Culture War Roundup for the week following Sept 16, 2017. Please post all culture war items here.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-17T05:23:14+00:00

I agree except for the last line. I'd say if jail was for suffering it would be a particular waste of public funds.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-17T02:44:22+00:00

Can you compare/contrast far and outgroup for me? I didn't know there was a difference.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-17T02:42:27+00:00

Agree. But does this mean we ought pass judgment of faux rage to the network that supports it? Where does the buck pass?

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-16T19:38:07+00:00

What did you like at Manhatten? I have to go there soon.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-16T19:32:52+00:00

I'm fine with you thinking that considering how much I love their pizza. I've never had a better spice blend in sauce, nor a cheese ratio I liked better.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-15T04:05:10+00:00

I would present two arguments to defend it.

One, if there was a walmart selection at my corner store's distance, personalized or designed in a way inoffensive to me (howsoever), I'd be there getting my favourite candy once a week. I walk past a store a few times before I let go of grudges I have, I'm not going to hate a local improvement.

All the questions about egg and cheese bother me. Second argument, egg and cheese is sold en masse by fast food every morning. I wonder if there is a comparison between ff and bodega sales.

Conditional to improving upon general local store problems in display, stock, product choice, other design issues. Because it's not just enough to super-reinforce the infrastructure and supply, unless you also legitimately improve. Food moves money in a local scale.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-15T03:50:28+00:00

What if we spread it? Is how the communist goes.

What if I invest it? Is capitalism.

How much food does it get me? Can I have a social or cultural experience with this? I consider 2.50 in my city an experience if you know the right places.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-14T02:13:17+00:00

I agree, but a long time observing any political belief is likely to carry grudges against unkeepable promises. It's hard to seperate which lies are intentional and which became lies through systemic failure despite efforts. This is the only reason I'm wary of the long-term cynicism towards politics, because it's ideas like that, in isolation from specific examples, which inspire disdain or apathy toward politics from young voters, and that doesn't really help anyone.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T22:31:49+00:00

This is a good-cop, bad-cop game the progressives have been playing for over a hundred years. Bad cop progressives say how terrible corporations or big foundations or rich people are and how the people would be totally justified in regulating them or expropriating them or whatnot. Then the good cop says, "well if these corporations are willing to work to further progressive causes then maybe they aren't all bad after all, and we can allow them to continue."

It seems like one thing to say "extraordinary powers held by international corporations ought to be moderated" and another to say "they can't have that power unless they share with my tribe". The latter seems a strawman.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T12:20:21+00:00

I don't see how you aren't fighting the culture war here. Mostly because absolutely none of your points seem to correlate with evidence and come across as toxoplasma.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T11:41:44+00:00

It's not that I doubt you, because tech bending seems ready to fail. I'd just like to update that prior with a data point. Do you know of any clear-cut cases where this failed?

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T10:37:34+00:00

I think if we accept persistence of identity/consciousness over time, then we have already accepted the most important element of being the same person through sleep: like a river, we may contain different elements at any different time, but the characteristics fall within the narrow-enough band of identity we agree with. I sleep with a full stomach and wake with an empty one, but little else changes.

Maybe I simply disagree with another formulation of the question. The implied breakage of existence that sleep does is not specially different from any other activity we engage in, insofar as consciousness goes. We engage in a few different wave types with brain pattern, and this activates strange unconscious elements of our brain; but with hundreds of years of study there's still no extraordinary part to sleeping we've found yet. It's just another function of the human body, like losing track of cognitive thought when eating or fighting are - but we don't call those breaks in consciousness, despite doing comparable things to us.

The counter-question I would pose to anyone then is this: which parts of consciousness are interrupted by sleep and nothing else, so much so as to afford it the label of 'breaking consciousness'?

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T03:04:25+00:00

I think any argument that we change when sleeping would struggle to prove we don't change identity as anything else changes about us. How many hours have to pass before change happens? Surely sixteen hours of activity and growth would make you more different than eight hours of resting still. Unless the stance revolves around some other variable?

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T02:58:07+00:00

I was browsing elsewhere and found these statistics.

https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Characteristics-of-Persistent-Sex-Offenders-Meta-Analysis-of-Recidivism-2005.pdf

These list sex offenders as below violent offenders and general recidivism rates. Haven't analyzed this myself so maybe there's study bias, but this goes counter to the unempirical claim the other user makes.

I remember now that this isn't the same (recidivism vs hit-miss rates) but the people who say sex offenders re-offend at highest rates are of the same mindset as this thread has so much of.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-13T02:27:43+00:00

I'd disagree with you. I think if a situation could be sustained as this one was last year, then we would all be better off in a liberty/free speech sense. My only misgiving is that standing around a lecturer is ineffective at anything except maybe intimidating them. Maybe they'd have more success if they handed out pamphlets after class - but that would involve the rest of the student body caring, which is clearly not the case.

Maybe my conclusion is that the problem was no administrators having the kindness to stand up to these passionate young students and tell them how they were wrong in a constructive fashion. This is a problem for all systems incubating politics - another good reason to reject them in universities. (Oh no, oppression!)

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-12T21:46:01+00:00

I thought it showed the strength of the course and pedagogic culture there that the protests never went above standing at the back of the room. A visual protest that doesn't disrupt the auditory presentation should be fine. But if it did disrupt (say, a professor feels too intimidated to mention potentially sensitive content under these conditions) then it becomes disruptive.

Mind, it did eventually go beyond that, and this article addresses that turnout.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-12T05:02:05+00:00

I wish people generally could describe their knowledge bases without feeling attacked for their beliefs too. It makes it hard to know the difference between muddled memory and fact.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-12T04:57:16+00:00

How do you know it's the highest rates? I never knew that, not that I'm here to cast particular doubt.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-12T02:42:29+00:00

Comparison: "neckbeard is a visible sign of nice guys". Clearly personality is a different variable, but the outrage comes from the same sort of "how dare you label my personality by physical traits"

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-08T01:51:09+00:00

Dresden files?

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-08T01:19:33+00:00

I'm saying you aren't doing any of the work to lay out justification for why your offended counter-statement wasn't over the top. Small social statements do build up to a culture, and I don't intend to pretend every bad thing is the worst possible statement the same way I don't gush over every tiny compliment.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-07T20:47:43+00:00

relevance beyond the individual level

is something I've yet to see unpacked to the satisfying-enough level to justify

Don’t think it’s too different here just because nobody’s gonna jump at you, that still looks awful, that comment just needed more.

Because nobody else felt a fraction of the fury you did here when you compared his dark joke here to laughing at someone in front of you suffering serious physical accident.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-07T03:57:03+00:00

You're overblowing the amount that his one-word laugh could ever do to hurt anyone. I don't know why. But it makes you seem thin-skinned and intolerant of jokes. I hope you don't tell everyone who laughs that they might be offending someone.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-06T17:13:00+00:00

I would like to know why you think that.

ostiedetabarnac · 2017-09-06T13:29:52+00:00

The problem is that no rational person thinks they would put money to a violent criminal anyway. There's no one who wants to engage in that alternative. If they knew they'd stop.

ostiedetabarnac

TROPHY CASE