In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm just channeling another lurker.

[Steersman]

Fuck me, but I missed my true calling:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/no-s ... 3592591668

Troll extraordinaire? I expect Raging Bee to weigh in at any moment to defend you ... ;)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Fuck me, but I missed my true calling:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/no-s ... 3592591668

Troll extraordinaire? I expect Raging Bee to weigh in at any moment to defend you ... ;)

Give me a report if xe does. I blocked that foul-mouthed cunt ages ago.

[Hunt]

A day after PZ's plea to fund Skepticon and the amount raised has gone up: zero dollars.

That would make an intelligent person stop and ask himself exactly what is going on here.

Insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results.

[katamari Damassi]

I remember six episodes into TNG and it was still a steaming bag of shit that had already done the obligatory 'Planet of the Women' episode and remade 'The Naked Time' because it had no new ideas, and it had had male crew members in skirts, a fucking councillor dressed like a cheerleader, a cuddly Klingon, a butch woman running security, a disabled engineer, and a 'French' captain who spent forty fucking minutes each episode banging on about the Prime Directive across a table full of middle executives when they should have been blasting shit with their photon torpedoes.

TNG was the Al Gore of the franchise, but this new Discovery sounds incredibly fucking horrible.

Have you actually seen it? Because most of the shit I'm reading about it is from people who haven't watched it but know there's a black woman in it and some gays and are losing their shit.

Because of shitty internet connections, it took me a long time to watch the first 2 episodes, and that's all I've seen, but it was enough.
I read in some forums that the main character was a Mary Sue, but she's actually a perennial fuck up, and insufferable to boot. Nothing in the plot made sense. I hated the look of the show. I especially hated the Klingons. The only character I found interesting was Doug Jones' alien.

[KiwiInOz]

Fuck me, but I missed my true calling:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/no-s ... 3592591668

[Matt Cavanaugh]

[quote="Shatterface"I'm glad Discovery has introduced gay characters who are simply gay and that not being an issue. If we'd had gay characters in TNG, every episode they were in would have been about prejudice or AIDS or prejudice about AIDS.[/quote]
BSG and its spin-off, Caprica, did that and it was so nonchalant. Like totally mundane. No biggie. Perfect. No in-your-face virtue signaling: Hey, look! We've got gay characters! Look at our gay characters! Watch our gay male characters kiss! Bet that made you squeamish.

And no, I haven't watched STD. (Dang, Smitty, now there's an acronym to avoid if there ever was one.) But it sounds like the creators went through an SJW checklist and marked off every single item.

[katamari Damassi]

The worldbuilding is a big part of what draws me to Star Trek, so the inconsistencies (especially big ones like world changing tech) are really really irritating. I'm a Star Wars guy. Laser swords, space dogfights, and princesses in bikinis. Voyager eventually got me on board the trek train because I saw a Klingon girl in the adverts and immediately had a crush on her.

The Star Wars prequels are a perfect example of what happens if your story is forced to fit a continuity established decades earlier.

The Star Wars prequels royally screwed up the continuity. Obi Wan ages 50 years in 20. He owns R2 but then forgets that in New Hope.
I think Lucas screwed up the movies when he insisted Luke and Leia be brother and sister. Too much Joseph Campbell. He wanted it to be mythic.

[katamari Damassi]

Fuck me, but I missed my true calling:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/no-s ... 3592591668

Troll extraordinaire? I expect Raging Bee to weigh in at any moment to defend you ... ;)

Give me a report if xe does. I blocked that foul-mouthed cunt ages ago.

I'm convinced that she has at least two sock-puppets. I don't recall their handles but they follow the pattern of two words, something aggressive followed by an animal, private Disqus histories, and they always back her up.

[Service Dog]

Are you familiar with a certain type of young guy? <Snippety>

A very enjoyable read, thanks for sharing it.

As for how to deal with the payment issue? I'm a straightforward kinda guy (basic, even) and would find the person who holds the purse-strings, grip the fucker by the windpipe and tell them to cough up - cash or teeth, either is acceptable. Don't let the prick out of arms reach until the money is in your hand.

I got my money.

Basically, I didn't raise a fuss, in the morning. I did a first-rate job on everything which was clearly my duty.

But all the ways I usually save-the-day, by filling the gap where others fall-short: this morning, I just let those parts break. So, "Where did your supervisor go?!!" was met with a plain "I don't know" & flat-footed inaction. Not "I'll find out." nor "What do you need her for?, I'll do it."

They figured-out-- that she went to fetch a gallon of coffee for the models. But they couldn't figure-out which coffee shop. I said "I'll go look for her". I called her & asked where she was. When she said 'Hudson Street", I didn't take the initiative to coax more precison from her.
I just said, "Ok, I'll come there... then strolled the miles-long street, glancing around, at a leisurely pace. Not my job-- to notify her that the taxi service reservations she had made-- to fetch the celebrity make-up artist-- had failed to result in any actual taxi actually delivering the talent to us. Not my job to tell her the bosses were freaking-out. Shrug.

Little shit like that kept happening. By afternoon, the execs & managers were at each other's throats. It was clear, that me walking off the job, might be the last straw/ collapsing the whole production. So, when I enquired about my money, they paid right up. The last couple hours passed slowly, but I was feelin' fine.

[free thoughtpolice]

Are you familiar with a certain type of young guy? <Snippety>

A very enjoyable read, thanks for sharing it.

As for how to deal with the payment issue? I'm a straightforward kinda guy (basic, even) and would find the person who holds the purse-strings, grip the fucker by the windpipe and tell them to cough up - cash or teeth, either is acceptable. Don't let the prick out of arms reach until the money is in your hand.

I got my money.

Basically, I didn't raise a fuss, in the morning. I did a first-rate job on everything which was clearly my duty.

But all the ways I usually save-the-day, by filling the gap where others fall-short: this morning, I just let those parts break. So, "Where did your supervisor go?!!" was met with a plain "I don't know" & flat-footed inaction. Not "I'll find out." nor "What do you need her for?, I'll do it."

