Discuss whatever.
If you post a link or quote, express an opinion about it, ask a question, say something. Also, if you think something is bad and are posting it for criticism, say so – the default expectation is you agree with, and have a positive opinion of, whatever you post. Or if it seems good to you but you're sharing it because you have doubts and want to find out if people have criticism, say that.
Messages (30 of 544) (Show All Comments)
On Dec 9, 2020, Tanya Golash-Boza (@tanyaboza) tweeted :
> My teen daughter just asked me if Latinx is a race or ethnicity. I told her to read Chapter 7 of my book, Race and Racisms, so we can have an informed discussion.
Someone shared a screenshot of this tweet. I suspected it of being a parody, so I searched for the original and found it.
#19120 I don't think it is a parody. The author describes herself in her Twitter bio as "Prof of Sociology at UC Merced. Author of Deported: Immigrant Policing, Disposable Labor and Global Capitalism & other books. Born & raised in Washington, DC." and her URL is MappingGentrification.com.
How to see what internet providers serve a given zip code
InMyArea lists the internet providers that offer service in a given zip code.
BroadbandNow has a heat map of U.S. broadband coverage. By default, the colors represent the number of providers that serve the area. You can also filter by fiber, cable, DSL, or fixed wireless. Like InMyArea, BroadbandNow also offers a list of internet providers that offer service in a given area.
claim about a left wing study (haven't verified)
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4710493&forum_id=2#41532054
#19126 The Google Video Quality Report is helpful for checking the internet availabiltiy in an area. It charts the fraction of YouTube streams during an average day that are in HD/SD/LD for a given ISP in a given area. A higher fraction of high-quality video streams (e.g, HD vs SD) indicates better internet service.
Google's methodology page goes into lots more detail, for example:
> Rather than being based on data from a small sample of users, this report is based on billions of YouTube videos watched across thousands of ISPs.
> We look at how quickly all YouTube video data was loaded over the last 30 days.
> We segment the results by ISP and by geographical location.
> We determine what the minimum available speed was at least 90% of the time.
How to compare Amazon Prime shipping times between locations
Here's a way to figure out how quickly Amazon Prime will ship to a given area (assuming you have Prime).
1. Go to Amazon, find an in-stock product that ships with prime, and add it to your cart. Go to the checkout page and see how long it would take to ship to where you live.
2. Find a residential address in the area you want to check. I used Google Maps to find a street and a house number, then used the USPS Zip Code Finder to find the Zip code.
3. See how long your order would take to ship to that address, and compare.
There is only one Apple Store in the American Redoubt. It's in Boise, ID (southwest corner of the state). Montana and Wyoming have none. There are also no Apple Stores in North Dakota or South Dakota, two states to the immediate east of the Redoubt.
#19172 Also, there are *no* Ikea stores in the American Redoubt, nor are there any in North Dakota or South Dakota. (map of Ikea stores in the U.S.)
Ham radio
This is an introductory post by a beginner (me), for beginners, about voice communication over ham radio, a.k.a. amateur radio.
I've been playing around with ham radio because I'm interested in using it to see what's going on in emergencies, and because it might be useful for communication in a grid-down scenario.
With ham radio, you have a radio (handheld or otherwise) and you basically use it to become your own radio station, except you're transmitting and listening on frequencies other than the standard FM/AM ones. Think of it like a conventional radio with a tuner dial except that in addition to listening to what's coming in on a frequency, you can also transmit on that frequency. When you transmit, you actually become your own radio station, in a sense. Whenever anyone, including you, transmits on a frequency, anyone within range who's listening to that frequency can hear them.
In order to legally be allowed to transmit on ham radio frequencies outside of an emergency, you have to pass an exam. However, anyone is allowed to listen to ham radio frequencies.
When you talk on ham radio, what you do first is announce your "call sign" when you start talking, then you mention it again every 10 minutes or so, and you mention it a final time when you sign off. A call sign is basically a short (~6 character) alphanumeric code that's uniquely assigned to you when you first pass the ham radio license exam. Call signs are the ham radio equivalent of regular radio station names like KQED.
