Clementine
1d ago
I'm unaware of any mainstream historian or institution which disputes the matter, and you can easily google it and learn from whatever source you find credible
What am I supposed to Google? I tried medical care in concentration camps and got : https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/camp-hospitals/conditions-in-the-hospital/ and https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/medical-care-nazism-and-the-holocaust
As first results, neither of which corroborates your statement.
When I search for recreational facilities in concentration camps, I find this:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/654671/summary
And this
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/education/e-learning/podcast/sport-and-sportstpeople-/
If it's so easy to search and find please tell me what to search for.
Clementine
1d ago
This is weird, because now the link you sent doesn't show me the full article. It's been a while since I've used webarchive and maybe they've gotten worse at archiving?
Clementine
1d ago
This analogy doesn't help as much as you (and I) might hope because I often accidentally dehydrate myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes but the author of the article is specifically positing that there's been a shift in attachment styles (something I previously mostly encountered as a trait you acquire very young, like, baby to toddler years). Perhaps he is using the term differently, but he does specifically refer to "secure attachment", so he's definitely borrowing the entire set of vocabulary while he's at it. And if he isn't using the term differently, it's really strange how the article is framed around "go against your attachment style, you need to not be avoidant" and not "but why are we experiencing an epidemic of avoidant personalities?"
Again the article has singleness as a symptom of the problem, so addressing other possible causes of singleness interests me less than "if it's true people nowadays are more avoidantly attached — why?"
Clementine
1d ago
Scott's most recent post had someone linking to an article in the Atlantic about debunking a study, I went and read it and got sucked into the Atlantic rabbit hole.
Link one: Don't avoid romance says more people are single nowadays and unhappier nowadays because more people have avoidant attachment styles in the past, with some (mostly circumstantial) evidence that the amount of avoidant attachment is increasing. Ends with an exhortation to not be avoidant but doesn't examine the question I would have thought would be of interest, which is why more and more people don't have healthy attachment styles. (Aftereffects of higher divorce rate? Internet usage? Weaker community institutions? Microplastics? I'm just spitballing ideas but wouldn't a marked societal-leve change in people's psychology be something you'd want to investigate the causes of?)
Link two: The Ozempic Flip Flop as someone who gets full very quickly and doesn't have a very strong appetite, I've never really had good mental image of what it's like for normal people with normal appetites let alone obese people with obese appetites. This article in particular presents people who lost weight, noticed immediate massive benefits in their life they're desperate to keep, and yet still can't keep the weight from coming back. It is just the satiety setpoint being set so high it's torture for them to not eat to the point of overeating? I'm trying to match it to my own points of reference for "willpower" struggles but failing. I force myself to go to the gym despite not enjoying exercise, but that's forcing myself to do something, not forcing myself not to do something, so generally speaking once I overcome the activation barrier of inertia the hard part is over. I intermittently (deliberately, as opposed to non-deliberately) fast and can be hungry and craving food but to a pretty easily overcome extent. But what makes someone — who for months now has been eating much less — be unable to maintain the amount they've been eating for months but instead be compelled to keep eating more even though it's actively physically hurting them (and costing them in other ways, like socially). How much stronger incentive can you get? It makes me feel like at some level for some people food is an addictive substance like drugs. (And also still trying to understand how this gets spread — is it really hyperpalatable foods? Something else? We can watch countries become more obese... Whatever the underlying thing that makes someone susceptible to this is, it does appear to be something a country can acquire)
Clementine
1d ago
"actually the survivors aren't credible and what happened is that they worked people to death for free labor but with no mass shootings, no mass gassings, no locking people into buildings and setting those buildings on fire, just very polite Germans extracting human labor until it dropped dead" is still holocaust denial actually.
Since the claim about the Holocaust is that Jews were targeted for extermination, not just abused as slaves and "incidentally" dying.
He also mixes in the claim that many fewer Jews died than is accepted by mainstream historians and that these numbers are inflated to suit the Zionist agenda, which is also holocaust denial.
Clementine
1d ago
Haha I think what happened is I automatically filtered out the red text and could only see the normal text (dark mode). I see it now.