They figured-out-- that she went to fetch a gallon of coffee for the models. But they couldn't figure-out which coffee shop. I said "I'll go look for her". I called her & asked where she was. When she said 'Hudson Street", I didn't take the initiative to coax more precison from her.
I just said, "Ok, I'll come there... then strolled the miles-long street, glancing around, at a leisurely pace. Not my job-- to notify her that the taxi service reservations she had made-- to fetch the celebrity make-up artist-- had failed to result in any actual taxi actually delivering the talent to us. Not my job to tell her the bosses were freaking-out. Shrug.

Little shit like that kept happening. By afternoon, the execs & managers were at each other's throats. It was clear, that me walking off the job, might be the last straw/ collapsing the whole production. So, when I enquired about my money, they paid right up. The last couple hours passed slowly, but I was feelin' fine.

Good for you. I am looking forward to more excellent advice on getting advice on getting potential/ deadbeats to pay up. :clap:

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

I'm fine with analyzing the sexuality of cartoon characters - but it' pretty unlikely that there is much about Robert Crumb proclivities that can be applied to human populations on a larger scale.

I like big butts. I cannot deny.

crumbbutt.gif

I like BIG BUTTS, and I cannot lie.
You fat shamers can't deny

[TheMudbrooker]

Are you familiar with a certain type of young guy? <Snippety>

A very enjoyable read, thanks for sharing it.

As for how to deal with the payment issue? I'm a straightforward kinda guy (basic, even) and would find the person who holds the purse-strings, grip the fucker by the windpipe and tell them to cough up - cash or teeth, either is acceptable. Don't let the prick out of arms reach until the money is in your hand.

I got my money.

Basically, I didn't raise a fuss, in the morning. I did a first-rate job on everything which was clearly my duty.

But all the ways I usually save-the-day, by filling the gap where others fall-short: this morning, I just let those parts break. So, "Where did your supervisor go?!!" was met with a plain "I don't know" & flat-footed inaction. Not "I'll find out." nor "What do you need her for?, I'll do it."

They figured-out-- that she went to fetch a gallon of coffee for the models. But they couldn't figure-out which coffee shop. I said "I'll go look for her". I called her & asked where she was. When she said 'Hudson Street", I didn't take the initiative to coax more precison from her.
I just said, "Ok, I'll come there... then strolled the miles-long street, glancing around, at a leisurely pace. Not my job-- to notify her that the taxi service reservations she had made-- to fetch the celebrity make-up artist-- had failed to result in any actual taxi actually delivering the talent to us. Not my job to tell her the bosses were freaking-out. Shrug.

Little shit like that kept happening. By afternoon, the execs & managers were at each other's throats. It was clear, that me walking off the job, might be the last straw/ collapsing the whole production. So, when I enquired about my money, they paid right up. The last couple hours passed slowly, but I was feelin' fine.

Gotta love a classic white mutiny: Do your job exactly by the book and the job description thus causing everything to fall apart around you.

[CommanderTuvok]

There is some protest or other at a US university, where Mike Cernovich is speaking. Somebody took this photograph of NAMBLA protesting him. Note the second bullet point.

Someone tell me this is a photoshop, or some of Mike's goons pretending to be the SJW protestors, just to make them look like paedo-supporters NAMBLA. Amazing if the SJW protestors were happy with NAMBLA there, especially with that message.

Lol.

[MacGruberKnows]

So, besides being uber politcally correct in the SJW-friendly sense, changing continuity and showing no respect at all for it (Spock having an UNTIL NOW previously unmentioned half sister or sister I forget and HOW they portray Sarek) they now power their Magical Mystery Ship with Mushrooms:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... e-blunder/

You cannot make this shit up.

I remember someone mentioning that some science consultants on the original Star Trek said the acceleration of the Enterprise would kill everyone on it when they went to warp drive. Too much inertia. So they created made up 'inertial dampers'. Problem solved.
I'm sure they'll find make up something else to solve whatever the Discovery series problem is.

[Old_ones]

Some people have this idea that to be a determinist means turning into a fatalistic automaton, but I don't think that is a realistic fear given that we are innately emotional creatures. Coyne is just saying that while it is important not to suppress normal human emotion, we need to understand what is really going on underneath.

Hard determinism is by definition a belief that human beings are automatons. Specifically, definition 2 of the Merriam Webster entry on automaton:

:a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

If we are full deterministic creatures then that means we are not really making decisions, don't really have any choice in anything we do, and ultimately follow a predetermined path. It would mean that what we think of as choice is an illusion, and what we are really doing is engaging pre-programed routines that we have no choice but to follow.

I have a hard time with that, because it doesn't seem to allow for the existence of meta-cognitive phenomena which allow a person to change their direction in life. For example, I appear to have improved my depression by deliberately seeking help and acquiring new cognitive skills to re-frame and challenge certain lines of thinking that I'm prone to. If my path was determined, why did that happen? It seems simpler to assume I would have persisted in the state that I tend to be most prone to. The fact that I can not only think, but also think about my thinking and deliberately analyze it for consistency seems to provide a mechanism for dynamic behavior that goes beyond being a simple reaction to my environment (i.e. choice and agency). Why do people make shopping lists? Its almost like they get different results at the grocery store depending on how deliberate they are about analyzing and programming their behavior. But if our minds are completely deterministic, then how can this be explained? If I'm acting out a determinism at the grocery store, then I should end up with the same ratio of broccoli to junk food in my cart every single shopping trip, and it should be a ratio of how much more I like junk food than broccoli, to how obliged I feel to eat healthy.

I don't see how the complexity and self referencing nature of human psychology can be explained in a fully deterministic system. Its easier for me to imagine that there are certain deterministic ground rules that manifest as strong tendencies in our psychology and behavior. And that we gain some ability to break out of that through our awareness of our thoughts and our ability to formulate an identity. Hard determinism is attractive because it seems easier to square with physics, but I can't buy it because it doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience of my own existence.

[Guest_b74eb81c]

I read an interview or something with one of the producers of TNG/DS9/Voyager. When he was asked how the Heisenberg compensators worked, he answered "Very well thank you".

I should hope so too, you don't want to be beamed down halfway through a tree or 700 feet underground. That problem was explored in an episode the other 90s Gene Rodenberry thing "Earth Final Conflict", I think the fella ended up rematerialising in a table or the floor.

CaughtUpLockedOut.

