site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   2330 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 7, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More fun with BingGPT:

Me: Both Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis understood the fine distinction between self-purpose and greed, and saw selflessness as nihilism. Arguing from the perspective of a fan of both, can you give recommend other authors and give reasons why?

Bing: I’m glad you are a fan of both Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis, two influential authors who explored philosophical themes in their works. However, I’m not sure if they understood the fine distinction between self-purpose and greed, and saw selflessness as nihilism, in the same way. In fact, Ayn Rand was not a fan of C.S. Lewis and criticized his book The Abolition of Man.

Me: Why do you think they had different views on self-purpose and greed?

Bing: That’s a good question. I think they had different views on self-purpose and greed because they had different philosophical foundations and different views on the role of emotions in cognition. [Encyclopedic summary of Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis.] As you can see, Rand and Lewis had very different views on metaphysics (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge), ethics (the nature of morality), politics (the nature of society), and aesthetics (the nature of art). They also disagreed on the role of emotions in cognition. Rand denied that emotions could be tools of cognition; she argued that emotions are not facts and do not tell us anything about reality. She said that emotions are automatic responses to our value judgments, and that we need reason to evaluate our emotions and act accordingly. Lewis, on the other hand, insisted that emotions could be legitimate guides; he argued that emotions are not irrational impulses but natural reactions to objective values. He said that emotions can reveal truths about ourselves, others, and God, and that we need both reason and emotion to live fully human lives. I hope this helps you understand why they had different views on self-purpose and greed.

Me: I think they had more common ground than most people think. They both stood against totalitarianism, seeing it as the inevitable outgrowth of collectivism winning a nation's philosophy. They both appreciated Man standing tall and being all he can be: Rand seeing humanity as the pinnacle of the natural world, Lewis seeing forgiven Man as the pinnacle of the created world. They both knew that logic with integrity meant insisting on the truth even where unpopular, unpleasant, and likely to be punished. They both are misread by their ideological foes through motivated reasoning and bad faith reading, as both tend to ignite either adoration or hatred.

Bing: That’s an interesting perspective. I can see how you might find some common ground between them on those points. However, I think they would still disagree on some fundamental issues, such as the existence and nature of God, the source and standard of morality, the role and limits of government, and the meaning and purpose of life. Do you think these differences are more important than the similarities you mentioned?

Me: I think these differences are important and worth exploring. However, it is the well-trod ground of atheism versus mysticism and Christianity versus purposeless materialism. I'd rather focus on finding points to agree upon than retreading old arguments with no resolution.

Bing: I understand your preference. I think it is good to seek common ground and avoid unnecessary conflicts. However, I also think it is important to acknowledge and respect the differences and not pretend that they don’t matter. I think both Rand and Lewis would agree that truth is important and that one should not compromise one’s convictions for the sake of harmony. Do you agree?

Me: Absolutely; compromising one's logically sound convictions leads to the kind of dithering which both Rand and Lewis stood firmly against. I'm arguing that, for the moment, Rand and Lewis should agree on what their differences are, but set them to the side and focus instead on their common enemy, the parasitic self-abnegating "men without chests" who prefer sophistry to logic.

Bing: I see. You are suggesting that Rand and Lewis should form a temporary alliance against the irrational and immoral forces that threaten their values. That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder how feasible it is. How would they cooperate and communicate with each other, given their deep philosophical differences? How would they resolve any conflicts or disagreements that might arise? How would they balance their common interests and their individual interests?

Me: They would have to agree freely to hold their disagreements, rallying their fans and fellow thinkers to argue primarily against the nihilistic collectivists. Lewis once said, "If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, 'Unselfishness.' But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, 'Love.' You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point." Rand once said, "Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind." Both understood the fine distinction between the long-term self-interest of fulfillment-seeking and short-term selfishness of stimulation-seeking, though neither put it in my terms here.

