subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
science
|
The myth that people back in the day found obesity attractive is... Well a myth. Surely people of status sometimes ate a little bit too much because they had such great access to it. But that doesn't mean they found it attractive.
Of course a little bit extra wasn't seen as ugly (and neither is it today, quite the contrary), but actual obesity and overweight was never a beauty standard because even then people could tell it wasn't making people healthy.
Also, status symbol != beauty standard.
https://www.quora.com/Would-a-medieval-king-find-a-present-day-supermodel-attractive
|
science
|
I am not disagreeing that being highly overweight is unhealthy. I am disagreeing with the idea, that judging oneself is not taught behaviour.
The Renaissance portraits are drawn that way because that was the beauty standart. They aren't all portraits of rich ladies. They often had a mystical or biblical background and used women that fit the beautystandart. Hell even the goddess of beauty, Venus, was drawn with wide hips and a little bit of a [belly](https://www.topalski.com/2016/original-paintings-fine-art-for-sale/venus-after-cabanel-oil-painting/) and nowadays she gets painted like [this](https://lindsayrappgallery.com/products/venus-original-painting) still gorgeous mind you but that's nearly half of what she used to be...
I agree that it is not alright to just blame society for beeing to heavy or unhealthy. But saying that society has no influence in obesity is plain wrong as well.
And no. Knowing that some men would find me hot will not fix my insecurities. It doesn not just magically heal all the times that I felt less attractive or less of a person because of my weight.
I wish you a speedy recovery with your injury.
|
science
|
Couple of quick quotes:
#
>Ethnographically, the thin body ideal and stigmatization of fatness that characterizes many Western societies has not been found to be universal; rather, plumpness is considered more attractive, more marriageable, higher status, or healthier in many traditional cultures (Anderson et al. 1992; Brown and Konner 1987). In their examination of the cross-cultural standards of ideal body type based on the Human Relation Area Files (HRAF), Brown and Konner (1987) found that in the majority (p. 74) (81 percent) of the 38 societies with available data, a plump to moderately fat
body was preferred, with only 19 percent preferring thinness. While none of the societies favored an extremely obese body type, available evidence suggested that a moderately fat body type was associated with health, wealth, and fecundity. In a famous ethnographic example, elite pubescent girls of the Efik of Nigeria spent up to two years before marriage in fattening huts, putting on weight as one of the symbols of womanhood and marriageability (Brown and Konner 1987). Similarly, Fellahin Arabs of Egypt were said to describe the proper woman as fat because fatness was associated with maternity and nurturance (Brown 1991).
#
The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity, Anthropology of Obesity. So not only back in the day, but in modern studies, various cultures have preferred "plump to moderately fat" bodies, explicitly in terms of attractiveness: indeed not obese (which was not claimed), but perhaps more than you would regard as a little bit extra from a western perspective.
#
>In their work with ethnic Fijian schoolgirls, Becker et al. (2002, 2004) observed an increase in disordered eating attitudes and behaviors over the three years following introduction of Western television. Within this context of rapid social change in a culture that did not traditionally value thinness, girls’ comments indicated a desire to emulate television characters.
#
The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity, Socioeconomic status and obesity. So considering that the western model has the capacity to essentially infiltrate a culture and induce eating disorders in its youth, I would have trouble considering our perspective as one to be particularly proud of.
|
science
|
"Plump" means how thick exactly? I never argued that having a little bit extra is considered ugly.
And I also never said that society doesn't have an influence. But just by taking away society, doesn't make you more healthy or less fat or happier at all.
If that's really true for you then you need to think about why you value the opinion of others higher than your own.
What I was arguing is that people are so quick to lay blame at the feet of society, while they're straight up unhealthy and they KNOW it. And how do they know? Because they don't just have "a little extra", they can barely run and get injured really quickly if they do. They feel awful also because they're unhealthy and NOT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LOOK. It's because their bodies are not getting what they need, or getting too much of what they don't want.
|
science
|
In the study cited, "plumpness to moderate fatness" "includes the clinical categories of overweight and mild obesity" (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1987.tb36195.x).
#
Taking away societal influence won't make you less fat, but for some it might actually remove the entire context for why it feels bad to be fat: eg, you're metabolically healthy and don't really have any terrible risk factors (no more than most anyone does with whatever vices, environmental factors or genetic predispositions they have), so the stigmatisation and shame that is imposed on you, not intrinsic, is all you have to care about.
#
Or maybe you're not metabolically healthy but you don't care. People harm their health in lots of ways that aren't stigmatised: voluntary overwork and lack of sleep, for example, is often admired. Obesity status is conflated with some kind of moral flaw far more than many other forms of unhealthy behaviour are.
#
I think it's unrealistic to suggest that people exist in a society and somehow filter out absolutely pervasive societal messages. It's not "the opinion of others" in the way that your mother-in-law thinks you should have different wallpaper; it's pretty much the fabric of your social reality telling you that you are unhealthy (not necessarily true and other forms of unhealthiness are ignored) and ugly (a societal value) and implying that you are in some sense immoral. That would understandably have an adverse influence on mental health, I'd think.
|
science
|
Except people that overwork and lack sleep still feel awful about themselves, which means it's a great example of which to say: "Look people don't judge you badly for it, but it still makes you feel awful".
And that's my point, I already said it. Of course it makes you feel worse if people think badly of you. But I've personally found that even when that goes away, you'll realize it's not "society" that's making you feel bad. It's your own consciousness telling you "this is making me feel bad and unhealthy", because your body always signals when it's not doing well.
|
science
|
>Another depressing factor was knowing it was making me unattractive, but that wasn’t “bullying,” it was just reality imho. (Obesity really is inherently unattractive imho - it usually indicates unfitness, poor mobility, poor health and lack of discipline, and those traits are never going to be seen as attractive). Nobody was mean to me about it, but nobody was interested in me either.
This is so true for me right now. The women I find attractive find me unappealing. It hurts, and it sucks. I tell myself that I don't want a relationship and that it's the result of a painful divorce, but my body image definitely plays a large part in that as well.
|
science
|
I agree that The Birth of Venus is a realistic and healthy depiction of a woman...it's still not todays beauty standart and that's the whole point. People today would look at her and say that she looks so nice if only she lost those few extra pounds, yadda yadda.
> ...people will say you look unattractive because of the way you look (did they though?).
You're actually doubting my experience with people calling me names?... Cheers for that, I'm done.
|
science
|
I said "did they though", because you never claimed that they did but I simply assumed it.
And I would disagree that she doesn't fall into what men these days think is beautiful. Like I said before, if you'd seen the polls on these kind of things you'd know that.
But then you suddenly changed your mind and claimed you didn't care about the opinion of men (aka 50 % of society) on beauty. So which is it?
|
science
|
Look at homosexuality. It was only 2 decades ago that many gay people felt ashamed of themselves because the rest of society looked down at them. Felt they were perverse. You’re seeing that a lot less now when people become more accepting. Obesity is a huge health issue, but people shouldn’t be pushed by shame, but rather wanting to be the healthiest person they can be. Shame doesn’t work. A different approach needs to be taken.
|
science
|
I was only 25-30 pounds over what I consider my ideal weight and barely into what they consider overweight (my bmi was 25). I wasn't really in the realm of where you start to see social consequences I don't think, but I still felt bad both physically and mentally. I almost felt sick especially when compared to how I feel when I'm my much more normal much healthier 20-21 bmi. I'm sure the social side effects contribute but I bet much of it is intrinsic.
|
science
|
Lots of people eat more when they are stressed, overworking could lead to poor diet choices or no time to cook, again for exercising, unhealthy food is often cheaper and I'd say theirs a link between negative mental health and lower income.
Definitely a lot of factors to consider as well as the negative perception of overweight people in the media and from peers. Provide people the tools and resources to live a healthy life (physically and mentally) regardless of their income or background.
|
science
|
I am in great shape, in the sense that I can casually run half marathons a few times a week and always maintain a pretty intense weight lifting routine.
Despite this, my weight fluctuates 10-20 lbs on the time scale of months and there have been times in my adult life where I’ve been a lean 160 and times where I’ve been a chubby 225.
When I get depressed or anxious, my weight swings upward. I’ve noticed that as the weight comes on, I’m treated differently by both women and men. Every time my weight swings down, I notice the change in people’s behavior towards me first, before I kick my own funk. I think there’s some synergy - when you’re depressed or anxious, people tend to be less excited to be around you, and being overweight amplifies that somewhat. As you lose the weight, people loosen up again and its easier for you to be open and confident with them, which helps you get over your own problems.