[jet_lagg]

The worldbuilding is a big part of what draws me to Star Trek, so the inconsistencies (especially big ones like world changing tech) are really really irritating. I'm a Star Wars guy. Laser swords, space dogfights, and princesses in bikinis. Voyager eventually got me on board the trek train because I saw a Klingon girl in the adverts and immediately had a crush on her.

The Star Wars prequels are a perfect example of what happens if your story is forced to fit a continuity established decades earlier.

The prequels kind of reenforce the point. Fans lost it over midicholorians. So even there continuity was a big issue and that's ignoring the slack you get when a big part of your series appeal comes from a scantily clad, chained up Carrie Fisher.

[John D]

Some people have this idea that to be a determinist means turning into a fatalistic automaton, but I don't think that is a realistic fear given that we are innately emotional creatures. Coyne is just saying that while it is important not to suppress normal human emotion, we need to understand what is really going on underneath.

Hard determinism is by definition a belief that human beings are automatons. Specifically, definition 2 of the Merriam Webster entry on automaton:

:a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

If we are full deterministic creatures then that means we are not really making decisions, don't really have any choice in anything we do, and ultimately follow a predetermined path. It would mean that what we think of as choice is an illusion, and what we are really doing is engaging pre-programed routines that we have no choice but to follow.

I have a hard time with that, because it doesn't seem to allow for the existence of meta-cognitive phenomena which allow a person to change their direction in life. For example, I appear to have improved my depression by deliberately seeking help and acquiring new cognitive skills to re-frame and challenge certain lines of thinking that I'm prone to. If my path was determined, why did that happen? It seems simpler to assume I would have persisted in the state that I tend to be most prone to. The fact that I can not only think, but also think about my thinking and deliberately analyze it for consistency seems to provide a mechanism for dynamic behavior that goes beyond being a simple reaction to my environment (i.e. choice and agency). Why do people make shopping lists? Its almost like they get different results at the grocery store depending on how deliberate they are about analyzing and programming their behavior. But if our minds are completely deterministic, then how can this be explained? If I'm acting out a determinism at the grocery store, then I should end up with the same ratio of broccoli to junk food in my cart every single shopping trip, and it should be a ratio of how much more I like junk food than broccoli, to how obliged I feel to eat healthy.

I don't see how the complexity and self referencing nature of human psychology can be explained in a fully deterministic system. Its easier for me to imagine that there are certain deterministic ground rules that manifest as strong tendencies in our psychology and behavior. And that we gain some ability to break out of that through our awareness of our thoughts and our ability to formulate an identity. Hard determinism is attractive because it seems easier to square with physics, but I can't buy it because it doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience of my own existence.

Whatever man... I am not smart enough to prove you wrong... but... I just think you are wrong.

[Old_ones]

Some people have this idea that to be a determinist means turning into a fatalistic automaton, but I don't think that is a realistic fear given that we are innately emotional creatures. Coyne is just saying that while it is important not to suppress normal human emotion, we need to understand what is really going on underneath.

Hard determinism is by definition a belief that human beings are automatons. Specifically, definition 2 of the Merriam Webster entry on automaton:

:a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

If we are full deterministic creatures then that means we are not really making decisions, don't really have any choice in anything we do, and ultimately follow a predetermined path. It would mean that what we think of as choice is an illusion, and what we are really doing is engaging pre-programed routines that we have no choice but to follow.

I have a hard time with that, because it doesn't seem to allow for the existence of meta-cognitive phenomena which allow a person to change their direction in life. For example, I appear to have improved my depression by deliberately seeking help and acquiring new cognitive skills to re-frame and challenge certain lines of thinking that I'm prone to. If my path was determined, why did that happen? It seems simpler to assume I would have persisted in the state that I tend to be most prone to. The fact that I can not only think, but also think about my thinking and deliberately analyze it for consistency seems to provide a mechanism for dynamic behavior that goes beyond being a simple reaction to my environment (i.e. choice and agency). Why do people make shopping lists? Its almost like they get different results at the grocery store depending on how deliberate they are about analyzing and programming their behavior. But if our minds are completely deterministic, then how can this be explained? If I'm acting out a determinism at the grocery store, then I should end up with the same ratio of broccoli to junk food in my cart every single shopping trip, and it should be a ratio of how much more I like junk food than broccoli, to how obliged I feel to eat healthy.

I don't see how the complexity and self referencing nature of human psychology can be explained in a fully deterministic system. Its easier for me to imagine that there are certain deterministic ground rules that manifest as strong tendencies in our psychology and behavior. And that we gain some ability to break out of that through our awareness of our thoughts and our ability to formulate an identity. Hard determinism is attractive because it seems easier to square with physics, but I can't buy it because it doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience of my own existence.

Whatever man... I am not smart enough to prove you wrong... but... I just think you are wrong.

I don't know that I'm right, I just can't understand how I'm wrong.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I remember someone mentioning that some science consultants on the original Star Trek said the acceleration of the Enterprise would kill everyone on it when they went to warp drive. Too much inertia. So they created made up 'inertial dampers'. Problem solved.
I'm sure they'll find make up something else to solve whatever the Discovery series problem is.

Turn off inertial dampers next time the writing staff meet.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I remember someone mentioning that some science consultants on the original Star Trek said the acceleration of the Enterprise would kill everyone on it when they went to warp drive. Too much inertia. So they created made up 'inertial dampers'. Problem solved.
I'm sure they'll find make up something else to solve whatever the Discovery series problem is.

Turn off inertial dampers next time the writing staff meet.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm convinced that she has at least two sock-puppets. I don't recall their handles but they follow the pattern of two words, something aggressive followed by an animal, private Disqus histories, and they always back her up.

Deommiesbrother is one, maybe? Hyr were calling me "matty" like zie knew me already.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm convinced that she has at least two sock-puppets. I don't recall their handles but they follow the pattern of two words, something aggressive followed by an animal, private Disqus histories, and they always back her up.

Deommiesbrother is one, maybe? Hyr were calling me "matty" like zie knew me already.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Some people have this idea that to be a determinist means turning into a fatalistic automaton, but I don't think that is a realistic fear given that we are innately emotional creatures. Coyne is just saying that while it is important not to suppress normal human emotion, we need to understand what is really going on underneath.