The range of ham radio depends lots of things, including the terrain and man-made obstructions like buildings, but a few miles seems to be pretty common for the basic frequencies.
I got a Yaesu FT-60R handheld ham radio. As a beginner, I'm pretty happy with it. It has good reviews. I've used it to talk a few times. I'm getting a better antenna for it than the one it came with. I'll see how that goes.
#19181
> This is an introductory post by a beginner (me), for beginners
[...]
> The range of ham radio depends lots of things, including the terrain and man-made obstructions like buildings, but a few miles seems to be pretty common for the basic frequencies.
[...]
> I got a Yaesu FT-60R handheld ham radio.
I don't think your way of presenting the range of "ham radio" makes sense, even for beginners.
Your statement is correct for a specific context: the range of a handheld ham radio communicating directly with another similar handheld ham radio.
However, that is not the primary context a beginner or prepper would usually want to get into ham radio for. The range of direct handheld to handheld ham radio is pretty similar to the (cheaper, no test passing, fewer rules) GMRS/FRS radios. If all someone wants is to communicate a few miles with a handheld, then GMRS/FRS is generally a far easier and better choice than ham radio. Not the least of which because you can stockpile 5 or 50 GMRS/FRS radios and hand them out to people you want to communicate with in a disaster without worrying about everyone having to pass a ham radio test.
The two main things ham radio offers that are advantages over other 2-way radio services are:
- Repeaters, which allow handheld ham radios like your Yaesu FT-60R to communicate over about a hundred miles or so with a single mountaintop repeater. There are also interlinked repeater networks that work over several hundred miles. Many, but not all, ham repeaters are either completely off-grid powered or have backup power for some duration in the event of a grid failure.
- Skywave, which requires a bigger radio and antenna but can then in principle communicate with similar radios anywhere on Earth with no intermediate infrastructure. These are the best "everything is down" communication systems.
There are tons of other things you can do with ham radio, many of which are great fun (like fox hunting, my personal favorite). But the above two are the main reasons why a beginner should consider getting a ham license.
Product recommendation: Quick n' Eat fully-cooked angus choice beef patties
Quick n' eat fully-cooked angus choice beef patties are frozen burgers that actually taste amazing. I'm a big fan of grilling and have gotten good at grilling steaks and burgers, but I can't see myself buying raw hamburger again when I can just buy Quick n' Eat frozen beef patties. They taste like they just came off the grill even if they just came out of the microwave. (The testimonials agree.)
You can buy them at Sam's Club and Costco.
#19183 Thanks. I've used repeaters to communicate with people beyond the range of my handheld, but I didn't realize most repeaters would remain usable (for a while, at least) if the electric grid went down. I also had never heard of Skywave, and I didn't know that GMRS/FRS radios were a cheaper and more usable alternative to standalone (not used with a repeater) ham radios.
#19185
Skywave is also known as skip, ionospheric bouncing, or just HF (which technically refers to the frequency range rather than the means of signal propagation).
Almost all ham gear is designed to operate on DC, including repeaters. This makes them easy to run directly off batteries. Placing rechargeable batteries in parallel with an AC to DC power supply creates a grid powered system that continues to operate for some time if the grid goes down (or the power supply fails). That's a reasonably common setup where I live.
As solar has gotten cheaper, it's become more common to either supplement or swap out the AC to DC power supply with a few panels and a charge controller. The other thing solar has done is make placement of repeaters in off-grid locations more feasible. Both developments have increased the resiliency of repeaters to grid failures.
But if you're planning to depend on a particular repeater you should become familiar with its specific characteristics.
1 - Go to a repeater directory like: https://www.repeaterbook.com/repeaters/index.php?state_id=none
2 - Find the call sign of the owner of the repeater you're interested in
3 - Go to the FCC license search: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp
4 - Look up the call sign you found from the repeater directory
5 - Contact the owner at their FCC registered contact info and ask about how their repeater is powered and how long they expect it to operate in the event of grid power failure
Alternatively, you can contact the local chapter of a ham radio disaster relief group like RACES or ARES. They'll know which repeaters in the area are expected to operate in a disaster.
