site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3499 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 24, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I despise the idea that the Captain must go down with their ship. What's that going to achieve? Sure, their duty might incorporate sticking around as long as possible to arrange an evacuation, but when that's done, they don't have any responsibility to feed the fishes.

It's about skin in the game - Captains have responsibility for the ship, and therefore should accept the greatest risk, to keep them responsible.

Pointlessly suicidal demands that a captain literally go down with their ship exist, but they're outliers and often self-enforced (and sometimes overriden by other staff).

The phrase dates back to and probably originates from the Birkenhead Drill, where the ship could not float enough lifeboats for its crew and soldiers, and that as a result the officers commanded and demonstrated willingness to attempt a long (and for most, suicidal) swim to shore rather than swamp or overturn the lifeboats, resulting in a greater number of deaths.

In the modern day, (almost) all ships have enough lifeboats for an excess of passengers and crew: in these contexts, the demand is more than staff should remain until both all passengers have been disembarked (and the ship has been certainly lost, due to salvage law), closer to your preferred framework. However, spelling it out as potentially self-sacrificing is important: whether there are sufficient lifeboats and time to embark them, there remains a serious temptation for crew to save themselves while leaving their charges helpless. Passengers may not even be physically capable of the necessary actions to evacuate, nevermind have the knowledge of how or why to do so.

This is present even for other contexts, such as aviation, albeit in a lesser form. While there are exceptions for some types of incident where near-instant unsurvivable effects are likely to occur, both pilots and especially cabin crew are trained to evacuate as many passengers as their roles and positions in the plane allow before leaving themselves, and this matters.

That said, while I'm not very familiar with the 2008 Mumbai attacks, from what I've heard these causes don't really apply to hotel staff faced with spree killing terrorists.

God damn me.

I hate you both for your lack of culture.

When mustering for a march, it is customary to form up by hieght-line or "parade order", that is shortest to tallest with the shortest man (with the shortest legs) setting the pace for the company so the whole bloc stays together. However, for certain ceremonial circumstances it is customary to form up by "funeral order" that is youngest to oldest with the youngest at the front because this will be their first time. The famous (infamous?) command issued by Captain Salmond that later became known as "the Birkenhead drill" was to load the boats with women and the children first, and then to allocate any remaining seats by funeral order. The captain is the senior most, and (excepting an elderly passenger) often the oldest man on the ship. Being the last man off, even if it means going down with the ship, isn't pointless, it is setting a positive example.

Yeah, Birkenhead drills are far broader than just "the captain goes down with the ship" or "women and children first". In aviation, the phrase is used to not just mean a duty to passengers, but also civilians on the ground.

But I think it's important to spell out that it's not just setting a positive example, but that it did so in a way that probably saved over a hundred lives at Birkenhead, directly.

Sorry that was supposed to be one level up.

However, spelling it out as potentially self-sacrificing is important: whether there are sufficient lifeboats and time to embark them, there remains a serious temptation for crew to save themselves while leaving their charges helpless. Passengers may not even be physically capable of the necessary actions to evacuate, nevermind have the knowledge of how or why to do so.

One recent example of that is of course Costa Concordia, whose captain Francesco Schettino ran her aground while getting frisky with an exotic dancer and was the first one to evacuate. The crew, left without a leader, bungled the evacuation.

I found this entertaining and interesting enough that I've watched it like five times: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI&ab_channel=InternetHistorian

The MV Sewol is another case, and one with both more egregiously bad behavior by the crew, and an even steeper death toll.

wiki:

Schettino said he left the ship when it turned over, and that he fell into a lifeboat
[...]
the on-duty Italian Coast Guard commander told Schettino, "Vada a bordo, cazzo!" ("Get on board, for fuck's sake!"), but Schettino did not do so and was one of the first to reach land.

lmao

I found this entertaining and interesting enough that I've watched it like five times: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI&ab_channel=InternetHistorian

Thanks, got some good laughs from that. Surpised the video didn't use the "this is fine" dog at any point.

align conflicting interests of the ship-owner with the person controlling the ship

Yeah, I don't see that working very well, certainly not enough to justify a needless death. Most captains are probably getting their ships sunk as little as feasible. Those who are feckless enough to not care probably aren't going to stay around except at gunpoint.

Consider why fighter pilots are given parachutes, surely they'd fly better if they knew they were guaranteed to go down with their jet?

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

whether or not the death itself is necessary for the mores to accomplish some of its purpose is another question, the existence itself could preselect those who are better suited for the owner similar to Mutually Assured Destruction imposing an apprehension even if it's not actually followed through

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

You can see that my claim is that the cost is grossly excessive to the benefit.

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

The current turnaround time for a new bleeding edge jet is measured in years, the pilots are expensive, the jets are ridiculously so. They still come with ejection seats.

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

And it's not possible to instill the belief that "the guest is God" without demanding that they die for them? What else might also be inculcated if the satisfaction of guests is elevated above all else, the staff expected to sleep with them or let them stay for free? There are obvious bounds on their hospitality.

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

I can only groan. As is the case for all fully-generalized counterarguments against doing anything ever, it counts as weak evidence for that claim. There are plenty of utterly retarded, harmful and destruction-worthy traditions, both that existed in the past, like sati, and those that exist today, like female genital mutilation.

If you put such a high premium on arguments from tradition, then I'll quote the reasoning of the British officials who put in place the ban on burning widows alive when their husbands passed:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive, assuming they were even good for anything in the first place.

Malpractice insurance works, offing doctors who failed to cure the Pharaoh didn't. So too for imposing legal or financial liabilities on ship's captains being reckless, not asking them to die for it.

the benefit is to align the confecting interests of ownership and control

my comment isn't an argument from tradition, it's a description of why the tradition exists which is not "it's been around a long time"

the purpose of chesterton's fence isn't to argue for the fence because it's been around a long time, it's that it exists for a reason and you need to understand why before you rip it down

you're arguing against a comment I didn't write

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive

"the rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries," is little more than destroyers who rip things down they don't fully understand, vastly overestimating their ability to predict the benefits and costs, ignoring the resulting costs or blaming it on others, and then claiming credit for any perceived benefit, redefining and recategorizing as necessary to achieve that narrative

Would it really be that easy to track down and enforce "legal liabilities" on a captain who lost/"lost" their ship back at that era?

The Royal Navy at its height automatically court-martialed every Captain who returned to the UK without his ship. The vast majority were, of course, acquitted. But given the social status of a captain, they were fairly easy to track down in practice.

I am not talking about "that era", I am talking about today.

And there was law enforcement back at the time, regardless of how difficult it was, desertion or dereliction of duty was very much punishable, and most often such people had families back home so they didn't have the luxury of being guaranteed to go off scott free.

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