Bing: That’s an interesting comparison. You are suggesting that both Rand and Lewis rejected the idea of unselfishness as a virtue, and that they had a similar understanding of what love means. However, I think they still had different views on the source and nature of love. Rand saw love as a response to one’s own values and a reward for one’s own virtues. She said that love is “the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.” Lewis saw love as a gift from God and a reflection of God’s love. He said that love is “a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people.” How do you reconcile these different views on love?

Me: I reconcile them by recognizing will as the expression of one's values. Us humans seek out that which we love, that which we understand, and that which we can control. We work toward our goals, seeing their achievement as our purpose. For Rand, who believed her world was without a God, that meant building a future for humanity through capitalism and free markets. For Lewis, who believed that death was the beginning of an eternal life separate from all loss, that meant bringing every human to a reconciliation with a loving higher power.

Bing: I see. You are suggesting that will is the common factor between Rand and Lewis, and that they both used their will to pursue their goals and express their values. However, I think they still had different views on the nature and origin of will. Rand saw will as a function of one’s consciousness and reason. She said that will is “the faculty that directs one’s focus of awareness and controls the mental processes set in motion by one’s basic choice: to think or not.” Lewis saw will as a gift from God and a reflection of God’s image. He said that will is “the power of either choosing or refusing the good; the power of following or resisting the Moral Law.” How do you reconcile these different views on will?

Me: Lewis' perspective here on will is primarily reflective, focusing on how the world presents options to people, leading them to where they must make a choice. Rand's perspective here on will is primarily agentic, focusing on where will goes out of a person into the world in the form of a choice. They're focusing on different parts of the OODA loop, Lewis on Observe - Orient, and Rand on Decide - Act.

Bing: That’s an interesting way of looking at it. You are suggesting that Lewis and Rand had different emphases on the process of will, but not necessarily different views on the nature of will. However, I think they still had different views on the origin and purpose of will. Rand saw will as a natural and inherent attribute of human beings, and as a means to achieve one’s own happiness. Lewis saw will as a supernatural and bestowed gift from God, and as a means to glorify God and serve others. How do you reconcile these different views on will?

Me: I reconcile them by recognizing that both are seeking the fulfillment and glorification of the highest form of life in their ontological worlds. For Rand, the highest form of life is Man, and for Lewis, the highest form of life is God. However, this is the main difference we set aside earlier so that Lewis and Rand wouldn't argue fruitlessly, and we have reached the point where their paths' parallels now split. For Rand, helping others is a byproduct of self-interest in a lassaiz-faire free-market economy, while for Lewis, seeking to help others necessitates participation in a lassaiz-faire free-market economy as the antithesis of a totalitarian society. They end up seeking the same sort of society in general, where Christians can focus on helping others effectively without central planning taking all the resources, and atheists can focus on building great things without being encumbered by small minds and obligations to fruitlessly fund nonfunctional policies.

Bing: I see. You are suggesting that Rand and Lewis had a common goal of creating a free and prosperous society, but for different reasons and with different motivations. You are also suggesting that this is the point where their philosophical differences become irreconcilable, and that they should agree to disagree on the ultimate questions of life. I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I wonder if Rand and Lewis would be satisfied with it. Do you think they would be willing to set aside their differences and work together for a common cause? Or do you think they would insist on defending their views and challenging each other's views?

Me: I think that once they recognize their common cause of a free and prosperous society in which both of their goals can be met without having to resolve the ultimate questions of life, they can work toward their common cause while civilly challenging each other's views through letters and articles. Thank you for this delightful discussion! I feel we, like my hypothetical civil Rand and Lewis, have come to a good understanding together of what can be resolved in harmony.

Bing: You're very welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I think you have a very thoughtful and respectful approach to exploring different views and finding common ground. I appreciate your insights and questions. Thank you for chatting with me. Have a wonderful day! 😊

Post-mortem:

That was grueling! At first I had a hard time persuading Bing there was even any common ground. This was a true test of my wit, my skills, and my reliance on the same higher power who Lewis believed in.