FI person fitting in to a Christian community?
How is atheism perceived by Christians? If I want to fit in with a majority Christian community just enough to help them and be helped if the SHTF, would my atheism be a problem?
Any other potential clashes between FI and Christianity? I guess TCS clashes with how most Christians treat their kids, so, to that extent that "fitting in" involves being around bad parenting, there could be challenges there for an FI person.
#19194 ⁕to *the* extent that ...
(Note: I used a unicode flower punctuation mark here instead of an asterisk so as not to trigger the markdown formatter.)
#19194
I think it's pretty risky to be an atheist and try to fit in a Christian community. Especially if you're not that familiar with the culture, have no family ties with actual Christians, and no intention of actively working a competent deception.
Atheists are distrusted by most Christians. Secondarily, atheists are associated with leftist political beliefs and deviant sexual behaviors, both of which are generally hated by Christians.
As to how they'll actually treat atheists, it depends what kind of Christian and whether or not you can fly under the radar and NOT be thought of as an atheist.
Some Christians will be fine even under quite dire circumstances, as long as you are discreet about atheism, don't openly defy Christianity, and you have socially calibrated responses to ordinary Christian activities and phrases[1]. They're not going to ask for your testimony[2].
Others absolutely will ask for your testimony, and if they find it either not forthcoming or not believable you will not be welcome. You really don't want to be around these people if SHTF and they find out you're an atheist. Plenty of atheists have been disowned by their own Christian family members. If a parent will disown their child for atheism, you have zero chance with that person.
And then there's a lot of shades in between. These are actually the most dangerous people from a prepping standpoint because you'll think you're fine with them but when the chips are down you're actually not. "Judge not lest ye be judged" *is* a major theme in Christianity, and they'll try to abide by it under ordinary circumstances. But when times get tough judgement becomes necessary, and people who seemed really nice and accepting before are likely to become suddenly cold or openly hostile.
A community is likely to be made up of some mixture of these types. Unfortunately a few zealots are likely to make trouble for you within the larger community just when you don't need it.
[1] Some things like:
- How to respond if someone calls you brother or sister
- What to do if someone has a problem and is expecting you to pray for them, but won't ask directly
- What you say if someone says they'll pray for you or for a group that includes you about some problem
- What food should be prayed over before eating (and what not)
- When you should hold hands during prayer and when you shouldn't
- What to say if someone asks you to lead in prayer
[2] By testimony I actually mean a lot of things that tell your history as a Christian. How you learned about Christianity, what churches you've been a member of and what denominations they were, when and where you converted, favorite Bible verses, etc. Basically, the story of your life as a Christian + an affirmative profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Although if they *specifically* ask for your testimony they're usually just asking for a 5-10 minute story of how you converted to Christianity.
#19196
> Some Christians will be fine even under quite dire circumstances, as long as you are discreet about atheism, don't openly defy Christianity, and you have socially calibrated responses to ordinary Christian activities and phrases[1].
Interesting. I don't know any of the things you listed in the footnote. I wonder how hard it would be to learn that stuff? I searched the web for "learn to fit in with christians" and "learn christian traditions when to pray food" (both without the quotes), and didn't see anything relevant to my situation on the first page of results. I doubt there are professional materials for it like there are for picking up girls or sales.
> Others absolutely will ask for your testimony, and if they find it either not forthcoming or not believable you will not be welcome.
Great point about how some Christians, before accepting you, will want you to describe, at some length, your belief in Christianity, how you came by it, and how and where you've practiced it.
> And then there's a lot of shades in between. These are actually the most dangerous people from a prepping standpoint because you'll think you're fine with them but when the chips are down you're actually not. "Judge not lest ye be judged" *is* a major theme in Christianity, and they'll try to abide by it under ordinary circumstances. But when times get tough judgement becomes necessary, and people who seemed really nice and accepting before are likely to become suddenly cold or openly hostile.
Good point about the danger of relying on Christians who are in between the extremes of those who will clearly accept atheists and those who won't.
