PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
It took me awhile to realize what you are saying here. For those who are as dull as me: OP falsely thinks "religion is abundant" implies "religion is a fitness improvement" but it actually implies "religion is fit." For example, religion could actually hurt its hosts, but the idea itself spreads & doesn't kill hosts too quickly.
Indeed, the phrasing, "religion is a fitness improvement" is actually confused, because I don't think it makes sense to talk about a fit organism only a fit gene. Organisms are completely irrelevant to the overall picture of things. A gene that causes an organism to reproduce way more, and also die early and feel pain, is by all accounts bad for the organism but that gene is good for itself. Maybe this is the insight that leads to hot-take phrases like "selfish gene." Can a gene be a parasite?
Back on topic, religion/ideas/memes having evolutionary considerations does not defend the accusation of arbitrary. In this case, "arbitrary" doesn't mean random, since the constructivist will agree that the norm is caused by specific historical circumstances. I think when a social constructivist calls it arbitrary, he just means he doesn't value the cause-and-effect process that generated it. Rejecting social darwinism is good actually, because evolutionary fitness etc. can be at odds with our goals.
Social constructivists often attack science and empiricism. They will say that objectivity, logic, and the like are tools that the powerful uses to oppress the weak. For you, the world we live in looks like world (1): Reason is real, some things are true and some things are false. For social constructivists, the world we live in looks like world (2): Reason and truth aren't real, but are illusions that an existing hegemony and powerful order uses to justify its power. That's why it appears so real, or appears that truth is so convincing.
Since you're all about empiricism, and supporting your beliefs with evidence, how would you distinguish the world we live in from (1) or (2), or do you just take it on faith that we live in (1)?
Most of my friend groups who were woke (we're talking pre-2015, so before woke meant what it meant now, and before Trumpism) would often denigrate "frat kids" and "the popular kids" as being "country club republicans" etc. These friend groups were very art/theatre-kid-adjacent. I think calling it "top of the pole" or "bottom of the pole" is too simplistic, but there's definitely some pole-stuff going on.
"Trans women are women" strikes me as the even-more-obviously shibboleth question. Agreed that this is generally a shibboleth test. Can a "wokeness test" not be scientific or useful or correct if it's merely a shibboleth test?
How would voter ID help? Couldn't there be a case where someone has a voter ID but their vote was still cast illegally because of <insert reason>? If government erroneously lets people vote verbally (like in real life), wouldn't they also erroneously let people vote with an ID?
The only possible reason I can think of is with voter ID, if a voter could prove they had the ID. Would a voter really be able to prove they had an ID? Why can't voters (in real life) prove they were told they could vote?
Voter ID to me, solves the problem of voters deceiving government. This case is about government deceiving voters.
I thought it was black people less likely
Fourth, black people might avoid weird nonconformist groups because they’re already on thin enough ice in terms of social acceptance. Being a black person probably already exposes you to enough stigma, without becoming a furry as well.
But, I swear someone mentioned weirdness points but Scott & the comments don't seem to.
I was reading American Renaissance's "A White Teacher Speaks Out" (ctrl + f for goth) and a teacher described that his black students all seemed basically the same to him. (This might just be "seeing the other race as all the same"). Whereas in his experience the white students might form cliques. As far as I can tell, it is mostly whites who join gender subcultures. Just like goth etc., gender might be a way for white people to feel special.
I do not mean this in the uncharitable, "a way to be on the oppression pyramid" -- I don't think it feels like that on the inside at all. It could be that whites, being "normal boring default," want to feel more special and do weird and quirky things. Whereas people who are already a little quirky, a little weird, or less normal (racial minorities, actual gay people with abnormal lifestyles) aren't inclined to join weird subcultures themselves. Scott had an essay comparing this state of affairs to weirdness points but I can't find it.
Running is a chore for me but I still do it to warm up. But weights feel really really good for me, even while I'm doing them (Maybe I'm not doing enough?). Afterwards, I feel really good and accomplished. I even feel more attractive afterwards (like, my face), my guess is a brain chemical tricking me. As another poster mentioned, I kind of enjoy DOMS, although the very first week I ever went to the gym, the soreness was a little too much.
Alternative take: the left really does defend free speech when government is the one being mean.
Yes, finding these hidden abstractions feels like "reverse engineering" to me, which in software could be broadly defined as: "determining business rules from code."
First, a note on motivations: It's possible that autist techbros make the field the way it is. But people who usually advocate this position seem like they should also like your skill-development theory, because they are probably a fan of blaming Management for exploiting workers. The reason for the discourse is IMO because the autist nerds are low-status and so should be blamed and shunned even moreso than Management.
Second, an additional theory that likewise doesn't blame nerds: software is in its infancy, and the training and techniques are not well-studied enough. Once we learn more about it, it will become legible and really become a job that an everydayman can do, like plumbing.
Third, which came to mind after writing the second: all of software is automation. Any problems that become well-studied enough to be solved well, become automated away and hidden under layers of abstraction, which is how we got to the present day. With the newfound time, programmers are expected to solve the next ladder-rung of problems. Unlike car repair or plumbing which have physical movements that robots can't do easily, and so always need a person to put in some elbow grease.
I have touched before on the idea that a [programmer] must have something they value more than "[programming]": The Art must have a purpose other than itself, or it collapses into infinite recursion.
So how is the best way to teach data structures, algorithmic complexity, single responsibility, patterns, (more things which are not programming) etc.?
Which means even places that are aggressively trying to attract more "diversity" are generally going to remain majority white and therefore will always be "too white."
