EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
6d ago
Huh, that’s interesting, I totally would have thought that the Marines would be the way more natural fallback but apparently not.
I personally also subscribe to something in my head I've termed the Total Media Hypothesis: as society progresses, but old media sticks around in easily accessible form, the best of the older media is still excellent quality capable of delivering enjoyment and increasingly competes with new offerings. Naturally, there will always be a place for newer media due to network effects and recency bias, but on the whole eventually new media will get squeezed asymptotically to almost exclusively fit into the maximum capacity of this recency segment in the long run, because the quality simply can't otherwise compete. As to what exactly this asymptotic number is, that's up for debate, and depends on media type, but I'd hazard a guess at about one quarter at most. Meaning, that in the next few decades, total new release movie and TV consumption will account for at most a quarter of all total media consumption in any given year.
We already see this happening with video games: the old games are, quite often, still pretty fun, and the graphics are decent enough in many cases. This limits opportunities for newcomers. It's also magnified by a segment of 'evergreen' games that have reached a critical community/fun/variety threshold such that they consume many hours and effectively never die, such as League of Legends and Counterstrike, and maybe even Minecraft. These suck up so many gamer hours that new (especially multiplayer) entrants struggle to get enough oxygen. Of course although many people like to rewatch movies, there isn't anything quite like the evergreen multiplayer games, but still, in terms of hours played current-year releases only account for like 10 to 15 percent ish of playtime (source). For books, it's more like one third of sales are new books, but that's sales; if we count reading library books which are mostly older books, and count only books not retail pricing value, that number surely drops significantly and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a similar percentage. So maybe my asymptote guess is high and 15% is more realistic.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8d ago
I think it's emotionally healthy for people of any gender or political orientation to occasionally demonstrate and discuss an eminently human reaction. It's only an "irritant to mixed spaces" if done repeatedly in my opinion. I wouldn't call it some kind of nuclear bomb to the discussion or playing with online debate-board PTSD or 'something that can't be unsaid' or anything, if I'm understanding the thrust of your comment right.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8d ago
This comment and that of @Clementine is basically exactly the Parable of the Polygons IRL, where you can mathematically model how self-segregation happens naturally to some extent under certain conditions. Of course it's natural to expect someone who is a super-minority to not like it there! So no individual is even necessarily at fault. What the math says is one potential "fix" for companies and other organizations with this challenge is simply to insist on some minimum diversity level as a requirement. Well, okay, more specifically it says that individuals should refuse to accept jobs in low-diversity organizations, but I think you can still offer some organizational help for that. I actually quite like that framing personally. Maybe rather than aggressive DEI targeting perfect equity in all things, it's a 'good enough' lower goal for DEI to both penalize over-uniformity as well as reward under-representation, and only to a point. That's not DEI as we currently understand it, but I think it reaches some level of social good as well as maintaining some level of fairness.
I also like it because it's empowering in a certain sense, and applicable to majority-members. It says we should seek out diversity, which I think is as a general rule correct and economically validated to be successful and net-positive return even if a lot of the implementation and rhetoric around it went "too far" and lost sight of some things. It's empowering to the individual who can help prevent segregation in a pretty direct way, even if you're a majority class (locally or globally, it cuts both ways).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8d ago
My recommended formatting solution that IS possible is to mix depths and unordered bullets:
-
First point
- Use a - and also add four spaces to the front to nest it
-
Now you can continue
- With more sub-bullets here that don't interfere
- but I recommend not getting too fancy as this line only had four spaces and it gets visually confusing
To be more specific, markdown is NOT a single unitary standard: there are different parsers that interpret and render the typed ASCII text in different ways, although in most practical use these differences are minor, it can come up. For example reddit uses its own version that almost no one else does. Although particularly with lists, you're correct here this is mostly an HTML problem at the end of the day, not a flavor difference. Actually because of that basically all pure markdown gets rendered this way. I think the notable exception is if you allow in-line CSS or something but I don't think that's the case here, since you can type some stuff direct in HTML but only a subset of stuff (I assume for security/QA reasons)