Also, (and I realize you know this, just saying it for my own benefit), "Judge not lest ye be judged" is another Christian idea that conflicts pretty directly with FI, which advocates the Objectivist idea of *judge and prepare to be judge*.
> A community is likely to be made up of some mixture of these types. Unfortunately a few zealots are likely to make trouble for you within the larger community just when you don't need it.
Good point.
Thanks for your reply. It sounds to me like an atheist trying to fit in with Christians is kinda like an open communist trying to fit in with American patriots. It's an especially bad idea when the "fitting in" is meant to extend to an SHTF situation.
#19202
> I wonder how hard it would be to learn that stuff?
Pretty easy if you want to - after the pandemic of course. Find a church of a suitable denomination[1] where you already are, hang out there some, and ask questions as needed.
You can do *that* safely and openly. You can say you don't believe in God, were not raised Christian but are searching for truth, and are interested in how Christians live. All true, and in ordinary times will get you as much exposure as you can tolerate. Plus it will explain your ignorance of even basic Christian behaviors, and as a result they're likely to be super tolerant at least for a while.
You can share as much or as little of the rest of your backstory as you care to, including that you're considering moving to a community that is majority conservative Christian. They won't trust you, but they don't need to as you aren't looking to do anything that requires their trust.
Go to services, some education and social activities too. Arrive early or stay late to observe social behavior.
Some things you will need to avoid, which they'll probably tell you before but just in case not:
- Don't partake in the Lord's Supper - where they pass around little crackers and grape juice. That's reserved for people who have had a conversion experience and made a public profession of faith in Jesus.
- Don't go to church business meetings, or vote if they bring a matter of business into something you are attending. That's for church members.
- Don't speak to or otherwise interact with children unless their parents approach you with the kid(s).
If you start getting a "we're annoyed with you" vibe from one church, or just learn all you care to from one before learning all you care to about Christianity in general, pick another one. Again no need to conceal that you tried another church before - that's normal and expected.
They will try to convert you. Certainly by the content of services, in which possibly all or possibly only a few will include an "altar call" in which non-Christians are asked to come forward and convert. You can just ignore these.
They'll also possibly try 1-1 conversion outside the church during other activities. It's also possible they'll make one or more home visit(s). In these cases you'll need to make some kind of response. If you just say you're still searching and not ready to become a Christian they'll probably back off. If they press for details it's OK to give an explanation why you don't believe in God. But if this goes more than a couple of back and forth exchanges on details you'll probably need to find a new church. Because then they'll go from just general distrust to open fear that you'll sow doubt among their membership.
[1] If you're looking for something conservatives hang out at you want an evangelical church. Baptists are the one I'm most familiar with, and there are several subdenominations (Southern Baptists are the most conservative, or at least they were when I was involved). Pentacostals and Presbyterians and Calvary chapels also probably fine though I don't have personal experience with those.
Stay away from churches with no denominational affiliation (non-denominational) or a denomination that's not large - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members. The reason is the variability among non-denomination/small denomination churches is way too extreme for a beginner. Some are quite odd and "out there" with behaviors that aren't normal for Christians. You won't know if some odd behavior is parochial to that church or true of Christians in general. There's also a high risk of running into a mini-cult of personality, or extreme/invasive conversion attempts.
#19205 Thank you.
Mormons
Another denomination I know some things about that you might want to look into in the context of prepping is Mormons.
Mormons (and also Jehovah's Witnesses[1]) are a denomination that calls themselves Christians but Baptists and I suspect other evangelicals regard as *not* Christian. It's kinda odd - Baptists are totally accepting of ex: Presbyterians or Lutherans and will even accept Christians with strong leftist strains like Catholics or Unitarians over the (largely conservative) Mormons, which they basically despise. Baptists had a whole course of really specific info about why Mormons are all going to hell - the only such course I ever saw. The negative material was theological or theologically motivated smears though. It's largely irrelevant to an atheist beyond noting that yes, Mormons have some truly ridiculous theological beliefs that are additive to or contradictory to the ridiculous theological beliefs of standard Christians.
