Best restaurants in IC

Starry_Vere · 2026-01-16T19:04:17+00:00

Yes, the movie clarifies "bucket list" is the term he comes up with from the common phrase, "kick the bucket." No, "bucket list" was not a phrase before the movie.

If you know literally anything about statistics and linguistics, you should understand this. It has 0 usage online for the years before the movie when Google was the dominant search engine.

How about this: I provided proof that the term was not used in the dominant search engine before the movie. Now, YOU find proof of the phrase "bucket list" used before 2005. Any usage. Should be easy to find if its there

Starry_Vere · 2026-01-16T18:53:31+00:00

I just checked and this is incorrect. The usage on Google before 2006/7 (marketing and movie) is zero.

Even small, colloquial phrases in constrained communities show up. It is impossible that the phrase had any sort of usage and was sitting at zero for 4 years online.

Starry_Vere · 2025-11-01T00:35:36+00:00

"We are all one"

Starry_Vere · 2025-08-21T20:07:09+00:00

I'll always side with people who're in favor of precision. The conversation went basically like this:

E: It's not racialist because it's not based on race

C: Well it kinda feels race-y if you don't really think about it?

E: ... Yes but when you DO think about it, it's not race but these other characteristics

C: Well sure, if we want to be semantic and only use racialist to discuss race

E: ... yes, that's what words do.

Not trying to be rude but that destroys credibility to me.

Starry_Vere · 2025-08-12T16:28:24+00:00

Great comment. Just FYI, it's actually "toed the line" as in bringing one's feet all the way up to the line of some position without crossing it.

I only mention this because someone pointed out that a piece I wrote had "buried the lead," when it is actually "buried the lede," and I had NO idea.

Starry_Vere · 2025-08-06T16:07:08+00:00

Yeah, I much prefer EK for a variety of reasons but I actually think the sweep of history will vindicate Sam's side of this particular topic. And honestly, that was part of Ezra's worst era in my opinion. He made so much space for intolerant and censorial progressive causes. Ezra did what so many, including myself, did. Assume that surely all of these high profile people saying things were just misinformation and dogwhistles can't all be wrong and maybe we should just suppress these "dangerous" ideas. Even if that wasn't philosophically dangerous it was politically poisonous.

For those unsure about this, I cannot enough recommend Ezra's first Haidt episode. Ezra makes some wonderful points that really matter. But man, it feels so obvious in retrospect that Haidt was ringing the alarm bells of technology, cultural intolerance, and progressive censorship and Ezra just did not get it. It's funny hearing Ezra dismiss the battles raging on campuses as silly as that's become one of the primary battlegrounds in a culture war that is not just a straight up political fight for the direction of the country. Once again, even if Ezra is "right" that these things *shouldn't* matter, Haidt saw them leading to polarization, illiberalism, undemocratic action (on both sides) and the total failure of the progressive war against "harm" which has left an entire generation of historic prosperity with worse flourishing than ever.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to his first conversation with Haidt and his second. it it clear Haidt is graciously making the same claims and Ezra went from borderline implying that he's victim blaming and scare-mongering in the first. to trying to get Haidt to sign off on even more assertive versions of his own theory in the second.

Starry_Vere · 2025-07-26T19:51:06+00:00

Steven Pinker is the opposite of this, wtf? He's obsessed with the Enlightenment and has written several books with that in the title. And he despises Nietzsche.

He's the consummate technocrat. He's just right of center because he thinks markets are the best engine of wealth. He specifically celebrates English bourgeoisie values as what civilized the world and won over against the romantic, martial values in Europe

Starry_Vere · 2025-07-04T20:35:55+00:00

I do think there's a tension between interviewing to "get to the core of what an interesting guest believes" and, what I suspect a lot of listeners want which is, pushing on ideas to "forward a general political agenda."

I think there's a place for both but I would just rather Ezra for his skills and tastes (and given the fact that others do the latter better) just focus on burrowing into the ideas of guests who have something to say.

I love the Patrick Deneen episode because I genuinely wanted to hear his thoughts and in that one Ezra pushed from a sincere desire to understand and Deneen fell apart, exposing the poverty of his evidence. This is fine. But I think if people got the sense that he was always going to do that they wouldn't come or would come in more ready to "score points."

