Boarchariot
2mo ago
It's incentive for people who have committed crimes to give their money to the justice system, which supports the justice system. That's the benefit it provides society as a whole.
I am making it as a simple comparison, because there is a difference between a man vs a man, and the political situation where it is group vs group. The obvious difference to me is that the most vocal, violent, and dissident points of view control the dialogue (and retaliatory actions from each side continue indefinitely) while other people, who are not involved, are caught in the crossfire. Hence the tragicomedy of Romeo and Juliet.
To the other comparisons to war, which are also group vs group: defecting in this sort of political dilemma, rather than war, serves to improve the standing of specific people within the society, and not the group as a whole. The difference should be that the detriment of your neighbours is a sign of the detriment to yourself. Even if you believe that defecting helps the party who does so (to me it seems like a defect-defect downward spiral, not a defect-cooperate situation where there is any benefit), it does not folow that a benefit to the party is a boon to the people of the country more generally. But as long as people are happy to watch politicians (pretend to) club each other over the head, happy that their outgroup experiences tribulations (which means everyone gets a turn), and happy that the other side is upset, I don't see how anything constructive can happen. The reality is that the politicians will drink Johnny Walker with one another after the show is over, but the general public will have no such consolation.
Boarchariot
2mo ago
I wonder what the arguments from either side would be if "the other guy did it first" wasn't acceptable to the voting public, and we held all of our public officials accountable to serving the good of the public as a primary purpose. While I agree that both leftists and democrats do bad things and have for a long time, I don't think refuting the partial benefits along with the outright bad/ridiculous is best.
Unfortunately, things are so heated that any political discussion is less about how society should be run to benefit the people living in it, and more about finding ways to stick it to the other guy. That might help placate half the country emotionally, but I'm not sure it does any material good for people who aren't politicians or above a certain income/class.
Boarchariot
2mo ago
Why is considering the specifics of a defendent's circumstances not impartial?
I don't personally consider that a benefit. In fact, I think it is a flaw because it causes people to act in ways that are less utilitarian/net good. I think the feeling of retribution and satisfaction is the primary driver for justice in a small society/community and serves the purpose of banding people together. But i do not believe it is a good in itself, and it should be tempered by rationality to discern the best course of action.
Like other intense emotions, it acts as an indicator for a desired change (the crime should never occur again, for example). But it does not indicate the exact course of action that should happen for the greatest benefit, especially on a social level.
Boarchariot
2mo ago
Have you read Romeo and Juliet? A schoolyard bully is mano e mano. A feud between groups is much messier, with innocents caught in the fallout.
We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.
I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice. Most proponents will cite things like deterence, or prevention (i.e. keeping dangerous people in jail), or in more leftist societies rehabilitation. The point being the result: reduction of crime, a safer society. Punitive justice seems like an archaic tool that still has contemporary benefits, similar to old rules about the sabbath that gave people community, or old rules about what to avoid eating to prevent disease.
The punitive aspect is, in part, that we have that as a means available (familiar, common sensible, and traditional). But contemporary societies realized to varying degrees that punishing conditions don't help in themself. Hence why torture isn't allowed, or prison conditions aren't totally uncomfortable (in other countries at least).
As someone who isn't American, it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country, and instead resorts to arguments about what the other side has done. It seems to me that both sides are unhappy with the justice system and how it can be abused to treat people unfairly. That seems to be a problem beyond either side, but it is highlighted when either side can cherry pick examples.
From an outside perspective, I am deeply concerned that Trump will do nothing to help the structural issues. But to be fair, I don't think the Democrats had any better chance.
Boarchariot
2mo ago
I tore my ACL a few years ago and got surgery over a year later. I can give you my impressions.
The doctors told me that completely torn ACLs do not heal on their own. I believe I read that partial tears do heal a bit. But my layman's interpretation of "heal" here is that you want the tendon to perform the same function as before, in terms of durability, strength, etc. A severe injury is hard to bounce back from in those regards, when it's really hard to train or gauge tendon strength.
It's not surprising that your friend regained his leg strength and then some. Once the collateral damage of an ACL injury heals (soft tissue or other) there is nothing hindering strength except the break in training. Closed chain movements like squats are particularly safe. The ACL shouldn't have much to do with it.
Stability is also trainable. The muscles in the leg can be trained, along with balance and proprioception, to become very stable. It is just a matter of training good movement patterns (true with or without surgery). My assumption for myself is that I had a lot of poor movement patterns that led to the injury in the first place. Stuff like balancing on one leg, single leg squats, were very useful in my recovery. Then you can get into dynamic movements like jumping and running.