When I was younger and gained the weight, I really resent people for the way the treated me, thinking they were all so shallow. Now I realize my attitude played a significant role and I think being conscious of that had made the swings a a lot easier.
|
science
|
Thanks. The divorce definitely sucked and sent me into pretty hard depression. I'm back to living on my own now after living with my parents for the last 3 years. The responsibility of being a homeowner is helping, and I've got some business opportunities that are going to change my life completely. Those things are definitely helping. I've also got some great friends I've shared my goals with and they're keeping me motivated to do good.
Long story short... Thanks for caring, internet stranger! It means more than you know.
|
science
|
Its not that simple. Look at Nicaragua as an example. Run by a dictator until 1979, overthrown the Sandinista revolution who's leader then became a dictator (Daniel Ortega). Supposed to be a 'democracy' but I would be very nervous running in opposition to the ruling party in an election there. This year, massive protests to try and force Daniel Ortega out of power (as he attempts to take even more money from a repressed populace). And the people just got shot down by a well armed and organized military and police force.
|
science
|
Most foreign students I knew in college come from wealth, and are essentially buying their way into the American dream. Those that return to their countries have no reason to change anything given that the way things are have made them rich. So long as the people who actually possess the means to effect meaningful change are so self-indulgent, nothing will change. America is one big marshmallow , and they are failing the test.
|
science
|
Alright, so first off; a couple of decades isn't much when we're talking about the formation of governments. If all the people who were capable of running a properly democratic country were purged back then, where are the new people supposed to come from? You need 18 years just for a kid to become an adult, that adult then needs access to the kind of education that will allow them to learn the things they need to know to become part of a functioning government.
Secondly, El Salvador and Honduras are in disarray because of MS-13, which was created on the streets of LA after refugees from the civil war found themselves crammed into the worst areas of America, caught between violent American gangs (during the worst periods of gang trouble in the US) and thrown into American prisons. Then, after giving all of these former refugees crash courses in "how to do crime American style", the US ships them all back to El Salvador, which was horrendously unprepared to deal with organized crime on that level (because they're still recovering from American meddling and a massive civil war). It shouldn't be any surprise that those gang members would overrun those areas. And *that* has happened over the last ten-fifteen years, so in a way, yes, the US has manipulated Honduras and El Salvador in decades.
|
science
|
> so in a way, yes, the US has manipulated Honduras and El Salvador in decades.
I don't think you can compare criminals and a rampant culture of criminality to some kind of deliberate US intervention. The alternative was keeping those people in the US, where they could inflict this kind of violence on Americans. Their criminality is not America's fault.
I suppose the alternative was throwing all the MS-13 members out of the plane on the flight south. Hindsight 20/20. They had to go somewhere, they weren't US citizens and they couldn't stay here.
|
science
|
> In Mexico the locals got tired of the gangs sh*t and were run out of town (including corrupt police)
Are you talking about Totolapan? ['Cause they tried that in 2015 and it isn't going great for them.](https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fvanguardia.com.mx%2Farticulo%2Fen-totolapan-guerrero-denuncian-ataque-balazos-de-100-sicarios-se-reportan-siete-muertos&edit-text=)
A handful of armed civilians aren't going to be able to deal with the cartels so long as American guns and American money are fueling them, dude. These are people who have made entire towns vanish by incinerating them or dissolving the people in barrels of acid, then bulldozed the ruins of the town just because.
|
science
|
I know. Deep down they love socialism, Venezuelan, Cuban, East German, or the USSR. They just all made mistakes and didn’t do *real* socialism.
But I don’t see a way to make people give up private property without a coercive dictatorship of some sort. And as soon as you have a ruling class, equality has always gone out the window.
Perhaps someday we will have a utopia run by incorruptible computers and it really is equal. But I suspect those who program and run those computers, and enforce the results, will eat better and live better than the masses.
If no one has two pairs of shoes until everyone has one, it will take a long time. On the other hand, it doesn’t take long to make three pairs for the 1% nomenklatura. In almost every human society there’s a 1%that lives much better. The only question is: do you get there by merit, or by cunning and naked force (Lenin).
|
science
|
I agree that it sucks, but....if you don't think that some of the founders of MS-13 went back to el Salvador voluntarily to expand the gang then you're out of your mind. The way you argue it sounds like all the gang members got caught and the US just shipped them all back. The gang would've spread with or without deportation. I don't claim to be an expert, but I lived in Honduras for 2 years and learned a lot about it. I was a missionary so I was out and about in various types of areas in and outside of Teguc and saw a lot of stuff
|
science
|
Well... it wasn't a democratically elected government when the US was involving itself (a fight against communism at the time). The Sandinistas were ruling in a Junta. Ortega won the first election after the Iran/Contra meddling (in 1984). And to be fair, they have had a semblance of democracy after that, the Sandinistas have have lost power in elections since. The current state of affairs appears much closer to a dictatorship, based on how they treat protestors and freedom of speech.
|
science
|
Their comment was unnecessarily snarky, but I was in your position not gonna convert units but I was ~8.5st (sometimes quite a bit less) for as long as I could remember. And could eat so much junk food and most people under the table without really putting on any weight.
I got up to 10st in 3 or 4 months by eating quite a bit more (but not overkill) and protein shakes. The trick to not feeling sick is to work out, I went to the gym 3-5 times a week and started running again. All the exercise helps the weight stay on by building muscle mass and your appetite increases because of the exercise so you don't feel sick on a daily basis.
I've go to the gym very occasionally now, do some body weight exercises here and there and do lots or running but I stay around the 9.5st mark. Still smaller than most but I've got low body fat, pretty lean and toned to an extent, and way fitter than most people I know.
Completely agree with you on the other side of the obesity spectrum, but with that effort my happiness increased and self confidence has increased by miles and my anxiety is pretty much non existent.
I didn't think it would make a difference and I was built that way but obese or underweight the solution is eating more (or less) preferably healthy and full of nutrition and exercise.
|
science
|
I wonder if they meant it more comically or as a joke, but yeah, I feel you here. It's incredibly insensitive and shows ignorance of the issue.
I myself am consistently underweight for being 6'3'', so I get these types of comments from time to time too. People don't think before they answer, but to me irl it shows that the person isn't actually that interested in helping, and there's some underlying issue for them that causes them to outburst like this.
​
Alternatively I've had lovely conversations with clueless people who will ask questions instead of make statements and even if they have nothing to offer, they walk away not determining that I must be this or that. These people are nice. I like these people
|
science
|
This is the topic to a long series of anxiety but to put it in short.
A lot of processed foods, stuff you throw in an oven that comes prepackaged. A lot of potatoes. French fries, hashbrowns, mashed potatoes. The only meat I eat is chicken basically.
Trying new foods is an anxiety filled process that when I even think about my heart rate goes up and I tend to not even look at unfamiliar food as edible.
I've looked it up and SED (Selective Eating Disorder) seems like the closest thing to what I go through with a name.
I don't live in a big city and I have no clue if my USA insurance would cover a "food therapist" or dietician or whatever, even though this is truly an awful anxiety ridden process.
Sometimes, I know what I eat isn't healthy and I just don't eat all day because I rather not eat than put more pre-processed, high saturated fats, into my arties.
|
science
|
I mean technically yeah thats about it. That said food can be expensive, you could be a picky eater, or you could have allergies.
All 3 of these are reasons I have for being at 165lbs at my heaviest (healthy weight is like 190-230lbs).
If the allergy wasn't milk it would be 100x easier. But right there you lose whey powder and the magic cure GOMAD. I did Hemp/Pea Protein for awhile but it's a lot more expensive than whey. If I could use whole milk instead of almond milk it might have actually done something. Milk is basically "get fat" in liquid form. An increase in mucous production would be a small side effect to getting rid of these noodle arms.
|
science
|
Count your calories (even an estimate is better than nothing) and it will make it much easier.
When you have a structured and objective goal to reach (i.e, must hit 3000 calories per day) it makes it more doable than just constantly eating throughout the day blindly trying to gain weight.
I struggle to gain weight too, but at least I know it's my fault when I'm in bed and I've only consumed 1800-2000 calories for the day.
|
science
|
There's a great deal of research on this topic, but your starting point is visiting your physician for medical tests and advice.