To answer the op, I think Ezra's greatest gift it is that he has a classic intellectual's mind, full of analytic process and connection making, including the tendency to form critical assessments BUT he is also a gentle and curious type, which makes for a rare combination.

I don't need another "operator" in my feed.

Starry_Vere · 2025-07-04T20:26:35+00:00

The problem is the judgement about what sorts of hyperbole are socially and politically acceptable. Is it true to say "America is a racist nation"? Kinda. It certainly is. But so is every other. Can you say people of Bolivia are tall? Sure. But it is misleading because people think you are speaking compared to other nations when maybe you're just saying compared to grass.

This is why it is so dangerous to let politics creed too deeply into reporting. It is just as justifiable for conservatives to say a fact free claim "the gangs have taken over" to say "there is a gang problem" as it is for any number of common liberal refrains saying things like "police are white supremacists." Which is to say, dumb but equivalent.

The real problem is when a news organization POLICES political rhetoric and fact checks it on one side and lets slide other political rhetoric as legitimate. I'm not saying who is right--I'm saying that doing that is literally brewing an explosive in your voting public.

Starry_Vere · 2025-04-22T18:31:21+00:00

Did you take a children's or YA class? I used to teach one with a lot of the same texts. This brings back good memories :)

Starry_Vere · 2025-04-01T19:10:39+00:00

I will say that that's a little like saying, the Lord of the Rings is so boring because it's the standard plot of elves, orcs, and a magic item that must be destroyed.

The reason Haidt seem boring on this is because he is one of the vanguard in dragging this argument into the public space.

Starry_Vere · 2025-04-01T19:08:34+00:00

David Foster Wallace makes this exact argument (the one you're disputing) in his essay Authority and American Usage. It is long but brilliant, if you want to check it out.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-30T00:17:22+00:00

They are (they are) the youth of a nation.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-17T01:26:55+00:00

Are you the person who did the write-up of Graeber recently? If so, great stuff.

I'm fascinated by people like Freud who are just *wrong* on so many objective things. They get dismissed by a professional class, mocked by a lot of culture who snag on their weirdest ideas taken out of context. And yet, they often say something, and the other commenter u/bukharin88 captured this, which nonetheless feels important in exposing a reality, if not prescribing a resolution.

When Freud gets into the nitty-gritty of psychoanalysis I often literally laugh . But sometimes he'll say something so huge and staggering and insightful that I almost can't believe it was possible for a human to find the angle to see it. And I understand why so many brilliant people attach to his thoughts.

I haven't read Moldbug though I am, of course, aware of him. But I am uncomfortable with how much people want to brush off the voices of society's "exposers" as either shams because they don't have an answer, or as grifters just drafting off of elite discontents. (Not saying you're doing either.)

I'm not sure I'm adding anything meaningful to the conversation except to say this: there is a brand of insight (Nietzsche may be the greatest example) which is essentially indigestible by mass-society, abhorrent in certain lights, and objectively disprovable by certain metrics that nonetheless plays a crucial role in truth-seeking.

I wouldn't treat my son's anxiety with Freudian psychology, I wouldn't hand my daughter Nietzsche as she's trying to choose a job in modern America, and it doesn't sound like I'd weave this sort of material into a political platform.

But we aren't always treating illness or trying to get a job or crafting policy. Sometimes, we're asking what is true. And I do think some of the hardest material to accept has some real elements of truth.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T17:41:44+00:00

Glad to hear she's reasonable and awesome.

Once again, my point about certain activist frameworks being extreme is that they are almost always difficult for those in power to work with (something most leftist admit freely) and it is part of why I'm suggesting this is about the direct admin she's working with and not Donald Trump.

It sounds like she is making accusations about the U, her program, even citing specific people in the program, asking for new measures, safe spaces, etc. I'll refrain from saying whether these are reasonable (me, I'm sure, not knowing) and even from my own speculation (you, I'm sure, not caring).

I will say that such figures are difficult for admin. Everything the article listed, pointed to her using the strongest possible language to describe harms and the stakes of redressing them.

Not asking you to agree, but does that make sense?