Clementine
1d ago
Yeah so I kind of was hoping that doing a post about being Jewish wouldn't immediately mean the replies would also include a bunch of "but Jews do rule the world" and "but the Holocaust probably is mostly fake"
I hope other mottizens can take the time to answer you.
For me, my great-grandfather was tortured to death publicly — we know because the local newspaper wrote about it, and after the war someone thought it would be a kindness to send this to my grandmother so she'd know what happened to him (...whether it was a kindness is a matter of opinion. Until that point the family had been attempting to maintain her belief her family might still be alive, even though everyone at that point knew everyone was dead)
All of the rest of her family simply disappeared, entirely. Aunts, uncles, cousins. Everyone except her (hiding in France) and one set of cousins (ardent Zionists, moved to Israel pre-ear). We had a huge family tree and then there was no one on it anymore. Our story is not unique, that's basically every Holocaust survivor story.
You dismiss the testimonies of both perpetrators and victims. Conveniently, because the crime was so massive, we still have additional testimonies left after that, photographic evidence of piles of bodies, photographic evidence of public humiliations and tortures, testimonies from the soldiers who liberated the camps, etc. But because there's a handful of fake accounts you then take alllll the evidence from perpetrators, victims, and bystander witnesses, the evidence submitted in trials, the research, and say "ok but since the opinion it didn't happen is taboo, maybe that opinion is true, because after all since it's taboo we'll only get cover ups because no respectable person will publish that it didn't happen". Which is the kind of argument you can immediately use for any belief you want to hold contradicted by piles of evidence.
Clementine
2d ago
Actually didn't know there's a block function, where is it?
Clementine
2d ago
Oh his Natalie Winters comment was obnoxious I refuse to defend that one.
Clementine
2d ago
Yes, but I'm advocating for the bar to be lowered, not raised. I think raising the bar leads to slippery slope effects where more and more topics become verboten. That's most of the point of me leading with the forum I moderated spiraling downwards, listing what I appreciate about kiwifarms, etc, even while discussing the chilling effect every space inevitably acquires against people not in the status quo audience.
Clementine
2d ago
But you not only don't want to talk about it but don't even want other people to talk about it?
Since I explicitly said I think it should be allowed to talk about it I guess you misread my post.
Clementine
2d ago
Eh, I don't think it makes sense to ask people to stay or make special exceptions, but if there's a really high attrition rate it might be a sign something needs to be tweaked. But there's a limit on how effective it's going to be against a beleaguered minority.
Tangentially, as a woman in tech, it makes a big difference to me if I'm the only female programmer in the entire company, and there isn't really anything the company can do about it except hire another braver woman first (or I guess hire three women all together) because I have options for companies that aren't 100% male programmers and I go for those instead.
(I mean I think what draws me here specifically includes having less PC views that I can't voice elsewhere, and I think if you're toeing the PC line 100% then why would you choose to be here and be uncomfortable? And idk how fixable that is but I also don't know how much of that boils down to the PC culture of "cut off anyone with bad opinions" exacerbating the issue by reducing tolerance for being around people who suck)
Re: intractable disagreements: this is a very long effortpost topic for sure, and something I can maybe get around to writing about.
... fwiw I posted my original comment and then went off and curled up in a ball shaking because it was a high stress experience for me posting it, but at least the response hasn't been a bunch of jeering so hey forcing myself to not be conflict avoidant has so far paid off.
Clementine
2d ago
Well I really do want to write up something — not about the war but related topics — once I get my own thoughts about it sorted out enough.
Clementine
2d ago
I think in practice it ends up being a lot harder to have very clear black and white rules that can be applied totally neutrally with zero mod judgement involved. Especially on borderline cases. Like yeah ideally you just have crystal clear rules and everyone knows the deal but unless the rules are very very few ("don't get the feds called on us") it still ends up being mod calls.
Clementine
2d ago
Ywah I (as alluded to) know that being a mod is hard work and a shit job (unpaid forced interaction with the most annoying and worst parts of the forum you love enough to be modding)
And I accept that the balance is not just hard but imo impossible to hit.
Clementine
2d ago
I moderated a forum once.
