Social Studies

I can't believe that they have to pay money based on this flimsy... everything, really.

Perhaps social media is deadlier than we previously thought.

This comes a bit closer to describing my mixed but definitely positive feelings towards Grantland.

There it is.

These kids are horrible.

As are these kids.

Responses:

1. I guess this is why marketing is a thing.

2. People do say that being present is the way to increase happiness.  I guess this is another way of saying that, and with science.

3. She seems like an interesting enough person with a reasonably good head on her shoulders.  I think stories like this make me move her out of the category of "loathsome pop star" (which is where I assume most pop stars reside) and into the category of "possibly undamaged successful celebrity."  I've been watching a lot of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee recently, though, so maybe I'm going soft.

4. I think this link is broken.

5. Lots of people have suggested that affordable housing is something that only the government can fix, but solutions like this one make me think that they are wrong.

R2R:

4. The fact that people will associate Legos with his expressive art in my view allows Lego to decline the bulk sale, even if they won't stand in the way of his acquisition of Lego materials through alternative (and more difficult) means.  I would feel differently if we weren't currently in the middle of a boycott craze where people seek to punish people with whose views they disagree.

R2R2R:

1. It was funny as a picture, but it would be lame as an actual costume.

4. I'm not sure that saying you're cut off if you're bad in bed is good as a first position, if only because people get better with practice, but there's no way to get better without communication.  I think men who have an attitude of wanting to figure it out to get better have the right attitude, but I suspect that trial and error will get you only so far without some input from the woman.  As awkward as it is to have to talk about it, though, I think it's more awkward to be lying there afterwards feeling disappointed and frustrated.

R2R2R2R:

2. The problem is that most politicians don't understand how science should work, and most scientists don't understand how policy works.  And most Americans don't understand how either works.  The claim that climate change science is irrefutable is similar to the claim made by some liberals (especially during Supreme Court nomination hearings) that Roe v. Wade is "settled law."  Each side wants to take something that is absolutely subject to change (subsequent peer review studies in the case of climate change, and a contrary holding in the case of Supreme Court jurisprudence) and claim, for political purposes, that it cannot change, and they use practically useful but philosophically arguable reasons (scientific community consensus in the case of climate change, super-stare decisis in the case of Roe) to beat back any attempt by newcomers to disrupt the status quo.  There is no doubt in my mind that an overwhelming majority of the scientists who have studied climate change and answered that poll truly believe that the science backs up their conclusion that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt in my mind that the studies and experiments they have done or reviewed back up their conclusions (to the extent that such conclusions are narrowly tailored to the performed experiments), but that does not make the 97% number relevant as an argument in and of itself.  Science isn't democracy.  Moreover, even stipulating that the science is there, that does not therefore mean that the policy proposals put forth by those who agree with that 97% of scientists with respect to their scientific conclusions are necessarily appropriate, necessary, effective, or otherwise worthy of our support.

3. I guess some people just suck.

R2R2R2R2R2R:

1. Choosing the criteria by which we date people is of course fine.  But when we think about things like morals and ethics, and when we think about what we want for ourselves, we of course have rules and judgments.  Politically, I am often a libertarian when it comes to these things.  But that doesn't mean I'm an existentialist.  I would never advocate for any law or regulation requiring people to date some diversity of people or be polite at speed dating events by meeting with everyone.  But there is a huge difference between saying that people have the right to choose a certain way and saying that that choice is good, whether with respect to that person or with respect to ourselves.  I fully concede that people make dating choices based on sometimes flimsy criteria, and there is probably no way to stop that in the short or long term.  But despite that, when people choose to date or not to date people on the basis of trivial characteristics, they are making bad choices, and while I do not feel the need to call them out on it or prevent them from making those bad choices, they are still bad choices.

To put it more simply by way of example, people may believe that activities such as recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, or even abortion should be legal, but it does not follow from such belief that people think that their own participation in such activities is consistent with their moral codes.

B