@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

Are you saying that the universe could have been different (it could have had 3 fewer stars), therefore it needs an explanation for why it is the way it is, and why it isn't another way? If this is not what you're saying, than I admit I cannot follow what you write.

In this post you discuss God's nature.

The changeless thing's nature is entirely, wholly, and simply to act, to bring into existence.

Why does God's nature (to act and bring into existence) not require explanation? Couldn't its nature have been different?

I am struggling to see what value or benefit the concept of God is giving: I will admit, my general strategy is to show the universe has God-like properties, or equivalently, that God has universe-like properties.

That there are real relationships within the universe itself, without which it would be something substantively different, indicates that this is not the answer.

I don't understand this. What's an example of a real relationship that makes the universe substantially different? How does this indicate that "time and causality are not relationships within the universe"?

The analogy is between the universe and the film. The film isn't playing, because there's nothing to play it on. Verbs refer to actions within the movie and time refers to the movie's runtime. Are you implying that because movies are filmed in our world, it must mean the universe was created?

What if the universe just is, a timeless unchanging thing (unchanging from outside) and time and causality describe relationships within it and it's parts? As an analogy, a filmmaker shoots a reel and the reel itself is unchanging, but within it still seems to move.

To me, this has the advantage of only talking about observable things, and doesn't have the first cause problem. Am I making some elementary error?

But to the trans-ness being invisible. The platonic ideal of a trans man is someone who everyone looks at and says "yes, that is a man, I have no doubt in my mind", and then never thinks twice about. The "trans" part, ideally, vanishes

Could you elaborate on if the trans-ness going away is kind of like a mental category thing, where onlookers know they are trans but it is as unremarkable as knowing someone's blood type; or if trans-ness going away refers to empirical predictions, where onlookers can't tell if they are trans?

Defining sex and gender as separate implies that someone can be obviously male and obviously a woman, I think. And there is not a woke consensus that trans people should pass as cis gender.

As for your trans allegory, what about the Matrix, or plastic surgery, or dyeing ones hair? Are these too mundane to be trans allegories?

We used to have a space for that (Bare Link Repository) and that experiment ended specifically because it didn't fit the community's goals.

I dont think people who bring up, "women are valuable" are doing it prescriptively, they are just explaining why human intuitions and memes value women.

Anyone who conceives of Hell as a concept, as opposed to an actual thing, is already atheist right?

[Hell] is an attempt to control other people. If these people, who always say I should trust them, already want to control me, they'd probably be willing to lie to me. Once I saw that, the lie was plain.

So to be clear, the people being deterred can't know they're being deterred, right?

2rafa is arguing consequentialism here, that anti-AA advocates are firmly aware of the consequences of their actions. This is indeed the bar because the context is that Diversity is anti-white in consequences.

If pro-AA advocates can play the intent and goal card, then the policy goal of Diversity is to stop artificial racist distortion of the market, which is what results in underperforming minorities.

Are both of these inferences unfair, or only one?

This reminds me of the old athiest argument of, "you are a [Christian]/[Muslim]/[Bhuddist] primarily because of where or to whom you were born." I would suspect however, that most religious people are not convinced by this line of argument because they are, to use your verbiage, "real [Christians]." A "[Christian] by default" is someone who just hasn't encountered that argument, and upon realizing he is just conforming, would immediately renounce his religion.

The few Christians I've discussed this kind of reasoning with, have all asserted that even in alternate realities, they would have come to follow Christ anyways. This was enough to convince me that they were "real," and satisfied my curiosity.

I used to not like water until I realized I liked the feeling of crunching ice. Ideally you wait until it's slightly melted so it's not as hard on your teeth. Putting some water in it helps the ice melt of course. Eventually I just got used to drinking water.

The original poster compared a non-targeted harm (medical transitioning) to a targeted harm (sterilizing "the jews"), and I was pointing out a possible misanalogy. When I used the word "genocide" I was, by definition, referring to ethnically targeted cleansing.

People who believe in genocide necessarily think its worse than murder, or else they would just call it murder, and Hitler's crime would have just been murdering 6 million people. Instead, believers in genocide think the ethnically targeted component makes it worse than just murder. Because murdering members of protected classes is worse than just murder (See also: hate crimes).

Of course, for anyone who doesn't believe in genocide, they still probably think Hitler is a bad guy for the whole mass murder thing.

People who are against genocide aren't against it because they think murder or sterilization is wrong, they're against it because it targets a specific group or genetic line.

I tried googling keywords involving "mankind" and "woman" and "gender neutral" to see what people were saying about this. Surely any argument from words or morphemes that mankind is exclusionary also applies to woman? One link that caught my eye

They prefer "humanity" or "humankind"

Really crystalizes a conflict theory point here to me: this isn't about getting rid of the man morpheme. But somehow adding extra syllables to take the focus off man makes it better? Really feels to me like this is about breaking people down, and not building them up. To the extent that people argue that this builds up inclusion and good-vibes for women, it just goes to show that it's all zero-sum IMO.