Like many forums it struggled with one of the basic problems of forum moderation — how much niceness do you enforce, which I'll explain by way of some endemic user types in any forum with enough people and anything but the most milquetoast topic.
A: Here's the troll who comes by only to post egregiously offensive "go kill yourself [list of slurs]",
B: Here's the more subtle troll, who keeps toeing the line as much as he can get away with.
C: here's the user who is not a troll. They actually do participate in discussion and are clearly trying to be a part of the community. They're also abrasive and/or obnoxious and/or inflammatory.
D: And then here's the final type of user that's problematic as a mod: They're a sensitive snowflake. Honestly they need to be sub-divided further, because some of them are just born snowflakes that can't handle any opposition to their viewpoint at all, and others are retaliatory snowflakes, because if I got a ban for three days for saying this opinion is dumb then that guy also needs to get a ban for three days for saying this other opinion is dumb.
The forum was one that was trying really hard to be heterogenous in terms of opinions and also to be nice and moderating it was a nightmare, not because of the obvious ban on sight trolls but because inevitably when you want to moderate niceness now 90% of your mod time — and the mod time becomes a balloon that expands to fill all available space — is spent on dealing with constant playground supervision of the snowflakes. Also you've been slowly but steadily banning your type C members when they eventually accrue enough complains from the type Ds, and because they're really annoying you initially don't miss them until you realize that conversation in your forum is drying up a bit and also some of the valuable forum members who were friends with type Cs also got pissed off and left and also mixed into the type Cs and their friends were, inevitably, some of the more useful members of the forum who knew a lot (and hence got into arguments that annoyed snowflakes).
Also it turns out snowflakes are basically never satisfied as long and are just a self eating death spiral of a forum culture.
After my experience moderating that forum and swearing off moderating ever again, I ended up lurking the notorious kiwifarms. It was full of people who engaged in what would definitely be termed elsewhere as hate speech against me. Now, I never actually made an account there, and I also stopped visiting a few years back so idk if things have changed, but at the time I remember being struck by how much less of a threat I felt reading kiwifarms, because yeah slurs were being thrown around but users were actually arguing, you didn't just have someone with the viewpoint that was the forum consensus and then everyone else against that consensus gets to tiptoe around what they can say or get banned. Everyone shared their most idiotic opinions and had other people arguing with them no holds barred, the forum also had reaction emojis so you could freely post your insane conspiracy theory but wou would get 50 "lol look at this insane conspiracy theory" reactions.
I remember a few years ago people were still making fun of t*kt*kers and how they would asterisk everything or use idiotic word substitution like "krill myself" because otherwise they'd get blackholed by the TikTok algorithm.
Meanwhile I took a long long break from reddit and only recently returned, to a forum dedicated to a game I play, and discovered that in the interim reddit has added some kind of probably AI based site-wide moderation against violent language (or actual human beings are being this dumb idk) and it's impossible to talk like a normal person there anymore, because if you say, in a joking and friendly fashion perfectly understood by you and the person you are talking to to be friendly, "you said my build was bad, I'm gonna have to shove you off a cliff" (this example is not great because I forget the actual exchange, but whatever, fill in something more normal) then you get banned from all of Reddit and the poor guy you were talking with gets to post your exit speech from the discord you're both in as well. It does appear to be a strike system where first you get warned, since I got my first warning for telling someone who posted about a pedophile moving into their neighborhood that hopefully the pedophile would die suddenly.
It's hard not to turn this into some kind of doompost about how the internet is turning into a horrible little hellhole where no one has a normal argument anymore just constant barricading themselves into their own opinions lest they be offended by the not niceness of having to hear someone else's opinions, each little forum and its own narrow band of acceptable ideology, all while the biggest social media sites are enforcing the most transparently fake bullshit kindergarten language upon us all. It brings out the free speech absolutist instincts in me, it really does.
But what if you don't want an aggressively anti-censorship forum that will involve a forum culture of calling everyone slurs? You want the veneer of respectability and gentility but also the ability to have an actual conversation?
Well I already listed the shitty experience I had trying to moderate such a forum, against what was not bad faith actors but just human actors acting predictably human hence this being a pattern you can see all over the place, and now I have to address the flip side of the coin.