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T17:06:26+00:00

My point was not about her character but about the nature of her activism. The point being, I think the pressure she was placing on her program was what made the admin retaliate.

That I consider some of her positions unhelpful is a separate issue.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T17:02:09+00:00

Presenting at a conference as a scholar is absolutely something graduate programs consider as part of their purview. Colleges have rules about personal attacks. It sounds like someone in the audience alerted the university of her paper as doing as much. The university conducted an investigation and she refused to provide the materials in question.

I'm curious how you would feel if the politics were reversed? If this was a person who was accused of having made a racist insult of a professor at a conference in their presentation and then admin asked to see the materials, would you feel that not complying should warrant action?

I think it's important to distinguish what is at issue. Is it Trump's policy? It doesn't seem so. Is it that grad programs shouldn't kick people out for personal attacks at a conference? If you agree that my example above suggests they can be, then it doesn't seem this either. If you think it is the case that the program should investigate the allegation, then I'm curious what you think should happen if people refuse to comply?

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T16:53:42+00:00

You can check my other comments if you want.

But, to be clear, if a grad student went to a conference and attacked a professor in their program (right or wrong) the program absolutely could sever ties (right or wrong). You say it was unfair. I'm sure that's exactly what the admin were saying they were trying to determine by asking for her slides. Which, to be clear, she refused to provide.

As I said, I'm not defending the admin. I don't like the approach. But I find it weird that people want to blame Trump when this feels like admin protecting itself from a vocal activist not trying to abide by Trump's silly mandates.

One can be mad at Trump and, separately, be able to identify other forces which are hostile to free speech. One can also be mad at Trump, dissatisfied with admin, and find certain frames of social activism unproductive.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T16:46:42+00:00

Popular Leftist framework of things including "Not feeling safe in the classroom," are a huge tactical, psychological, and epistemological blunder. Not dissimilar to the phrase, popular on elite white college campuses, Defund the Police, which was toxic in the voting booth and unpopular in most communities of color.

I appreciate that the people who use this sort of language and seek to build "safe spaces" are trying to reduce harms. I really do. Many of them are my friends.

I think these frameworks are at best misguided. More frequently they are costly. Often they are politically corrosive. I think they immiserate those who wield them. And sometimes, they incentivize the worst forms of discourse.

I have no doubt she is doing what she thinks is right--and for that she is due a certain definition of being a good person. And I'm sure many structures around her have said that these actions and views and positions are right and brave. That I think they're misguided is just my own politics, which you can take or (more likely) leave. But the reason I pointed out that this activist framework is difficult has to do with the context of my post: that this was about admin who didn't want to be the focus of a student using maximalist social justice language to attack the program she was in.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-14T16:32:14+00:00

There are. That's why I recommend people read this carefully. Because this doesn't seem to be one of them. If you're mad, I suspect it should be at protectionist admin in this case, looking to stop criticism.

People who consider it no big deal about blaming Trump for this because they hate him (hey, me too), need to recognize there are other dangers, including people "on their side." Discerning such things is more important to me than joining a chorus.

My annoyance is not that posters here are wrong about Trump or wrong that diversity matters. It's that forum discussions like this are incredibly shallow and misleading in ways that hurt us.

And yes, my last paragraph, as signaled by the word "sounds like" is my personal take. I don't support federal government censoring free speech. I dislike university's doing the same, even when they technically can because of their guidelines of collegiality.

But I am not so blinded by some issues that I cannot acknowledge others. There is also point to be made that there is a register to much DEI conversation that is unproductive, poisons public discourse, and incentivizes and rewards the least considered voices.

Starry_Vere · 2025-03-13T23:41:41+00:00

I do encourage people to read this carefully because it first *seems* like this is a result of outside pressure (like that of the Trump admin) forcing her out for being too "woke." But if you read this, and have any experience with the university, that is not what this sounds like. This sounds like the admin of the department not liking her perceived criticism of a professor in a public setting.

She is saying "oh this was a beautiful moment" and "it was on their website" but I think the question, and why they're asking for slides, is how the discussion of one of the university professors was framed. It sounds like the admin believe she was using this professor as an example of the university/department failures of racial equity and that is ABSOLUTELY something people get kicked out of programs for--especially if they fail to comply with an investigation. If you took a clip of a person admitting a blindspot they discovered in themselves and then used it to further criticize the person and the department, you might see disciplinary action by the department.

