GuyOnInternet
No bio...
User ID: 1177
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
There is a lot of conspiratorial thinking going on on both sides of the ideological spectrum. I think this goes without saying on the right, but on the left, if you think about it, it's fairly conspiratorial to allege that the primary lens through which institutional structures and outcomes should be assessed is through deeply engrained prejudice. In other words, it's pretty conspiratorial to allege that all of society's existing structures and institutions are corrupted by the nebulous forces of systemic racism/sexism/etc. and it can easily be considered paranoia to claim that because I've experienced x adverse outcome it must necessarily be because of this nebulous force that's out to get me. With that said, I do think that such forms of prejudice exist to some extent in some cases, but because they are largely more conceptual and abstract it's very easy to tap them as the primary causal force, without having to provide any real evidence or reasoning.
And much of this thinking is cloaked by a supposed commitment to skepticism, which I think most people would agree is virtuous. But at a certain point skepticism just becomes conspiratorial thinking. It’s important to consider all ideas on their merit, but it’s also important to consider that not all ideas have equal merit, meaning we cannot always say that in the absence of incontrovertible truth we must adopt an agnostic position. I could very easily allege that the mods of this subreddit were paid by x nefarious organization to start this webpage, and because you can't come up with evidence to the contrary, maybe I'm right.
Conspiratorial thinking, at the outset, appears to have merit. But mechanically it is throwing every element of an event into question, which is hampered by a. Bounded rationality; we cannot possibly comprehend the interplay between all elements of a given phenomenon and b. The fact that we do not have all of the relevant information on all elements of a given thing.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
Women not aspiring to higher positions is not a corollary of women not asking for promotions. Women not asking for promotions can easily be caused by the systemic forces that feminists allege.
The point is not that my observation isn't obvious, it's that the consensus which has been absorbed into our institutions and collective thought did not consider this as the default explanation.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
How is it sexism if they don't want it? Sexism means the reason they are not in these positions is that external forces prevent them from doing so. To allege that the inner wiring of their brain has been corrupted by malicious social forces is conspiratorial and ignores that to some extent it is going to be the natural consequence of women having less testosterone. More testosterone = more status seeking = more desire to rise up the organizational hierarchy. So if they lack testosterone, less representation in management is an obvious outcome.
Honestly I can't tell if your message is sarcastic or not.
Fair point. It does need to be noted that the authors found a 'small but significant difference'. The article said the influence of preference was 'Hedge's g = 0.22' and I don't know what that means. I'm not saying that bias is irrelevant, but it should not be the null hypothesis. The influence of status seeking behavior is natural and obvious enough that it should have been explored before bias was considered. The research should have started with this assumption; it should not be a surprise that is only revealed right now, which to me suggests that the researchers in this area are to some extent not starting from a point of indifference.
I don't want to risk overstating the role preference has here, but I don't know how to regard the phrase 'small but significant difference' and I don't know what Hedge's G is. But reading the Bloomberg article and how the author of the study commented on this, it seems that the influence of preference is prominent enough to necessitate a shift in thought.
The ultimate point here is that equity lenses lack the explanatory power they are alleged to have.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
I agree that that is the case, but it's problematic given that academic feminsts are ostensibly the experts on this. Whether they should or should not be relied upon as authorities, they are. and the entire field being set up to prove ideological points, and I do believe that is the case, is problematic because it necessarily indicates that they are designed to provide one side of things, even though they are regarded as having a descriptive focus which seeks to just explain things as they are. This is further problematic because who in academia is providing the counterpoint? how are we supposed to get the whole picture.
It's things like this that provide strength to conservative accusations that academia is biased to the left to the point that it cannot be entirely trusted, which lends itself pretty easily to the distrust of all institutions that characterizes the right. It's problematic that the people we rely on to explain certain parts of existence to us get into their field in the first place because they have adopted a stance, and spend their entire career trying to prove it.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
The problem is not that ideologues are ideological, the problem is that ideologues are being relied upon as experts and primary sources, and their expertise is being used to alter institutions at a structural level.
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
1yr ago
although less that 'women aspire to leadership roles less', as women, moreso although like men, aspire to whatever other people think they should aspire to -
A. the research found that women desired leadership roles more in high school and less after college, once they faced the actual prospect of being in leadership positions.
B. it seems like you could apply this 'you only think or desire that because you've been conditioned to' argument to whatever you want endlessly and, by virtue of its nebulous and speculative nature, never have to provide evidence to back it up. At some point evidence that someone genuinely does not desire something has to be enough; who is to decide what someone should and shouldn't desire.