Let's by analogy discuss locker room culture. I don't actually know if locker room culture is a real thing irl so I'm going to discuss hypothetical locker room culture.
It's a group of like fifteen guys in a guy's only space. They're basically all normal guys, plus rapey Kenneth and edgy Doug. Sometimes rapey Kenneth makes a joke about how some girl in the school really needs to be fucked into her proper place in society and Doug will make some follow up joke and everyone else is maybe thinking "c'mon man can we not do this" if it's been like too many times that day but usually you're just trying to finish getting dressed and maybe John also is like "that's not cool man" and pushes back. But like, the rest of the time the atmosphere is just a comfy men's only space plus the occasional rape joke or comment about how women suck or are all gold-diggers or are responsible for everything wrong with society.
Anyway, if for whatever reason that locker room decided it wanted to actually be a co-ed discussion space instead, it would have a little problem, which is that any individual woman walking in would get the vibe — they're the barely tolerated outsider — and then leave unless they're like extra autistic/socially challenged.
Because there's just the microculture of what kinds of things are ok to say there and what aren't, and sometimes what's ok to say is anything negative about group A and what's not ok to say is anything negative about group B, and it's not really about an active policy one way or another it's just this is the overall culture of the social group, read the room and get out.
This is, unfortunately, the part where I admit that I've spent weeks now debating if I should just quietly show myself the door. I didn't mean to enter themotte under false premises, I just decided my first post wouldn't be some "here's all my labels and opinions" and would be an actual post about a controversial topic I wanted to talk about. And then before I had the chance to like, casually drop the relevant information about me and get it over with (I despise sharing personally identifiable information online, but it was nonetheless something that needed to happen eventually if I wanted to talk about any number of topics I wanted to discuss), my government did a surprise attack on Iran. I quite vividly remember someone posting a comment about there being a siren and someone else saying "can't find any news confirming it" and not piping in with "it's me, I'm the news, posting from the spotty internet in the bomb shelter". And then it became just increasingly not the right moment for it (also I was quite sleep deprived and dealing with lots of other more immediate concerns).
And in the meantime I got to have the uncomfortable sensation of listening in on conversations I felt were very obviously not meant to include me. For several days now I've been debating doing a rip the band-aid off kind of post (how? What framing?) to get it over with and be able to discuss things again or to just... Leave.
Because of course the alternative is to figure out the correct, respectful way to tiptoe around the conversation over whether Jews control the American government/assassinated Kennedy, since we aren't doing kiwifarms style dialogue where someone talks about the kikes ruining everything and someone else responds by calling him a retarded autist, you've got to politely request sources and carefully have respectful mutually productive dialogue.
Or to just like ignore that the conversation is even happening? Stick to discussion of feminism and essentially continue faking being a normal non-Jewish mottizen...
Polite respectful mutual dialogue.
But only for some opinions, because others are an "immense pain in the ass".
Yes this is the actual reason I ended up writing this comment instead of continuing to waffle over if I should just leave. Because it is actually really annoying, if I need to play nice with the neonazis and have polite and measured conversations — I am willing to do this, even though conversations with people who are (only theoretically!) interested in me and my family being dead are a "pain in the ass" to conduct civilly — and to then see someone else express some opinion that is more objectionable to the baseline motte culture, but expressed according to all the rules of the site, and get banned (temporarily) for it. Because it just means setting the lines around what kinds of people are in the locker room, which is pretending to be a co-ed discussion space, but isn't. And yes I'm biased by being more inclined towards free speech over banning and thinking that it's better to have the opinions and talk it out then constantly police what people say, sure, but if the forum can tolerate holocaust denial I think it can also stretch itself to tolerate libtards. I'm not interesting in doing some tit for tat thing where I'm like "well if you banned them for this, why didn't you ban that other person for that" because like I stated up front that's just the path to a death spiral where almost no one interesting sticks around. But still, come on, you didn't ban them for constantly sticking their conspiracy theories into every discussion couched as consensus building obvious fact. Apply the same low bar consistently. Let people have an actual conversation with actual disagreement.
Clementine
12d ago
We already have plenty of evidence that no, people are not aware of the difference between reality and fantasy.