When I was 19 years old, I also had trouble achieving a healthy weight and experienced depression - I was 40 lbs underweight, even though I consumed a great amount of food each day. It took many visits to the doctor and several blood tests to determine the exact cause (imbalanced liver enzymes). With treatment, I got up to a healthy weight and the pervasive depression went away.
|
science
|
How do you feel about peanut butter sandwiches and chocolate milk? A friend of mine in college was super skinny and verrrry picky. He started eating a lot of those two things (and mixed nuts as snacks) which are pretty calorically dense and he put on quite a bit of weight in six months. Overall I think those things are healthier than processed/fried stuff so you may not feel as guilty eating them.
|
science
|
Counting calories is a great way to stay at a healthy weight either way... it reduces everything to a math problem. Figuring out I could eat a 1200 calorie meal every day, so long as I didnt exceed 800 calories total elsewhere, made it soooooo much easier to not eat like a fatass (was previously eating almost 4000 calories a day without even thinking about it). And I'm only 2 months in and down 30 pounds already.
|
science
|
Why lift weights? Wouldn't that make you burn more calories?
I struggled with weight gain (well, stopping weight loss) when breastfeeding and ended up underweight. More calories out than in apparently. Lifting weights would have made me burn even more calories I assume and divert the little energy I had towards muscles instead of lactation and my own energy. I just sat on my butt, lactating and eating hehe. Only thing that helped eventually was weaning my kiddo.
|
science
|
The likelihood is low but I want to pass this on anyway. My son always was crazy skinny but had no other significant health issues. He's 23 and now has been diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis. In hindsight I wish we had some kind of "red flag" to check for it. His doctor said that it's not typically done. I don't want anyone reading this to overreact but if it's easy to check, it's best done before your liver fails and you need a transplant :/
|
science
|
Yeah, a postpartum, lactating woman is a different case than an avergage skinny guy. Generally though, lifting weights actually doesn't burn a ton of calories compared to other types of activity, like running. And you want to offset that burn by eating a caloric surplus above your TDEE. The resulting surplus is necessary for your body to add muscle mass as an adaptation to the increased stress. The benefits of lifting cannot be overstated. You feel better, you look better, you have increased stamina and bone density (osteoporosis is a calcium loss disorder, not a calcium deficiency disorder), it improves your posture, etc etc etc.
Muscle also weighs more than fat does so there's that too. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to add weight, they can add fat or muscle. Which would you rather have?
|
science
|
I remember being at a weight loss program and sitting with a woman who was very thin. She was there as support for her husband. While talking, she remarked on how difficult it was for her to gain weight, and how she needed to force herself to eat enough to just maintain her weight. I always thought that if you were thin, weight was just easier to deal with. I’d honestly never thought about it until that day, but I realized that her struggle was just as hard as my own.
|
science
|
Don’t buy weight gainers...they’re overpriced and full of sugar. Make your own:
2% milk, olive oil, protein powder and oats (I personally used around 3 cups, .25 cup, 1 scoop and 1-1.25cup, respectively). All the oats and oil might be a bit tough on the gut at first so maybe start with a bit less and work up.
Easily over 1000 calories but still pretty healthy and with a good ratio of protein, carbs and fats. Really cheap and you know exactly what’s in it and can adjust each ingredient as needed.
Can blend it but now I just make 2 shakes the night before and leave them in the fridge to soften the oats more. Drink 2 a day plus a couple solid meals and you’ll definitely put on weight fast (will be mainly fat of course unless you workout regularly). I had to scale back once I reached 245lbs at 6’2’.
|
science
|
No, you're absolutely right. A certain amount of fat is healthy and depending on your ideal body, even desirable. I've gone to very low body fat before and while it's cool to see abs, I don't look healthy overall so I keep a certain amount of fat on me now. It's about finding and maintaining the right balance. If you were underweight and on a lifting/weight gain plan, I'd say you'd want to calculate your TDEE and try to eat about 500 kcal above that (gotta log your food though) and stick with that a good 6 months or so. You'll definitely add some fat and that's ok. After adding some bulk, you want to cut down by eating below your TDEE while continuing to work out. Your body will burn the excess fat first, leaving muscle behind (as long as you keep protein up and continue lifting). You just keep at this until you get to the point where you are comfortable with your looks. You can maintain from there or change your plans.
|
science
|
Sounds good. I never counted a calorie in my life though ... I forced myself to eat when I wasn't hungry and ate whole fat diary and such, but yeah apparently it all wasn't enough. I'm in my third trimester of pregnancy now so heading towards andother breastfeeding journey if all goes well. Maybe I'll let a dietician check my diet if it plummets again. I weigh 20 kilo more now than at my lowest point last year. It's crazy what a body can handle!
|
science
|
I've been underweight and prone to anxiety my whole life, so maybe? I was 6'1" and 145lbs until my mid twenties, where I gained 20lbs from quitting smoking (anxiety got worse at this point).
Now in my mid 30s and I weigh about 205 and workout regularly and have much much less anxiety, but that may be due to many factors (especially quitting drinking, if you drink regularly it is highly likely to cause anxiety).
Drinking milk works if you can tolerate it. It is cheap and regularly available. I worked up to about 1/4 gal or so of milk a day on top of everything I was already eating. Gained fat, but lost it later when I got my squat up to 275 and decided to cut down on the flab. Gained 30lbs or so this way.
It takes time so you have to consistently eat more calories every day. Aim for about a pound a week if you are lifting and bulking. Do this for a while and watch the strength gains roll in!
|
science
|
Those calorie numbers seem low for the height and weight measurements. If it works though great news.
For reference, I'm 5 foot 10 inches 155 lbs and I need 3100 per day to gain 2-3 lbs of muscle and fat per month when I exercise 3 days in a week. However, I need 2300 per day to maintain my weight if I just sit in bed for several months (surgery down time)
These numbers come from 2 years of strict calorie tracking and trial and error.
|
science
|
I honestly used to think it was impossible. I'm probably on record somewhere on Reddit saying as much. Trying to do the three meals was impossible for me without going over, and the whole 6 micro-meal thing for me was even harder.
But you know what worked? Concentrating almost 60% of my daily caloric intake into a single sitting. There I am, eating a 1200 calorie meal like I would have before going on this diet. But rather than doing it twice or three times a day, I do it once. I still get that food coma feeling and the corresponding rush of dopamine, all whilst working the math equation. The other 800 calories are either a second meal of 700ish calories, split 500/200 amongst two other micro-meals with room for some fruits and veggie snacking,
After a couple of weeks, my body got used to not eating much outside of this one large meal, but I didn't have to subvert what my body felt was a "full meal" entirely. I guess if i'm too weak to fight my habits, make use of them.
|
science
|
Do you have stomach issues?
I am 6'2 and was 130-140 lbs all through high school and till my late 20s when I was hospitalized then diagnosed with Crohn's disease.
Saw a gastro doctor and got put on meds immediately started feeling better. Lifting weights and gaining weights. Got to 175 lbs in a year and healthier than ever.
I also suffered from anxiety and depression all through high school up until I started getting healthy. Now I take no medicine and feel great.
Your guy effects your mental health a lot
|
science
|
Visit more therapists until you find one that suits you.
If youre not willing to seek therapy, as trivial as this might sound, learn to eat.
Make it mechanical. Create a schedule where you eat a doable portion. You are a normal human being so eating a normal meal with around 700 kcal every 4 hours is fully doable. Add some snacks and you will be at 3 meals = 2100 kcal and some which should lead to weight gain. Making it not about emotion is the best thing you can do as you seem to have trouble with that.
|
science
|
Food security, metabolic rates, "expendable" energy (no fat = no energy storage), substance habits, etc.
On top of all that, for chronically thin people you need an absurd amount of daily calories to gain weight. I'm 6'5'' (196~ cm) and I just weighed in at ~175. Even on a pretty heavy diet of 2800-3000 calories daily (with healthy food, just high calories), I've *lost* 5 pounds since my last weigh in.
|
science
|
I've had the same problem but what helped for me was the realisation that I just have a fast metabolism and any food that just gives energy doesn't give me gains. So I gave up on just calorie intake and cut out sugar and carbs. I train twice a week and then eat what improves muscle growth/repair and I've gained 10 kilos (I think 20 lbs) in half a year. Which I never in my life had happen.
|
science
|
People tend to blame external factors for their own problems, but blame the individual when other people experience difficulty in their lives.
Humans are not logical creatures that operate on consistent rules, but instead some system of emotional weighting. The notion of "cheating" requires a system of rules to be violated in the first place, but in most cases, it's people's expectations that have been violated, rather than an agreed-upon set of rules.
|
science
|
>Tribalism, team victory is more important than anything else, regardless how they win, as long as they did.