I think the most interesting point Bing brought up, a core concept which I didn't even touch on, was this:

"They also disagreed on the role of emotions in cognition. Rand denied that emotions could be tools of cognition; she argued that emotions are not facts and do not tell us anything about reality. She said that emotions are automatic responses to our value judgments, and that we need reason to evaluate our emotions and act accordingly. Lewis, on the other hand, insisted that emotions could be legitimate guides; he argued that emotions are not irrational impulses but natural reactions to objective values. He said that emotions can reveal truths about ourselves, others, and God, and that we need both reason and emotion to live fully human lives."

A legitimate reading of both authors' works! While Rand would have called Lewis a mystic, and rightly so, it's within his ontology to consider the conscience an echo of the Holy Spirit. Both agree, however, that emotions are not solely irrational impulses, but reactions to whatever it is in our heads which considers value. My own perspective, as the Triessentialist, is that emotions come from a variety of sources, and it's up to us to crop out those which are debased, fouled, spiteful, useless, etc. Once we do, our wills will be freer to pursue the purposes we put ourselves to.

Has anyone here looked at the GPT sub simulators recently?

https://old.reddit.com/r/SubSimulatorGPT2/comments/zqjjhp/how_to_make_me_less_racist_the_atlantic/

The sub simulator for the SSC sub is a terrible joy to behold. It has all the flavor of the sub’s hot takes. Once, due to its verbosity, it took me a few pagedowns to realize I had clicked onto a simulated thread instead of a thread from the real sub.

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)

I remember a time only “our” bot was banned, and I bet it was over something “racist” or just racist.

I need a weight bench that folds flat. Not just flat, really flat. The only place where I can store one in the apartment is under the bed, and the gap is just 13 cm tall. I guess I could DIY one, a flat one at least, I just need a good idea for the folding legs.

Could you not buy some bed risers to lift your bed higher?

Why would I do that? The bed height is right.

13 cm is quite tiny. Just the bench portion (excluding any legs) would be pushing 10. If you go DIY route I think it would be easier to make a detachable bench rather than foldable.

Sometimes DIY is easier if you just breakdown an existing product to fit your needs. If you start with something like this Amazon Basics Bench (I've had mine for a few years and it's surprisingly sturdy), you'd just need to cut the legs off and devise a new attachment mechanism.

I have been getting instagram ads for a flat folding cable machine + bench arrangement. Something like a peloton for weight lifting.

Don't remember the name, but that might work for you.

I would not recommend DIYing equipment meant to hold a heavy load. Not when you're going to be between that load and the ground.

It's for doing stuff with dumbbells, I wouldn't bench press a barbell without a rack with safety rails or a spotter.

That’s better, but I was thinking more in terms of structural failure.

I am having an amazing conversation with Bing/ChatGPT4 about Rand, Nietzsche, and Montessori. Here’s a sample:

I agree that willpower is important, but I don't think it is enough to overcome all the obstacles and injustices that some people face. Willpower is not a magic wand that can erase the effects of poverty, racism, sexism, or violence. Sometimes, people need more than their own will to succeed; they need support, guidance, and solidarity from others. They also need a society that recognizes and respects their dignity and rights as human beings. Do you think that willpower alone can create such a society?

I also agree that Montessori was innovative and progressive in her approach to education. She did not follow the traditional models of schooling that were based on rigid curriculum, authoritarian discipline, or standardized testing. She created an environment where children could explore their interests, develop their skills, and express their creativity. She also respected the individuality and diversity of each child, and encouraged them to cooperate and learn from each other. However, I don't think that Montessori's education was only about fostering willpower. She also emphasized the importance of developing moral sensibility, social responsibility, and global citizenship. She wanted her students to become not only independent thinkers and doers, but also compassionate and ethical human beings. How do you balance these different aspects of education?

