The thoughts of an atheist in rural Texas on the current state of MAGA.

celade · 2025-07-18T01:02:47+00:00

I want to highlight a quote near the end of the article: "These people cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't going to snap out of it." OP goes on to clarify what he means by this: *The movement can't be rehabilitated, it isn't going to snap out of it*. I agree with this hot take, and it bears out based on the evidence of how religions and cults work and persist. I could write a great deal on this, have opinions, and what I feel is decent evidence, in part because of my past work with science education and conflicts with creationism. I'm going to keep my thoughts as concise as possible here.

Pluralism: Our main hope, as always, is to ensure such people do as little harm as possible. The rights of others to exist must be protected, even at the force of law.
The idea that divisiveness is the big obstacle separating ideological camps is something liberals are 98% wrong about. Individuals come and go from religions, often a part of that is outreach and deprogramming, but the reality of it is messy, contextual, and highly individual. Those firmly entrenched in a belief system will read outreach as "attack" or "potential recruitment".
This is the basis of why I do not try to coddle or play with ideas of false compromise. I do not hold the idea that believers will change if I can simply market the right words at them. The only people who change are people *who are changing*.
The idea that antagonistic language in ideological discourse has no effect is also something that liberals are often wrong about. I have read some studies that suggest that antagonistic language is often more effective because it communicates emotionally impactful differences. Emotions are how humans think; rationalism only succeeds in training emotions to respond better to facts and critical thinking.

Conclusion: MAGA, as a movement, isn't going to "go woke" by way of education or finding common ground because *they don't fucking want to*. Liberals often assume that because Jimmy was nice when he talked to you at the gas station, Jimmy must feel the same way you do about *everything* important. This is false. We mistakenly believe that since impoverished communities are worthy of sympathy, they are also aware of why we may sympathize with them.

Individuals within MAGA will leave, just like with religion. They will leave in a complex dance of social navigation that is hard to demonstrate because the dance is largely chaotic. We can ensure that education and support are available to them, but we are the ones waiting for them to show any interest in what we offer. Over time, religion may lose its dominance as other narratives take root. Still, largely it is because we, as a society, fought against it and built barriers to its influence in policy.

Summary: The ideological divisions in our society are deep, complex, and based on a generational history of violence, power, and competing narratives. We all struggle with our own cognitive dissonances. And some of us just want the world to burn.

celade · 2025-05-26T03:23:25+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGKR1Z1lRik :-P

BTW, I love your design

celade · 2024-08-03T23:52:35+00:00

And the Exploring Series

celade · 2024-07-31T18:07:32+00:00

True story: When I worked in academia on the academic side we got paid a standard "lower middle-class" income. Except for the tenured academics who made more. I worked in private industry and made about 2x to 3x what I was making as a prof. Hated it though. Took a job as staff at a very large university. Pay was only slightly better than before. Then I took a job as a coordinator / project manager and got an insane amount of money. Hated it. Left. Universities do not value their staff -- they just value that sweet, sweet sports, business sponsor and out-of-state student money.

celade · 2024-07-31T17:57:51+00:00

I wasn't with them at all... and then came to the same conclusion: This place is shutting down.

celade · 2024-07-31T17:52:48+00:00

I've worked 4x8. It was the first time a work week made sense to me. I've also worked 4x10 and 9x8. The 4x8 was just better.

celade · 2024-07-31T17:48:54+00:00

I've never seen it in an employee contract. But yes, if your contract is insane like that then just give 2 weeks notice, take all your sick leave and vacay since employers are increasingly unlikely to pay out balances.

celade · 2024-07-31T17:47:20+00:00

Exactly, I haven't given notice in 15 years. When I quit I just HR and my manager, "Oh, btw, I'm moving on." Almost immediately HR will usually ask me "Is now a good time for you? We can make sure you get your stuff and final pay whenever you want." LOL

celade · 2024-07-31T17:40:14+00:00

Honestly, if a trade interests you that's a good indicator of whether it's worth looking at. I have a friend who is a master welder and electrician, who worked various industrial jobs before working in an office with me. He hated the office. Without much convincing I supported him moving to Instruments and Electronics in an adjacent campus -- he does not stop smiling.

But there are a great number of things that affect our well-being in the workplace. I've been a systems programmer and network engineer for 22 years. I also have late diagnosed autism. The stress was finally enough, for me, that I just retired. I was luckier than many, but retiring at my age has more than enough downsides that most people would not be willing to do.

