Readit News logoReadit News
somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
exe34 · a day ago
basically religion worked so well that it stopped working.

I think they got caught with their pants down due to progress in communications. there was a time they could suppress information and get away with it. they didn't realise soon enough that the world had changed. in fact secularism helped give a refuge to the victims - if the highest law of the land was the church, then the old ways would have worked just fine.

somenameforme · 19 hours ago
I don't see how you can reconcile this with their past actions, like the prohibition of marriage or even the appointment of heirs - all as a effort to clamp down on abuses. This is what I was getting at with their historical actions prohibiting marriage. Imagine you live in a time where marriage was completely legal for those within the Church and then, as a punishment, they completely forbade it as well as the designation of heirs. That degree of extremism, in pursuit of a moral goal, is completely unimaginable in modern times - in most of any context. It'd be like combating corruption by requiring politicians give away all belongings when entering office and prohibit them from monetizing their time in office after leaving. That's just inconvenient, so it'd never happen.

In any case I suppose now we're looping back around to the original point that we started bickering on. I think the problem is that society has become broadly more amoral, including religious leaders. If one cannot lead by example, then one cannot lead. I think this is the exact same reason that government systems are also failing. It'll be interesting to see where and what this culminates in, as I expect it will happen without our lifetimes.

As for the Church, it was (and remains) never too late to pull a Hollywood. Hollywood had been making not entirely subtle jokes about Ratner, Weinstein, and all of these other guys for decades. Everybody in Hollywood knew they were sex abusers, but it's only when it became clear that they were beyond the point of no return that Hollywood was like 'oh my gosh, that's just so unacceptable, I can't believe you'd do that, away with thee.' But of course doing that would be inconvenient, so again - it'd never happen, certainly not with the current leadership nor cardinals that elected them.

somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
exe34 · 2 days ago
they didn't know it was going to backfire. they were trying to save it using the same approach that worked for >1500 years.
somenameforme · 2 days ago
I wouldn't say this is entirely accurate. For instance there's some irony in that the reason Priests can't marry is, in part, because of draconian measures against priests abusing their power by essentially establishing fiefdoms composed of Church lands and property. Local priests would control such property and then pass it onto their heirs, appoint family members to important positions, and generally just treat it their own little demesnes.

The Church responding with 'you can no longer get married and shall have no heirs' was a very serious FAFO moment. Just think about how huge a deal that is, if you can even imagine it! The Church used to make much more effort to abide their values, very much in the way that e.g. Islam does today. The centralized nature of the Catholic Church means this (the pedo stuff) could easily be rectified by a single person, the Pope, but their failure to do so is also what I was alluding to with the dysfunction in the College of Cardinals (which is whom elects the Pope).

Deleted Comment

somenameforme commented on Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business   agweb.com/news/business/f... · Posted by u/storf45
mullingitover · 2 days ago
> You're assuming there is another side, which there seems to be no reason whatsoever to assume

There are at least two sides to every contract, that's how contracts work. There are a lot of people lining up to defend the business owner, and I'm not finding a single word from any of the H-2A workers, who are uniquely powerless and in a class who has a well-documented history of being exploited.

Those workers 'quitting' was found to be constructive dismissal. They were coerced into quitting, that's the 'other side.' That meant they surrendered their transportation costs back home (which they would've been entitled to if they were fired), and arguably lost out on other work they could've done.

somenameforme · 2 days ago
They can't say anything more than 'yeah we were totally fired'. So it comes down to motivation, witnesses, history, etc. The farmers have been running this farm for decades with an upstanding record, and have zero motivation to want to get rid of the employees they hired unless those employees could not competently do the labor they were hired to do.

By contrast the workers themselves signed up for some of the most brutal/specialized farm work (which they may not have understood had they lied and never actually done it before - it's one of the highest paid crops for laborers), zero witnesses to their claims (and in fact they could only get 3 of the 17 workers to even claim that they were fired), and were able to carry out a freeroll for a crop year of salary by saying 'Yeah uh we were fired.' Anonymously. Through a translator. Provided by some NGO. Online. While in Mexico. At home.