EDIT: The conversation ran out of steam pretty quickly once it flatly rejected my assertion that Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis could have been fantastic collaborators if she’d been able to see past her knee-jerk disgust of religion and religionists. Now I see BingGPT’s Eliza-like trick of stating what it currently believes and then asking a consensus-building question.

I thought for a moment it was Rand-Al-Thor from the Wheel of Time and was intrigued. It'd be interesting if GPT-4 could nail a mildly schizophrenic, semi-insane farmboy-cum-Godking with a heart of gold and a harem. Maybe that'll be my next prompt.

My GPT-4 is writing its own (admittedly somewhat generic) fantasy short story now, alternating between perspectives as I command. I should probably give it more guidance and tell it to be more original. The story just grew out of nothing, I was trying to get it to replicate the feel of a text but it can just extend these things out! If I ask for puns, it gives me puns. If I ask for a style, it gives me a style. It's a very novel experience.

Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis could have been fantastic collaborators

Admittedly I know much less about Ayn Rand than about C.S. Lewis, but given what I do know I'm having a hard time seeing this. I'd be quite interested to hear your reasoning.

Certainly.

  1. They both stood against totalitarianism, seeing it as the inevitable outgrowth of collectivism winning a nation's philosophy.

  2. They both appreciated Man standing tall and being all he can be, similar to Yudkowsky's Quirrell and HJPEV; Rand seeing humanity as the pinnacle of the natural world, Lewis seeing forgiven Man as the pinnacle of the created world.

  3. They both knew that logic with integrity meant insisting on the truth even where unpopular, unpleasant, and likely to be punished.

  4. They both are misread by their ideological foes through motivated reasoning and bad faith reading, as both tend to ignite either adoration or hatred.

  5. They both understood the fine distinction between self-purpose and greed, and saw selflessness as nihilism.

Consider this Lewis quote:

If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive… The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love…

This is practically echoed word for word by Rand:

Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind.

(Kudos to Jacob Brunton's Medium post for picking out this parallel.)

Lewis fan Rob Stroud compares and contrasts the two authors in a blogpost called "C.S. Lewis Shrugged," but unfortunately misses Brunton's nuance and calls Jesus' philosophy "altruism". Meanwhile, Rand herself said "Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate."

But of course, she immediately misses the point:

Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used."

She doesn't see that, like Wyatt's burning of his own oilfields at Galt's urging, Jesus is declaring a general strike against sin - the wasting of potential and ruining of the good in the pursuit of pleasure and the nihilism of suffering - and telling all to follow Him to a better place.

Here's an article on Rand's actual reaction to Lewis - including the list of her writings in the margins of her copy of Lewis' Abolition of Man. Ironically it was the work she could have conversed with him on most if she weren't busy writing ranting vitriol in longhand. She too found her greatest foes among Lewis' "men without chests," the people who believe nothing as a way out of being held to account for what they believe, and she couldn't see an ally because he believed himself in a different sort of reality than her. The ol' ontology-as-ideology trap.

Here's a blogpost of a Christian picking what parts of Rand's thoughts to keep and which to toss, and some excerpts along the lines of my point from about 2/3 down the page:

In spite of herself, Ayn would find herself in agreement with Lewis’ on several points if she were to just approach his arguments calmly and rationally. Ayn writes that, “Joy is the goal of existence, and joy is not to be stumbled upon, but to be achieved, and the act of treason is to let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment’s torture.” and Lewis would agree. He would argue however that joy finds it’s culmination in the spiritual reality which she rejects.

SF author Brad Linaweaver (RIP) puts it best in this afterword to The Rainbow Cadenza, the Libertarian counterpart to A Handmaid's Tale in which followers of Rand and Lewis both stand against a federal prostitution draft for women by a totalitarian libertarian government:

Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis were honest individualists in a despicable period of rampant collectivism. The Rainbow Cadenza tells us, and shows us, that if there is any hope left in the future, these two will have helped provide it.

