than defending Christian practice. Or even that.

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

I want to know if Kentucky’s RFRA has been used for anything other than defending Christian practice. Or even that.

It's been cited for everything from COVID closures to the Kim Davis gay marriage case to abortion, though I don't think any have been productive. Baker v Hands On Original was more of a first amendment case than RFRA-specific, but it did cite the state RFRA at length, so that's one successful use.

That said, the law was motivated in part by a Gingerich v Commonwealth, a case about Amish rejection of road safety signage, which... is not at least the typical things people think of as Christian religious practice.

Does anyone see red flags or signs of a cult?

I feel like determining "what make's something a cult" is very much in the same realm of the classic "I know it when I see it" porn vibe-check. Personally, the rule of thumb I've picked up on is this: if building a defense, in the minds of it's members, against outside accusations of "being a cult" is baked into the introductory/fundamental teachings, then it's a cult.

Though this place doesn't seem that "off", the fact that the website almost immediately starts talking about its legal bona fides, reassuring readers that it's beliefs are, in fact, "sincere" and "non-dogmatic", is actually a little bit of a red flag to me.

Red flag of what? Not of being a cult, I’d think- those guys are obviously sincere. Maybe of being a hippie-dippie loophole abusing scam, but those are a dime a dozen.

Agreed: I certainly get the sense whoever wrote that description would get along well with a friend in California who knows what to say to get a medical weed card, and can refer you to physicians to whom to say it.

Does this argument seem like it would hold up in court?

Presumably. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in response to an analogous case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that the state could punish a person for using as part of a religious practice. The federal RFRA does not apply to state laws, but Kentucky has its own RFRA

That’s pretty cool. I don’t see any red flags. Using psychotropics in a safe, communal, spiritual environment is probably the best use of them.

Internal Family Systems

I actually have a theory that there is an IFS theme throughout the Gospel and early Christianity. Obviously there’s the Father/Son dichotomy in Christianity which is essential to the religion. But then there are passages like these which I think hint to a psychodrama of household relations —

For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

This appears right after a parable on a “wise manager”, a spiritual metaphor regarding a person who both obeys (the Master) and commands (the servant), and then precedes an aphorism on “interpreting the present season”. It’s extremely doubtful that this has some worldly meaning, because it’s nestled in between two very allegorical or mystical sayings, and it uses too many words for a simple “whoever leaves family for my sake will be rewarded”. It’s reminiscent of the centurion who is praised for his faith, and who specifies that he obeys those above and commands those below (details which are absurd to include for an historical account, but necessary if an allegory). Notably this “character” is present for the Crucifixion. Lastly there’s an early Christian Shepherd of Hermas which talks about “households” in a way that can be metaphorical.

Woah, this is a fascinating take. Very interested now in reading the scriptures through this lens. Know any discussions on this topic?

I know Jung has written some about this, I mean really IFS is just the psychoanalysts' work rehashed for the modern generation.

Sadly I don’t know any discussions, but if you find one send my way! There might be something from the church fathers under the word oikonomia.

Does anyone see red flags or signs of a cult?

The answer is moo as far as I'm concerned. A religion is just a cult with social standing. It's a very arbitrary distinction.

Do you think this church would provide many of the same benefits as a traditional church?

It would certainly be more interesting

Do you have any other information or thoughts about this church?

Well:

In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the Supreme Court heard arguments on 1 November 2005, and unanimously ruled in February 2006 that the U.S. federal government must allow the Brazil-based União do Vegetal (UDV) church to import and consume ayahuasca for religious ceremonies under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In September 2008, the three Santo Daime churches filed suit in federal court to gain legal status to import DMT-containing ayahuasca tea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_ayahuasca_by_country

So there's certainly precedent.

A religion is a cult with a track record, which is way more useful than social standing. Mass movements that turn into disasters over a decade or more are a dime a dozen; only if a movement has been around for several decades already do you have enough data to guess what disasters it's probably vulnerable to.