Hard determinism is by definition a belief that human beings are automatons. Specifically, definition 2 of the Merriam Webster entry on automaton:

:a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

If we are full deterministic creatures then that means we are not really making decisions, don't really have any choice in anything we do, and ultimately follow a predetermined path. It would mean that what we think of as choice is an illusion, and what we are really doing is engaging pre-programed routines that we have no choice but to follow.

I have a hard time with that, because it doesn't seem to allow for the existence of meta-cognitive phenomena which allow a person to change their direction in life. For example, I appear to have improved my depression by deliberately seeking help and acquiring new cognitive skills to re-frame and challenge certain lines of thinking that I'm prone to. If my path was determined, why did that happen? It seems simpler to assume I would have persisted in the state that I tend to be most prone to. The fact that I can not only think, but also think about my thinking and deliberately analyze it for consistency seems to provide a mechanism for dynamic behavior that goes beyond being a simple reaction to my environment (i.e. choice and agency). Why do people make shopping lists? Its almost like they get different results at the grocery store depending on how deliberate they are about analyzing and programming their behavior. But if our minds are completely deterministic, then how can this be explained? If I'm acting out a determinism at the grocery store, then I should end up with the same ratio of broccoli to junk food in my cart every single shopping trip, and it should be a ratio of how much more I like junk food than broccoli, to how obliged I feel to eat healthy.

I don't see how the complexity and self referencing nature of human psychology can be explained in a fully deterministic system. Its easier for me to imagine that there are certain deterministic ground rules that manifest as strong tendencies in our psychology and behavior. And that we gain some ability to break out of that through our awareness of our thoughts and our ability to formulate an identity. Hard determinism is attractive because it seems easier to square with physics, but I can't buy it because it doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience of my own existence.

Whatever man... I am not smart enough to prove you wrong... but... I just think you are wrong.

I've always viewed free will as an illusion, but a very compelling one. One in which it makes sense to play along, because the alternative is frankly boring.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Hard determinism is by definition a belief that human beings are automatons. Specifically, definition 2 of the Merriam Webster entry on automaton:

:a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

If we are full deterministic creatures then that means we are not really making decisions, don't really have any choice in anything we do, and ultimately follow a predetermined path. It would mean that what we think of as choice is an illusion, and what we are really doing is engaging pre-programed routines that we have no choice but to follow.

<snip>

I don't see how the complexity and self referencing nature of human psychology can be explained in a fully deterministic system. Its easier for me to imagine that there are certain deterministic ground rules that manifest as strong tendencies in our psychology and behavior. And that we gain some ability to break out of that through our awareness of our thoughts and our ability to formulate an identity. Hard determinism is attractive because it seems easier to square with physics, but I can't buy it because it doesn't seem at all consistent with my experience of my own existence.

Whatever man... I am not smart enough to prove you wrong... but... I just think you are wrong.

I don't know that I'm right, I just can't understand how I'm wrong.

Complex process and set of concepts which aren't made easier to disentangle by definitions for words that are vague and imprecise - as Pinker put it in a quote I provided earlier, "We [may] have been misled by fuzzy thinking or by beguiling but empty idioms of language ...." One of the many reasons for my signature quote. :-)

But a couple of points or observations. While I think your quoted definition of automaton is a useful point of reference, I also think it obscures a number of aspects to them that you kind of alluded to with your comments on re-programming:

automaton: a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

While some automatons follow "predetermined sequences" - clocks for example - that's not the case for all of them as many others - computers in particular - follow "encoded instructions" that produce responses that are entirely contingent on frequently entirely random events. And then there's the ability of even some automatons to adjust their own programming, to evolve, to become more adapted to their environment. And, as I think was implied or intended by the infinite regression of self-reference of the "painter painting a picture of a painter painting a picture ..." that was nicely illustrated in Escape from the Planet of the Apes, that process may well culminate in consciousness itself: the water of the brain is turned into the wine of consciousness, as I think Pinker phrased it in his How the Mind Works.

And I think those perspectives kind of underwrite the argument that consciouness is an entirely different critter from the masses and charges of conventional physics. Something from The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (highly recommended) by David J. Chalmers:

The problem of consciousness lies uneasily at the border of science and philosophy. ...

In this book I reach conclusions that some people may think of as “antiscientific”: I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism. ... It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly. To those who suspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see.

I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense. Temperamentally, I am strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations. For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly. It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously. Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides. ... [pg xiv]

I have advocated some counterintuitive views in this work. I resisted mind-body dualism for a long time, but I have now come to the point where I accept it, not just as the only tenable view but as a satisfying view in its own right. It is always possible that I am confused, or that there is a new and radical possibility that I have overlooked; but I can comfortably say that I think dualism is very likely true. I have also raised the possibility of a kind of panpsychism. Like mind-body dualism, this is initially counterintuitive, but the counterintuitiveness disappears with time. I am unsure whether the view is true or false, but it is at least intellectually appealing, and on reflection it is not too crazy to be acceptable. [pg 356, 357]

Of maybe some related interest, Chalmers discusses various interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly that of Eugene Wigner of whom Wikipedia states:

In [Wigner's] collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays (1995), he commented: "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."[69]

Again, some suggestion there of dualism, of the idea that consciousness is, as I think Chalmers suggests or argues, an entirely different kettle of fish from the masses and charges of conventional, and objective, physics and the "laws" that supposedly describe - imperfectly - their behaviour.

[Brive1987]

Miranda has found a new friend!

:lol: :lol: :burn: :dance:

[Shatterface]

So, besides being uber politcally correct in the SJW-friendly sense, changing continuity and showing no respect at all for it (Spock having an UNTIL NOW previously unmentioned half sister or sister I forget and HOW they portray Sarek) they now power their Magical Mystery Ship with Mushrooms:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz ... e-blunder/

You cannot make this shit up.

I remember someone mentioning that some science consultants on the original Star Trek said the acceleration of the Enterprise would kill everyone on it when they went to warp drive. Too much inertia. So they created made up 'inertial dampers'. Problem solved.
I'm sure they'll find make up something else to solve whatever the Discovery series problem is.

The transporters also have 'Heisenberg compensators' to meet a similar objection. At the end of the day the writers have to chose between a deep space-set Horatio Hornblower with technobabble or a hard sf series about a years-long ferry service to Mars.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

An Alcubierre Drive could have solved the dampening problem, if the concept had existed at the time...