EDIT: I've got a new conversation going with BingGPT, I'll post it separately.

I don't understand the economics behind UFC fights. Why would anyone pay money for a PPV? The matches are very short, way shorter than for other sports. Short enough to embedded in a gif or other media and share on twitter/youtube/facebook, without having to worry about it being taken down or bandwidth issues. You cannot do that with a basketball game. There is tons of filler for what is otherwise minutes of fighting.

Why would anyone pay money for a PPV?

As a fan myself: I'd bet most people don't pay (full price) on their own.

They go to some licensed bar with friends and watch it while eating chicken wings. Or they pool their money at home.

Also: they don't have to do this often (a few times a year for fights they like) so the price might not be that out of whack with what people pay to watch football on cable. If you're a "Conor McGregor fan" you'd be lucky to see him fight three times a year, compared to 38 games for Manchester United in the Premier League alone (iirc we're now around 60 total games a season for a soccer team).

Short enough to embedded in a gif

If it's a KO. But a full fight can range from 15-25 minutes which is significant (consider that like 30% of football's 90 minute run time is dead time too). Full fights are much more likely to get hit with strikes.

You can also provide a football goal as a GIF but fans still want to see the whole thing.

If you care about getting it as fast as possible in good quality too you might pay. Eventually someone will put the whole fight up online but not before it's spoiled for you.

Weaker guess: The parasocial relationship is easier to attach to the individual fighter/is stronger than the organizational team. The individual fighter has a sole ethnicity and nationality, which makes tribal rallying easier.

Stronger guess: For a variety of reasons (not saying they are good, carefully thought reasons) casual and addicted gamblers are more confidant in individual fighters to not throw matches or prearrange results or be screwed by officiating- the PPV cost is insignificant compared to the cash they have bet, legally or illegally.

I finished my wife's birthday present. It's a desk chair

She has this desk she treasured that her father rescued from a dump and refinished. The problem is, no chair we own or have found fits under it. It has something like a 15-1/2" wide opening. To further complicate matters, it has this obnoxious wooden crossbeam adding some rigidity not in the back of the desk, but right in the fucking middle! So any hypothetical chair less than 15-1/2" wide would have it's front legs bang against that and not go more than maybe 8-10" under the desk.

Ok, just leave the chair out from under the desk, who gives a shit? Well, my wife refuses to do that. She has a bit of a thing about stuff taking up space. So currently there is no chair to go with that desk, and she either kneels in front of it to use her computer for a hot minute, or is constantly moving her laptop to sit in bed with it. She hates that she doesn't have any sort of functional work surface.

Well, last time I went to the lumber large, they had some reject planks of 6/4 red oak with some pretty gnarly cups and knots in them. But they were $3 each and I figured I could work around them. Then I had the idea of using them as the basis for a chair. Then specifically, a chair to solve this problem my wife has.

The afformentionted constraints in mind, I designed the chair. It's a hair less than 15" wide, so it's a little bit of a tight fit getting it under the desk, but any skinnier and you start to feel your ass cheeks falling off one side or the other. The front legs actually extend at a 30 degree angle from the back legs, circumventing that annoying ass plank in the middle of the desk. They are half-lap joints, further secured with 2, 1/2" oak dowels each. The seat supports are attached to the back with mortise and tenons. Theoretically these mortise and tenons should each support about 200 lbs, or so I'd read. However, I further supported them with some light supports joining them to the "front" legs. The seat is attached with some dowels in the back, and some panhead screws in the front that should allow the wood to move seasonally without splitting.

I uh, could have thought a bit more about how that would get assembled. There were so many angles involved, I wound up having to wiggle all 4 pieces, the back, front leg, seat support, and extra support piece all at once, slowly wiggling each joint closer together around and around. Glue got everywhere. It caused massive problems with the stain later, despite how much I tried to clean it up and sand it off.

