Snek

It showed a bunch of people standing next to a track that a trolley was barreling down, with the caption: "if 50% of humanity ties themselves to the track, the trolley will stop without hitting anyone. If it is less than 50%, the people who tied themselves will get run over by the trolley and die. Do you tie yourself to the track?"

So I think the intention was for it to be the same problem in a different context. But this change makes it a very different problem. Basically everyone has already pressed the red button by default - framing the red button as inaction. This means there's no reason to take action. Everyone is already safe, and tying yourself to the track is essentially killing yourself unless a ton of other people decide to do it too. If the red button is inaction, then inaction is the obvious choice.

But I think red button pushers view it as the same problem because of how obvious it seems to them that the red button is the correct choice, even the "default" one.

So I came up with another version of it that frames the blue button as inaction. "All of humanity is standing on the track, but luckily there is no trolley heading toward them so everybody is safe. However, if at least 50% of humanity steps off the track, a trolley will drive toward the people remaining on the track, killing the remainder. Do you step off the track?"

And yeah. Now the obvious choice is to stay on the track. Sure, stepping off the track guarantees your personal safety, but everybody is already safe. Stepping off is directly contributing to murdering people with a trolley.

If you really wanted to represent the same problem as a trolley problem, you might do it like this: "You must either tie yourself to the track or get in the trolley. If you're in the trolley you are safe, but if at least 50% of people get into the trolley, then it will drive toward whoever is on the track and kill them."

Anyway. I just thought it was interesting that if you represent either button as inaction, then inaction seems to become the obvious choice.

If you want to check this intuition, you can have something like "you will definitely die if you don't tie yourself to a track; one has a train coming with blue button rules, one has no train coming". Now no choice represents inaction (since you're tying yourself to a track no matter what) but I think it's mostly the same judgement call for me (with a little bit less strength because the Schelling point is weaker). This implies the Schelling point qualities are what drive the different result, not the action/inaction divide.

Hello everyone, sorry to go so long without posting something. I caught covid in August and it's taken me months to start feeling relatively back to normal. I am still struggling with fatigue and some neurological problems, so thank you for your patience!

It is rare that the McMansion ever approaches the mythical, though it is, of coursed, steeped in its own mythology -- of bootstrapism, castle doctrine and, importantly, a total commitment to individualism. No one bereft of a sense of personal mythos would build some of the houses I've posted about on this site throughout the years.

However, rarely do those houses sincerely believe their own myths, express them so utterly. Often, there's a bit of cheek involved in all those Corinthian columns, even among the knockoff Rolex set. Whenever one does swallow the (blue) kool aid, well, it's very important to me. And so, from the forgotten underwater past of the greater Houston suburbs, I bring you: Chud Atlantis

(it is always more fun to quote the front bit of that Shelley poem, because the second bit has been misappropriated by Reddit.)

Atlantic in size (8 bedrooms, 9 baths, 10,000+ square feet), and in price ($2.8 million), Chud Atlantis is proof that, for better or for worse, we used to build things in this country. (Just kidding, this house was built, astonishingly enough, in 2023.) Its existence is baffling to me not only because it is anachronistic (it belongs in the Bad 70s) but because it is Texan. This house is, in the fullest sense of the word, a transplant. Orlando is that way.

(Shall we enter, then, the eye-watery depths?)

It's important that you understand that the most significant thing about this house is that it is blue. In an age of gray supremacy, it is nice to know that tacky can still come in more unconventional shades. No one prior to this has ever looked at a piece of dyed marble and thought: I need to make this my entire personality. Not even in the 80s!

Like many McMansion owners, these do not know how to decorate. One can only presume that the furniture involved is so heavy that staging also wasn't an option. This makes the house a historical document because from this point onward such rooms will henceforth be yassified with AI.

this kitchen begs for a concept food. it begs for 'gold leaf hamburger.'

I'm not entirely convinced that the Rococo period was ugly, but its imitators commit crimes unerringly and without fail. Furniture like this sits in a room like a big glob of meat. Instead of saying 'i'm rich' what it actually communicates is: 'i'm heavy.'

I don't know how you can make so much money and yet have everything you do look like the bootleg Chanel rugs they sell outside of the subway. Like, can't you buy the real thing, dawg?