Elected **represent**atives aren't elected to be scientists (people devoted to truth) or judges (people devoted to fairness)… if they were, then elections by the general populace wouldn't be how they were selected, now would it? No, they are elected to as **represent**atives so that they will **represent** the people who elected them… that's what **represent**atives are for. It strikes me as odd that people even find this noteworthy. What else did they expect?
|
science
|
Can I piggyback on this a bit?
I think the overarching idea is an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.
If someone lies to benefit their team, but the team is doing something positive, then that can seem more "ethical" than telling the truth and torpedoing the group's aims.
The issue is the lack of self-reflection, I think. Not enough people out there are willing to go "hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda."
|
science
|
The thing is that winning or losing in politics translates to actual changes in your quality of life and material existence. Having one team win means your family that is here illegally gets hunted and harassed by ice and detained indefinitely. Having one team win means your union will be weakened and your quality of life will decline as a result. Having one team win means the difference between being able to go to the doctor or not, literally life or death. Having one team win means a better or worse quality of air and water.
Cheating, lying, and generally doing illegal shit is alright as long as the ends justify the means. Slave revolts were illegal, union activity was illegal, anti-war activity was illegal, etc.
|
science
|
Because we are pack and social animals. Many would rather die than live in complete isolation.
In fact, to live in isolation is to die. Back in a more primitive time we relied on each other for survival.
If I was a farmer and you were a hunter, you could provide meat and I could provide wheat/corn and our neighbor who has a talent for building shelter, built our homes. We all contribute to our well being and we mutually gain from each other.
Not long ago when someone was banished from a society, they died, they couldn’t survive the wilderness on their own. They would succumb to the elements, starvation and become prey. Those who are also thrown out can’t reproduce.
So it was literal life and death so it makes sense that a sense of belonging is priority 1. It’s a instinct implanted in our minds from evolution, an instinctual social behavior. Facts, truth, or being “fair”, is irrelevant, those are technically “higher level” functions.
|
science
|
I feel like the issue with this idea is, when we're talking politics, is it loyalty to party or simply loyalty to the ideals one personally holds which in effect becomes loyalty to the party that holds them?
Because when i think "team loyalty" I think of loyalty to a sports team, which is just an arbitrary choice, usually stemming from where you live. You don't have to believe in what that team stands for.
Politics is different, and it goes to the core of our beliefs.
|
science
|
> People tend to blame external factors for their own problems, but blame the individual when other people experience difficulty in their lives.
I feel like this is an over-generalization.
Maybe at first people will blame the individual for their difficulties, but often when they actually learn about those difficulties, they can change their minds. Blaming the individual for their difficulties or blaming others for one's own difficulties may be the knee-jerk response, but in both cases they are often just a product of ignorance.
Now, if we're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge that maybe their point of view is skewed or ignorant, and they actively reject any information presented to them that might change their perspective, that's different.
Humans are not *inherently* logical creatures but we can and often do make best efforts to be.
|
science
|
>I think the overarching idea is an "ends justify the means" kind of thing.
That's just opportunism and not very noteworthy in itself.
> When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.
The interesting part is that in politics people consider themselves part of a group for reasons other than their political goals.
A political group may openly work towards goals that are opposed to the interests of their voters and the voters don't walk away. That's a problem of both the left and the right.
|
science
|
> When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.
This is the point I think is being missed by a lot of the comments here. The tribalism is being spoken of like it's a simple in-group/out-group thing, like you might see in chimps or something. But when it comes to tribalism in politics, it isn't so much loyalty to the group as it is loyalty to one's own personal beliefs and therefore loyalty to the party that best represents them. It's a tribalism that stems from a personal belief system, not just because "it's the group I've always been in".
|
science
|
Ideally yes. My point is, if someone is on a team like that, they think if someone hurt them, it's ok to hurt the other person back equally, if not worse. If they accept the enemy as a fellow human being, with feelings and family, etc, then it's harder to be cruel in return. Also they think it's better to lower themselves to the enemies level than it is to hold themselves to a higher standard. When really all or does perpetuate the cruelty.
|
science
|
> I feel like this is an over-generalization.
What they spoke about is two things called the Actor-Observer Bias and the Fundamental Attribution Error respectively. It is no more an over-generalization than saying "Humans have lungs" might be considered the same. The latter effect, of which the former is just an extension, is literally so pervasive in our species, that they decided to name it the **Fundamental** error.
>Humans are not inherently logical creatures but we can and often do make best efforts to be.
A humans best effort is still not logical. This is a binary consideration. You don't get extra points for trying really hard. Either you behave logically, or you do not. Bounded logic, which is the best approximation of logic available to humans, is not logic in any absolute sense, and more often we lean on heuristics and biases.
|
science
|
>You say that, but how did they arrive to that group? Why do they believe the group is right? It's ideological.
Ideology being a collections of a person's beliefs and values, it is hardly surprising that they associate themselves with a political group because of ideology.
The purpose of a political group is to work towards goals that correspond with the ideology of the people they represent.
The issue is when a group is voted into office because of their ideology, then act against it and nothing happens.
|
science
|
What does "ethical" mean? Most people don't really know, and for them, it's just synonymous with "good" or "moral". If their actions help "good" people, then those actions must have been "good", even if someone else performing the same action would have been "bad".
Logic requires more "mental gymnastics", or at least mental activity, than simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs. Holding a belief is simply a matter of memory, examining your own beliefs and checking them against each other to ensure they aren't contradictory requires actually thinking about them.
|
science
|
Perhaps I should have repeated or emphasized the word "tend". By default, people don't know much of anything about the situations of others, and so blame the only factor of which they're aware: the other person. Given more knowledge, they may form a more complex opinion. However, becoming less ignorant requires an expenditure of limited resources: time and effort, and people will tend to remain ignorant about many things unless motivated to inform themselves.
I would argue that not only are humans not inherently logical, they're inherently illogical, but that doesn't prevent them from building a logical framework on top of the inherently illogical one they're born with. It just tends to break down around the edges and under duress.
|
science
|
>The issue is the lack of self-reflection, I think. Not enough people out there are willing to go "hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda."
You were very reasonable right up until this point, where you painted this as an issue of a failure of character, of ability, or of morality.
Anyway, up until that point, you were essentially paraphrasing Alan Jacobs' book *How to Think*. Here's a relevant excerpt.
>When you believe that the brokenness of this world can be not just ameliorated but fixed, once and for all, then people who don’t share your optimism, or who do share it but invest it in a different system, are adversaries of Utopia. (An “adversary” is literally one who has turned against you, one who blocks your path.) Whole classes of people can by this logic become expendable—indeed, it can become the optimist’s perceived duty to eliminate the adversaries.
The important thing to distinguish here is a difference between believing in a solution to all problems and a belief that we should use available solutions to extant problems. No one levies this sort of critique against people that, rightfully, treat anti-vaxxers as a threat to the ongoing survival of the species. It's only when you move to a less obviously causal activity and system fault that people start getting testy about things like rights.
|
science
|
> Hell of a way to extend what I said far beyond the scope of it but hey, nice job I suppose.
I'm sorry you don't know the necessary consequences of saying
>Not enough people out there are willing to go "hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda."
It is unfortunate that you think that I did anything in characterizing that as painting "this as an issue of a failure of character, of ability, or of morality" other than give all of the potential explanations for your argument that are available. Are you going to be disingenuous now and pretend that failure to exercise that self-reflection is **not** either a failure of character (I can and don't want to because it's difficult or otherwise undesireable), ability (I couldn't even if I wanted to), or morality (I can and maybe even want to but won't because I believe it's directly or indirectly wrong)?
If so, let's get that out of the way so I can know whether you're worth continuing a conversation with.
|
science
|
On the contrary, I would say that tribal dynamics demand extreme consequences for harming another member of your in-group. I think this is still evident today in the disproportionate vitriol directed towards people who had identified as part of a particular political tribe in media and later capitulated to the other side. Nothing is more despicable than an apostate.
I do think there are other ways that tribalism is easily exploitable, however, most notably in its ability to fragment a larger social order along easily identifiable lines of temperament, race, gender etc.
|
science
|
Politics is not really so different from sports in that sports is an obvious metaphor/substitute/relief valve for politics. Team sports are tribalism in a nutshell, but with the concept of "sportsmanship" which is more or less respected. Some sports take this even a step further, like American football which is obviously and unapologetically a re-enacment of traditional warfare. Every week the two tribes battle it out on a conventional battlefield but no matter what, America wins. Sprinkle some cheerleaders for extra nationalism.