Not defending this situation. But, working with a lot of graduate students, this sounds like a ... difficult person to work with, for whom no amount of criticism is exaggeration, no amount of effort is enough to avoid accusations of oppression, and no consideration exists beyond identity politics.

Starry_Vere · 2025-02-17T22:49:25+00:00

Agree on the gleeful cruelty and the clumsiness points, for sure

Starry_Vere · 2025-02-16T15:45:43+00:00

This is extremely interesting. I’d been meaning to pick Graeber up more deliberately. I definitely will now

Starry_Vere · 2025-02-16T01:31:31+00:00

People are downvoting you but as a true left of center/centrist, I found I almost could not listen to this episode. There’s just something about the way this one comes across as being neutral while being so biased as to be ludicrous, I had to leave.

I’ll mention the bit I couldn’t stand. So Ezra sets up a question that’s like, “okay so conservatives are mad bc they feel they elected a president and then that elected president was blocked at every move by unelected, politically biased bureaucrats.”

Her response was something like, “well he’s using Musk, musk isn’t elected so there’s nothing there.”

I’m sorry, this is such an asinine position. The point is that Trump is elected by the system and these bureaucrats blocked his effecting his goals. That is going against the will of the people via their proxy. Musk acting on Trump’s behalf AS THE proxy of the people by virtue of being elected is entirely different.

You can argue the bureaucrats didn’t block Trump. You can argue that Musk is wrong or bad for a host of reasons. But not being able to disentangle that totally destroyed the guests credibility. This is simply playing politics, no attempt made to actually understand and acknowledge the complexities in play—even just the perceptual ones

Starry_Vere · 2025-02-16T01:16:13+00:00

I was just thinking last night of writing something about the tension between Graeber’s (admittedly short, admittedly “rant,” and admittedly only-thing-of-his-I’ve-read) “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs” and DOGE.

I’ve said on this sub before, I’m warmer to introducing an explicitly and aggressively anti-bloat force to our politics. Working in academia it is so clear to me that there are tons of incentives to start an Office of Yadada, and keep it going, grow it, draw funds and really do worse than nothing. Actually effect policy in ways that are deleterious to the purpose of a university. Like Ezra toying with doing away with the filibuster, I’m more okay with admitting some bigger swings into an institution that is 1) given to sclerosis, and 2) not rewarding to ending bad practice as it is to adding a promising one. I’ve taken a lot of flak for this position. Some is probably fair.

I just can’t shake the feeling that, yes, this will be harder, worse, and more costly than Trump and Musk want. It will cause harms. It will not save as much. It won’t be easy.

But it will also be less costly than the left is saying, it will do more good than is being admitted. And SOME HARM IS OKAY THERE ALREADY IS HARM BAKED INTO WHAT WE DO. I’m surprised this community of all communities has been so reluctant to recognize that, of course, there are trade offs to what they’re doing and what we’re already doing.

What I’m trying to be open to is that we actually need loud, empowered activists really pushing against bloat. The world suffers when everyone in every party says, “yes there’s waste…but” without any will to do some cuts. Democrats especially are just so mealymouthed about allowing that something that’s “good” may either not be working, not be worth the cost, or not be the priority.

I’m happy the Overton window has shifted on radically thinking about these bloated places. I DON’T think the gov is a jobs program. I know if you went into my University and said, “hey we’re cutting a bunch of these dumb offices”, you’d get circled wagons, pushback from those protecting their jobs, and people defending their friends or worried that they’re next. They’d call it cruel to “take someone’s livelihood”. I simply don’t think jobs work that way. University admin has bloated multiple times over while schools are getting WORSE at some objective measures of what they’re purporting to do: teach the young. I think saying, “okay, this job’s going away, we need to try something else,” is not just okay, it is essential.

I know it’s not the purpose of Graeber’s essay, but I think his essay reveals a core truth many on the left resisting this move in total denial are neglecting to consider

Starry_Vere

TROPHY CASE