[Shatterface]

Apart from The Expanse every TV show I know models it's starships on Navy vessels so the gravity is at right angles to the direction of motion. They also change direction by swooping in arcs instead of flipping round and firing the engines in another direction.

It's not just TV though. I read James Smythe's Explorer which got rave reviews. The author's grasp of physics was abysmal. That's about an exploration vessel sent into deep space for no adequate reason that keeps on going till they only have half the fuel left, then it is supposed to turn round and come home. There's no gravity while the engines are running but they have artificial gravity that only works when the engines are switch off. If the crew have to go outside the spacecraft to do repairs they have to slow it down. The protagomist spends his entire time observing the crew from a cavity between the outer hull and the inner one which runs the entire length of the ship. He can listen in on them through the air vents in every room which means that if this cavity is punctured at any point it would depressurise the entire ship.

[Pseudomonas]

Apart from The Expanse every TV show I know models it's starships on Navy vessels so the gravity is at right angles to the direction of motion. They also change direction by swooping in arcs instead of flipping round and firing the engines in another direction.

Babylon 5 had:
Fighters changing direction by "flipping round and firing the engines in another direction" .
Capital ships (humans, at least) with rotating sections to give artificial gravity, or (older models) no gravity and crew strapped in.

It also had swoopy arc ships as well, but those races had at least some form of gravity control (and a confusion of naval and army ranks in the top end of the human military).

Pseudomonas

[Keating]

Whatever man... I am not smart enough to prove you wrong... but... I just think you are wrong.

I don't know that I'm right, I just can't understand how I'm wrong.

That's exactly my thinking on the matter too.

Maybe this is like grue. I took one philosophy course as an elective when an undergraduate. I never understood what point was trying to be made with bleen and grue. Maybe this is another idea I can't see properly.

[deLurch]

https://files.catbox.moe/n638ek.jpg

[deLurch]

On one hand, I hate to be that dick. But the association will eventually be made so...

how are those fine bucking 14 year olds treating you?
https://imgoat.com/uploads/53b3a3d6ab/54333.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

There is some protest or other at a US university, where Mike Cernovich is speaking. Somebody took this photograph of NAMBLA protesting him. Note the second bullet point.

Someone tell me this is a photoshop, or some of Mike's goons pretending to be the SJW protestors, just to make them look like paedo-supporters NAMBLA. Amazing if the SJW protestors were happy with NAMBLA there, especially with that message.

Lol.

It's actually Trump supporters pretending to be antifa to troll.

[deLurch]

It's actually Trump supporters pretending to be antifa to troll.

Carting around pro-pedo messages as a troll is not a thing I would ever do. What the fuck do you do when you if you get caught or unmasked? Pretend that you were just being edgy? Sorry but that will go over like a lead balloon for life.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Sarah_Butts

[katamari Damassi]

I'm convinced that she has at least two sock-puppets. I don't recall their handles but they follow the pattern of two words, something aggressive followed by an animal, private Disqus histories, and they always back her up.

Deommiesbrother is one, maybe? Hyr were calling me "matty" like zie knew me already.

Ignore my post. Brain fart. I was thinking of WMD Kitty not Raging Bee.

[MarcusAu]

Ignore my post. Brain fart. I was thinking of WMD Kitty not Raging Bee.

You poor man.

[John D]

Of course... yall sci fi fan do realize that Star Trek is basically a retelling of Horatio Hornblower... with some 1930s plup themes (western and sci fi pulp). The "physics" of Star Trek is entirely comic. They "invented" the transport so they could speed their way to a planet and save the money of always using shuttle craft on set. If they wanted to trap people on the planet they would create some kind of McGuffin to make the transporter break. haha.

Star Wars was actually worse in my opinion....haha... "flying" space ships the make noise when the fly by... complete with the dopler effect.... brrrrrrrraaaaawwwwwwww..... noise in a vacuum... love it.

I think 2001 is a masterpiece of tribute to real physics of space flight. The first time I saw it I thought... "Fantastic... now all sci fi will use real physics"... haha... I was pretty naive. Also, Alien and Aliens does a good job with most of the physics too, with just a few problems, like "artificial gravity".

[John D]

On the topic of "free will" and consciousness and such... I highly recommend "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger. He does a pretty good job describing the features of consciousness, but is not so bold as to claim he knows why it works the way it does. A very useful exploration.

[John D]

Regarding "rape culture", and rapist movie stars, etc.... I finally figured out why this discussion always pisses me off. I am one of those nerdy and honest guys who refused to play beta-male. The up side of this for me is that my wife and I met in a way that secured a very strong honest life-long relationship. I never lied to impress girls, and so I had very few dates. With a few exceptions, most girls were taller than me and dumber than me... haha. I tried to date the smart nerdy girls, but they would have nothing to do with me (I was just too awkward I suppose.... I am sure I came across as creepy). I stuck to my guns. If I was going to have a decent relationship one day it would be based on honesty.

Life is funny. I had a date with a cute young girl that a friend set up. I was 17 and she was 16. We managed to buy some booze and we had a few drinks with friends. She got drunk and we made out a bit. She had told me earlier that she needed to be home by midnight so I took her home when the time came. But, when we got home she told me she didn't want to go home and we should stay out and make out some more. I had no doubt we could have parked somewhere and screwed... and this would have been my first time. But, the idea of this felt really wrong for me. I didn't want to have sex with a drunken girl I hardly knew. So I just told her she should go home. She was really fucking pissed at me and called me a jerk as she exited my car. I was really upset at the time. Part of me said we should have stayed out all night. In hindsight.... I think I knew it was a bad idea to stick my dick in crazy.

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

And somehow they say the culture is to blame and all men are to blame. Well no you shits! I was taught by my parents to have honest relationships. Relationships based on caring... and even love. I was taught that sex is best with someone who cares about you. This IS the culture. All you fuckers have to do is live the culture. The Hollywood types.. and the powerful politicians... they mock so much of traditional culture. They never come out and say... "Hey... I am a movie star and I only have sex with the person I want to have a life long loving relationship with." Nope.... because they are not ethical in this manner. They need to look in the mirror. This is not on me. Remember me... I am the one who didn't want sex to be just for fun... or just a transaction.

So fuck you famous bastards! Whores and pimps and hypocrites. Fuck you! Look in the god-damned mirror and say to yourself... "Have some fucking self respect!"