When I became an outspoken atheist and spent a few years going around looking for religious arguments, I found out why the Baptists singled out Mormons for special negative attention. The Mormons were by far the most accepting and friendly people I ever argued with. I went many back-and-forth rounds with various Mormons and they kept coming. I made friends with some of them. I got invited to tons of social events, a few of which I went to and were better than the Baptist ones primarily because Mormons didn't consider dancing and large sections of the popular rock music catalog to be proto-sins[2]. As a late teen / early 20's if I *had* believed in God, absent strong theological arguments I would've converted from Baptist to Mormon cuz Mormons were way more fun to be around while preserving most of the culture and values I was comfortable with.
My involvement with Mormons ended after I successfully converted one of their missionaries to atheism. Even then they never told me I wasn't welcome...they just stopped sending missionaries to my house and overtly inviting me to stuff. If I hadn't done that I'd probably still be getting Mormon visits. :)
Mormons also have an especially prepper-friendly culture. Part of being a good Mormon seems to be maintaining large stocks of basic necessities. The first barrels of stocked up rice and beans I ever saw were at the home of one of the Mormons I became friendly with. They seemed to have the right attitude - preps are for getting through hard times. I didn't get any of the "End Times" / chosen few to survive while the world burns vibe from them I got from some other denominations[1].
There are small Mormon-dominated communities in many western states. What I mean is, a place that's small enough to have only one main church and the church is Mormon. If I didn't have family associated with evangelicals and was looking for a small community I'd strongly consider a Mormon one. If for no other reason, in a disaster your neighbors are unlikely to be stealing from you because they probably all have their own stocks.
However I'd avoid communities that are still small but big enough to have ex: a Mormon church and an approximately equal sized evangelical church. The risk of the two communities fighting is high in a SHTF scenario relative to ex: different strains of evangelicals, or even evangelicals and non-evangelical denominations.
If a community is big enough to have ex: multiple evangelical churches plus Mormons it's fine if you want to work with the evangelicals. I wouldn't choose the Mormons there though, as in a SHTF scenario they're apt to get steamrolled.
[1] I recommend avoiding Jehovah's Witnesses. Their relationship to prepping is of the "End Times" variety - focused on how they're going to be the chosen ones while everyone else gets destroyed. Plus they're strongly anti-science and even less fun than Baptists.
[2] Proto-sins are things that aren't themselves technically a sin, but tend to lead people to sin and should therefore be avoided. For example, dancing is not considered sinful unless it's overtly sexual. But most dancing does tend to arouse sexual feelings which can lead to extra-marital sex which *is* a sin. And most dancing goes on in bars where people tend to get drunk which *is* a sin. So Baptists avoided dancing because they think it leads to sin - they generally looked down on people dancing and certainly did not sponsor dances. Whereas the Mormon attitude seemed to be: if there's dances at the church we can make sure it doesn't get too sexual, and there's no alcohol so people aren't getting drunk, so less sinning than if there aren't dances at the church and people dance elsewhere.
#19202 Watch some Christian TikTok and YouTube (read some comments – that'll help you know when other people find stuff extreme or unusual. some popular people get attention with strong views instead of typical views, e.g. if you don't even kiss your spouse before marriage that could get attention but it's not typical in any large subculture afaik).
Video will help convey the culture but you should also try some text too. I'm sure there's tons available on Facebook. There's probably stuff on reddit, twitter and blogging platforms too.
#19213 Thanks. I started with Christian text-based forums. I found a few posts I thought were relevant to my questions about fitting in.
Here's one of the recent comments on the /r/Christianity subreddit:
> I’ve made many mistakes in my life that I’m not proud of. I have a lot of urges that get me into trouble and they have ruined some of my relationships. I never believed, and I’m still skeptical, but I would like to change the way I view life and want to give myself a new purpose. Get back on the right track. Can I just walk into a church? Is it free? Is it worth it?
I guess a vague openness to the possibility that the Christian god exists would go over better with Christians than committed atheism would.
> ... you probably shouldn't take part in communion.
Right. As Andy D. mentioned.
> ... just walk in and follow along. Maybe tell the greeter you're new here and need some instructions.
Makes sense.