Motte: It's bad that this all-white cast doesn't represent the real U.S. racial demographic
Bailey: It's bad that this all-white cast is > r% white, where r is less than the current U.S. white ratio. (i.e. it's bad that America is so white)
When people argue that some too-white institution is bad because it doesn't match local/national demographics, I suspect they are saying that because it is a convenient explanation that their audience will accept (It's not the True Rejection). I'm not sure this is done consciously or intentionally. I probably overuse this class of explanation. I really like it. It's probably not charitable.
It's concerning that your steelman suggests that people really, consciously think the bailey, because the proper and honest solution here really is a kind of Great Replacement, so that we really can realize <r% whites in all our local institutions, to avoid deeply-embedded white supremacy. Whites are a kind of invasive species, requiring population control for the good of wider society.
It seems human intuition considers diversity for the sake of diversity to be an end.
Say I thought Hitler was bad for merely murdering so many people. That doesn't account for his attempted genocide which was to wipe a population away. The fact that his attempt at genocide involved killing is rather tangential. Charitably, his implementation of killing at such scale is the reason why he's the western example of evil.
We see this in non-political contexts with the designation of endangered species. Killing authorized game for food or sport is of course OK; but killing a member of an endangered species is not OK. Because these aren't human, and of course this isn't done at scale, this isn't anything like genocide, but why even bother saving species like this? Diversity is an end to us.
The U.N. considers it genocide to destroy a people group (even in part). So someone could implement genocide without actual killing, which would involve restricting births or whatever. You're fine to consider this nowhere near as bad as Hitler's mass-murder.
But, if (and maybe you don't) one considers Hitler's genocide made mass murder worse, then implementing genocide using non-murderous means is still genocide.
I took the theory-and-math-heavy track at school because I figured it would be interesting. It's true that I learned more during an internship than in any of those courses. In programming in particular, degrees definitely are signaling and gatekeeping.
Still, I think programming is in its infancy. Whenever discussions about "is it really engineering or not" come up and the inevitable comparison to bridges and EE happens, people point out that software is bad and buggy, and lots of people don't follow "best practices."
It could be that in a hundred years or so, they will look back and laugh at how primitive we were. Maybe training catches up and programmers become everydaymen like plumbers instead of passionate autists.
Based on my anecdotal experience of people wanting to learn programming from me, the only reason a person can't code is because they aren't motivated. I know lots of people who like the idea of coding, or like the salary of it, but they don't like coding. Most good programmers I know like it. There are things I like the idea of, or like the rewards of, but I don't like the activity of it (social games/PUA), so I stay bad at them.
I think that's way more important than the choice between games or formal whatever theory.
Someone born with a gene to stab babies would be institutionalized and would have some sort of defense (like insanity) available to them, so that they would be innocent of assault or murder. This is probably how our moral and legal systems work.
But the term “Stochastic Terrorism” eliminates this problem. Someone can be ‘guilty’ of “Stochastic Terrorism” without any attacks even occurring.
This reminds me of a motte post from a couple years back about whether all instances of drunk driving should be condemned equally, regardless of any accident occurring (or not occurring). Of course, the characters in the Sarah Palin story are motivated by politics and not making the world a better place.
It sounds like you're saying: it has some amazingly funny artifacts of counter-culture that moral busybodies would find OK? Could you give some examples?
If moral busybodies find these amazingly funny artifacts of counter-culture problematic (like all the mean words), then arguments about subconscious immune systems or cultural defense mechanisms wouldn't convince moral busybodies would they? Moral busybodies want to end 4chan culture, in this branch of the hypothetical.
I don't think this is really an important difference.
Couldn't American white southerners (circa 1850) say their culture is about enslaving black people? Abolitionists wouldn't go, "huh you're right I didn't notice that. We wouldn't want to culturally genocide you, so carry on!" they just say: your culture is not worth preserving. Maybe more realistically, abolitionists would say: You can keep your southern food and your southern hospitality, but you don't need to keep slaves.
To the extent that 4chan's culture is dependent on saying mean words, why would "it's a defense mechanism!" convince anyone? Also, what exactly is "that culture" and can it be separated from saying mean words?
-
If it can be separated, then this is what a lot of people are asking for
-
It it can't be separated, then 4chan has enemies
Why wait for a wave of people to link NSFW without warning before making it a rule? If one person did it and its objectionable, isn't that enough to just make it a rule?
I suppose that "having a rule for NSFW warnings in the sidebar" contributes to a mood or culture that TheMotte doesn't want (i.e. is a bad look), which is why it seems your ideal world is where no such rule is listed on the sidebar, but also people somehow know not to post NSFW content without warning.
Is this falsifiable? How would you check for so-called "perceived ability"? Ask them how many fights they've been in?
What does it mean for them to succeed? People say that a lot of the draw of twitter is that it lets the common person talk with celebrities. If enough of a coordinated media effort happened like, the kayfabe will definitely look as if Buzz Buzz won, and there will be a bunch of the usual suspects declaring victory over racism.
Even if Buzzbuzz amassed only one-tenth the users of twitter (in real people, not bots), who's won? Keep in mind that knowing the true statistics and trying to publish them would probably be hatefacts. How would normies learn the user statistics? There are a lot of people who think /r/The_Donald's subscriber and active user counts were throttled and generally subreddit population numbers were astroturfed back then. These people also anticipate that Buzzbuzz's user counts would be inflated.
In short, wouldn't a world where barely anyone migrated to BuzzBuzz look very similar to a world where most people did?
Maybe I'm just a cynical biased culture warrior, but Elon's acquisition doesn't seem like it changes any culture- or Truth- producing institutions, so does it really matter which social media sites have more active users?
Do people really trot (2) out to refute (1) in the racism example? I would expect many people to refute (1) by just saying, "that is racist" and not really even talk about disparate impact or business hiring practices.
More options
Context Copy link