Be honest; people like getting tips

I have noticed most people working for reduced MW plus tips are in favor of the current system, despite the rhetoric about how servers are underpaid. It usually comes up when the “if there were no tips, prices would increase” argument comes up.

The counterargument goes:
1. As it stands, if someone is making less than full MW after tips, the employer has to make up the difference. So we can infer at least the average server is making, after tips, more than MW.
2. If servers were paid without tips, most would make MW.
3. Therefore the total cost of servers would go down without tips.
So, obviously, prices would not be forced higher than the real price now.

The honest people arguing for the current system will then say 3 is bad, and the problem is 2. Tips enable people who would otherwise make MW to make more than MW.

(I think that’s a good thing. I guess it’s not as flashy rhetoric though.)

Idealists are not climate change deniers

I find Berkeley to be an odd choice of foil in this article.

The author introduces Berkeleian idealism, then poses the problem of a common reality (through Johnson). This, as far as I know, isn’t a super big problem for Berkeley. In fact, it seems to strengthen the case for God’s presence, which is a major part of his metaphysics.

Of course, the atheist idealists have a bigger challenge in answering this objection, but I’ve yet to see it ignored.

Then he moves to an idea that seems more along the lines of what Derrida or Lyotard (or at least my admittedly weak understanding of them) would say — that we all have own own experiences or narratives and cannot break past that. I.e. there’s only the narrative of each subject. Someone agreeing with them would probably disagree with him. I’m not sure someone following Berkeley’s ideas would.

(I also find this point, which seems to be the crux of the argument, uncompelling:

“That’s why we do all agree that sick children denied health care suffer, that opioids are addictive, that adults need jobs to put food on their tables. ”

1. We don’t all agree on any of those.

2. In that sentence, and each other, there’s a tacit “In my experience,” which is just the heart of the matter. Perhaps in his experience everyone agrees. In my experience they do not. Hooray for situations in which no rule of judgement can apply to all subjects involved!)

Trump doesn’t deserve free respect (nor does any president)

This article comparing Trump and Bowser makes its point.

The “Trump is the president -> you should respect Trump” line requires believing that anyone with institutional power is worthy of some special respect. This seems to be obviously silly when you consider the possibility of some especially evil person acquiring the position.

One may object Trump is not Bowser-level, but the point is that he has to be evaluated on his own merit — he doesn’t deserve free respect for his position. (Yes, the article goes on to poke at Trump’s merits. Those are further, different points.)

Sometimes disrespect is the point

In my continued disdain for loaded language in lieu of actual arguments: Yes, the students who walked out on Mike Pence at the Notre Damn graduation ceremony were disrespectful. To say otherwise is to miss the point.

There are varying levels of respect. There’s the respect you default to giving every person. There’s the respect you give to people who have done great things, in general or for you. Presumably, when you meet someone you give them a basic modicum of respect. If your parents did a good job raising you, you give them some respect for it. When you have a good teacher, you respect them. If someone is particularly virtuous, they get some bonus respect, too.

Clearly not everyone should get the same kinds and levels of respect. If you encounter a stranger on the street, while you’ll give them the basic human respect, you don’t treat them like a good parent or teacher. You won’t show the same regard for strangers as friends.

Going further in the opposite direction, some people are worthy of disrespect. If you’ve ever sworn someone out or given the finger, etc., you wouldn’t have much room to argue it was anything other than an act of disrespect. Maybe it was deserved. Maybe it wasn’t. There’s varying levels here, too. Someone who cuts you off in traffic might get a brief show of disrespect. Someone who commits genocide is probably worthy of much graver disrespect.

Now, whether Pence is someone worthy of any given level of respect or disrespect is something that can be argued, which I’m not doing in this status. To simply say walking out was disrespectful and assume that means bad is lazy. On the other hand, to deny it was disrespectful is just falling for the ploy. The words “disrespectful” and “bad” are different words.

Disorder in multiple dimensions

This is a fun post.

Clearly a similar argument can be ran to show the unorderedness of any other field with a rotational operator that just adds dimensions to the reals/complexes (quaternions, octonions, etc.) but I do wonder if either some other property (say, completeness) can be given up to get orderedness or else if some nonstandard field with non-flat geometry can be ordered. (And not be isomorphic to the reals! I suppose this requires and answer to my first question, though, since the reals are the only complete ordered field.)

My friend Jon pointed out that the meaning of orderedness basically requires having a single dimension to order on. (As for all x and y, either x>y, y>x, or x=y. That’s a one dimensional relation.)  Most of the ideas I had in mind with giving up, say, completeness ultimately reduced the dimensionality. (For example, if you take a subset of the complexes that has Re(x)=Re(y)->x=y then you can have an order, but that’s by basically knocking out a dimension.)

Regarding Culture Wars

Regarding Culture Wars:  1 is a nice reminder in the midst of bad news everywhere. Of all the problems to be having, America is having some relatively nice problems. Not to suggest that means we should stop moving forward by any means, but it’s nice to remember.

I’ve been yammering about 3 for quite awhile. Really I’m inclined to believe a lot of GOP higher-ups never want abortion to be banned because they can use that issue to distract from economics for a long time to come. Sanders was a nice change in moving the discussion to economics, and even Trump bringing trade to the center was a good shift. (Now if only someone would bring up the abolition of private property.)

Metal and Christianity

It’s interesting to see how intertwined metal and Christianity are.
Slayer? Singing songs about hell and has a crucifix at the concerts. But the singer is Catholic. He also notes Catholic services do the same thing.

Iron Maiden released a song called “The Number of the Beast” and got moral guardians’ upset despite being based on the Bible.

Avenged Sevenfold gets it’s name from the Bible (whoever kills Cain will get 7 times the retribution.) “Beast and the Harlot” is also a story torn from Revelation.

DragonForce refers to God a lot. It helps that most of the members are Anglican. In an interview Herman Li said that when they talk about “the master” and other such figures in their songs, they’re referring to God.

James Hetfield was raised a Christian Scientist. Didn’t go well, though.

Helloween has several blatantly Christian songs. Like “Save Us”.

Evanescence was considered a Christian band until they explicitly told the Christian records stores they were not. Stores complied when they swore in an interview.

Black Sabbath used the occult symbolism to sell records. Geezer is a Christian.

Some people try to convince themselves Marilyn Manson is Christian. Just look at Yahoo Answers. He is not, though. 

Lots of people listen to Lamb of God thinking they’re pro-Jesus. That doesn’t last long. 

There’s always fun arguing whether “Chop Suey” by System of a Down is about Jesus. Of course, calling Jesus’s spiel “self-righteous suicide” doesn’t end well.

Godsmack is in a similar boat to Lamb of God.

HIM is supposed Christian. And by supposedly I mean it stands for “His Infernal Majesty”.

Linkin Park does the occasional Christian song.

Attack! Attack! has Christian songs very forthright. Not a Christian band because some members aren’t.

Head left Korn when he converted.

We Came As Romans is mistaken as Christian because some of their songs have uplifting messages. I think some people want too badly for their favourite bands to share their favourite religion.

Flyleaf is a Christian band despite them saying they aren’t.

One time Judas Priest was set to play a concert for a audience of nuns. Someone didn’t do their research.

Twisted Sister stabs at it here and there.

There is also, of course, the entire genre of Christian metal. I at one point even made a playlist of songs. It’s a bit tilted towards power metal. August Burns Red and As I Lay Dying are rather popular even in the metal mainstream. (Divinefire not so much.)