Thinking that sports is unrelated to politics is like saying that popular media are just entertainment with no messages to absorb, IE "don't think about it too much".
|
science
|
But even when you expose them publicly with that sweet burn, they still don't admit defeat. And I saw sweet burn because a logically constructed arguments are always responded to with an ad hominem or a whatabout.
Twatter's character limit and facebook's lack of clear formatting (enter is to post; you need to shift+enter for a new parragraph) don't help. In fact, reddit right now is giving me a tiny-ass square to type. I have to scroll to see what I was on about when I started writing this. And wtf is up with having to leave two spaces to get a parragraph going?
|
science
|
Between this comment and the OP, I am really reflecting and wondering about my political stance, and how others end up on the "team" they are on.
I was raised in a Republican household, rather conservative in many aspects and really big on "small government." Over the years we drifted apart, due to personal issues. Nothing to do with politics. Up until the last few years I maintained that conservative opinion in life but have definitely become more centrist, and as of 2016 been more left as I feel the conservative "values" do not mesh with my ideology, and with what I felt the party was supposed to stand for.
I wonder if my political opinion only changed because I am no longer in touch with my family. Would I still want to be apart of that team on the sole basis that my family is on that team. Would I agree unequivocally on all of the current policies? Would I condone and defend them regardless of what they said, or whatever scandal they are trying to cover up/pretend is no big deal?
Without being too cliched, it really makes you think about how one choice in life can really change your future.
|
science
|
There is also the problem of "just cause". If you truly believe you actually hold the moral and ethical highground, it enables us to deviate from those exact same moral and ethical values if it advances our "cause". Pacifist can kill if it prevents wars and still think their actions overall were ethical.
Team victory is one "just cause". It is even more that if you think your team is also morally and ethically better. Not allowing criticism is one sign, doubling down despite facts, silencing opposition by shouting (not via arguments or civil debate, not even talking about censorship), deflection, projection...
When it is "the moon is made of cheese" level of nonsense and the person is still loyal: they are not in it to find the best solution, they are in the game to implement their solution. And if that solution is "anything that is opposite what the other guy thinks", that is not about trying to fix anything.
|
science
|
So I did this just because I was curious. Started with the Wikipedia article on philosophy, then it brought me to “problem solving” which then brought me to “artificial intelligence” then it brought me to “intelligence” after that “logic” then “truth” then “fact” and then after that “reality” after which it puts me into a feedback loop for the pages of “fact” and “reality.” Is that what you meant or no?
|
science
|
This isn't a great example. Incisions aren't inherently wrong, any more/less than a tattoo is. If no force is involved, it needs no justification, per se.
The phrase means that you _can't convert bad into good_.
To twist your scenario a bit: assume that the doctor did the surgery against your will. Nothing will make that "good". It isn't the incision that is bad, it is the _force_ employed by the doctor. It will always be wrong.
|
science
|
Believe it or not, most journalists really are in it because they care about the work and are trying to get it right. After all, nobody goes into journalism to get rich. There's a very long list of much less competitive and much better-paying fields for people who care about money. That said, broadcast and cable journalism, because it's so visible and at the highest levels does involve big money, gives the public a skewed view of what journalists are about, even though it employs only a small minority of working journalists. As a result, it's often a pretty thankless profession.
|
science
|
To "justify" something doesn't necessarily mean to make just -- not in a moral sense, anyway. Something can be justified when it was simply the most reasonable thing to do. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I think your attributing too much subjective philosophy to it.
With that in mind, look at the sayings this way: 1) The end results never make the means to that end reasonable. 2) The means to an end are always the most reasonable.
I feel that this illustrates the problem with absolutes, either way you feel about it. And it applies even if you consider the "ends" morally right.
|
science
|
Real journalism is not the same thing as “the news” today, and perhaps it never was. But thanks for giving credit to those who still hold to their values, especially considering the things they must go through in this anti-media climate. I just wish calling out immoral shenanigans would put an end to them.. which kinda what we expect the news to be responsable for in the first place :/
So what do we do, now that this tool is causing the very thing it’s supposed to prevent?
|
science
|
Mathematics isn’t philosophy. It’s science. I’ll never understand the ardent desire for people to give such vast importance to philosophy alone. Philosophy is a tool we use to build other tools. A screwdriver isn’t a hammer even if I use a hammer to build a screwdriver. Even if I use a screwdriver *as* a hammer, it’s still not a hammer. It’s always a screwdriver.
Nobody goes around insisting that screwdrivers are a subset of hammers. But everyday I see people trying to insist that literally everything is philosophy. The kitchen sink? Philosophy. That chair? Philosophy. Imagination? Philosophy. Quarks? Purely philosophic. Nothing is real. It’s all philosophy.
|
science
|
Lying is by no means even covert apostasy if it is in service to the group objectives of the tribe.
I'm not defending lying, mind you (I think it's terrible!) but working against the tribe you are manipulating is quite difficult, I would say, since people have a very keen sense of fair play. At the scale of political parties, this sort of sense is severely limited by the sheer scope of the situation, so I suppose it is easier at that level.
|
technology
|
They aren't even tech jerks.
They are just jerks.
Steve Jobs was a brilliant marketer, salesperson and manipulator. All perfect qualities for a CEO position. His tech skills pretty much died in the garage the first Mac was built in.
Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.
|
technology
|
>Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.
I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.
For example, people who are in favour of further space exploration and/or potentially working towards a base on another planet might appreciate that Elon Musk put the money in the right place for progress in this department.
And people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along. Without Elon Musk('s money invested in the right places) we possibly wouldn't be as far.
|
technology
|
> I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.
You clearly didn't grasp fully the meaning of my statement. It's not about the fact that he pays other people to do it, it's about the fact that *he likes to take credit himself after the fact.*
This is most easily demonstrated by asking a simple question:
Can you name anyone other than Elon Musk employed by SpaceX or Tesla without google searching? Probably not.
> And people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along.
Hahahahaha, I'll tell you this right now, he's not trying to solve climate change by selling $80,000 electric cars to the 5% of the people that can afford it. And to be honest, he's not even doing a good job at that.
|
technology
|
>> I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.
>
>You clearly didn't grasp fully the meaning of my statement. It's not about the fact that he pays other people to do it, it's about the fact that *he likes to take credit himself after the fact.*
>
>This is most easily demonstrated by asking a simple question:
>
>Can you name anyone other than Elon Musk employed by SpaceX or Tesla without google searching? Probably not.
No. But... Why would I need to? If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say "Google did a good job", not "<FirstName> <SirNamed> did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google."
>>people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along.
>
>Hahahahaha, I'll tell you this right now, he's not trying to solve climate change by selling $80,000 electric cars to the 5% of the people that can afford it. And to be honest, he's not even doing a good job at that.
Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.
He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition. If that field is something people care for, they will generally be happy with the new interest he, and his competitors, will bring to the field.
For the record, I don't give a fuck about if he takes credit for it or not. For all I know he's a massive cunt irl. But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades.
|
technology
|
>
> Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.
eh...he's definitely an idiot socially and his labor practices are suspect but by all accounts i've read he's heavily involved in very minute details of all of his projects. if you have ever seen any of his presentations for spacex you would know that he definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to the specifics of how the rockets work, for example.
|
technology
|
> No. But... Why would I need to?
Have you ever seen an *attempt* at giving out credit where it's due from Musk? Have you ever seen him react humbly to mass media coverage? Have you ever seen him attempt to correct misinformation?
"Musk launches spaceship!" - No, Musk and probably thousands of other people did.
> If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say "Google did a good job", not "<FirstName> <SirNamed> did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google."
Well, Google is a company and not a single person, and when you mention it in that context, you're giving credit the *entirety* of the company, and that also includes it's employees.
Using your same analogy, if you wanted to give credit to google for doing well on it's search results, you would say "google did a good job here." you wouldn't say "larry page did a good job here."
That's the difference.
> Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.
Uh, hate to break it to you, but EVs are still not mainstream. Furthermore, the way to making EVs mainstream isn't by offering an $80,000 unit cost to 5% of the population. This of course is negating the low production numbers and goals. This also is ignoring the fact they lost $13k per unit, and have never once operated a quarter with more revenue than expenses.
> He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition.
Yes, that part I can agree with. I would also like to further add that said competition will absolutely *bury* him in the coming 5-10 years. Europe last year produced and sold over 1m EV's that aren't a Tesla. Musk can't even produce 25% in the last 5-6 years. And you know what else? The competition is far cheaper and you don't have to wait 2 years to take delivery.
> For all I know he's a massive cunt irl.
He called the guy who saved kids a pedophile because he was salty his plan wasn't used or worked. He's totally a cunt.