The real tricky consideration is that your friend is a professional athlete in a relatively injurious sport. That goes far beyond training in a gym. You are dealing with open chain exercises and the added chaos of a competitive sport with other players. I'm sure your friend is aware via doctors, but the most difficult movements after a hurt knee are things like jumping and cutting, where there are higher forces and changes in direction. Add in the intensity of competition (which is where most athletes are injured) and I personally became more interested in surgery as an option.
The biggest factor for me was psychological. I did not want to second guess how my knee would perform under pressure, or risk further injuries like miniscus tears. Truth be told, I bet a lot of athletes could get away with no surgery (it's not unheard of), but if you are dealing with a drop in performance or durability I'm not sure it is worth the risk at that level. But I can also understand wanting to limit recovery time, especially if a surgery date is relatively far away (and the surgery does suck to recover from, arguably worse than the injury) or expensive (mine was free here). My doctor heavily encouraged anyone younger than 35 or involved in high-risk sports (like soccer) to opt for the surgery.
The surgery isn't fool proof but I would guess it does help (my leg feels rock solid now). But your friend will have to weight the risks and rewards of the options. I would say my leg felt 80-90% better in weightlifting and everyday use just before I got my surgery, but I did not get back into sprints or intense dynamic activities until after surgery.
Boarchariot
7mo ago
I also learned to drive recently, in my 30s. I also found lessons really exhausting, but I totally chalked it up to nerves. Not that I was panicked or fearful, but driving takes a lot of focus and concentration, as well as multitasking and anticipation. With lessons that is even more true. You're paying attention to the road, to the car, to other drivers, and to the instructor, all while learning and doing new things.
Now that I've had my liscence for two years, it is a lot less exhausting. I can easily drive for many hours. A lot of things that you have to actively focus on while you are learning become second nature.
Still on a Lacan kick, now reading Jacques Lacan himself after finishing a primer on Freud and a clinical intro by Bruce Fink. I have some thoughts on my first forays into Lacan proper, as well as some on the Fink book (which Scott Alexander also read and reviewed).
Initially the recommendation was to absolutely avoid Ecrits, read supplementary material like Fink, and read Lacan's seminars starting at 11 and 7, then going back to 1. I tried 11 and it's a bit too hard to understand; too mired in previous work, I think. The recommendation stems from it being a turning point in his work, but I'd rather have the context to know what it is turning from.
I'm reading Lacan's first seminar now, which seems to ask more coherent questions. It is a direct offshoot from Freud and so far is commenting on Freud's writing directly, while throwing shade at other offshoots (ego psychology). The primary questions seem to be things like, what actually is the unconscious, what is the goal of analysis, what is the process of analysis, what is the position of the analyst, how should the analyst approach analysis...? These all seem to stem from the fact that Freud's actual methods are veiled and only communicated in a limited scope (i.e. what Freud actually wrote down). I'm still very early in the book, though.
I feel that I can actually grasp some of what Lacan is saying here, which is a nice change of pace. I'm sure that will change, but before this I wasn't sure there was a foundation to turn away from, so I'm feeling confident in my decision to divert from the suggested starting place and go chronologically.
A bit of commentary on the Fink book after finishing:
I feel like it was a good intro that avoided a lot of the roundabout references that permeate Lacanian commentary. At the risk of sounding like Goldilocks, it was perhaps too grounded, in the sense that the examples, case studies, and commentary by Fink were the biggest issues. The gist I have picked up from other third parties is that Lacan is all about abstracting and structuring Freudian analysis, moving away from the particulars in the abstract sense so that the actual particulars of any given case can be dealt with. Some of Fink's comments seemed closer to symptomizing than structuralizing, more cause -> effect proselytizing than observational.
In general it provides an overview of key concepts, and is a good jumping off point for anyone who is curious about Lacan. Extremely readable and engrossing at points. Very different from Lacan's own work, which is probably a big plus for some.
I've decided that undrrstanding Lacanian psychoanalysis will be my next intellectual venture, so right now I am reading Sigmund Freud by Pamela Thurschwell, and A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis by Bruce Fink.
The Freud book is to familiarize myself with some of the foundational concepts of psychoanalysis. It seems like a pretty straightforward historical account of Freud's life and an overview of his ideas.
The Fink book has been really fascinating so far. I am coming at this as someone who has no experience with psychoanalysis or therapy in general, and the book provides a lot of insight on the actual theraputic techniques of psychoanalysis, rather than the philosophical ideas behind it. I started inteoducing myself to Lacan by listening to some podcasts on basic concepts, but they still felt like they were avoiding the heart of everything. This book is grounding, which is refreshing.
