GuyOnInternet
No bio...
User ID: 1177
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
No that's definitely creepy and he deserves to be regarded as such in real life. But I would agree that if he's saying he knows it was fucked up and doesn't know what he's doing, that the comments are over the top.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
Surely we are not going to throw in question the notion that people gravitate to those like them, or even suggest that this is just some far out theory that has no sound backing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/close-encounters/201812/why-do-we-people-who-are-similar-us
GuyOnInternet
11mo ago
This is not stemming from politicians. This is grass roots. There are tons of protests over Neely, for instance. You see this sentiment on the NYC subreddit as well. If you ask a progressive person, and frankly many moderate liberals as well, they echo it as well. On the contrary, politicians are just responding to what their constituents are saying on this one.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
It’s worth asking if that’s only because blue tribe split off, as I don’t think that would have been the case 20 years ago.
progressives have become more ideological, and ideology often takes the place of nationalism. In practice it seems that you can only have a commitment to one. As ideology does not tolerate what does not conform to its standards.
GuyOnInternet
9mo ago
The weird thing about cryptocurrency is regular currency could have the same functionality (basically) if it and the banking system were unregulated. Those regulations are what slow down transactions. It's requirements like know your customer and others like that which require banks to actually verify and have a more involved role that introduces the friction points that crypto ostensibly solves. If you take out all of the safeguards that make the current system relatively safe, it starts looking a lot like crypto - for good and bad.
GuyOnInternet
10mo ago
That's a blog written by a prominent astrologer. Even if I agree with what they're saying I just can't view it with credibility.
I mean check out this line from his wiki "He is currently blogging at Ecosophia, where he has written about the intersection of magic and politics."
"He criticises the openness of liberal occultists, arguing that magical practices benefit from more obscurity and secrecy" I mean fucking christ
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
This is ignorant about the nature of identity and how humans work. Identity is on what basis we define the us versus the them. And that is reinforced when there is a common historical and current experience. People gravitate to those who have had that same experience as them; race is not just some arbitrary aspect of who someone is. To assume the contrary is just obtuse. Like sure it would be great if we could re-engineer human nature, but we can't. you can't just ignore something as a reality because you think it's less than savory.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
It's 2022 and you don't see how people who are not white might identify with their skin color even though you don't? When you meet black people you genuinely don't think their race is part of their identity?
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
yes i meant the same hair color. Because there are all of those subcultures rooted in having the same hair. And people with the same colored hair have all had that same unique historical experience. And, first and foremost, because someone's hair color is how they primarily define themselves. Spot on.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
My inclination is to be someone who respects science and experts, but I find this difficult to adhere to when it comes to academia. Academics have historically occupied a very important place in society as those who have devoted their lives to understanding the world around us and, as a result, were key in forming how people actually understand the world around us. They are supposed to be the trusted and truth-oriented intellectuals, but I just don’t think that is the case and I have grown increasingly skeptical of academia.
-
I simply don’t think it has a descriptive orientation anymore, nor do think it is any longer the realm of truth-seeking. It seems to have either a normative orientation or a quais-descriptive orientation in which the endeavor is regarded as truth-seeking and it actually does have some descriptive value, but it’s done by people who a. Got into academia because they were passionate about one side of an issue b. Have a similar set of values and thus perspective c. Ask a question from a common and loaded perspective d. Focus on questions that are important to the structural integrity of a specific line of reasoning
-
Probably intertwined with 1, academia appears to be pretty ideologically homogenous, and that homogeneity exists reasonably far to the left. Even if they are trying to be unbiased, it’s exceptionally difficult to recognize ones own bias as bias; it’s just regarded as normal. And I think a unique element of progressivism is, I’m not sure whether it’s dogmatism but I think there is a relatively unique tendency to not distinguish between values/opinions and fact. i just don’t find progressives often framing their convictions as opinions. So if someone like that is conducting academic research, if they do not regard their opinions as opinions, they do not regard their bias as bias, and thus they do not perceive themselves as having a bias to control for. As a result academic research which is normative in nature is being presented and absorbed as if it is descriptive in nature. I think an example of this relates to the DEI space, in which I think most people would agree that that issue does not appear to allow much room for disagreement, despite the fact that it is exceptionally complex, deals with ambiguous and nebulous structures (not saying they don’t exist, but they aren’t exactly things you can reach out and touch and describe in unambiguous terms)
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
I think we are collectively stuck in a sort of counterpoint/anti-establishmentarian state of mind. Everything must be explained and understood in a way that jives with the assumption that the establishment is rotten. And this is an idea that permeates both sides of the political spectrum. The left claims it is rotten from systemic prejudice. The right is a bit more complex and varies based on the part of the political spectrum, with the alt-right exhibiting the most purity in this respect.