> But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades.
One day people will realize that he didn't actually do all the promoting, all the people on the internet did. A hype train that could have been easily ran on pretty much anything. It wasn't musk that promoted space, it was the people.
|
technology
|
Just tossing this consideration there about the $80k electric car comment. I've heard game theory ideas when it comes to climate change that there are several strategies when it comes to incentivizing the switch to renewables. Obviously, shaming people over the decades hasn't been enough to get people invested in the technology. You have to make the technology sexy or a status symbol if you can't shift the market otherwise. Not to mention, you can't make the technology affordable if you can't start producing at some level (demand+low production=high cost). So, outside of relying on governmental policies to change the culture and "save the world" (which might change as soon as an opposing party steps in), you change the game and create a scenario in which the "5%" you mentioned are just willing to hand over their money and they indirectly help cheapen the technology for the rest of us. I could be wrong but I see the Model 3 as a step in the direction of pushing the technology to the greater public. Only time will tell. I'm not crediting this thought to Musk alone though. I think there are many in the science field that are looking into this type of strategy as an alternative to failed taxes and regulations.
|
technology
|
Elon Musk opened up commercial space flight. He is a bit more then a walking check book. If you have every bothered to listen to him speak out of sensational personal slap fights on Twitter, it's pretty clear that he is deeply and intimately involved in running SpaceX.
You don't have to personally like Elon Musk as a human being to realize that he has had a major, world changing contribution to our civilization. I'm pretty happy he exists because the world is a better place because of his contributions to our civilization. He might also be a jerk in real life that I wouldn't enjoy hanging with, but who cares? There are a few billion other people who I probably also wouldn't want to personally be bff's with.
|
technology
|
> I've heard game theory ideas when it comes to climate change that there are several strategies when it comes to incentivizing the switch to renewables.
I don't think incentives are the issue. I think the issue is classical, and has always been there. It's a manufacturing issue. Let me explain.
The easiest way to say this is that the difference in emissions between an EV and the gasoline car that it's replacing over the course of their lifespans is actually **not offset** due to the emissions released during the manufacture of that automobile.
Do some research on how those battery packs are made and how the materials have to be mined and produced by fossil fuel guzzling machinery.
The whole thing is really smoke and mirrors.
Does anyone else also see the irony between this and his plan to stick a fleet of BFR transports in space spewing millions of tons of greenhouse gasses directly into the atmosphere?
> Obviously, shaming people over the decades hasn't been enough to get people invested in the technology.
Shaming people never works for anything, you should know that..
> Not to mention, you can't make the technology affordable if you can't start producing at some level
Yes, but at some point your margins need to start narrowing in on each other, but at Tesla, it's the opposite. Every quarter they have on the books follows this format:
"Highest Revenue quarter ever, but also highest expense quarter ever."
Sure, their revenue keeps climbing, but their expenses are also climbing, at a rate higher than the Revenue is.
You want the lines to look like this: >
You do not want the lines to look like this: <
|
technology
|
>> No. But... Why would I need to?
>
>Have you ever seen an *attempt* at giving out credit where it's due from Musk? Have you ever seen him react humbly to mass media coverage? Have you ever seen him attempt to correct misinformation?
I don't pay attention to what he says on twitter or wherever he communicates. I couldn't care less what he says.
>"Musk launches spaceship!" - No, Musk and probably thousands of other people did.
>
>> If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say "Google did a good job", not "<FirstName> <SirNamed> did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google."
>
>Well, Google is a company and not a single person, and when you mention it in that context, you're giving credit the *entirety* of the company, and that also includes it's employees.
Yes, when I'm giving credit to the work of Tesla I am indeed giving credit to Tesla.
>Using your same analogy, if you wanted to give credit to google for doing well on it's search results, you would say "google did a good job here." you wouldn't say "larry page did a good job here."
>
>That's the difference.
I think the actual difference here is that when Elon Musk is credited for being influential or whatever, he is given this credit because of not just one company, or else that company would get the credit.
People say 'Elon Musk is ...' instead of 'Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Company, PayPal, etc. etc. are ...' as that's more convenient.
>> Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.
>
>Uh, hate to break it to you, but EVs are still not mainstream.
Uh, hate to break it to you, but nowhere in the sentence
>He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.
did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.
>Furthermore, the way to making EVs mainstream isn't by offering an $80,000 unit cost to 5% of the population. This of course is negating the low production numbers and goals. This also is ignoring the fact they lost $13k per unit, and have never once operated a quarter with more revenue than expenses.
I don't care how he handles the finances in his business. That's up to him. If he can afford to lose money then so be it.
>> He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition.
>
>Yes, that part I can agree with. I would also like to further add that said competition will absolutely *bury* him in the coming 5-10 years.
Um, okay? Who cares? Look, nobody actually cares about the dude, just what his companies have done to help their respective fields. If Tesla is shut down in 3 years and becomes a MySpace, a company once the largest, only to eventually kickstart competition so large it becomes 100x as large as what was once the largest in the field.
>Europe last year produced and sold over 1m EV's that aren't a Tesla.
Cool, right? I wonder where that number would be without Tesla's existence.
>Musk can't even produce 25% in the last 5-6 years.
So?
>And you know what else? The competition is far cheaper and you don't have to wait 2 years to take delivery.
Yeah, sweet right? The free market is a lovely thing.
>> For all I know he's a massive cunt irl.
>
>He called the guy who saved kids a pedophile because he was salty his plan wasn't used or worked. He's totally a cunt.
Oh yeah I think I heard something about that. Sounds like a dick thing to say.
>> But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades.
>
>One day people will realize that he didn't actually do all the promoting, all the people on the internet did.
That's like saying a billboard doesn't promote a product, the people who read the billboard do.
Look, I do agree that the internet is a big part of why it blew up so much, but he put it out there. He was heavily involved.
>A hype train that could have been easily ran on pretty much anything. It wasn't musk that promoted space, it was the people.
Without the internet hype Musk would have promoted space travel, except less efficiently.
Without Musk there would have been no promotion.
|
technology
|
No, it is literally never occurred to me that maybe we are "not ready" for commercial space flight. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the feeling I've had is that it's about time. The whole point of commercial space flight is that people will only pay if it's worthwhile. If this was the proverbial empty highway, people wouldn't be paying SpaceX tens of millions of dollars to get on, and booking all the rockets years in advance. If no one actually wants it, SpaceX will just go under.
People really want it, and are willing to pay.
|
technology
|
Ok, lets analyze this.
What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?
ISS? That's about it.
Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?
Again, back to the road analogy. It's like building a road for a car that only one person has, and the road only has on destination.
So great, now we have a shuttle to the ISS for supplies and garbage. That's about all we have in the commercial realm right now.
In order to give the commercial shuttle more destinations, that's going to need some more things to happen from NASA and the rest of the international space community.
|
technology
|
> did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.
So much backpedal. "Mainstream" is sort of like a light bulb. It's either on or off. It's not "becoming illuminated" it exists in either of those two states.
Electric cars are either "mainstream" or they aren't. Seeing as how they account for less than 2% of vehicles on the road, I will say they are NOT mainstream.
|
technology
|
>> did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.
>
>So much backpedal. "Mainstream" is sort of like a light bulb. It's either on or off. It's not "becoming illuminated" it exists in either of those two states.
There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said. I even quoted myself.
It's not on or off. Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant. Rome wasn't built in a day.
>Electric cars are either "mainstream" or they aren't. Seeing as how they account for less than 2% of vehicles on the road, I will say they are NOT mainstream.
They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.
At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars. We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.
|
technology
|
Holy fuck are you wrong about, uh, everything. Where to even start?
>What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?
>ISS? That's about it.t?
No. The other destinations are literally anywhere else in orbit, to say nothing of exploration beyond orbit that is suddenly enabled when getting to space is cheap.
>Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?
You don't know what you are talking about. You are verifiable wrong. [SpaceX has made 13 launches this year, and has another 14 planned.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2018) That is the fastest launch cadence in history, by a large margin.
>Again, back to the road analogy. It's like building a road for a car that only one person has, and the road only has on destination.
>So great, now we have a shuttle to the ISS for supplies and garbage. That's about all we have in the commercial realm right now.
This is so wrong, it almost physically hurts. Google has already given SpaceX a billion (with a B) dollars to launch 4000 low earth orbit satellites so that the entire world can be blanketed with what is the equivalent both in terms of speed and capacity as a world wide wi-fi network that covers every part of the planet with the exception of the poles.
>In order to give the commercial shuttle more destinations, that's going to need some more things to happen from NASA and the rest of the international space community.