Pandoc markdown for example will auto-number the lists for you if you put #. before each, which is neat, but they are the only ones. There are other differences in list rendering between more common markdown renderers, though, and enough that advice has to be pretty specific to the forum (I dunno what TheMotte uses)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8d ago
I kind of think that "successful" forums basically need to commit to one of three styles: Strict on Tone, Anything Goes, and Bare Minimum Social Standards. Trying to toe the line between these types leads to nothing but suffering. Strict on Tone, which is kind of The Motte's attempt insofar as I understand it, at least has some kind of consistency even if there are tradeoffs. Bare Minimum has the appeal of being commonly understandable if not technically consistent. And as the OP mentioned there's a certain charm to Anything Goes. I don't think Strict on Opinions works long-term. I don't think Slightly Elevated Standards works because it's too subjective too quickly. The one caveat is that "topic bans" actually work far, far better than you might imagine, despite being annoying and worsening the forum in some way. For example, for all of its many (many) problems, reddit's AITA low-key benefitted from banning all wedding topics, even if it made the subreddit far less enjoyable by their absence.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8d ago
Out of pure curiosity, would you consider yourself an id-pol type socialist (in that you think most ideological warfare stuff diverts attention from the true more important class and economics issues, whether on purpose or not), more of a regular political person with a sufficient number of specifically socialist views, a Democratic Socialist type who is mostly a 'liberal' and/or 'capitalist' but likes bigger social safety nets, or a more communist-socialist type? If I'm even capturing the variety right. <Edit: oops you mentioned command-economy below. I have questions: does that imply anything about desirable state political structure? But maybe that would be better for a different post. Maybe stick your neck out and do a top level 'perspective' post sometime :)>
At least in terms of the Motte breakdown I dunno about the exact proportions but I will say that people in general have a wider range of sometimes grab-bag opinions than the classic models might predict. I don't think it necessarily follows that 'everyone is a hypocrite on something' but it's certainly not correct that most people have some kind of rigid political philosophy (even if the ones who do often have the most interesting posts!)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
9d ago
Which sucks as one of the admittedly minority people who loves a juicy, well written, or unpredictable plot. Why I love for example in the book world the Scarlet Letter, otherwise a bit pedestrian. It has some great dramatic timing. Also, good characters play make plot easier, but good characters are harder to write and act than most people realize.
Sadly plot also requires you to pay attention and the dirty secret is that many viewers regardless of age range don’t want to sit through a whole movie and pay attention the whole time. Also most plot devices take a little time to get the first payoff. So if the other aspects of the film fall flat in the first half hour, you lose the chance, even if the plot is actually great.
And finally rewrites can destroy plot very easily via death by a thousand cuts. Great plot takes discipline! You have to know when too much is too much, and when the subtle things matter, and need the power to keep a good script good. Honestly I think most original scripts if performed as written would do great! But more than 1 significant “filter” and it gets made bland or hollowed out quite easily.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
9d ago
You asked if Western Europeans are the most attractive. The answer is pretty clearly that there’s not only no data to suggest this, but some major methodological issues on top if you wanted to investigate this, so practically there’s no way to know. Beauty standards are like, pretty famously in the realm of culturally subjective. So it’s functionally an intractable problem. I would thus further opine that it is therefore not worth thinking about.
Now whether you were genuinely promoting the idea, or using a Socratic method to pick apart the assumptions of the OP, that I failed to figure out. I figured it would serve both purposes here, I guess.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12d ago
I don’t think this is the case? It’s very, very, very hard to disentangle beauty from wealth.
You can see a bit of dynamics on smaller scales with skin tone ranges as defined by tans in-community: historically traditionally whiter skin implied you were rich enough to stay indoors, but in more modern times tanner skin implies you’re rich enough to spend free time outside, but these are fairly weak and obviously context dependent. But that’s clearly not what you’re talking about.
The fact of the matter is that by the time a post-puberty person can “fairly” judge attractiveness, they have a ton of stereotypes and social influence floating around. Plus, wealth often leads to fitness and attractiveness even semi directly, both in things like bone structure, teeth, weight, muscle tone, and more (some of which also have socioeconomic connotations). Also, worth noting as an aside, measures you’d assume to be universal indicators of appeal are not perfectly universal - if I remember correctly there are differences in eg hip ratio preferences that differ between groups. All this to say that it’s a fool’s errand to make a claim like that.