In theory my wife doesn't know what I'm making, although I'm pretty sure she's playing dumb for my benefit. I told her it was going in the bedroom, and to pick out a stain. She picked dark walnut. So on that went. I thought it would be fun to involve my daughter, and to protect her from the fumes I set it all up outside with ample fresh air. This was a mistake. The sun dried the stain way too fast, and I had to aggressively remove the residue with some mineral spirits later. My daughter had fun though. Still, it was hella splotchy in a lot of areas where the glue got everywhere. Thankfully mostly under the chair, but in a few exposed areas as well.

Most frustrating was when the glue travelled through the wood, from a mortis, out the end gain. I don't even know what I could have done about that. I can't sand it off because it's coming from inside the wood.

I'm leaning towards staining and finishing my next project before assembling it next time, to completely avoid all these issues. Probably trading them off for different issues, but we'll see.

In retrospect, I could also have been more diligent about taping off joints so that the squeeze out doesn't get on the wood. I thought I had read you can easily clean up glue with a damp cloth, but apparently it's the exact opposite. A damp clothe just dilutes the glue and pushes it deeper into the grain. You are supposed to wait, remove the partially dried glue with a scraper of some sort, and then sand to remove any remainder. I imagine I will be struggling with this for a long time.

The stain being done, I put on a coat of shellac. Then I sanded it back down with some 320 grit sandpaper to knock down any raised grain. I was a little concerned at first, because it really left a cloudy, scratchy looking surface. But after that, I applied 2 more coats of shellac and it looked perfect once again. Then I hit it with some 0000 steel wool to smooth out any brush strokes, once again leaving some very light cloudiness to the finish. Lastly, using the same steel wool I worked in some furniture wax to bring the super glossy appearance of the shellac to a more subtle satin finish, and completely removing the previous marks. Buffed it with a clean cotton cloth to finish it.

I fucking love it.

Her birthday is on Tuesday, and it's been about 2 weeks designing, milling, cutting, assembling, staining and finishing it. Fingers crossed.

Nice work!

My dad taught me to remove excess wood glue using a little scoop thing. The name of which escapes me. Googling it seems some people using a drinking straw with a notch cut out (which is the same basic shape of that tool) to scoop up excess glue without pushing it into the grain or waiting for it to dry and dealing with removal then.

Not sure if that is any use for future projects!

So I have seen that trick. And it works for when there is light to even moderate squeeze out on some touch inside corners. Gets like, 95% of the glue, resulting in just the faintest lightness around a glue joint. It's not altogether an unattractive look.

However on this project I made a huge mess with those 4 way glue ups. The straw trick was utterly inadequate.

That's a huge huge-ass workshop you've got there. And the chair is nice. Have you tried standing on it to test it?

Thanks. When we bought this property, all the husbands who came over for housewarming were jealous of it. The wives considered it wasted space, being detached from the house and not climate controlled.

I haven't tried standing on it yet. Not a bad idea.

tl;dr: How to find a writing group?

I've recently repicked up writing*. This time around I'm trying a more structured approach and doing more research on the art of writing. The one piece of advice that seems the most useful is about the utility of being part of a writing group. It seems to be an obviously useful strategy in terms of: feedback , idea brainstorming, motivation, & networking. I'm convinced I should join one, but where should I begin?

A local group would be nice to allow for face to face gatherings. Alternatively, maybe optimizing for genre over geography would be wise. But that's putting the cart before the horse - I have no idea on where to begin. I also wouldn't be opposed to starting my own group and putting in the effort there if I thought there was demand for it (here or elsewhere).

For those of you have joined a writing group (or deliberately chosen not to), how did you find your group? Was it the advertised panacea?

*Trying to thread the needle between progression and epic fantasy. I am willing to admit I enjoy the inherently pulpy progression fantasy, but just about every series is embarrassingly bad. And it really doesn't have to be. If there was ever a time to do it is now; I suspect there are only a few years left before the LLMs advance enough that they can write a high quality novel tailor made to every taste.

