3TFs!

Time for the next round of your favorite game!

Below are three statements. They might all be true, they might all be false, they might be a mix. To play, place your answer in the comments (in the format TFF, FFF, FTF, etc.) and when I publish the next round of the game, I’ll share the answers for this round.

Here’s the new round! The answers for the last round, from May 31, are farther down.

• “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” was an early anticapitalist slogan.

• For all their differences, “Catholic” and “Unitarian Universalist” mean pretty much the same thing.

• Calculating the volume of a cube is simple. But it seems pretty much impossible to come up with a single equation to calculate the volume of an irregularly shaped object. Historically speaking, take a bath and maybe the solution will come to you.

Image by Bella Cerza

Sorry for the long gap between newsletters! Work has been brutal, an academic journal wants me to write them a citation-heavy paper for free, and I’m writing an underpaid, 6-interview, legal-research-intensive article that I hope will shed some liberatory light on a local environmental issue that also has (surprise surprise) class and race dimensions along with key questions of state power.

Help me keep cranking out this free newsletter? Let me know if you can get my books in a library or bookstore, invite me to talk to a class or a student org on the university’s dime, or send me some dough via PayPal @ pgelderloos

Okay, you’ve got one last chance to take a crack at the 3TFs from May 31 before I spoil it for you! Check out that newsletter here:

Also a quick correction. From the May 18 3TFs, I said that the word “decadence” shares a root with “decade,” and that it connotes the end of the world as the completion of a cycle of ten. However, I’ve since found a lot of support for the competing theory that the two words do no share a common origin, with “decadence” related not to the word for “ten” but to a Latin word for falling apart. It’s also possible that both are true, with the connotation reinforcing the literal definition.

Okay, May 31 answers, here we go…

The answers from May 31 are TFF

• The original meaning of “tribe” actually denotes subordination to empire. This is true. Nowadays, “tribe” denotes a group of people who are independent and ungoverned, with a pejorative connotation of backwards or uncivilized and a more recent connotation of a subculture. In some outdated, eurocentric social sciences, it denotes a form of social organization of limited complexity, between band and chiefdom. The first usage that we know of that refers to a group of people, though, is related to the word “tribute” and goes back at least to the Roman Empire. Tribes were groups of people that were not fully integrated into the empire and could not access the rights of citizenship, but they could protect themselves from Roman military aggression by paying tribute, governing a peripheral territory on behalf of Rome, and sending men to fight, kill, and die when Rome called.

• Excess cholesterol in the diet goes to your arteries, where it can cause plaque buildup and heart attack. This is false. There are two types of cholesterol. HDL cholesterol is very good for you, and helps you regulate your LDL cholesterol. Your body also needs LDL cholesterol but it has to be regulated. Foods high in LDL cholesterol that are otherwise healthy do not significantly raise your cholesterol levels. Trans fatty acids at any quantity (from processed foods), fried saturated fats, stress, and environmental toxins can cause LDL cholesterol to build up to unsafe levels. Your body produces plenty of cholesterol, and dietary cholesterol does not build up as plaque in your arteries unless other unhealthy factors are in place. For all these reasons, it is inaccurate to say that eating too much cholesterol causes plaque buildup. 1) Your body produces it, 2) it’s good for you, 3) and other factors trigger a plaque buildup.

• “What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force” was an important problem in late 19^th century physics. This is false. The apparent paradox is actually a false dilemma, and one that presented itself to both Chinese and Greek philosophers over 2000 years ago. “Immovable” and “unstoppable” are not coherent concepts in physics. Physics would simply ask, “how much force is required to move this object or to negate that force?” The supposed problem is entirely semantic.

Hopefully by the end of the month I’ll have out my essay on “Roles for the Revolution” and on revolutionary vocabulary.

What do identity politics and intersectional mean today? What did they mean originally, and which meaning better advantages our analysis?

What about autonomy, direct action, or democracy?

The list goes on!