Here's another post from /r/Christianity:
> I am a seeker. I would like to believe in Jesus. My parents believed in Him and my sister does too and they all seem to draw great things from their faith. However I am a skeptic by nature and the Bible just seems like made up bullshit to me. Has anyone here gone from skeptic to believer, and if so, how? What arguments convinced you?
Again, I guess a "seeker" could fit in with Christians more effectively than an atheist. Is that true? I guess that an atheist would be seen as a possible convert, while an atheist would be seen more like an enemy.
I noticed that /u/brucemo, one of the moderators of r/Christianity, has the Atheist tag by his username when he posts to that group (example). Unclear to me what I can infer about the subreddit from that. Maybe that it's not very Christian in some sense.
I also looked at the top posts for the last month on Gab's Christianity group. Here's one of them:
> I'm convinced if Jesus, Paul, and Elijah were alive today with veiled identities, they'd all be put under church discipline for unchristlike speech.
> Jesus called the pastors of his day a brood of snakes, hypocrites, and told them they're all going to Hell (Matt. 23:33). Elijah told non-Christians that their false god is probably not responding because he's taking a dump (1 Kings 18:27). Paul told false teachers (who said gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved) that he wished they'd cut off their dicks (Gal 5:12).
> Evangelical culture is too soft and doesn't create space for men with bold prophetic voices. Blunt and salty language is not called for in every situation, but there is a time and a place for it. Everyone loves the prophets after they've been dead for a while (we chuckle at how freely they spoke and admire their boldness), but few can stomach them while they are alive.
I kinda like that last sentence. Reminds me a bit of Elliot's situation.
#19214
Context: Investigating Christianity where you currently are rather than trying to integrate with a Christian community for disaster prep. Evangelical Christians
> > I never believed, and I’m still skeptical, but I would like to change the way I view life and want to give myself a new purpose.
My guess is if you said this (or something similar) it'd be a lie in the context of Christianity. There's no need for lies and it could get you into trouble if they ask questions about it: "Why do you want to change how you view life?" "What's your current purpose and what is wrong with it?" etc.
> I guess a vague openness to the possibility that the Christian god exists would go over better with Christians than committed atheism would.
If the Christian God actually exists, would you want to know? (My guess is you'd answer, genuinely, "yes")
Are you open to the possibility you are wrong about your conclusion that the Christian God does not exist? (my guess is again, you'd genuinely say "yes")
Those two true facts are highly relevant and what you actually need to get across. I suggested "searching for truth" as a short and simple way to suggest them, but there are other ways. Including stating them explicitly.
And if they want to ask questions about them I think you'd be fine: "Why would you want to know?", "Why are you open to the possibility you are wrong?" etc.
> Again, I guess a "seeker" could fit in with Christians more effectively than an atheist. Is that true? I guess that an atheist would be seen as a possible convert, while an atheist would be seen more like an enemy.
"Seeker" alone is too vague and has a long history of abuse. You could be seeking converts to atheism. Or seeking to con the church members out of their savings. Or seeking to molest the children. These are the kind of things they'll be most worried about, and what you say should help put their mind at ease rather than leave those doors open.
"Seeker of truth" would be OK, but I think "searching for truth" would raise fewer red flags.
#19214
Some things in [evangelical] Christianity are binary, and trying to be vague won't help.
There's heaven or hell after death; nothing in between. The Catholics believe in things like purgatory and levels, but the evangelicals don't.
Matching with heaven/hell, you're either a Christian or you're not. Nothing in between. Being a Christian means making a specific choice, having specific beliefs and having made a public profession of those beliefs - being "born again". If you did that, you're going to heaven. If you didn't, you're going to hell.
A recurrent theme in evangelical denominations is that acting like a Christian, saying you're a Christian along with doing good deeds will not get you into heaven. Mormons are an example. And conversely an atheist or devil-worshipping death row murderer who genuinely converts right before execution will get into heaven. Everyone is considered a potential convert up to the moment of death.
You're not trying to claim you're a born again Christian. So they're going to presume you're hell-bound unless you convert. No amount of vague statements will change that status. So don't try.