Anecdotally it’s whatever. I don’t think it’s wrong to have preferences even if they aren’t perfectly fair. I think it’s wrong to discriminate, but I’m not gonna bat an eye if someone says Ukrainians are the best or something, but don’t pretend it’s some universal truth
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
12d ago
Here’s my theory. Confluence of at least three things:
-
It seems to be the case (a few studies + anecdata) that women prefer if not a full beard than at least some stubble to being clean shaven. It helps that the new wave of beards are generally speaking a little more cared for than previously. So “looksmaxxing” does slightly trend this direction (the historical norm?) and I think some evolutionary people would say that’s because it’s a loose indication of maturity and high T (?)
-
It has lost its strongest political coded connotation. I don’t know if I’m actually capable of fully accounting for their trajectory, but you had liberals with their fancy oiled mustaches and beards at a similar time as the “manosphere” right wing comeback, at the same time as millennials started flexing their social media dominance (and millennials are older and at the age where beards are nice and full and age appropriate), plus some lower or working class people who never stopped wearing them so much, and so now you have a situation where a beard isn’t necessarily a strong signal in any direction. This helps mass adoption.
-
Most importantly, prominent people have done it. Beards are one of the few ways men have to significantly “rebrand” their looks. Hair can do a bit, but only so much. Dress can do a bit, but is a little more subtle. But no matter if you are a celebrity, Twitter famous, a politician, or a regular dude, growing a beard is a very obvious change that gives you a different “vibe”. It’s very handy for a politician to be able to do a rebrand, and many have jumped on it. But this trend started IMO with other generalized influential people outside the political area - how many traditionally cowardly politicians have done it is a sign the movement is coming to a head
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
14d ago
I actually wonder if this is true. I have heard of a few scattered abuses of asset forfeiture by police, no idea how common it is, but I could imagine something similar for ICE.
That’s said I think the more compelling reason to be skeptical is that large government agencies don’t like to be bored. Personally I’m not that torn up about it although my personal ethics would prevent me from working for ICE (which is saying something because I wouldn’t mind working for most defense contractors or the CIA), but you could see an argument that ICE being given too many people will lead them to go above and beyond their mandate.
On the Decline of Democratic Patriotism
Some of you probably saw the patriotism poll floating around recently, and though I won't specifically talk about the decline of the "extreme" and "very" categories among both Democrats and Independents as a general trend, I do want to talk a little bit about one example from, well, today, that illustrates one source of anti-patriotic feeling. But first:
Local action is more patriotic than fireworks
Let me preface this by saying my own piece on what the most truly patriotic display would be tomorrow: Google, right now, what kind of local elections are happening in November (emphasis on LOCAL) and volunteer for the person you find to be most worthy of support. Email them now. Politics is over-nationalized, and people are forgetting that they can make a difference. Laws are more powerful than people give them credit! There's almost literally nothing we can't actually change. Hell, we can change the freaking Constitution itself if we want to! The entire House gets re-elected fresh every two years! More locally, is there a parking ordinance you hate? A requirement or tax you dislike? Want to enable some houses to be built, or the roads to be changed? You can change those. It starts with electing someone trustworthy and receptive.
People are forgetting, too, that participation in democracy isn't actually so much a matter of a contract or trade (you give X, receive Y) but rather a duty innate to all. Put another way, even if your national vote makes no mathematical difference, you have a moral duty to vote. Furthermore, your attitude towards the vote (and civic participation more generally) rubs off on the people around you to an extent that's underappreciated. In that light, if you don't bother to do any self-reflection of any kind tomorrow, what a missed opportunity, but also, how unfortunate. Yes, the biggest difference would probably be volunteering, but introspection surely is a close second (in terms of opportunity).
Medicare cuts as anti-patriotism?
On a more culture war note, as July 4th approaches, recently I've seen a number of expressions like this tweet, emphasis mine:
Anyone who voted for this should be voted out. 17M lose health care. Kids lose lunch. Vets lose help. All so billionaires get tax breaks and ICE gets a raise.
You gutted Medicaid and blew a $3.5T hole in the debt, and want a medal?
This ain’t patriotism. It’s cruelty. Shame on you.
Thoughts like this are common, and are often accompanied by a declaration that they themselves don't want to celebrate. Or, that waving flags and being a loud USA-chanter is massive hypocrisy. We've all heard some variant of this from parts of the left or disaffected neutrals as well.