"Several decades" would mean that $cientology, Hare Krishnas, and arguably Moonies have made the transition from "cult" to "religion" by now. Certainly in the UK, the anti-cult crowd think that Scientology and Moonies are the most dangerous religious cults.

Yes, and perhaps.

The point of several decades of data isn't that the group definitely isn't going to be an ongoing disaster, it's that there's been time for the disasters to be ongoing rather than sudden. If you joined Scientology in 1960 and couldn't stay on their good side, you might have been quite unpleasantly surprised by what was to follow. I'm told the Readers' Digest exposes in the 1980s were quite brave. But by 1995 or so, if you weren't a kid dragged in by parents, joining Scientology was kinda on you.

Whereas, these guys? They might be perfectly fine. But even if they're not showing the classic "cult warning signs" now, who knows what might be going on after a couple decades of social churn and personal change? Cult leaders have gone downhill on that time scale even if they weren't using psychoactive drugs from the start. Lots of people thought Jim Jones seemed like a decent guy for a long time before the eventual paranoid spiral and the mass murder-suicide.

Mass movements that turn into disasters over a decade or more are a dime a dozen

I suspect that the ratio of "cults" doing something so odious that they become newsworthy to the actual number popularly accepted as cults isn't particularly significant.

It's not like established religions don't get up to shenanigans, while having more clout to enact their will.

In something like the example provided by OP, I strongly suspect that if they ever get rapped, it'll be because of something like the founder being a sex pest or coercing people into taking drugs. They're not about to launch the next intifada.

Not that I think anyone should join a religion or cult in the first place.

the founder being a sex pest or coercing people into taking drugs.

This is way more common than basically rolling your own violently-rebellious religion.

As for religion...it binds people together and is valuable; I've even heard that every religion creates a society in its image.

Point of curiosity - how many people do not carry some sort of smartphone with them basically everywhere they go? Trying to focus on either you personally or somebody you personally know, not just speculating.

I usually don't bring mine on runs, although with the minor caveat that I have a running watch that has podcasts on it anyway. I generally run ~40-60 miles per week, so this makes up a decent amount of time outside my home without a phone.

I'm amused that most of the replies answer a slightly different question than you asked: they answered about knowing people who don't own a smartphone and you asked about people who don't carry a smartphone everywhere. The implication being that the idea of owning a smartphone but not carrying it everywhere isn't really an option.

Not that I'm trying to claim any kind of moral high ground here: I'm definitely in the "carry smartphone everywhere" category. The only exception is leaving it in a bag when I'm doing something active enough that having a smartphone in my pocket would be annoying. I don't have a smartwatch, but some people I know use them for that situation (I think only people who are on call).

I actually asked it that way on purpose, hoping to cover both people who don't have one at all, and people who have one but don't carry it with them sometimes or often.

I do feel a little weird sometimes about seemingly needing to carry a smartphone everywhere, but it does do a really good job of replacing a bunch of other devices and tools.

I don't own a smartphone, only an old LG flip-phone, on a limited, subsidized "Obamaphone" plan.

I use the same federal subsidy and have asked the major providers here in California (Lifeline and NET10 wireless) for flip-phones—they only offer cheap android smartphones (or even tablets). Can you tell me the name of your provider so I can get a flip phone too?

I go through our local cable company, GCI, and I don't know who their provider is.

Two. An artist in her 30's with a flip phone, she's opposed to smartphones on principle. I respect it, though wonder if she has paper maps or something for when she travels. There's a woman at my work with no cell phone at all and she has effectively called the bluff of the corporation on mandatory MFA, but they've also kind of called hers because afaik she can't access our corporate intranet. Every once in a while it flares up a dozen people get CC'd, IT rejects the request for a mobile device to be purchased and assigned, etc. Such a waste of time. I actually haven't heard of it recently so maybe management wised up and found a way to structure a reimbursement in such a way that they could sneak a burner phone from best buy onto that monday's bagel run.