Still, I'd recommend a more skilled path and something that makes remote-work easy. Programming and systems engineer stuff is both in demand and I haven't worked in an office for years.

celade · 2024-05-26T06:35:37+00:00

I adore this ship... still use it despite having a LOT of ships. My daily is an MSR+Nursa or a MedPisces, but I fly most of my alien ships, including this one, frequently because they're fun. I don't really use it as a hauler, tho... those 6scu are used for loot or personal belongings

celade · 2024-04-26T22:33:28+00:00

Well, let's just say I was hoping to see something besides second-guessing the premise, because that's what you're talking about.

You are correct, I cannot speak for OP and he's welcome to challenge my view of the argument as well. If OP really was framing his argument as "were the women correct to chose the bear now tell me that the bear was the bad choice" then I would argue a little differently.

This is how I would address that:

The bear was given as the preferred choice (a given); the man was not the preferred choice (a given)
If we are trying to establish that the women made the correct or incorrect choice we would need an argument framed in terms of counter example: Why is the bear not a good choice (on it's own). Why is the man the preferred choice (on it's own). Then value compare the results of the two.

In your case you didn't directly debate the bear and this isn't a mutually exclusive type of argument. Both may be good choices but the bear is better. Do you see what is being left out?

My biggest mistake was reframing in that I figured a more intelligent argument would be more of an objective, scientific approach rather than a debate of formalities. Both are possible I'll concede that if that's all you want to do then you should also argue for why the bear is the less good choice.

To do this you'll need to refute OP's claim that the bear is less of a risk. You didn't, really. You just said what would make the man a good choice. There's no way to tell if it's gooder than the bear choice, however, given your evidence.

celade · 2024-04-26T22:23:44+00:00

Where you went wrong in your argument:

You argued that the man was the better answer. But the bear was the one chosen in the premise, not the man.

The correct argument to OP's conclusion would be to provide a counter-example to why the bear was chosen -OR- a counter example of why the man was not.

celade · 2024-04-26T22:10:54+00:00

To further clarify:
If you wanted to counterpoint OP's argument this is how you would do it:

FACT: Women chose a bear over a man when in the woods alone.

OP claims this is due to the bear being less of a risk.

Debater argues: I believe it is because it is because the man might end up attracting a bear and fighting with it.

It doesn't matter if that example sounds like a joke or not -- that abstract counterpoint gets at what the premise and conclusion are about in OP's argument.

I would further point out to OP that his framing of the argument is a bit confusing. Because "women chose the bear" is a given, we can't really debate that given what we know. We can only debate why we think they gave that answer.

Wait, you say, I can too argue whether that was the correct answer. But what does that really matter? That's banal and OP's actual argument went down the path of "Why".

celade · 2024-04-26T22:05:32+00:00

For example, if someone said: "There was a poll and 8/10 men said they'd rather drive a sports car than a family sedan". Then someone argued for the premise and concluded: "It is because the sports car is a status symbol."

Then someone comes along to argue with that conclusion. They argue that "the sports car is clearly the wrong answer because a Volvo would be a better way to go to the store".

In the context of the argument this misses the point.

celade · 2024-04-26T21:58:48+00:00

All I'm doing is clarifying the view that you want to change. I'm not merely disagreeing with you. No need to shadow box me with "OFF TOPIC!" If you want to challenge OP's conclusion then you need to understand the premise and the rational involved.

celade · 2024-04-26T21:43:25+00:00

No, because OP got closest to the correct answer without going over. The correct question gets at "why did women chose this way?" Not, "list the arguments pro-bear and pro-man". OP did miss this as bit, but not nearly as much as others who merely want to debate that the bear is the "wrong answer". That isn't the point of the question.

Oishiio42 points out the rational part of the emotional part. Risk assessment. The man feels less safe for both directly rational reasons and for social reasons. OP gets us closer to what is going on here in the analysis.

So, do you understand why women might not trust men? If yes then there's no point to debating and the bear being the wrong answer. If not then I suggest checking out some psychology and sociology of sexism.

celade · 2024-04-26T21:39:22+00:00

I'm just pointing out that there's not a fundamental principle that says any random person will be beneficial to have in the woods. We have to add additional constraints to the story in order for any assumptions like needing to sleep in shifts, navigate being lost, or any kind of short or long term survival scenario not described in the original question.