Increasingly a lot of people seem to feel that healthcare is a human right. I'm... almost there, but not quite? But even proponents can admit it's not traditionally something seen as something fundamental Americans should be entitled to, so to me it seems a little strange to bring a policy and values dispute over modern healthcare into the conversation about if it's good to wave a flag, or if it's patriotic. Healthcare isn't something so quintessentially American as all that. Maybe it's cruel, morally, but I fail to see the connection with patriotism at all.
Celebrating and promoting patriotism in general is, to me, focusing on, being grateful for, and continuing to promote a specific set of values and traits unique and special to America. I think that's a serviceable definition. Specific values and traits means especially some of the freedoms originally emphasized in the constitution and declaration of independence. Life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, freedom from government oppression, voting rights, power proceeding from the people themselves, that people are created equal, things like that are the values patriotism celebrates.
"How many people do we cover with national healthcare subsidies" and if we raise or lower that number compared to what it recently happened to be is ultimately a policy dispute. A serious one! Don't get me wrong! Even so, the fact that it results in some harm to people doesn't change the scope of the dispute - it's something where reasonable people can disagree within the same democratic framework. Deciding what level of taxes are appropriate is likewise a policy dispute. Obviously "taking care of our citizens" is a more universal thing, but it's not like that's never in tension with other priorities. It's not, like, an existential threat to America. (Trump possibly being a threat like that, which I think he partially is, is a reason to be more vigorous and loud about promoting the freedom he threatens, not a reason to be quieter and give up at any rate).
To use an analogy: some parents have different opinions on how strict to be with their kids, or how interventionist to be with them. Obviously extremes are bad (being a helicopter parent inhibits agency or is even toxic, while being too hands-off is callous or even abuse) but I don't look at a parent who favors a hands-off approach and say "oh you must not WANT your kid to be healthy and educated and fed, or else you would do X Y Z things". That's unfair. And is somewhat cultural/historical/circumstantial too, rather than purely a matter of eternal unchanging principle (e.g. whether parents should be required to pay part or all of their kids' college tuition or not is a good example of being both cultural, and something that's changed over time).
Republicans, charitably and writ large, aren't evil boogeymen. Most all of them also want people to be healthy and educated and fed and sheltered. But they have differing ideas of how to do it, and how much of a burden to take upon themselves. Remember that taxation levels, famously, apply to everyone, so everyone should get a say in how we set them. That's like... literally and famously the MOST American thing ever?
So, what you do if you're a Democrat is you go: "all right, I think being a [hands-on parent/Democrat] is the better choice, and I will push fellow [parents/voters] to also be [hands-on/Democrat], but at the end of the day I recognize that this is just a different of opinion and/or values, and that's fine". The fact that some [parents/Republicans] are also [abusive/even evil] doesn't change the core paradigm!
I don't accuse parents who don't want to pay for their kids' college of hating their kids, because I realize they are likely coming from a place of highly valuing financial independence, or simply don't have the budget for it, etc. I can still disagree, and think withholding tuition harms their kids, but that's a different level of disagreement.
Similarly, I don't accuse voters who don't want to pay for massive Medicare programs as hating poor people and being unpatriotic, because I realize that they are likely coming from a place of highly valuing individual choice, or feeling we don't have the budget for it, etc. I can still disagree, and think more Medicare saves cost, is a moral duty, etc. but that's still a different level of disagreement.
Is anti-celebration really anti-patriotism?
Like all things in life, there are times for celebration and times for mourning and times for action. It's nonsensical to forbid or look down on all expressions of joy or pride just because some negative event happened, especially on a holiday, the literal definition of a time where you have an excuse to be joyful even if times are tough?
To make another analogy, it seems to me the proper approach to patriotism is similar to that of self-worth. Psychologically speaking, you need some degree of self-respect, acknowledging your talents, and gratitude to be a good and functional human. Obviously there's a such thing as too much pride, which can be caustic, but that doesn't mean being a total humble doormat is the ideal alternative. When viewing your own mistakes and errors, you can own them and move forward with desire to do better. That's healthy. Patriotism is the same. You look at the good, you take some pride in your individuality/uniqueness, you re-affirm your desire to be even better.