There. I feel better now. Really... I do.

[VickyCaramel]

The penal system needs to have an element of revenge for the victim, and more importantly for society. The desire for justice and the outrage at injustice (especially on other people's behalf it seems) is incredibly powerful.... you would think the social justice crowd would understand this!
.

The greater the acceptance of determinism, the less vengeful the society is likely to be. We are driven by emotion, that's true, but at some point victims need rationality to override emotion in order to move on. People react very strongly to seeing others treated unfairly, true, but if the idea of free will is removed from the equation then the conception of what is unfair will shift. The state has a duty to protect society from criminals, but I would also argue the Sam Harris point that an objective morality would strive for the minimisation of suffering and that might mean taking into account the suffering of the criminal. The criminal is a victim of circumstance in some ways, being predisposed to a dysfunctional pattern of behaviour. The notion of free will gets in the way of achieving a balance between "fairness" to the criminal and assuaging the victim's grievance and societal safety. In that sense I think the idea of free will is very consequential.

I don't buy that societies that embrace determinism are more compassionate. The biological determinism of the Nazis and the social determinism of the Communists didn't produce a compassionate response to deviance.

If it was actually proven that the death penalty worked as a deterrent I'd still oppose it because it's morally wrong.

On the subject of tough sentencing being a deterrent, there is research on this but i wouldn't know where to find it.
Bottom line is that it does work as a deterrent but you are missing out a couple of steps. Before a criminal goes to prison, they need to get caught and convicted. Criminals will typically weigh up the chances of being caught and the chances of being convicted against the reward for doing the crime and the punishment.
Some research into criminals has shown that their ability to weigh consequences is underdeveloped so they are very bad at making this calculation, greatly underestimating their chances of being caught and convicted. In their mind it makes the punishment irrelevant as they think things like, "I have a great lawyer, he will get me off anything".

So to have a deterrent effect you need a very efficient criminal justice service with very high conviction rates, and sentencing which is harsh in relation to the crime.

If you have some situations like in the US where drug dealers and gang members are shooting each other at such high rates that you extend your life expectancy by going to jail, then obviously there is very little chance of creating a deterrent.

[Kirbmarc]

It's actually Trump supporters pretending to be antifa to troll.

Carting around pro-pedo messages as a troll is not a thing I would ever do. What the fuck do you do when you if you get caught or unmasked? Pretend that you were just being edgy? Sorry but that will go over like a lead balloon for life.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Sarah_Butts

I'd never do it either, but apparently some people are willing to do it.

[deLurch]

I'd never do it either, but apparently some people are willing to do it.

You know what? In any other decade I would readily agree with you that it was a foul set up. But when Salon and other "liberal" media outlets have been publishing supportive articles on pedos, I have to ask, where is your proof those are pro-trump demonstrators setting up antifa?

Hell, antifa does enough to discredit themselves. I wouldn't consider them overly smart or media savvy either.

[AndrewV69]

In other news and from Mo Vlogs:

Apparently Dubai Police has 14 supercars.
At least one of the drivers is a woman police officer.
Dubai also has the first paperless unmanned police station.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

Regarding "rape culture", and rapist movie stars, etc.... I finally figured out why this discussion always pisses me off. I am one of those nerdy and honest guys who refused to play beta-male. The up side of this for me is that my wife and I met in a way that secured a very strong honest life-long relationship. I never lied to impress girls, and so I had very few dates. With a few exceptions, most girls were taller than me and dumber than me... haha. I tried to date the smart nerdy girls, but they would have nothing to do with me (I was just too awkward I suppose.... I am sure I came across as creepy). I stuck to my guns. If I was going to have a decent relationship one day it would be based on honesty.

Life is funny. I had a date with a cute young girl that a friend set up. I was 17 and she was 16. We managed to buy some booze and we had a few drinks with friends. She got drunk and we made out a bit. She had told me earlier that she needed to be home by midnight so I took her home when the time came. But, when we got home she told me she didn't want to go home and we should stay out and make out some more. I had no doubt we could have parked somewhere and screwed... and this would have been my first time. But, the idea of this felt really wrong for me. I didn't want to have sex with a drunken girl I hardly knew. So I just told her she should go home. She was really fucking pissed at me and called me a jerk as she exited my car. I was really upset at the time. Part of me said we should have stayed out all night. In hindsight.... I think I knew it was a bad idea to stick my dick in crazy.

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

And somehow they say the culture is to blame and all men are to blame. Well no you shits! I was taught by my parents to have honest relationships. Relationships based on caring... and even love. I was taught that sex is best with someone who cares about you. This IS the culture. All you fuckers have to do is live the culture. The Hollywood types.. and the powerful politicians... they mock so much of traditional culture. They never come out and say... "Hey... I am a movie star and I only have sex with the person I want to have a life long loving relationship with." Nope.... because they are not ethical in this manner. They need to look in the mirror. This is not on me. Remember me... I am the one who didn't want sex to be just for fun... or just a transaction.

So fuck you famous bastards! Whores and pimps and hypocrites. Fuck you! Look in the god-damned mirror and say to yourself... "Have some fucking self respect!"

There. I feel better now. Really... I do.

I think you just made an enemy of Steersman

[jet_lagg]

Apart from The Expanse every TV show I know models it's starships on Navy vessels so the gravity is at right angles to the direction of motion. They also change direction by swooping in arcs instead of flipping round and firing the engines in another direction.

It's not just TV though. I read James Smythe's Explorer which got rave reviews. The author's grasp of physics was abysmal. That's about an exploration vessel sent into deep space for no adequate reason that keeps on going till they only have half the fuel left, then it is supposed to turn round and come home. There's no gravity while the engines are running but they have artificial gravity that only works when the engines are switch off. If the crew have to go outside the spacecraft to do repairs they have to slow it down. The protagomist spends his entire time observing the crew from a cavity between the outer hull and the inner one which runs the entire length of the ship. He can listen in on them through the air vents in every room which means that if this cavity is punctured at any point it would depressurise the entire ship.