In the end if one has to make a probability judgement, this is not even remotely close. And indeed this is why the farmers are cheering having their constitutional right to a fair trial granted - they're going to win this literally 100% of the time to the point that this is practically fit for summary judgement. Again the only thing particularly weird here are the government's actions.

somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
exe34 · 2 days ago
> But from my worldview the perpetuation of a culture, and a society, is the first and foremost requirement [...]and arguably the single most primal responsibility of the people within that culture and society. This overlaps well with religion,

I was agreeing with you, if not prescriptively, at least descriptively.

somenameforme · 2 days ago
On that I would disagree. Had the Catholic Church chosen to take severe actions against the pedophiles, defrocking and even excommunication in severe cases, I think they would be in a far greater position today. By protecting the pedophiles, they have greatly imperiled their own authority and ability to persist into the future.

This gets back to the original discussion we were having about hypocrisy. Far lesser ails led to the Protestant reformation. In this case, alongside the dysfunction in the College of Cardinals, there will be no reformation but simply a decline.

somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
shkkmo · 2 days ago
You means stuff like "Any group that maintains a positive fertility rate will multiply indefinitely"?
somenameforme · 2 days ago
That statement is not only true, but a tautology. The multiplication will only cease if the fertility rate declines. For traits and values that are highly heritable, these too will consequently increase in a rate that is, at the minimum, proportional to the rate of fertility. Especially in modern times this is literally how Islam is 'spreading', and it's spreading rapidly, everywhere.

And bear in mind that fertility is an exponential system, in both increases and decreases. So groups that are removing themselves from the gene pool will do so with a rapidity that is quite counter-intuitive. Like a fertility rate of 1 doesn't sound that insane (it obviously translates to literally every single woman having one child on average), yet it results in a generational decline of 50%, with a generation tending to be around our window of fertility - about 20 years.

So imagine two groups start at 16 people and one group maintains a fertility rate of 1, and the other group maintains a fertility rate of 3. After just 5 generations, about a century, the low fertility group will have 1 person, and the higher fertility group will have 81. You went from equal size to an 8100% difference, after a single century! And that's with fertility levels that are entirely realistic and not just comparing extremes like Nigeria or South Korea.

[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/04/06/why-musli...

somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
exe34 · 3 days ago
yes, this is why the Catholic church protects abusers. propagation of the memeplex comes above the people it pretends to save.
somenameforme · 2 days ago
Your response is incoherent to me, can you rephrase it?
somenameforme commented on Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business   agweb.com/news/business/f... · Posted by u/storf45
mullingitover · 3 days ago
> And what reason do you have to believe this?

I didn’t say the article was lying, I said it uncritically reported only one side of the story.

This is an agribusiness news site. Do you think that they’re out here looking for an honest to god scoop about labor abuses? Do you think that if they found them, they’d make a front page story about it?

somenameforme · 3 days ago
You're assuming there is another side, which there seems to be no reason whatsoever to assume. The facts, outside of the government's behavior, are extremely benign and supported by decades of precedent by the exact same people doing the exact same stuff in the exact same way. I'm certain the guys who quit, or even if they were fired, on the first day didn't expect to get a crop year's salary out of it. This makes the government's behavior all the more absurd. Yet the government's behavior is not in question, only the constitutionality of it. And indeed it turns out that it was unconstitutional.
somenameforme commented on We’re Not So Special: A new book challenges human exceptionalism   democracyjournal.org/maga... · Posted by u/nobet
exe34 · 3 days ago
I like how you try to link lack of religiosity and lack of morality. it shows you understand neither.
somenameforme · 3 days ago
Morality is relative. But from my worldview the perpetuation of a culture, and a society, is the first and foremost requirement of any successful culture or society, and arguably the single most primal responsibility of the people within that culture and society. This overlaps well with religion, but not so much with what I assume you might consider moral or amoral given your comment.
somenameforme commented on Dev Reveals Secrets Behind New "3D" Platformer for the ZX Spectrum   timeextension.com/news/20... · Posted by u/Flow
gxd · 3 days ago
I wouldn't have believed my eyes if I had seen that back in the day. The interesting thing is that the capability was there all along.
somenameforme · 3 days ago
Marble Madness was a thing at the time. [1] There's a ZX Spectrum port, that's awful, but it maintained the same 3d goodness.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zByAew6AKJ8

u/somenameforme

KarmaCake day11774January 7, 2022View Original