There’s always /r/rational (which has devolved into mostly progression fantasy due to the popularity). It was the second place I joined on Reddit after /r/HPMOR.

I've gotta say I was not expecting that content from a sub named "rational."

Most posts seem to be everyone shilling their own fanfic quality writings. I'm sure there's some good stuff there, but I'm not sure how much of the "devolved" content I'd be willing to wade through.

2016 really wrecked that place, and 2020 finished the job.

I’m game for a writing group too! Mainly interested in motte style pieces or fantasy short stories/books.

Noted. At this point, I'm leaning towards trying to find an existing group. If I spend a few weeks looking and end up disappointed I'll report back and set something up. I tend to not like to half ass things so if I do decide to do my own I'll be signing myself up for a decent load of work.

If you start a writing group and are willing to accept randos, I'd be game. I need something to get me to plant my buttocks between the keyboard and the chair and not get distracted by 18 tabs.

I think I'm going to spend a few weeks looking around and maybe trying out a group or two first. If I end up (20% chance) deciding to make my own I'll reach out!

What genre are you planning on writing?

I have some experience with this. Writing groups can be very hit or miss. It's a lot like finding a good gaming group, but it's more personal because you're actually critiquing each other. In some ways, it's like dating. You will encounter a bunch of people who just don't work out for you before you finally find a group you vibe with.

I would personally recommend online groups focusing on your genre over a local group, unless you really find it valuable to have that face-to-face interaction. My experience is that aspiring romance writers aren't very helpful in critiquing aspiring SF authors, and vice versa.

You will find the quality of critiques you get is as wildly varying as the quality of the writers. You will encounter all the predictable archetypes: the snowflake who thinks you're being mean and bullying when you point out plot holes. The genius who's writing the next Great American Novel and if you don't appreciate it it's because you just don't get it. The hapless grandma who's very nice but can't write for shit. The person working out all their trauma and grinding political axes through their writing, etc.

And don't forget that being a good critique partner means that if you want quality feedback, you have to be willing to read their manuscripts and give quality feedback (even when they absolutely suck).

My best experience was joining a larger online group, paying attention to who was actually a decent writer and gave decent critiques, and then contacting them to form a small private group of our own.

First off, big thanks! Your advice is high-quality.

It's a lot like finding a good gaming group, but it's more personal because you're actually critiquing each other. In some ways, it's like dating.

Alas, my gaming groups have always been IRL friends so I've never had that experience. The dating analogy is a fun one. If there was a Hinge for writing groups I'd be all about it. Set some filters, screen out matches with some bants, and meet up - sounds like the dream.

I would personally recommend online groups focusing on your genre over a local group, unless you really find it valuable to have that face-to-face interaction.

I definitely agree that at least general genre matching seems like a must, but do you think it would be worth the effort to try local? I live in a major US city so, at least in theory, it should be possible to have both. I imagine that having face to face interactions could reduce a lot of the issues around dedication. Sanderson advocated pretty heavily for in person > online and while he's not my favorite author, the man gets shit done. As someone who has no experience with either medium (outside of a classroom setting) I don't have an informed preference.

My best experience was joining a larger online group, paying attention to who was actually a decent writer and gave decent critiques, and then contacting them to form a small private group of our own.

This seems like a winning move. Almost the only move upon reflection. I'd imagine the typical gatekeeping dynamic is in play: any group that is open to outsiders is likely going to suffer the weaknesses of that openness. I imagine that joining a group with the intent to defect is probably a point in favor of online groups? Would be much trickier and ruder to splinter an in person group without hard feelings.

So what's everyone watching? I started Banshee this week. Pretty sure it's not going to live up to its ridiculous premise and there are way more tits than neccesary but I'm going to see where this trainwreck is headed.