I don't remember if you're into gaming or not, but Children of a Dead Earth was created by getting the physics correct first, and extrapolating what interplanetary combat would look like from there. The bulk of the game boils down to managing your delta-V and getting an intuition for orbital mechanics.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/47653 ... ead_Earth/

[shoutinghorse]

Of course he'll be allowed to come back, let him jump the queue on the council house list. No problem, he is just a misunderstood victim of Britain's colonial Islamophobic past right? .. Or are you just a disgusting racist scumbag. :roll:

Didn't do nuffin'

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 2093982367

[Shatterface]

I've worked with ex-offenders and some of them can be in and out of prison four or five times a year so not only does prison itself fail as a deterrent but so does the almost certainty that they'll get caught. Their usual excuse is they just can't help themselves. Whatever you believe about the underlying physics the fact remains that people who recoginise that the choices they make lead them to prison have a lower recidivism rate than those who blame society, their parents, or their genes.

[jet_lagg]

Well that's just the problem. Believe something is true and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's basically what Dennett is warning against when he argues with Sam Harris over free will.

And personally I think the people who go in for dualism are too intoxicated by what they call qualia to see how the elements they consider unexplainable might not even be there. Like when you're very high and convinced you've uncovered something profound. You really, really haven't. It's just some quirk of the event that it activates the same synapses that would have been if you had unlocked a mystery.

[Karmakin]

Regarding "rape culture", and rapist movie stars, etc.... I finally figured out why this discussion always pisses me off. I am one of those nerdy and honest guys who refused to play beta-male. The up side of this for me is that my wife and I met in a way that secured a very strong honest life-long relationship. I never lied to impress girls, and so I had very few dates. With a few exceptions, most girls were taller than me and dumber than me... haha. I tried to date the smart nerdy girls, but they would have nothing to do with me (I was just too awkward I suppose.... I am sure I came across as creepy). I stuck to my guns. If I was going to have a decent relationship one day it would be based on honesty.

Life is funny. I had a date with a cute young girl that a friend set up. I was 17 and she was 16. We managed to buy some booze and we had a few drinks with friends. She got drunk and we made out a bit. She had told me earlier that she needed to be home by midnight so I took her home when the time came. But, when we got home she told me she didn't want to go home and we should stay out and make out some more. I had no doubt we could have parked somewhere and screwed... and this would have been my first time. But, the idea of this felt really wrong for me. I didn't want to have sex with a drunken girl I hardly knew. So I just told her she should go home. She was really fucking pissed at me and called me a jerk as she exited my car. I was really upset at the time. Part of me said we should have stayed out all night. In hindsight.... I think I knew it was a bad idea to stick my dick in crazy.

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

And somehow they say the culture is to blame and all men are to blame. Well no you shits! I was taught by my parents to have honest relationships. Relationships based on caring... and even love. I was taught that sex is best with someone who cares about you. This IS the culture. All you fuckers have to do is live the culture. The Hollywood types.. and the powerful politicians... they mock so much of traditional culture. They never come out and say... "Hey... I am a movie star and I only have sex with the person I want to have a life long loving relationship with." Nope.... because they are not ethical in this manner. They need to look in the mirror. This is not on me. Remember me... I am the one who didn't want sex to be just for fun... or just a transaction.

So fuck you famous bastards! Whores and pimps and hypocrites. Fuck you! Look in the god-damned mirror and say to yourself... "Have some fucking self respect!"

There. I feel better now. Really... I do.

This 99%.

I'd suspect the bulk of us here are in this camp. Not all the details, of course, but the idea that sex should be based on relationships and caring all that jazz. That's not to say no sex until marriage, but hey, maybe be careful about sex before relationships?

And the people who are generally mocked here....are not in this camp. At all.

The only part I disagree with is the "alpha/beta" part, as I think it's less about that and more about culture. But maybe I'm wrong and these culture's are self-selecting for personality. At the same time, the FTB crowd is HARDLY a bunch of alphas.

[VickyCaramel]

I've worked with ex-offenders and some of them can be in and out of prison four or five times a year so not only does prison itself fail as a deterrent but so does the almost certainty that they'll get caught. Their usual excuse is they just can't help themselves. Whatever you believe about the underlying physics the fact remains that people who recoginise that the choices they make lead them to prison have a lower recidivism rate than those who blame society, their parents, or their genes.

I broadly agree with you but I don't really recognise that last part in relation to the actual criminals. Our criminal culture isn't really a victim culture for the most part. it is hard to say that the justifications they use are post hoc rationalizations because they are part of a culture. Certainly where I come from, we have no shortage of criminals but they are not really blaming society or race. Instead they see themselves as "Robin Hood" types, where they are robbing the rich to give to the poor, where they are the poor. They tell themselves that their victims can afford it, they will claim on the insurance so what they do are victimless crimes because insurance is legalized extortion. They essentially see themselves as robbing the robbers. When it comes to drug dealing, again they see this as a victimless crime.

Frankly I do blame the parents in a lot of cases, mostly the fathers. If you have a father who thinks "taking liberties" is permissible, then you are more likely to think 'where's the harm' in helping yourself to a five-finger-discount. It doesn't help! These people can probably be rehabilitated. This is where culture comes in. My family came from a very poor part of London, they were poor but proud and honest with a culture of hard work and self reliance. I have a couple of uncles who became rather successful criminals in the 50s and 60s which was a source of shame for the family, but during this time a culture started to arise where gangsters were romanticized.

I am really not sure that going easy on criminals helps destroy this culture which can create them. This culture should be crushed rather than making excuses for it.

But you are essentially right, there are people who recognize that their choices who will land them in prison, and people who just can't help themselves. There will always be a percentage of people who be habitually light fingered, habitually violent, habitually lazy, habitually unemployable. It has been a long time since I did a sociology A-Level, but I seem to remember the number is 5-8%. You can't point to people in this group and say that the system isn't working.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Bruce Maxwell, the first major league baseball player to kneel in protest of police mistreating blacks, arrested for pointing a gun at the head of a food delivery person after he drunkenly forgot he'd ordered:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/ar ... ium=social

[jet_lagg]

Current Affairs response to Scott Alexander's response to the piece on new atheism from The Baffler

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/ ... ew-atheism

The author bleats on and on about what assholes the horsemen were and even the otherwise "compassionate" Peezus gets a mention.

Even biologist-blogger P.Z. Myers, far more compassionate than the rest, had a sick streak: when a Brazilian priest died in a ballooning accident while trying to raise money to build a rest stop for truckers...