No, they don't. NASA doesn't have to do a single thing. NASA could drop dead, and SpaceX wouldn't change anything. You appear to be under the deeply mistaken impression that only NASA has an interest in being in space, ignoring the endless commercial potential.
What makes SpaceX unique is that they DON'T do cost plus contracts. You tell them that you want to get something into space in a certain orbit, and they just give you a price, and that price is rapidly dropping. As it rapidly drops, it opens up space to more possibilities.
Not that any of this should matter to you. If your (delusional) view that no one is interested in paying money to go to space is correct, then SpaceX should quickly fold when people don't give them money.
SpaceX is expanding. Reality very strongly disagrees with you.
|
technology
|
> There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said.
I know. And I explained in great detail why it's backpedaling.
There's no such thing as "becoming mainstream"
You're either "mainstream" or you're not. It's as simple as that. Just like a lightbulb can't "almost be on." The light can only exist in two possible states: On or Off. There no way for it to "becoming on" or "becoming off."
It's either in the mainstream or it's not.
Don't get that confused with me saying "it's never going to be mainstream." That's not what I am saying.
> He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream
You also wrote the entire sentence in past-tense, so that could be part of the problem as well.
> Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant.
I didn't say progress. I said mainstream. It's either mainstream or it isn't. Progress has dick to do with it. There's no middle ground to the word "mainstream." If there were, it would defeat the entire purpose for the word to even exist.
> They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.
You're making assumptions about trends in the future that have yet to be determined. If you had phrased it as "It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will be mainstream" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. When you say "becoming mainstream" it instantly generates a slew of false assumptions.
> At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars.
Marketing campaigns to sell more cars is now the sole quantifier of mainstream products? Shit, Nintendo put $50 million into marketing ROB the robot for the NES, why isn't that mainstream?^/s
> We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.
Moving forward =/= mainstream.
Also, moving forward =/= elon musk.
|
technology
|
> What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?
>
> ISS? That's about it.
>
> Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?
ISS flights make up 20% of SpaceX's schedule. The rest are companies, foreign governments and the US Airforce.
Commercial flights are absolutely a thing now, and it has saved customers a good deal of money.
|
technology
|
> Commercial flights are absolutely a thing now, and it has saved customers a good deal of money.
You are aware NASA and other international agencies have been doing this for decades now? Sure SpaceX is cheaper, but they aren't the first and they aren't the only ones.
I just want to make sure whenever "commercial spaceflight" gets mentioned as if it were some revolutionary new thing that only SpaceX has done, that it gets put into perspective. It seems all too often "commercial spaceflight" gets used as some sort of buzzword to generate hype, when in reality it's basically glorified UPS or FedEx and has been around forever.
|
technology
|
>> There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said.
>
>I know. And I explained in great detail why it's backpedaling.
>
>There's no such thing as "becoming mainstream"
>
>You're either "mainstream" or you're not. It's as simple as that. Just like a lightbulb can't "almost be on." The light can only exist in two possible states: On or Off. There no way for it to "becoming on" or "becoming off."
>
>It's either in the mainstream or it's not.
>
>Don't get that confused with me saying "it's never going to be mainstream." That's not what I am saying.
"Becoming mainstream" is possible. Don't deny it...
>> He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream
>
>You also wrote the entire sentence in past-tense, so that could be part of the problem as well.
He indeed influenced the trend. The trend of electric cars becoming mainstream. This trend isn't over yet. It's slowly growing to larger numbers.
>> Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant.
>
>I didn't say progress. I said mainstream. It's either mainstream or it isn't. Progress has dick to do with it. There's no middle ground to the word "mainstream." If there were, it would defeat the entire purpose for the word to even exist.
So, let's for a second pretend it's not possible to "become mainstream", what are you even arguing for? Is your entire argument here that you disagree with my usage of the word "mainstream" (even though my usage was perfectly normal), or do you have a point or deeper argument here?
>> They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.
>
>You're making assumptions about trends in the future that have yet to be determined. If you had phrased it as "It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will be mainstream" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. When you say "becoming mainstream" it instantly generates a slew of false assumptions.
There is a trend. This trend is that the amount of electric cars relative to the amount of non-electric cars has been increasing. This trend will slowly make electric cars mainstream. This trend has been going on for a while now, and may or may not continue in the future.
Whether it does or not is irrelevant for the accuracy of that sentence.
If your company is moving from -2% loss a month up to -0.5% loss a month, you are, as a company, slowly becoming profitable. This is a perfectly reasonable sentence, and a very common usage of these terms.
I'm shocked anyone is bothered by my usage here.
>> At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars.
>
>Marketing campaigns to sell more cars is now the sole quantifier of mainstream products?
-Gives an argument of a real world scenario that could indicate that my trend is a reality outside of just statistics as well.
-Other person immediately assumes that's the sole reason.
Fuck off. You've seen the statistics, you've seen the growing trend of electric cars, what are you even arguing against. You know this trend is real.
>Shit, Nintendo put $50 million into marketing ROB the robot for the NES, why isn't that mainstream?^/s
>
>> We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.
>
>Moving forward =/= mainstream.
My god, you're really stuck with my usage of this word huh?
Becoming more common == Moving forward (in this context) == becoming more mainstream.
>Also, moving forward =/= elon musk.
What does he have to do with this now? Are you trying to deny that he had done anything to move the world forward in fields such as space exploration, colonisation of planets, electric cars, solar power, etc?
|
technology
|
> You are aware NASA and other international agencies have been doing this for decades now?
I'm not sure we understand the term "commercial space flight" the same.
Commercial space flight is about asking a private company to launch a thing for you *without any dictated specs, operations or requiring ownership of the launch rocket*.
Essentially, the company that built the rocket, owns and operates the rocket and decide what to do with it afterwards.
SpaceX is currently the only business in the world doing this actively.
What NASA, ESA and other agencies have done is have companies build a rocket to their specs, then hand it over to said space agency and have them operate it with either their own or some customer's payload.
That is not commercial space flight.
|
technology
|
>> This is factual.
>
>As factual as a concept such as "almost mainstream" lmao
>
>Look, the light is ALMOST on!
>
>What a joke.
You know what's a joke? That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.
I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.
>> If you don't think so, give it a Google, and be amazed at the thousands of mainstream articles using the phrase in their title.
>
>Oh, you must have meant "mainstream media" not "these cars are mainstream" they are totally the same thing....
They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.
I've noticed you seem to try and pick at anything I send your way.
Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments, and now that you can't argue that anymore, as we are both aware your argument was madness, you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?
Are you just a troll? Is that it?
|
technology
|
You want the best way to sell electric cars? Pay Faux News and Alex Jones to talk about how the government is in the pockets of big oil and that’s why the taxes on gasoline and diesel are so high. Your hard earned dollars are funding the government to buy weapons, which they turn around and sell to the saudis for a profit. Buying gasoline and diesel is literally funding terrorists.
Want to take your money back from the government? Buy electric. The taxes on electricity are much less than the taxes on gasoline and diesel, so that’s more money in your pocket, and less money in the hands of ISIS.
I know this works because I live in a red state and I’ve convinced five coworkers to switch to electric so far, and one even had solar panels installed on his roof.
|
technology
|
> That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.
You dense motherfucker, me saying "the tesla cars aren't mainstream right now" is not the same as me saying "They will never be mainstream."
Also, the inverse is true, if you think they will eventually be mainstream vehicles, that doesn't mean *they are currently mainstream* or *on the way to being mainstream.*
You people are taking a word designed for a very specific purpose and to make a very specific point, and then adding a modifier in front of it to change the meaning around to what you *feel* it should be. That's now how language works. You can just as easily say "It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will become mainstream." and guess what? I don't have a single fucking problem with that phrase. But when the whole sentence gets put into past-tense, modifier or not, it give the impression that *you feel these cars have already become mainstream* because of that tense.
The easy solution here is to actually type what you mean clearly and with purpose to avoid any confusion. Also avoid re-purposing very specific words that aren't meant to be employed in that role.
> I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.
That's because I didn't say what you said I did. That's called spin.
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9c343o/stop_treating_tech_jerks_like_gods/e58dlge/
> Don't get that confused with me saying "it's never going to be mainstream." That's not what I am saying.
See? I said it prior to this also.
> They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.
No. Media coverage of tesla being mainstream is not the same as tesla's product being mainstream. Two completely different contexts and two completely different meanings.
> Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments
Argue your arguments? You aren't making any arguments. You're just regurgitating Tesla marketing material.