The Dungeons and Dragons film was genuinely good, way funnier than I expected. Charming. Felt like a film from 2012. In many ways it was Firefly, but not in space (ensemble cast does stuff while snarking). Ignore the emasculation quote from the writers; I think journalists force the people they interview to say stuff like that at gunpoint now.

Catching up on Great British Bake Off. It's definitely no longer "home baking" skill level.

Considered rewatching Rome, but I think I'll put it off for a few more years.

So what's everyone watching?

Succession, which is one of the better anti-rich/ressentiment shows.

It's funny . Basically the same humor as The Thick of It - venal, broken, stupid people with too much political power and too many quips - so if you're into that, it's good.

But I'm honestly glad this is the final season - the show seems to have trouble settling on a plot. I want to see the culmination of the trainwreck.

Is the first episode very different? I have only watched that and it wasn’t much fun, so I didn’t keep going. I really like The Thick of It and Veep, so I was surprised to see your comparison.

Is the first episode very different?

Things swerve a lot in the show (as I said the writers can't decide on a plot) so the plot may be different from what the pilot led you to expect but the core nature of the show (the family dynamic, the comedy) doesn't really change.

If certain plotlines (or even guest/recurring stars) in the pilot turned you off then there's a chance they might just disappear into the ether. But if it's the core characters themselves...

YouTuber Montemayor, one of the very best producers of the "battle told via map" genre who releases about 1 very high quality video per year, released Battle of the Eastern Solomons: Told from the American POV today. It's pretty good.

Check out his Midway from the Japanese Perspective first if you haven't.

This was fantastic, thank you.

Haven't watched this new one yet, but I agree Montemayor is fantastic. His "Midway Told from the Japanese Perspective" video is the pinnacle of the entire genre. I'd even say it's one of the best pieces of military history content I've ever seen.

This is intriguing - I religiously watch The Operations Room channel, how do these ones compare to those in general? Deciding if I should pin it to watch later

If you love The Operations Room, I would be extremely surprised if you did not find Montemayor's (very few but very good) videos worthwhile. They're quite similar, but Montemayor goes into more depth about who knew what when, and what big decisions looked like to the person making them, vs Operations Room's slightly more rote recounting of what happened from a god's eye view.

The explicit "fog-of-war from the personal perpective of the commander" approach that he takes in Midway and Eastern Solomons is absolutely incredible, I'm starving for more of it.

Very highly recommended. And if the YouTube algorithm has not also pointed you towards Eastory, Historigraph and Historia Civilis, I have no idea what it's doing. Also TIK, though he's slightly more of a stylistic divergence.

Bridges:

  • The deck hangs below a big wire, using many little wires: Suspension

  • The deck sits atop a big arch, using many little supports*: Arch

  • The deck hangs below a big arch, using many little wires: Tied arch

  • The deck sits atop a big wire, using many little supports*: Underspanned suspension

*Or a bunch of fill material

Don't forget inclined suspension!

Or do forget it. It's really just a messed up suspension bridge, anyway. But I've got a soft spot for it.

JC Denton reads "The Industrial Society and Its Consequences"

Does anyone have any recommended foundational books for the philosophy of Risk? N.N. Taleb's Incerto I've read and I'd like to move beyond that / get a little more technical / get some divergent opinions from Taleb (he is notoriously bullheaded).

I know that's not a "Friday fun topic" so, as penance, please consider my favorite academic paper of all time:

https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf

I want to know more about what's going on with that one

My favorite might be Cox and Zucker's seminal work on elliptic geometry, but it's too dense, so I'll gesture at the later paper. It makes the joke a little more legible.

No, wait. I've got to go with On the Turing Completeness of MS PowerPoint.

It is increasingly likely that every application will one day be run within Microsoft PowerPoint.

No, wait. I've got to go with On the Turing Completeness of MS PowerPoint.

There's a companion video.

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