[Service Dog]

Gotta love a classic white mutiny: Do your job exactly by the book and the job description thus causing everything to fall apart around you.

The two wikipedia citations for 'white mutiny' fit so perfectly: Heinlein influenced me more than any other writer, as a young pup.

And the British/East India colonial origin of the term-- truly matches the way the French execs came to NYC & couldn't adapt to local culture. They tried to fake their way to control by being overbearing. So-- me acting like a shiftless native guide-- was their kryptonite.

https://img00.deviantart.net/7c39/i/201 ... 4pxqck.jpg

[MacGruberKnows]

Bruce Maxwell, the first major league baseball player to kneel in protest of police mistreating blacks, arrested for pointing a gun at the head of a food delivery person after he drunkenly forgot he'd ordered:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/ar ... ium=social

#pizzadeliverymenlivesmatter

[Service Dog]

Regarding "rape culture", and rapist movie stars, etc.... I finally figured out why this discussion always pisses me off. I am one of those nerdy and honest guys who refused to play beta-male. The up side of this for me is that my wife and I met in a way that secured a very strong honest life-long relationship. I never lied to impress girls, and so I had very few dates. With a few exceptions, most girls were taller than me and dumber than me... haha. I tried to date the smart nerdy girls, but they would have nothing to do with me (I was just too awkward I suppose.... I am sure I came across as creepy). I stuck to my guns. If I was going to have a decent relationship one day it would be based on honesty.

Life is funny. I had a date with a cute young girl that a friend set up. I was 17 and she was 16. We managed to buy some booze and we had a few drinks with friends. She got drunk and we made out a bit. She had told me earlier that she needed to be home by midnight so I took her home when the time came. But, when we got home she told me she didn't want to go home and we should stay out and make out some more. I had no doubt we could have parked somewhere and screwed... and this would have been my first time. But, the idea of this felt really wrong for me. I didn't want to have sex with a drunken girl I hardly knew. So I just told her she should go home. She was really fucking pissed at me and called me a jerk as she exited my car. I was really upset at the time. Part of me said we should have stayed out all night. In hindsight.... I think I knew it was a bad idea to stick my dick in crazy.

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

And somehow they say the culture is to blame and all men are to blame. Well no you shits! I was taught by my parents to have honest relationships. Relationships based on caring... and even love. I was taught that sex is best with someone who cares about you. This IS the culture. All you fuckers have to do is live the culture. The Hollywood types.. and the powerful politicians... they mock so much of traditional culture. They never come out and say... "Hey... I am a movie star and I only have sex with the person I want to have a life long loving relationship with." Nope.... because they are not ethical in this manner. They need to look in the mirror. This is not on me. Remember me... I am the one who didn't want sex to be just for fun... or just a transaction.

So fuck you famous bastards! Whores and pimps and hypocrites. Fuck you! Look in the god-damned mirror and say to yourself... "Have some fucking self respect!"

There. I feel better now. Really... I do.

Everything you describe matches my life & values, including the awkwardness of being the young virgin guy who says 'no' to an eager girl in a situation which seems not-quite-ok. And pairing up with a single partner at a young age. I think the only difference is-- in our early 40's-- my ex had a sudden urge to ditch me & chase after the last fumes of her youth via casual dating & silly, expensive nights on the town with her aging-gay-guy admirers. Which utterly crushed me... and left me no choice except to play-ball in a world where that type of disloyalty is the norm. I can't =make= any woman keep her long-term promises. So my only choices are to keep getting exploited&stiffed... or stoop to the common level & protect only-myself/ leave my partners to look-out for their own well-being, when it clashes with mine. In other words-- I empathize with the hollywood fancy people, too. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." They're playing the hand they're dealt.

[shoutinghorse]

Bruce Maxwell, the first major league baseball player to kneel in protest of police mistreating blacks, arrested for pointing a gun at the head of a food delivery person after he drunkenly forgot he'd ordered:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/ar ... ium=social

#pizzadeliverymenlivesmatter

There's an urban notion here in the UK that our footballers aren't always the sharpest tools in the box. I'm assuming this is similar in the US with your Baseball players.

:doh:

[Kirbmarc]

Current Affairs response to Scott Alexander's response to the piece on new atheism from The Baffler

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/ ... ew-atheism

The author bleats on and on about what assholes the horsemen were and even the otherwise "compassionate" Peezus gets a mention.

Even biologist-blogger P.Z. Myers, far more compassionate than the rest, had a sick streak: when a Brazilian priest died in a ballooning accident while trying to raise money to build a rest stop for truckers...

The author only shows that when religion seems to agree with left-wing policies (at least on the superficially) then certain leftists will like religion. He also vastly underestimates the problems with Islam and, it has to be said, with Christianity when it's Black Christianity (which is highly traditionalist and conservative, yet it's called "hard to dislike").

Basically the cardinal sin of "New Atheism", for people like the author, is that it's not "friendly" enough to the Poor Oppressed People of Color who Must Never Be Harshly Criticized. It's a soft islam accommodationism and refusal to criticize Christianity when it's not White Christianity. I'm sure that the author has the best intentions in mind (protecting the weak, fighting oppression, opposing racism etc. etc.) but he fails to acknowledge that his accommodationist position silences legitimate criticism of religion when it's not White Religion.

The piece is nonetheless interesting because it explains very well that the support of the left for New Atheism was conditional and circumstantial, since it depended more on which people were seen as the leaders of Christianity (in the US it mainly Bush and Ratzinger, both of which were very unpopular with the American left).

I think that to an extent this is understandable: the left is more about protecting its values than about criticizing irrationality or promoting science (indeed the left, sadly, can sometimes support irrationality and pseudo-science, see the whole Lysenkoism disaster). This is true for the right, the center, the libertarians and all other forms of political thought. Science and reason are allies when they say something you agree with, but when they might provide uncomfortable truths then it's time to deny, distort, equivocate and backpedal.

[Kirbmarc]

It's pretty funny that PeeZee's efforts to be sympathetic to the SocJus haven't endeared many SocJus fans to him, or even many leftists for that matter. PeeZee remains in the middle, too much of a New Atheist for the NOMA left and too much of a SocJus fan for the New New Atheism. Plus his "happy" atheist shtick is not fooling anyone, and he's still seen as an asshole.