I use my phone less and less these days. I've even experimented with leaving the house without it. It's easier to leave it somewhere after getting a Kindle to do my reading on. :)

I personally haven't carried a phone (smart or otherwise) since sometime in July, when I dropped and broke my iPhone. Before that, I hadn't been without a smart phone since around 2012. I don't have a land line. If I need to make a call, I use Google voice on my laptop.

Mostly, I've been phoneless as an experiment. Overall, the experience has probably been net negative, and I'll likely get a phone soon.

On the plus side, I can focus somewhat better (on reading, or work, or watching a movie at home, or whatever) without the phone constantly interrupting me or threatening to interrupt me (or just being an attractive distraction). I also take satisfaction in the idea that I've opted out of a part of modern consumer culture. I think I'm reading books now when previously I would have been scrolling on my phone (this is an improved use of my time, in my opinion).

On the negative side, there've been a few times where I could've used a phone (e.g., I got locked out of my office, and had to just go home for the afternoon). I know it's an annoyance (and concern) to my family that they can't reach me at any moment. There are various sites (for banking and such) that use the ability to receive texts as a 2nd authentication factor. If I had a social life, I assume not having a phone would be a major impediment. I feel like I'm losing touch with friends whom I used to call and text. I can't call Uber. If I get lost, I don't have access to maps.

I will say that the first week without a phone felt very unnatural (ironically), but after that, I guess I got used to it.

Without just speculating, I can answer about people I know: I don't, and no members of my family do except for mother-in-law. My wife does in theory, but in practice she never knows where it is and never answers it when it rings. In our experience phones are basically a way for other people to get a hold of you, which is irritating; let them send an email like anyone else.

I have one family member who has steadfastly refused to change from a flip phone to a smartphone, but everyone I know who owns one keeps it with them whenever out and about.

I used to have an in-law who was like that, saying that a button phone was for business and a smartphone was for wasting time, and he had no time to waste, but last year I saw him with his own glowing glass rectangle.

Nobody I can think of. I'd rather leave a kidney behind than my phone, I half suspect a part of the proprioceptive function of my brain treats it like an extension of itself.

I'm presuming you have a much more desirable phone than my Pixel 3—but leave room for the possibility that I have better kidneys.

It's a flagship, even if it's made by a more price conscious brand than Apple or Samsung.

My kidneys are in tip-top shape, it's my liver that's likely suffering from my love for biryani haha.

The only flagship phone I ever owned was Hawei's, purchased just a few weeks before the spying scandal broke, and never actually used for phone calls. Feature wise, the new Pixels have just barely caught up, and that's not counting the IR blaster with built in universal remote app

And it's not that your liver is "suffering," so much as "used to the fullest" or maybe "done it's duty when called upon."

I dont take out my phone from my pocket when Im with anyone. I wear a watch for the time and dont subscribe to a data plan. For a majority of the day im usually somewhere that has wifi anyways and more more important things I can be called.

I do agree that when I'm out with anyone, I'll generally only use my phone to coordinate other people meeting up with us or find the next place to go, not to just chitchat with others or scroll social media

My dad leaves his at home every Sunday. Not a Sabbath thing, what with him being an old Jew, just that's the day of the week he gets breakfast with friends and then goes on a hike.

In my Dunbar group I know of two adults without a smartphone.

So what is actually the point of rating random comments? I feel like I missed the memo

Your question reads to me as "What's the point of having fun?"

Are you asking about the quokka saying "The Motte Needs You?"

This is a kind of meta-moderation that Zorba is using, both to help us moderators do our work and to gather data to eventually make moderation more user-driven. As of right now it shows up in my moderation queue in a simple form--a comment that has been reported will also get a tag with a "Bad" or "Not-Bad" and then a confidence score on that rating. Further refinements are planned!

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