One relevant area where there are shades of gray is about the threat you pose to them as a non-Christian. Threat to sow doubt in the congregation is a big one, although as I mentioned they'll also be worried about you being some sort of criminal or sexual pervert.
If they think you're too much of a threat you'll be unwelcome. But (presumably) you're not actually much of a threat. You're not trying to convert them. You're not a criminal. You're not there for any kind of sex. You just want to learn some about Christianity.
If your actions and statements are consistent with that reality, you'll probably be fine. And if you're not fine in one church, there's probably 10 more to try. Evangelical Christians think a major purpose in their lives is to convert non-Christians. They do that by having interactions with non-Christians. They want to welcome non-Christians as long as they're not a big threat.
Another area with shades of gray is your openness to changing your mind. I think being a critical rationalist is enough. Would they be more eager about you if you present as an unhappy agnostic rather than a CR atheist? Sure. But you don't need them to be that eager.
#19215
> If the Christian God actually exists, would you want to know? (My guess is you'd answer, genuinely, "yes")
> Are you open to the possibility you are wrong about your conclusion that the Christian God does not exist? (my guess is again, you'd genuinely say "yes")
> Those two true facts are highly relevant and what you actually need to get across. I suggested "searching for truth" as a short and simple way to suggest them, but there are other ways. Including stating them explicitly.
> And if they want to ask questions about them I think you'd be fine: "Why would you want to know?", "Why are you open to the possibility you are wrong?" etc.
Wow, thank you again. That's really helpful.
I also think I understand why seeker" is problematic and why "searching for truth" is better.
#19216 It looks like it'd be good if I could convey, through my actions and statements, that I'm not there to cause problems, in particular the problems they're especially concerned about, i.e.:
- people who are there to sow doubt in the congregation
- people who are there to look for sex partners, esp. what they'd view as perverted sex (?? an Evangelical church seems like it'd be low on my list of places to look if sex were my goal)
- criminals
AS excerpt - Passive / Active voice (Possible Spoilers)
I'm reading *Atlas Shrugged* for the first time. I remember over a year ago I came across the concept of active vs. passive voice in the FI discord (I don't have the quote on hand so I don't want to rely on my memory to speculate about it. I might check the logs when I'm next at a computer rather than on phone and post the original example, because I have a vague intuition that it might have some similarities in context to the below excerpt.)
This excerpt below from AS stood out to me as a possible example of passive / active voice.
For context, "she" is Dagny Taggart and "he" is John Galt.
> As they drove on along the edge of the lake, she asked, “You've mapped this route deliberately, haven't you? You're showing me all the men whom”—she stopped, feeling inexplicably reluctant to say it, and said, instead—“whom I have lost?”
> “I'm showing you all the men whom I have taken away from you,” he answered firmly.
> This was the root, she thought, of the guiltlessness of his face: he had guessed and named the words she had wanted to spare him, he had rejected a good will that was not based on his values—and in proud certainty of being right, he had made a boast of that which she had intended as an accusation.
I like the way this entire excerpt works together to point out this difference in values, but I'm having some trouble putting that feeling into words. What specifically do I like about this excerpt as a whole and why? I think I can only put some of what I like about it into words, while lots of what I like about it is kinda implicit and and unclear to me in words. Below is my attempt at putting some of that into words :
I like that the last paragraph explains how what Dagny was holding back as an accusation was actually something John was proud of. Dagny didn't expect him to be proud of that so she changed her phrasing partway through. (I think because she still partly views his actions as being opposed to her, although her negative view of him as the "destroyer" seems to be shifting gradually). Dagny's "inexplicable reluctance" to phrase her thought in active voice in the first paragraph also indicates she didn't know why she changed her phrasing, but John's response helps her realize that he knows anyway. She realizes there is a difference in values, but I don't know if she then understood her own reluctance and it became explicable in her own mind. Dagny chose to change the phrasing from the kind intended as an accusation into the kind intended more as a passive statement of fact.
Some questions I have: Is this a valid example of passive / active voice?