But they all have their preferred poor babies and elites. And I think that’s really how they each connect into the counterpoint/anti-establishment framework, through populism.
The left fails to understand their considerable influence in the institutions they champion, and their downfall will be their religious commitment to perfection, as required by the revolutionary and ideological underpinnings that define them. i cannot fathom an outcome that would lead to this collective acceptance that social justice has been achieved, and it’s time to move on. I think it will probably just fade away, as it already has to some extent, as people fail to see these convictions as an accurate description of the world and, probably more precisely, will fail to see the provided solutions as having merit.
I find the right to be harder to analyze. I think a big part of it is that I am in a progressive bubble and don’t know any republicans. The only views of the republicans I am exposed to are those provided by progressives who would characterize republicans as unspeakably evil regardless of what the republicans were actually doing. it leaves me with this feeling that I don’t actually understand the Republican Party. I don’t actually know what they are like, as I don’t actually know anyone who identifies as a republican or even right leaning. And the media I consume, Bloomberg and Reuters (while I do believe is among the highest quality out there) does have a bias and I don’t believe it accurately reflects the republicans. The articles appear to be very unbiased, but the issues and perspectives the authors feel warrant an article, as well as what the author finds problematic about those issues and subjects, are where the bias is evident. The bias is more structural than anything.
I think the biggest reason I don’t know what’s up with the right is that there just isn’t as high a degree of political involvement on the right, except among the alt-right. On the left, especially among progressives, the spirit of activism is much more core to their identity. So they’re much more outspoken about it. But on the right, they aren’t, as a whole and philosophically, based on the assumption that injustices are rampant and need to be remedied. They’re, philosophically, the establishment party. And defending the status quo just doesn’t rally people in the same way that claims of injustice do.
And I think at this point in time there is a view that being overtly right-leaning is a liability. That it can get you cancelled, that can get you alienated. And it has merit, especially when businesses are going out of their way to demonstrate their foundational commitment to progressivism. That’s very alienating to anyone who leans right, and if you lean right the feeling is that if it becomes apparent that you do not support progressive objectives you are vulnerable to alienation. Those who share a bias don’t see the bias. Progressives don’t see the threat of alienation, they don’t see the threat of cancellation because they are the ones perpetuating it, and they simply are not threatened by it.
I think there’s a latent yet widespread opposition to the institutionalization of progressivism.
GuyOnInternet
11mo ago
I think the facts haven’t come out to discern whether he should be charged.
But I’m less talking about whether Neely deserved to be killed, and more talking about the public response to his actions - irrespective of his death. This same outcry happens when there are other random acts of violence that catch the headlines. Michelle Go, for instance.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
what you're saying only makes sense if people do not believe that another person's race makes them like them. And people gravitating to those of the same race of them is a pretty strong corollary from people gravitating to those who are like them. To suggest that race would not make someone gravitate to someone else is to say that race is an insignificant part of people's identities, which I'm not sure how you can maintain in 2022.