It requires a decent income, which prevents other demographics from getting into it (at such a high rate). Climbing gyms around me are 100 bucks a month (double what a nice lifting gym costs), and that's without rentals. Factor in shoes, harness, chalk bag, belay device and it's a big initial investment (or money going towards renting gear ever time you go).
And there's a big intersection with hippies. Might be different in other parts of the world, but in the mountains of Canada, I associate traditional rock climbing with west coast hippy/vanlife folks, who are either a-politcal weird lifestyle people who are not traditional in any sense of the word except in rock climbing, or default left wing. Those are the folks who are often foundational to climbing gyms (work there, teach there, or park their modified school-bus-turned-home outside there to climb in the off season).
Boarchariot
10mo ago
Me too. Can't stand his films or Michael Moore's, but they sure are popular and have made some impact. Most people are not very good at figuring out how seriously they should take something, but love a good show. Moore and Spurlock are quite smart in that sense, and stuff like that will get more attention than any sort of proof.
Those are all terrible situations with no good solutions. I'm sorry you had to deal with them, and I think it can be normal to respond to powerless scenarios with power fantasies. But that said, I understand why you want to avoid anti-social thinking, and I would consider two contexts.
The first is that you aren't treating these things as mere objects or obstacles. You are expressly thinking of them as enemies or antagonists, with purpose behind their actions. People don't think of how to take vengeance on a road closed for construction, they take vengeance on those who have wronged them. Working on identifying the emotions behind your thoughts and addressing them in productive ways (intense exercise, for example) can help.
In a more Kantian sense I understand how you are looking at them as obstacles, rather than people. It sounds like you get caught up in finding a solution, and that just doesn't stop when someone makes a personal decision. For example:
They claimed their expenses went up that much but I did the math on the publicly available property taxes and determined their costs did not go up anywhere near as much as they raised rent.
To me, that speaks of an intense focus and determination to find a solution well before it reaches machiavellian brainstorming. It's harder to stop a heavy and quickly moving object; the same goes for thoughts.
It's not an easy solution, but you have to find a way to let go of lines of thinking that aren't productive, and that is usually well before the self-destructive and anti-social thoughts you describe. My experience is that when you enter the realm of obsessive specification, you are losing sight of more realistic options, and certainly losing touch with the general audience of normies in the world, who are the primary people you will deal with in these situations.
Aside from learning to deal with the average person (most people don't want completely rational discussions and taking that route makes them less agreeable), one thing that has helped me is zooming out to the bigger picture. For the HR situation: do you want to work for a company that refuses you a raise when you are doing a good job? From their perspective, they were either being disingenuous about what they thought of your performance (a symptom of the larger ecosystem), or stupid (also a symptom of the larger ecosystem). Do you want to be a part of that ecosystem?
Understanding how you fit into all the systems around you will give you a better idea of where you can force your position, and where you are powerless and better off searching for another solution (lest you delve into unsavory thoughts, or frustration more generally).
In short: stop the trolley before it's at max velocity, and learn how to change tracks before it becomes more difficult.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
It wasn't meant to prove, it was made to convince.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
Can you give some examples of when people were uncooperative or irrational?
Boarchariot
10mo ago
I think the points you bring up vary by person.
I had similar thoughts when I was younger (hence why I waited until I was in my 30s). I used to specifically say that I thought natural skin was nicer than any tattoo... then I started looking at tattoos I actually liked. I have always had a lot of confidence in my own taste, probably from looking back and being quite happy in the things I surrounded myself with and created no matter how old I am or was when I made them. What if that were to change? It didn't, and I don't think it ever will: I still like what I like. While my tastes are always changing, I don't see the previous iterations of my own taste as a foreign object - sometimes they are quite refreshing.
Personally I never really felt that meaning in an image is important. The meaning is less about the image, and more about the associative memories surrounding the tattoo, so there's no drive to find the perfect image (for me), or fear that the idea will change. It's more like a personal memory for me than a statue built to commemorate something specific - but that sort of thing is not a hard line for a lot of people. The idea that an image transposed into my skin, chosen by me, could feel foreign is also a foreign idea to me at this point, but certainly not unheard of for others. In fact, I have even heard some people say that it is a useful psychological breakthrough for them to integrate a new tattoo into their perception of themself. I suppose that speaks to the vast underlying reasons people have for getting tattooed. As another commenter mentioned, it is a bit ritualistic. As you note, it's addictive in many ways.