My sources here are going to be limited because googling these topics is a distasteful experience.
In July researchers from Melbourne and Queensland universities published a study on the prevalence of sexual strangulation among 18- to 35-year-olds in Australia and found that over half of the more than 4,700 surveyed had choked or been choked by a sexual partner. Among young people, sexual choking has become mainstream.
The prevalence study found that the main way young people were introduced to choking was through pornography (34.8%). The next most commonly reported first exposure to choking was conversations with friends (11.5%), while 9.2% had learned of the practice through discussing it with a sexual partner. One in 10 were unsure how they came across the idea and only 3.9% had never heard of it.
A majority of those surveyed (61.3%) had seen choking depicted in porn, although this included more men (71.4%) than women (51.5%).
Similarly anal:
National Survey of Sexual Attitudes research undertaken in Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it.
I don't have statistics on an increase in incest irl as a result of incest in porn (and I'm not interested in doing much googling it) but it's enough of a concern that people who work in organizations dedicated to fighting child sexual assault mention is as an additional risk of the legally produces videos, aside from the cover and camouflage those videos provide for the millions of videos of actually illegal rape
Clementine
20d ago
I actually think the driving example is a perfect example of how the underlying principles are not universal, since the levels of morally acceptable aggressiveness on the part of the driver and the extent to which is it pedestrians' and other drivers' job to get out of your way rather than your job to drive "nicely" varies a lot by culture.
...or on the other hand you could say that whether it's India, Italy, the Netherlands, England, the US, or Zimbabwe, there's at least a general consensus you shouldn't be killing people with your car. Except, perhaps, if you are very very wealthy. the moral Schelling point towards not killing other people who are ambiguously maybe from your tribe or a neutral tribe or an enemy tribe not currently actively engaged in hostilities against you, on a random Tuesday, does seem reasonably strong-ish
Clementine
22d ago
You can either shoot the dad and now have two single moms, doubling the problem, or you think that when a man cheats on his wife either his wife or the woman he cheated with and impregnated (who he may have lied to and might not have known he was married) should be shot. Which one was the intended meaning of your comment?
Clementine
1mo ago
Thank you for sharing (here and in real life). And I hope your continued recovery goes smoothly.
Clementine
1mo ago
Where I live abortion is allowed as a blanket rule if the mother is under 18, the mother is married but the child is not her husband's, the child is a product of incest or rape, the pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother, or the child has been identified to have a serious disability.
All other cases of abortion need to get past an ethics panel to be allowed.
I consider this to be a very good state of affairs and a very reasonable solution that everyone should be ok with. I admit not everyone agrees with me, on either side, but blanket statements about no one on the prochoice side being happy with reasonable compromises because they want a family planning card is just you strawmanning your opponents.
Clementine
1mo ago
Thanks for sharing.
This gets close to but never really actually states the argument I always felt was missing in abortion arguments.
I mean I still remember seeing some lengthy debate back and forth about how a museum is entitled to kick out some guy who decided to squat there, and then arguing that babies don't decided to squat, it's decided for them, and that you can't kick our the squatter if doing so would kill them, and none of this was like "well women's bodies aren't actually museums and hosting a baby inside your body is a lot worse than hosting a tapeworm". I kept remembering those arguments when pregnant because they planted so much of my subsconscious belief that pregnancy was just some minor temporary inconvenience.
Like even in this article it doesn't really go do far as to say "is it ethical to torture someone for nine months against their will to save a life?" She still is pretty focused on cases where it's life-saving or where the suffering from the itching is bad enough two people killed themselves over it. Probably because she thinks that's the stronger argument?
Clementine
1mo ago
Yeah, in fact I did the same till age 8 or 10 so it's jumping the gun. I'm too used to thinking in terms of "a boys room" and "a girls room".
Ugh but closets. Whatever. Need to just resign myself to furniture constellations being something I'll have to tweak and change and tweak and change.
Thank you!
(If it wasn't clear in my original post, I'm a willpower skeptic, I think it's profoundly stupid to assume obesity is a willpower problem, even if I don't know how to imagine the experience of what it feels like to fight the urge to eat without using willpower as a proxy for the challenge)
More options
Context Copy link