By strongly demonstrating patriotism - it could be waving a flag or loud chants but let's not trivialize it, there are other ways too - we are emphasizing the importance of those more fundamental traits and values in a civic ritual. These are not purely performative, but have actual power, much in the same way that taking time to display deliberate gratitude in your personal life is also healthy and empowering. If you yourself for example choose to display patriotism even in a time when things feel like they aren't going your way, you also empower yourself and encourage positive change. It's not that complicated, there's no need to Scrooge it up. We don't cancel Christmas because X bad event happens, whether self-inflicted or not, because the values of Christmas (secular or religious) are still positive and the celebration is often valuable. You know, 'true meaning of Christmas' basics.
Moreover on a practical level, shaming a Republican by telling them they have a moral duty to provide healthcare to poor people might be a great point (that I agree with personally at least in a broad sense, not the specifics), but even so the shame is not only ineffective (misunderstands why the disagreement exists) but counterproductive. As evidenced by the whole patriotism thing: a Republican is quite literally less likely to listen to you, because they will get the impression that you hate the country and hate their values. Maybe a liberal might even think that, but they'd be foolish to say it. Thus, even disillusioned people should be demonstrating patriotism, if for no other reason than naked self-interest (though as I write, it's empowering too). Not to encourage lying or bad faith, I guess, which I do usually hate, but maybe this is one case where I wouldn't mind so much?
Some people think being patriotic is some kind of duty, but I'm not one of those people. Your truest and highest duty as a citizen is to make a thoughtful vote at every given election opportunity. For patriotism, I merely think it's a great idea that everyone should adopt, and I think that opinion is factually supported. It also, I should add, has the nice side-effect of aligning the values of the population over time; failing to be patriotic weakens that alignment, and even the values within.
2006 Camry that I love, my daily driver that I hope to run until it dies. Was garage kept when I got it at low mileage (80k! Still has under 100 because I don’t drive that often) but mine lives outside now. Wash it with the near ubiquitous car washes where I live, about every 2 months. Kind of have to, because it’s deserty and the rain leaves basically dirt deposits, which is annoying and looks terrible after a while, plus the classic bird poop. Hate doing so because feels a bit like wasted money. A sizable minority of people around here actually pay for car wash subscriptions! That lets you go through basically where ever you want, at chain locations all over. When I first got it I was very gung ho about washing and waxing it myself… never happened.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15d ago
A minor thing that may help (no guarantees) is learning how to bike without your hands on the handlebars (at least temporarily). Essentially this is going at a sufficient medium speed, and “shifting” your body weight or center of balance a little more towards your hips. It also forces you to make your pedal cycle more consistent and regular. You bike straight and one handed, then slowly practice shifting your weight back slightly, so that at first you are lightly resting the hand on top of the handlebars, or floating one or the other on top, and then practice removing it for longer periods of time (of course you can grab it back with one or ideally both hands carefully if you wobble). Eventually you can get to a point where you can, on flat and straight roads without traffic, bike straight with your hands on your hips or so. Note that this works best on a more mountain bike style bike, some road bikes have seats and/or handlebars that deliberately force you to assume more of an aerodynamically superior forward lean position. You also can’t really do this on any kind of notable incline.
I’m not completely positive if that would help or anything, but maybe? The process of learning it for me at least was helpful for getting a better and more intuitive sense of where my balance is and could be, though I already had spent a decent time biking so idk.
Also yes, perhaps adjust your seat too.
Mini-rant of the day (am I repeating myself or do I have deja vu? must be getting old): While I appreciate the intention behind occasionally using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun in cases where the gender is unspecified, the amount of reading fatigue it generates is underrated. First let me say that my actual preference might be a somewhat stupid-sounding but actually refreshing/mildly helpful habit of simply using the opposite pronoun as a habit. For instance, in the financial column "Money Stuff" (great reading BTW) the author when talking about an imagined or generic CEO will use "she" as the pronoun. I'm not really a believer in the whole micro-aggression literature, but I can still see that subtle and low-key (non-mandatory) attempts at gently pushing back against stereotypes can be nice. Handy little reminder not to jump to assumptions. For fairness, this should be more generalized: teachers are mostly women, so use "he" as the general form. Doctors are mostly men, so use "she". College grads are mostly women, so use "he". "They" can still work in a pinch, or perhaps in official documents, but I feel like the tradeoffs involve are favorable on the whole.