Is Dagny's insight that this is the root of John's lack of guilt (that his face indicates that he has never experienced guilt) correct? His different, better values mean that he can state the truth of his actions and take responsibility for them without feeling guilt. Presumably this means that other people might feel guilty about some stuff if they copied John's actions, but John knows better and doesn't feel guilty about the stuff he's done.
-
As a tangent, I've been noticing more of this kind of speech IRL. Like situations where someone will talk about a problem, but not name the source of the problem as a specific person (so they're phrasing it in passive voice). It's strange because it doesn't always seem like a gesture of goodwill from the person phrasing things passively. Sometimes it's like they are trying to hold power over the person they aren't naming, and if that person says out loud that they actually caused the problem, like John Galt did above, then the person leaving things unnamed has no power over them anymore. I think it's often mixed, where the person using passive voice has some good will, but is also just uncomfortable with potential conflict and with discussing objective reality instead of social reality.
I think I'm overreaching with this message so I'll stop writing and post what I havenow. I enjoyed thinking and writing about this, and I mostly wrote stuff I didn't expect to write. It took about an hour on my phone.
I'll go back to reading AS now and post any other questions or comments I have. I've been highlighting (on a mobile eBook reader app) any interesting quotes or excerpts I come across to refer back to them. Some things stand out to me and I rarely know why, like the word "serene" stood out to me and I started noting down where it showed up and how Ayn Rand was using it. It seems like a positive way to describe people's facial expressions and to show that they're more connected to objective reality with their values than most people rather than being evil or second handed. Especially in situations where they just learned something meaningful or are doing something particularly heroic. I'll look for some examples of this before my next comment because I think I should be more tentative about my analysis of the usage of "serene".
So just to recap for myself: two action items I've promised in this comment:
1. Find and quote the original active / passive voice conversation (which was my introduction to the concept) from discord FI logs.
2. Post and analyze some examples of the usage of the word "serene" from AS (and maybe FH?) and try to improve my understanding of how they're used there.
passive versus active
#19358
This isn't actually an example of passive voice versus active voice. However, the idea is similar.
Passive voice is a grammar thing. *you're showing me the men whom I have lost* is active voice. It says who is doing the showing ("you") and who lost the men ("I"). Passive voice would be *I'm being shown* and *the men who were lost*, where it doesn't say who is doing the showing or who lost the men. You can get more info on passive voice by searching for it and reading some different pages on it.
But the idea you're identifying in the passage is the same one. Galt did the taking away of the men. Dagny doesn't say that but Galt does, and that's important to the passage.
What Dagny says isn't actually in passive voice. But it expresses even less action than saying "the men who were taken away from me" (which is in passive voice) by not even using the verb "take" and just saying that she "lost" the men.
The rest of what you wrote seems fine to me.
One example of this kind of thing that I notice IRL is when people say "I have to go now" or something instead of saying "I'm going now". They aren't taking responsibility for choosing when/whether to go; they are acting as if the decision is not theirs.
Ryan Kaji: 9-year-old boy tops YouTube’s highest-paid 2020 list. Guess how much he made, *Hindustan Times* (2020-12-20):
> Ryan Kaji, a 9-year-old boy, topped YouTube’s highest-paid stars list for 2020 by making nearly $30 million, to be precise $29.5 million. In fact, this year is not the first time he topped the list. He also became the highest paid YouTuber in 2018 and 2019.
I thought it was interesting that the same person was the highest-paid youtuber for 3 years in a row, when he was 7, 8, and 9 years old.
I watched one of Ryan's videos that was listed in the article. He was making cone-shaped things out of baking soda and pouring vinegar and water on them. ~4 tiny, finger-tipped sized toys were revealed when the baking soda reacted with the vinegar or was kinda washed away by the water. I didn't find the video all that interesting, but I guess I'm not the target audience.
#18661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25778758 :
> It's also important to realize that the backup includes your encrypted iMessage messages, and the key required to decrypt them. Meaning that if you have backups enabled, all the "end-to-end" encryption in iMessage is defeated. Apple and by extension the FBI can read your messages. This is documented by Apple here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
> Even if you disable backups, whenever you correspond with someone that has backups enabled those messages are still accessible to Apple.