Also, this was found based on a very quick google. I'm not sure why you don't think someone has looked into this before, especially given how prominent DEI is. I mean anti-racism is an entire academic field. I can, in the abstract, appreciate the approach of your convictions only going as far as the research, but you can only maintain a counterpoint on those grounds if you've done the research and found that the link has not been found to exist. Not if you just haven't looked into it, especially given that this is a fairly obvious point that is a very strong corollary from a pretty obvious point that has been proven.
Film is norm-setting. That's how norms are established and reinforced. I think people really underestimate how much of an impact that has on culture, and by extension how much of an impact it has on the way we perceive the world.
I think the goal of film has always been to be as realistic as possible. That just wasn't possible given the state of tech, and the ability of everything to visually look very realistic is going to have some self perpetuating properties in that if things can look realistic visually they should also be realistic in other ways. If film did not appear to resemble or have a basis in real life, people would have no interest in it. A joke, a plot, is only considered good if it can relate to some extent to the actual experience of existence, even in superhero movies.
Diversity in media is great. But in some cases the demographic profile of a character is relevant to the story. portraying, for instance, a black kid as being the natural offspring of two white parents just doesn't make sense, nor does the expectation that someone suspend disbelief for that to make sense. let's say that's portrayed in the beginning of the movie. If we are supposed to suspend belief we are going to say 'i guess that's just something we have to suspend belief and accept' but then later in the movie it's revealed that the kid is actually adopted and they are on a quest to find their birth parents. You have to see how that's confusing and nonsensical and how skin color actually does matter in some cases. Diversity can be added in ways that actually make sense. I mean, fuck, in the example I just provided, why don't you just make one of the parents black? I refuse to accept that the only way for diversity to added is for it to be forced in almost specifically in ways that objectively defy logic and require that we regard skin color or gender to be the same as someone having superpowers with respect to the expectation that we suspend disbelief.
This also ignores how we cognitively process film. In a given scene we are trying to make sense of the premise so we can then understand the nuances, words, and body language of the scene. We have to clearly know what we are expected to suspend disbelief for and what we are not expected to suspend disbelief for. So there are very clear and sensible places where we are supposed to suspend belief. Like if a character has the ability to fly, yeah we are going to suspend belief in that case, but even that always comes with an explanation of why they can fly. We can't just say 'you were cool with that guy who was able to fly, but for some reason the fact that we made the king of england a black trans woman requires an explanation??'.
It's not that the only form of belief suspension that's absurd is when it pertains to DEI. It's that that's the only area in which belief suspension is applied in such an absurd way. If you are portraying a historical event, or something that occured in that timeframe, it has to adhere to some extent to the realities of that timeframe.
It seems like a pretty far reach to claim that observing that an English noblemen, or a character that was literally a man in the book and whose character revolves around that, should probably be white is somehow dehumanizing. You can't simultaneously claim that we should interpret history with respect to the valid observation that x group of people were not treated as equals during a given time period, and then just seamlessly shift to conveying that group of people in an unrealistic position in a historical piece. You can't seamlessly go from the color of the character's skin being the entire point to belief concerning their skin color needing to be suspended.
In regards to the house of dragons example I mentioned, check out this video clip. Obviously, we are not supposed to entirely suspend disbelief. The race of the character undeniably matters in some cases. Even the guy playing the character was like 'we know they aren't her kids because they aren't white'.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
There’s a lot of interesting stuff in that article but it reminds me of the idea that the issue with historians is that they only look backward. They see the future inevitably being just a different iteration of the past.
I’m also skeptical of narratives of decline. I think it reveals a nation that’s a little unconfident right now. A nation that, in living memory, has been immune to the ups and downs that characterize the evolution of the state. But we have had times of domestic tumult before. Just go back to the 60s. People who lived through that would surely be forgiven for making the assumption that what lies in front of us is necessarily part of a longer term trend. I imagine that times of change are, more often than not, accompanied by feelings of existential dread.