But nonbinary people in fiction? That's a whole different story. Consider the following sentence ripped from a story I am reading:
Mirian and Gaius took turns instructing Jherica on soul magic. They would be the weakest of the time travelers, so it seemed best to give them some means of self-defense against the one they couldn't simply die and recover from.
This sentence is a total mess, and a nontrivial cognitive load, for no good reason. Well, not zero good reason, but here the tradeoffs fall very strongly against a generic pronoun: the loss in clarity, the mental burden, the flow disruption, the forced "backtracking" through the sentence to clarify meaning are absolutely terrible. The first "they" isn't immediately clear on the subject - is it the two people, or the nonbinary person? Okay, contextually, we figure out it's Jherica. But then we have an implied subject (who is doing the giving?), the next "them" needs context that takes a moment to process (Jherica again), and then another "they" also referring to Jherica, but needs double-checking. The wonderful thing about this sentence if Jherica were given a normal gender is that "they" clearly refers to the pair of people and not the individual. It's a useful tool in sentence mechanics that is completely ruined. "She" or "he" might induce a small amount of confusion (did the author accidentally chop up the pair and is referring to just one of them?) but partly that would be the author's fault for substandard sentence construction, and I still don't think it is quite as bad. It's far from uncommon to be referring to a group of people alongside an individual, and super useful to be able to casually and implicitly differentiate the two via pronouns.
To be clear, the story is wonderful, and there isn't any big deal or mention made about gender here at all (at least if there was I have no memory of it), and authors can make mistakes especially when self-edited (as is likely the case here). Or, in fact, I'm not even positive the author did make said character non-binary in the first place, since the author occasionally uses "he" in the next chapter, but not always. So it's not some massive culture war thing in this particular case. I think the point remains however that some progressives have tried to gaslight people (including myself) that gender-neutral pronouns are a minor inconvenience at best, and leverage already-existing rules of English. It's true that "they" already can serve this purpose (e.g. "Who's at the door and what do they want?" when it is fully unknown) but there are still some significant burdens if it becomes popularized.
It seems that it really shouldn't be a big loss to perform some nonbinary erasure here. Many forms of fiction already do things to make it easier on the reader (and I always notice when they do) such as giving main characters names that begin with different letters, or in anime they will color the hair differently not just for aesthetics but to make characters more differentiable. Sure, these semantic and visual 'collisions' happen IRL quite a lot (e.g. two Joshes on your team at work), but it seems to me the loss in realism is more than offset by the practical benefits. Note that this isn't purely an anti-woke position, in my book: I think giving characters some identifiable traits can make them more memorable. So there might be good reasons to throw in an unrealistic number of non-straight or mixed-race people into your TV show beyond deliberate representation! I don't think I'm advocating for anything too extreme.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
Frankly I've never understood the argument for early graduation as "success". Or even skipping so many early-level college courses. To some extent I understand this, as time in college = money spent, but if you spend less than 3 years doing your undergrad, part of me wonders if that's a partial waste, because as the pop psych things says, your brain isn't fully developed until 21 (I know to the extent this is accurate it's more like important growth tapers off nearer to 25 but still)... If you're already graduated by 21, maybe you missed out on something? Plus, as we all know, the skills/knowhow is only half the benefit. While we definitely don't want schools to become purely a social/life experience, the networks and friendships you gain are surely important. Too much acceleration only weakens these.
On the other hand yes we know that even a 15 year old historically is plenty capable of working on something important, even if it's more of an apprenticeship, so sure you can accelerate. Part of me wonders if we should really be experimenting with some other part-time supplement in those years for youth besides pure traditional educational attainment. I'm not sure exactly what that would be.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
Although I'm biased as someone with a statistics degree, we'd get much better research if we either outright banned people who are bad or inexperienced in math and statistics from doing research, or significantly raised the standards for anyone wanting to do research (or as a compromise simply bit the bullet and mandated collaboration with a more math/stats-aware consultant). The number of statistically-illiterate or inexperienced questions that show up on reddit's askstatistics subreddit that mention offhand that it's for a paper they intend to publish is, frankly, frightening.