Bottom line is this: Their cars aren't mainstream. They aren't turning a profit. They keep making record revenue, but at the costs of record expenses which keep growing in disparity quarter over quarter. They take deposits from people which essentially act like interest free business capital, their product has a two-year wait list, they sell each unit at a loss and has a massive disparity between market cap and coverage (can someone say stock bubble, PRIVATE FUNDING SECURED!) They are getting passed over in almost every measurable metric by every other auto manufacturer.
Argue those facts, motherfucker. The reason I am not taking the bait on your fanboy bullshit is because I simply don't need to with facts like that in my back pocket. You can think "becoming mainstream" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact they are slowly dying.
> you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?
You clearly wrote the entire phrase in the past tense giving credit to to elon musk for being the reason the cars (you think) are mainstream. Then you backpedaled.
I already told you seven different times, the way out of it is to just say "I actually meant that my opinion was that Tesla cars will be mainstream in the future"
That's all it takes, it's not hard. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you made several attempts to spin it. At first they were mainstream, then they were "becoming mainstream" now you're actually trying to say you were referring the whole time to the media coverage being mainstream.
If you're going to backpedal that hard, just pick one story and stick to it. There's no way it can be all three versions.
|
technology
|
I'm not sure what that means.
Blue Origin haven't launched anything noteworthy and aren't doing any commercial launches.
New Glenn won't launch until 2020-2021.
SpaceX are literally the only and the first company doing commercial flights for businesses and governments globally. They are sitting heavily on the global launch market and are in direct competition with space agencies around the world:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/sacex1.jpg
They've launch 192 tonnes into space and have by far the highest launch frequency of any company or agency in the world.
|
technology
|
I'm curious, and not in an argumentative way, are you saying the pollution output of the creation battery never has a break even point for the lifespan of the product where it surpasses that of a combustion engine after X amount of miles? Is this seen as a production process issue or is it a necessary byproduct of battery material itself that's the issue? Do you think electric is the way to go or do you think time would be better spent furthering something like hydrogen or micro nuclear power for smaller applications? Or do you think it's a lost cause and we should just keep on with fossil fuels?
|
technology
|
>> That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.
>
>You dense motherfucker, me saying "the tesla cars aren't mainstream right now" is not the same as me saying "They will never be mainstream."
>
>Also, the inverse is true, if you think they will eventually be mainstream vehicles, that doesn't mean *they are currently mainstream* or *on the way to being mainstream.*
>
>You people are taking a word designed for a very specific purpose and to make a very specific point, and then adding a modifier in front of it to change the meaning around to what you *feel* it should be. That's now how language works. You can just as easily say "It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will become mainstream." and guess what? I don't have a single fucking problem with that phrase. But when the whole sentence gets put into past-tense, modifier or not, it give the impression that *you feel these cars have already become mainstream* because of that tense.
>
>The easy solution here is to actually type what you mean clearly and with purpose to avoid any confusion. Also avoid re-purposing very specific words that aren't meant to be employed in that role.
>
> > I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.
>
>That's because I didn't say what you said I did. That's called spin.
>
>https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9c343o/stop_treating_tech_jerks_like_gods/e58dlge/
False. You said, clearly, that you disagree with the phrase "becoming mainstream", which is absurd to me.
>> Don't get that confused with me saying "it's never going to be mainstream." That's not what I am saying.
>
>See? I said it prior to this also.
>
>> They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.
>
>No. Media coverage of tesla being mainstream is not the same as tesla's product being mainstream. Two completely different contexts and two completely different meanings.
That's not what I said. Not once did I mention that media portrayed Tesla as mainstream. All I did was put a qualified in front of "media" to indicate that the media themselves are mainstream.
In the two phrases:
"Mainstream media" and "a mainstream product", the word "mainstream" means the same thing. Exactly like I said before.
>> Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments
>
>Argue your arguments? You aren't making any arguments. You're just regurgitating Tesla marketing material.
How so? In the last 4 posts here or some shit I haven't even mentioned Tesla. All I've done is defended the phrase "becoming mainstream", because you're so adamant that it's wrong.
>Bottom line is this: Their cars aren't mainstream.
YES, well spotted. Tesla's cars aren't mainstream. Just like I've mentioned. Many times over. I've also never mentioned otherwise.
>They aren't turning a profit. They keep making record revenue, but at the costs of record expenses which keep growing in disparity quarter over quarter.
Who cares. If they want to ruin their business I couldn't care less. They've already done all the positive impact necessary by showing people that electric cars aren't by default slow and bulky, and by sparking so much competition on multiple levels.
>They take deposits from people which essentially act like interest free business capital, their product has a two-year wait list, they sell each unit at a loss and has a massive disparity between market cap and coverage (can someone say stock bubble, PRIVATE FUNDING SECURED!) They are getting passed over in almost every measurable metric by every other auto manufacturer.
Who the fuck cares.
>Argue those facts, motherfucker. The reason I am not taking the bait on your fanboy bullshit is because I simply don't need to with facts like that in my back pocket. You can think "becoming mainstream" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact they are slowly dying.
I'm sorry dude, but when have I argued anything other than "I don't care" when you mentioned how they handle their business? Don't you see that I don't give a fuck about their company, just about their effect on the field.
Subsequently, I've never argued that Tesla cars are becoming mainstream. Never. Only that electric cars are.
I can't even comprehend how you can look at everything I've posted here and come to the conclusion that I'm a fanboy.
>> you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?
>
>You clearly wrote the entire phrase in the past tense giving credit to to elon musk for being the reason the cars (you think) are mainstream. Then you backpedaled.
1) No, that sentence is perfectly reasonable and not purposefully written in a devious way. The phrase is very common.
2) I'm not giving credit to Elon Musk for anything but putting his money where his mouth is.
3) I don't think electric cars, or Tesla cars, are mainstream.
4) I did not backpedal.
I don't understand how you still think otherwise.
>I already told you seven different times, the way out of it is to just say "I actually meant that my opinion was that Tesla cars will be mainstream in the future"
Why? My sentence was perfectly fine. I'm not going to change what I say because someone online disagreed with my usage of some words in a sentence that was grammatically correct.
>That's all it takes, it's not hard. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you made several attempts to spin it. At first they were mainstream, then they were "becoming mainstream" now you're actually trying to say you were referring the whole time to the media coverage being mainstream.
But... I'm not wrong. I never said they were mainstream.
I've always said they (electric cars, not Tesla's. Idk what Tesla as a company will do) are becoming mainstream.
And no, I'm not trying to say that the media coverage was mainstream.
I don't understand how you even concluded that last bit, as I said:.
>If you don't think so, give it a Google, and be amazed at the thousands of mainstream articles using the phrase in their title.
In this sentence, the usage of mainstream indicates that the media using them was mainstream. I used it to indicate that there are notable and respectable outlets using the phrase, not just bloggers.
Beyond that, never did I mention this was related to Tesla. I just told you to Google "Becoming mainstream", to find out the phrase is *perfectly fine*.
>If you're going to backpedal that hard, just pick one story and stick to it. There's no way it can be all three versions.
I understand it might be easy to pretend I have three stories when you're putting these words in my mouth.
You're too stuck up to realise you're wrong, it seems.
|
technology
|
Musk isn't a walking chequebook. He has a very deep understanding of technical matters - go read his biography and study the part where he immersed himself in rocket science and physics textbooks for months on end until he had essentially completed a career change from software engineer to engine specialist. Then he went and tracked down the best and most obscure engine designers in the industry, convinced them he was competent enough to want to work for and *only then* did he write a cheque.
|
technology
|
TIL that Trump desperately clawing to get automobile manufacturers back in the U.S. = "gotdang, dem gib-me-dat Mexicoons 'r payin fer muh Daddy Dumps wahl."
The ever so effective and impenetrable wall that has cured this country of all hardship brought on by "muh dirty immgrants." Is it even done yet? Will it ever be? You should probably do a scrutinous walk along the border just to make sure you can fill in all of daddy's holes for him. I mean, you owe him after all he's done to make you feel safe despite being a scared little snowflake, terrified of the big bad brown people coming to step on you.
Are you glad that they put an Orangutan with Alzheimer's (trained by a Russian handler) in charge of a country with hundreds of billions invested into military and weapons of mass destruction?
The man literally thinks that tariffs are a better end to meet than is reaching a trade deal with an ally. Do you know what a tariff is, or are you one of those imbeciles that thinks it means that another country gives us money in order to be allowed to sell stuff? The man is an opponent to free trade. Literally anti-capitalist in a way that could never be viable.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.