Would your opinion change if one used the terms, 'participating in an orgy' instead?

Cars were at one point patented though right? Which is also IP law? So it seems to me that it is a spectrum of similarity. So a portion of a car's value is in its IP, but maybe most of it is physical assets.

If the physical assets became effectively free and the main cost of production was people doing design work, I would indeed regard people ripping off the design ideas of others without paying them whatever trivial compensation could be commanded for the features as stealing IP

What did you mean by "becomes"? It sounds like you're saying:

  • Since cars have so much physical value, I can build my own car and don't have to pay for the IP.

  • Since media has no physical value, I need to pay for the IP.

What if the physical assets of a car become cheap? If I can build a car at no cost to myself (or copy) now I have to pay for the IP? What? That makes no sense to me.

My guess is we want to give lots of status and respect to people who invent things (like cars) and if people can cheaply build their own (or copy) we intuitively see this as a breach of fairness, and so we come up with IP.

As others have said, vaping is a gateway drug. Which is to say, it has drug vibes, or is a drug-thing to do. So naturally most parents want to keep their children and teens away from that as much as possible. Arguments from cost, smell, or health issues seem like rationalizations to me.

The most queer-friendly people I know will call anyone our age a "beautiful person." It is so jarring to me that it distracts me. But, it lets me know -- without looking -- that the subject is a cute emo girl. (The phrasing is so awkward to me because I've been exposed to so much CW preaching about how to talk: "beautiful" is preferred over "cute" "hot" "sexy" etc. to avoid objectifying women and of course "person" is preferred to avoid assuming gender).

Imagine my shock (not really) when they call the average middle aged lady at Walmart a she without any issue.

It seems parsimoniously explainable if pronouns & gender is a game of people-pleasing. This fits your first definition of passing involving signaling.

With that in mind, when I see an obviously-transgender person, the signaling theory of pronouns & passing dictates that this person obviously wants to be called she. In this sense, the obviously-male transgender woman passes as a woman, evident by her dress and makeup.

I wrote a post about this awhile back, but I didnt feel that many people grokked it. It seems everyone uses the phrase "pass [as a woman]", but based on how its used in context, it's more accurate to call it "pass [as cisgender]"

To avoid trying to draw conclusions from hypotheticals, do you have any examples of

people complain[ing] that the male had it's own superior "exceptional" category and the female was simply generic?

If so, it would show that hand-wringing over masculine-default terms is who/whom / motivated complaining / isolated demand for rigor.

How can you try to figure out if your filter bubble has played a trick on you? It sounds what you're describing (I think this too) is that institutions control the kinds of common knowledge that can be formed. This is independent of the fact that most young people prefer quality over activism.

Maybe I'm just trying to flatter my worldview by saying, "the institutions are oppressing me, but also they're wrong and stupid!!1!"

Diablo II

Went and googled this because "Diablo" makes me think "relatively recently" but I did not know Diablo II was older than WoW! I figured RNG loot mechanics have been in roleplaying games forever, not even that WoW created it. Or is there a qualitative difference between gambling money and gambling time?

For extra clarity, couldn't you just curate & edit the output of ChatGPT and replace "the author" with "I" and fix the resulting grammatical errors? If your goal is to translate your thoughts into the tone expected in this place, then using tools to help you sounds like a great idea! If your goal is to own the sensitive readers here, I think that counts as waging the culture war, right?

long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence

While tiki torches don't have a long history at all of being associated with the altright, I am pretty sure Charlottesville started that association. I've met people in real life mention tiki torches as if they automatically imply someone is altright, and have heard someone say, "now I can't use tiki torches anymore."

If tiki torches are a shibboleth for the outgroup, and the law is just a tool to beat them, then who's to say the tiki torch doesn't have a long pernicious history of a signal for violence? Was there any principle behind the "cross burning has a long history" here? Wasn't it just, "cross-burning is a low-status racist thing, so sure let's punish them."

Some of the new Disney canon is hinting at Thrawn being a major antagonist for the upcoming Ashoka show. In Star Wars Rebels cartoon show, Thrawn is a major antagonist. Wouldn't that mean royalties for Zahn?

I enjoyed reading stimulated SSC subs a year ago or so but I found it was banned. It was random too since a ton of other stimulated subs weren't banned so it wasn't a botting tos thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Did it temporarily get the axe until reddit admins learned the hot takes were AI (not that I would expect them to care)

One of tinder's (the dating app) newer features is the ability to add predefined interests to your profile. These range from various outdoor activities, hobbies, leftwing political causes, or just other random things like sushi.

One of the interests is "mindfulness" which really confused me. I figured it had to mean more than just "thinking a lot" because that is way too cringe to be one of the options. Eventually I figured it must be something spirituality related just because that kind of stuff is also well-represented in the choice of interest options.

When did "mindfulness" become a shibboleth?