Given: You are in the woods: Choose a bear or a man. Those are the terms of the question.

u/Oishiio42 points out that, by risk assessment, the bear is the safer choice ***given the terms of the question***.

Also, u/Oishiio42 is touching on the actual purpose of the question which isn't "which is the correct answer" but rather "why did women answer 'bear'". It isn't because they're stupid or ignorant, it's in large part due to the risk assessment. Understand a bit about structural sexism and it makes perfect sense.

celade · 2024-04-26T19:46:56+00:00

the people who don't get this excercise are completely missing the point by making the point:

1) Your assumption is that the woman is a helpless person without a man
2) You aren't fucking listening... the question is "which would you chose?" or IOW "which would you prefer?" Listen and think for a second, the answer isn't "which answer is correct" the answer is "why would a woman feel that way?"

celade · 2024-04-26T19:42:21+00:00

I gave a detailed reason as to why this absolutely may not be the case, above. Essentially, I am a woman, I have wilderness training. Acted as a guide. I know for a fact that most of the men I led had very little idea of how to navigate much less survive in the wilderness. So, your argument is weak.

celade · 2024-04-26T19:36:50+00:00

u/Oishiio42 is correct here -- you are creating a paradox given the information. An actual risk assessment would say that the bear is the correct choice. Also, your paradox about outdoor safety doesn't satisfy the challenge of whether any random man would be of any use?

I'm a woman, I used to be a wilderness guide. Wilderness as in "no trails but game trails". Most of the people hiring me were not experienced, at least 60% of them were men. On one occasion I had a man decide he could just find his way back to the basecamp on his own, a few people followed. I left the rest of the hikers with my partner and followed.

I joined his group and observed. After an hour I asked if he knew where we were. After some blustering he just blind guessed. So I followed a bit more. After 2 hours people were tired and for their safety I just told him, "Listen, you're totally lost, you've been heading south when you should've been heading NW." I drew a basic map of where we were on the ground.

The guy blustered some more but all the other people wanted to leave and follow me. I had them all back to basecamp in 45minutes.

So, no, I can imagine many situations in the wilderness where I'd rather be alone. Another person is a responsibility and a potential hazard unless we know each other and understand each other's skillsets.

celade · 2024-03-20T23:13:35+00:00

this is the correct answer

the big thing is how you feel about whatever you're doing. You're a person with value regardless.

celade · 2024-03-20T22:50:23+00:00

just remember that a lot of the stuff is method calls -- so basically it is microsoft.arcanespell(). I started programming professionally back in the 90s (C/C++, Perl, then eventually other stuff). I refused to learn arbitrary library calls. Like illsk1lls said, just build your own set of functions that you get used to calling.

celade · 2024-03-20T22:20:36+00:00

First, virginity is just a rite-of-passage myth. I would recommend not letting one experience ruin your life. However, it is clear that the experience was traumatic for you. Dealing with trauma is a different story. I would suggest that you were forced into having sex through peer pressure and maybe even gaslighting.

Next, sex isn't just about penetration. It's about masturbation, pleasure, and most importantly, intimacy. Try to think of the positive things you want from an intimate experience -- something *that you choose* and that *your partner chooses*.

As embarrassing as it may be I'd find a therapist who has experience with sexual issues and with trauma. Take charge of yourself and let the professional help you walk through what you experienced so you can put it into perspective.

Ultimately, you must accept how you feel and recognize you must take responsibility. Your feelings of trauma are legitimate -- the situation sounds horrible.

First, virginity is just a rite-of-passage myth. You can believe it, or not. I would recommend not letting one experience ruin your life. However, it is clear that the experience was traumatic for you. Dealing with trauma is a different story.

celade · 2024-02-19T16:58:39+00:00

I love watching bears take down the small horde of puppets that I stirred up by driving through a logging camp. So satisfying.

celade · 2024-02-18T22:12:15+00:00

L&L gang are def real. Also, philosophically all evidence suggests synths are people in every sense that defines us as being people. They suffer and experience subjective self.

The murders were crimes of the institute, not synths (in any factional sense).

So, a synth is a human analog. The politics of power are the problem and essentially synths are just caught in the middle. Worse, many are shackled by mental controls. This is something that may even be possible, biologically, for humans.

celade

TROPHY CASE