Comparisons of the US to empires have never really made much sense to me either. Empires do fail because they are held together by force, so anything that threatens the power base necessary to exert that force is necessarily an existential threat. But that doesn’t describe our country. People speak of neo-imperialism as if having influential companies and culture is the same thing as having vassals, but it simply is not true.
I think the biggest issue we have today is that we are facing uncertainty, we are facing change, and we don’t know what to make of it so everyone sort makes that same mistake of assuming that what lies in front of us is necessarily a trend. But sometimes you’re just trying to judge the outcome of a race as it’s being run.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
Elections are a good gauge because, if sufficiently democratic, power is popularity.
If what you mean is ‘disproportionately powerful relative to its popularity’ powerful is not the word that characterizes your view of it. Something can have marginal influence but that influence is still greater than its actual popularity.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
Other comments have already pointed out the gotcha whereby sexism is also said to be a societal cause that shapes a woman's desires. In this way, a society where everyone is happy can still be sexist!
Can you elaborate on that?
Feminism as you describe it purports to represent women's interests, but instead of shaping its actions around what women want, they shape what women want around the actions they would like to take.
I would agree that regardless of whether women actually want to be in leadership roles, there should not be structural bias against it. However, the point here is that feminists claim the gender disparity at management levels is evidence that structural bias exists, which is clearly not the case.
GuyOnInternet
9mo ago
what i mean by emotional salience is something that stands out and resonates emotionally. like going from abortion is no longer federally protected to the rights of women are being attacked is transforming that into something more emotionally salient.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
The only way I think this is a well intended and sound point is if you didn't sense that it was sarcasm.
GuyOnInternet
9mo ago
i wouldn't consider that standard to apply to people like Plato, Newton etc. They were just around at a different time, which just didn't have the same level of understanding of the world, so a lot of ideas and thoughts about the world were given room to be elevated. I'm not going to fault someone for not knowing space is a vacuum when they lived thousands of years before we went to space, for instance. Just like I'm not going to fault someone for believing something wrong about the spread of disease prior to the invention of germ theory.
I would agree with what you're saying about things like social justice, antiracism etc. But those are really low quality modes of thought. Exceeding that standard, which I'm not sure astrology does but it's certainly not substantially below that standard, does not lend credibility. That's not good company to be in.
Also disagree that a writer should be regarded as being capable of producing great work in one area and nonsense in another. If those areas are substantially different, that's one thing. And there are always exceptions to the rule. But in analyzing the world, if they indulge in nonsense that's a good indicator that their critical thinking abilities and abilities to discern the true nature of things are probably fairly weak.
GuyOnInternet
9mo ago
We have to draw the line somewhere and if that line is not at believing in astrology and practicing magic, I don't know where it is.
GuyOnInternet
10mo ago
I’m not sure, but a surprising amount of black people also oppose it, so I think to some degree people are evidently not just going based on whether something benefits them or not
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
It doesn't matter if you think it should or shouldn't exist, all that matters is this tendency does exist.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
So would a CEO/politician/scientist etc. that grew up in similar circumstances not fit that criteria?
I think it also gets back to the issue of this not being specific to the black community, but rather any community that is either middle class and below or lower middle class and below, in which case, while this is going to be a more common phenomenon in the black community owing to their lower share of wealth, it is being unnecessarily racialized.
My primary view of these issues is that they are not necessarily grounded in race and are, therefore, not mostly the result of systemic prejudice, but rather they are largely a function of growing up in a poor socioeconomic environment. And because black people disproportionately grow up in poor socioeconomic communities, there is a tendency to attribute race as the cause, as opposed to race existing adjacent to the cause.
There are many out there, mostly progressives in my experience, who confuse open mindedness (verb) with open-mindedness (noun). The noun version of it often assumes that open-mindedness refers to a set of specific outlooks and convictions, and not the simple act of being open to new and/or different views.
More options
Context Copy link