The big open question as I understand it in educational circles is how would we even implement something successful if the traditional mechanisms are non-functional? Any implementation requires some trust, and that trust is very diminished by administrators mandating often terrible programs or ones with onerous and impractical requirements to be implemented, which teachers understandably sabotage after paying lip service to. These programs or pushes always seem to cycle every 5 years so there's little consistency or follow-through. A lot of it is milked by educational consultants who have never taught in their lives and who have suspect financial incentives to sell things. And it poisons the well for actually-good initiatives, because they also can't get good compliance. It's almost a similar model to how dysfunction occurred in Soviet planned economies.
So in that light your point about cooperation is key.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
IMO this comment is way too uncharitable. It's like, 80% solvable, but you're right that solving it requires work. But it's actually a decent amount of work. I'd hesitate to call it laziness. I think a lot of people underestimate the typical teacher workload. Many teachers would probably do much better work and especially more efficient work if you increased pay by 30%, staffing by 30%, and reduced class sizes by 20%. (Part of this could be offset by slashing the administrative/pseudo-support staffing by 60% or more, but this still might require a net investment). This would give them much more time to plan lessons (instead of rolling out the greatest hits over and over without adapting to the times) and importantly, assign (and create) tests and homework assignments that are AI-resistant, if not AI-proof. It's just that these types of assignments and assessments are much more time-consuming to create and grade, plus as I mentioned the requirements to create them custom-tailored to your class and curricula make for the need to constantly be tweaking them (which again, most teachers don't have sufficient time budget to properly perform).
With that said there are certainly some school districts and even some teachers who are scared to fully grade work, but IMO most of the resistance is more from administration or parents, even, than the teachers themselves. A lot of teachers probably would prefer to hand out bad grades more, not less, current philosophy alleging this is psychologically damaging somehow notwithstanding.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Oh man, looking at the pictures I can totally see what they were going for but… it’s still so painfully ugly. I wonder if that’s one of those cases where if you stare at something long enough and tweak it in minor ways enough times you become blind to the overall impact it has on someone seeing it for the first time.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
The chances of actually striking it down in its face are actually zero. I mean that completely. Zero. If it happens I will shave my head and never comment anything about politics again ever on any website. Zero.
The chances of them weakening it via some kind of practical or legal obstacles, to the point where it is effectively dead is extremely low but not impossible. Under 5% surely. Maybe 1-2%? Still quite a reach. Maybe still that’s high.
The chances of some other procedural weakening where it is merely super annoying, that’s a little higher. I’m not sure exactly where to peg it.
The chances of practical and legal burdens and even unalterable mistakes for those currently giving birth in the next year or so are actually kinda high. But that’s by definition temporary. Not much comfort if you or your wife are pregnant right now and lack papers. Honestly I think this is the true target and goal of the administration. If you are cruel and capricious enough you might get enough people to self deport, or not make the trip over, and this helps the near term numbers and politics.
The long-term outlook for birthright citizenship is not really under any actual threat. You still need an amendment to change it. At most, beneficiaries will have to budget a little bit more on practical or legal bills surrounding the birth, but that’s already the case to some extent with any new baby birth (it’s never free)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
You mean the literal exact argument that leads to authoritarianism and the destruction of democracy? I think Democrats obviously freak out over stuff way too often and too loudly, but this is a pretty classically un-American view. The irony is rich here.
This is a bit of a quibble, but actually it’s more like voters come in and out of participation, but the numbers usually balance out in such a way so as to appear that the same voters switch every time. Longitudinally, the number of individual voters who regularly change their mind is pretty low. But yes, elections are close, so they can still matter, but overall they aren’t the kingmaker. What IS true is that these movements in and out of participation are still downstream from persuasion, and tend to jive with mind-changers. So the general idea still holds.
In 2020 to 2024, for instance, although the chart doesn’t show candidate breakdowns, you can see Figure 43 from this report that about half of voters are consistent but the other half is made up of about 3 even-ish groups: new entrants, dropouts, and midterm-skippers.
When talking about Biden, this summarization basically says that 2024 Democrats had both a turnout and persuasion problem, but turnout alone wouldn’t have reversed the loss (so functionally it is still persuasion, which is exactly how you want the elections to work)
EDIT: will further point out that reading the second link provides compelling evidence that the pro-Trump shift, 2020 to 2024, was driven more by men than women, although both groups shifted that direction. We're talking 10% and 2% changes, going by Pew numbers.
More options
Context Copy link