Realistically, I think your best bet is to focus on everything but tattoos, since firm directives without any backbone will get you no where with rebellious kids, or with kids who are smart enough to think for themselves. What are the reasons someone would never even consider tattoos as an option (rather than having to weigh both sides)? Well, in short, they have hobbies, interests, friends, and investments far outside the scope of tattoos. Why do people get tattoos? To rebel, to modify, to stake a claim, to look cool, to appreciate, to remember, to cover themselves... among many other reasons. You need to consider how your kids will either not run into those problems, or will have strategies that solve those sorts of things in a satisfying way.
How can I convince my kids in 5 years that they do not need or want to have one just to fit in, and that they're too expensive and most people will regret having them for various reasons?
Do things that get them to respect your values and opinions. There is no argument you can provide that will convince them if that foundation isn't there.
I'll also give you a different perspective, since there are many people who are anti-tattoo here. If you really hate the idea of tattoos on your kids, you can consider my point of view and work against it for maximum protection. Personally, I would say your post is a great argument against bad tattoos, and making permanent decisions based on peer pressure. Hopefully your kids don't fall into either of those traps. It's important for you to instill a good sense of taste and self-assuredness in them - that may or may not mean that they end up getting into tattoo culture, but hopefully that means they avoid a saggy butterfly tramp stamp.
I only recently got into tattoos, and I am in my 30s. I had no desire in my younger years - my earliest memory of a tattoo was a no-longer-recognizable rose on my mum, which she didn't like, and I thought was weird. I recently got into tattoos because I am very familiar with my body, and I like art. Now I can get a tattoo and see cool art any time I want, and I don't miss having bare skin (I might have when I was younger). It's a similar experience to something like carrying a nice pocket knife (which I also do when I am working). I can take it out, look at it, and it brightens my day a little every time. And similar to a nice pocket knife, I expect it will last decades, and change over time. Do I expect it to look the same for decades? Definitely not, but seeing the change is part of the experience. Old tattoos have a certain charm for some people, just like grandpa's over-sharpened slipjoint.
Of course there are people who get tattoos for the image of being a gangster or individualualist (and of course there is an irony to the latter that they will never understand). The majority of tattoos, like the majority of any cultural expression, reflect bad taste (as you note with your examples). But I think that's a bad argument, because it doesn't apply to everyone, and even the people it does apply to won't think that is does. I think tattoos have become ubiquitous in part because they allow anyone to showcase their taste. Whether it's good or bad, that's irrelevant. What matters is finding people who share it or respect it, and tattoos do that well. They can be an immediate talking point, and for people who are really into tattoos, they are a hobby like any other to bond over - both the result on your skin, and the experience of getting them.
The other aspect to their popularity is that no one can take them away. You note their longevity as a negative point, but that's double-edged. Go back to the pocket knife example - they are durable, can be beautiful, and are certainly more useful than a tattoo. But they are also extremely easy to lose, and produced in large numbers (well, aside for extremely expensive customs). Tattoos fill a gap that is hard to fill in contemporary life: individualized modification, which is an external representation of change that you enact on your surroundings. Some people like modifying their cars, some people like modifying their homes, and some like working in their gardens. But the fact is that tattoos can be less expensive than any of these, and are more accessible and meaningful for many. Many younger people can't afford their own spaces, which means they can't meaningfully modify their environments to reflect their tastes - but they can modify their bodies.
So maybe get your kids into landscaping?
Aside from having some form of output (if they are prone to needing that) and building a foundation of respect for your opinion as their parent, you have to protect them from the notion that tattoos are normal. That's tough because eventually you will have no control over their social circle, and many normal people have tattoos these days. Having friends or colleagues with tattoos is the biggest impact, I would guess. I started getting tattooed because my partner has tattoos, and I wanted to have that shared experience. I think that is something different from peer pressure. It's not the idea that you should do something because others want you to do it, but the idea that you can do something because you want to and the people you respect won't judge you for it.
Good luck.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
You do you. I don't see the cost. If you want to write, write. Make it public if you want the chance for people to read it.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
You should make one if you want people to read it. They might not, but they certainly can't if it doesn’t exist. You probably shouldn’t go into it with the expectation that it will be popular, but if you’re going to write things anyway, why not?
Boarchariot
10mo ago
Glad you're feeling better. As someone who's gone through the misery of back pain, I know the dread and pessimism of a twinge. As long as you don't charge through it with youthful stupidity, they usually bounce back just fine.