This may also be the first house whose broad aesthetic is executed by way of direct to consumer printing. The FedExification of art. Or something like that. After all, the internet loves a neologism more than it loves its elaboration.

"What should we put here to fill out this room" all-time bad answer.

Anyway, without further ado, the back:

The suburban mind yearns for the miniature golf course. The suburban mind yearns for water while it all dries up.

If you like this post and want more like it, support McMansion Hell on Patreon for as little as $1/month for access to great bonus content including a discord server, extra posts, and livestreams. (Don’t worry! This doesn’t adjust for inflation! Now’s the perfect time to join!) By the way: new subscribers can buy a year of McMansion Hell for just $12!

I confess I have never considered the matter carefully, Socrates. I suppose shounen is for boys and shoujo is for girls?

A fine beginning. But let us look deeper. Imagine a young boy, playing with his toys. Does he not bash them together?

He does, yes.

And do he and his friends not argue endlessly over which of their toys would win in a fight?

Constantly, and with great passion.

Now imagine a young girl, playing with her toys. Does she not make them kiss?

…She does.

Does she not argue with her friends not over who would win in a fight, but over who belongs with whom?

I begin to see where you are going.

And if Aphrodite has been kind, and has bestowed upon her the φουτζόσι nature — does she not find her brother's Naruto and Sasuke toys, and make them explore each other's bodies?

I — yes, Socrates. I suppose she does.

Then the soul of shounen discourse is powerscaling — who beats whom — and the soul of shoujo discourse is shipping — who loves whom, and how, and with what degree of emotional devastation.

That seems correct.

Now. Is there a further distinction to be made, within these categories? Between those who are, as the moderns say, woke, and those who are chuds?

I think there must be, though I am uncertain how to draw it.

Consider: is it not the woke who care deeply about the precise definitions of abuse and consent — who will debate endlessly about power imbalances and trauma responses and what exactly constitutes a toxic dynamic?

It is. I have seen these debates. They are very long.

And do the chuds not repudiate such pretensions entirely, and concern themselves only with who is the most attractive — who, as they put it, is best to goon to?

They do, and they are also very loud about it.

Good. Then let us apply this framework to some examples, so that we may be sure we understand it. What of Dragon Ball Z?

Clearly a shounen. The discourse is entirely about power levels. Goku versus Superman. Whether Vegeta could beat Frieza if he had another week to train. Neither especially woke nor especially chud — simply loud.

Ouran High School Host Club?

Shoujo, plainly. The discourse is entirely about which host Haruhi should end up with. Neither particularly woke nor unwoke — simply romantic.

Steven Universe?

Woke shoujo, and almost insultingly obvious. The entire discourse concerns whether various gems were abusive toward Steven, what his codependency with his father means, and whether Spinel deserved better. I have never once seen anyone ask whether Steven could beat a particular gem in a fight. I have seen thousands of words written about whether Pink Diamond was a victim or a perpetrator.

And now — Chainsaw Man?

Surely it is a shounen? It has a chainsaw for a head. There are extremely gory fight scenes. I would have said… neither woke nor chud, perhaps. But certainly shounen.

Think carefully, Adeimantus. Did not the scene in the back alley, with Yoru, and the nature of what she offered Denji — did that not spark hundreds of Reddit threads?

…It did. I remember them. They were quite heated.

And were they debating whether Denji could beat a given devil in a fight?

No. They were debating whether what occurred constituted a meaningful violation, given Denji's initial objection and Asa's anger.

Consent and abuse discourse.

…Yes.

And do not some fans still mourn Reze, and insist she was the one who truly understood Denji? While others argue passionately that Asa is the only one who could give him what he actually needs?

The shipping wars are, I will admit, extensive.

And have you ever — even once — heard Chainsaw Man fans argue about whether Denji could beat a particular devil in a straight fight?

…I cannot say that I have.

Then observe what we have found. Chainsaw Man's discourse is concerned not with power, but with relationships. It is therefore shoujo. Its discourse is concerned not with attractiveness, but with abuse, consent, and emotional damage. It is therefore woke. And thus —

Astonishing, Otakrates. Chainsaw Man is a woke shoujo manga.