Have fun with the climbing and yoga. Both are great options for limbering up (and providing a good dose of mobility humility - easy to forget with strength training).
Boarchariot
10mo ago
I was single until I was 30 and very happy.
The biggest thing that kept me sane and happy was having a career that I love. When you're single you can put as much time and effort into whatever you want, without considering other people. A career is great for that, and I was able to significantly advance mine. That was also the biggest source of socialization and local friendships for me. It really covered most of my bases outside of longterm friends I would talk to every so often.
Personally, I find the only way TV is bearable is watching it with a partner because it's basically an excuse to lie around together on the couch. I never watched TV single. You should try to find hobbies that you are interested in and provide a sense of improvement. I like weight training, but anything between ultramarathons and Warhammer 40k is good. Pick something you really want to do and go full in. You don't have to consider anyone's taste but your own.
Speaking of taste, treat yourself to going out to concerts or restaurants. Solo diners often get extra attention at higher end restaurants. Try some new wines (if you drink), taste some new foods, ask the server for recommendations and pick whatever strikes your fancy. One of the worst things about a bad relationship is having to accomodate someone else's bad taste in food or music, or anything else. Bring a book and sit at the bar if you feel weird.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
I went to Montessori school, and then a regular local public school. I don't know if it was that the Montessori style complemented my natural inclinations or formed some of them, but I was always an independent student. Also weird in a variety of ways, and I think my parents gave up on curbing my eccentricities pretty early (and my teachers were all very accepting). I would have been miserable or rebellious if that wasn't the case, I'm sure. But in terms of school and learning I was always interested and curious, and naturally did well (which is what every parent hopes for, but is entirely unhelpful as advice).
I went to the local grade school by foot every day, and came home for lunch for most of my early school years. It felt like school was just an extension of my backyard. That changed in middle school, which was reached by bus. The only extracaricular activity I was ever part of was band in middle school, and the teacher was great. Most of the teachers I had were good, and a handful were very formatice and memorable. My parents did not push any interests on me and supported my interests when they arose.
My mom went to the local high school as a kid and hated it, and it was known for being even rougher by the time I was set to go. I applied to a few different special programs in the area and ended up going to an arts program a bit further away. The extra expenses (bus transport and material fees) were paid by my parents.
It was a regular local high school for some people, and you could see the difference in investment between students who chose to be there versus the students who were local. The teachers were exceptional, but I think students wanting to be there made their jobs easy. I'm confident that I was much happier going to that school than I would have been at the local school. As you can imagine the music, theatre and art kids in highschool were a pretty open minded crowd. I never felt weird or ostracized, and I was able to focus on learning and making friends. The horror stories from other high schools (fights, bullying, drugs) weren't really an issue at mine.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
I am very against holding onto things. Personally, my job (chef) has taught me that space is as much of a resource as time or money (or charity). Cluttered spaces are unpleasant, less productive, and (as you note) really weigh on your mind. And very often, holding onto something just means throwing it out later, and losing out on the free space in the meantime.
My partner is a bit like your wife. She picked up some habits from her parents and situation growing up, and doesn’t like to waste anything. I think it's an admirable trait and something I also strive for, but there is a cost/benefit ratio that just doesn’t pay off sometimes.
I would recommend talking and seeing if she would be willing to compromise on certain things. Let her determine the things that absolutely shouldn't be thrown out, and work your way down. Maybe something like a value threshold for larger items, or a par level (>10 rags means garbage). You can look at it more globally, like considering how much you value an hour of your time in dollars. Compare that to the value of the item and how much work it takes to properly dispose of it, and you might find that stuff under $50 (or whatever amount) isn't worth the hassle.
What I found with my partner is that she feels bad getting rid of stuff that could be put to better use, but that dissipates if I want to deal with it. I would say aim to start fresh. See if she is OK with you dealing with the current pile, and you can discuss what guidelines to follow in the future. I think just starting to deal with it will help get the ball rolling.
What are the arguments that it is compromised? I don't know that I have seen a well laid argument. I have seen many piecemeal or specific cases that people bring up, but I have seen that from both sides, where evidence is cherry picked. In fact, it might be fair to say that in terms of public opinion, the justice system is pretty bad. No one is satisfied. Both sides can be correct even if they disagree on the problems (just as ADHD can be both over diagnosed and under diagnosed, to use an ACX example). I haven't seen a non-partisan (or even close to non-partisan) take, outside of Scott's recent post on prisons, which only scratches the surface of one part of the justoce system.
More options
Context Copy link