"status" is not a useful way to approach this, way too general.
I think it was defined appropriately and to a sufficient specification in the article I linked to. "Testosterone is associated with status-seeking behaviors such as competition, which may depend on whether one wins or loses status, but also on the stability of one's status." I think you have a point, but not to the extent that status seeking is defined as desiring a higher position within a hierarchy.
I’ve heard this a lot as well. I think in some sense it makes sense if you aren’t white and want to be around a decent amount of other people who aren’t white. But it’s uncomfortable and an example of why I find progressivism problematic that saying things like this are normalized. I live in a very progressive area of a very progressive city and, as a white guy, it’s weird and uncomfortable to hear shit like this and I don’t know how to respond to it, but have gotten ripped for responding nonetheless.
Doesn’t entirely answer your question, but I think the answer is that many people on the far left are straight up more than a bit self loathing. I recently read a study that studies partisans based on different attributes and that was one finding, but I can’t find it. In this case my best guess is it was nothing more or less than a virtue signal in the purest sense.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
What’s so weird to me is that everyone I know who complains the most about gentrification lives in heavily gentrified areas.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
The only reason gentrified communities exist is that there is demand for them. In living in one of those communities you are generating demand for them, and thus providing further incentive for communities to be gentrified.
It's like claiming that killing animals for food is unethical but also eating meat regularly.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
That's what I mean. For the record, I think gentrification is often used as a pejorative for a community being developed, and the issue is a lot more nuanced than it is regarded as being.
I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?
To the point of advocates, I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it. And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.
At the same time, I think it's often done in an absurd and borderline incompetent manner. I think there are three basic situations with respect to a character's race and gender. 1. Where there isn't really any implied gender or race, so the character's demographic profile can reasonably be whatever the producers want it to be 2. Where there may be an implied demographic profile, but it isn't unambiguously clear, there is a degree of ambiguity, and it isn't crucial to the structural integrity of the film (for instance, the bond films. The characters have historically been white, but 007 is really just Britain's top spy job and it's totally plausible that a black guy could land that job) and 3. Where there is clearly an implied demographic profile and absent the character fitting that demographic profile it's just confusing and nonsensical.
I don't mind the first 2 all that much, but the third is increasingly common. For instance, in House of Dragons, the princess is married to a black guy. However, he's gay and they have an arrangement where they can each sleep with whoever they want, and as a result all of her kids are white. There's a challenge to the succession claims of her kids, but all of the arguments against their succession are like 'I just have a sense for these things. I just know they aren't her kids' or there will be a quiet and vague reference to the fact that her kids don't look like her husband. But no one is ever just like 'she has 5 kids and they are all white. She has blonde hair and her kids all have curly black hair. Obviously they are not her kids'. Or in the recent lord of the rings show, in the hobbit community they are all white except for two people who are not married to each other, and one of those characters had a kid with a white hobbit, and their kid is white. And the producers/writers never thought to or saw the need to address that. I mean the hobbits are a genetically distinct and notoriously insular group and have been for thousands of years. Even ignoring that a white woman and a black man had a paper-white kid, how is it that in a community that has been self-enclosed for thousands of years only two people are black? Or you can even take Bridgerton (which I confess I have not watched), where one of the lords is a black guy. I mean this is in England several hundred years ago. One show might be a period piece for that same time period and cast characters that are black so they can write scenes that highlight how they were treated unfairly, and then another will go the opposite direction and cast a black character that would obviously have been white and you're supposed to ignore their skin color. Like it just doesn't make sense. Another example that really bugged me was in the Foundation show. I read all of those books. And one of the main characters was named Salvore Harden. His whole thing was that he was super masculine in a conventional sense. And they made his character a black woman. It's just not even the same character. I mean that's a character that they perhaps could have made black (so probably in the second category of characters), but making him a woman was just absurd and desperate.
They don't even try and explain this stuff. They just put it out there. I see the general need to increase diversity in film, but it's being done in such a stupid way and I think highlights the sometimes superficial and low quality thinking that comes with DEI lenses. Like if you google these instances I'm talking about the articles all have this tone of 'to all the racists out there:' like you didn't just make a king of england a black trans woman (not necessarily that I've seen that, but just as an extreme). By all means, write more demographically diverse characters into the first or second categories I mentioned earlier, but at some point there has to be some sort of recognition that there are parameters you have to work within in some cases, most prominently a historical drama.
I consistently feel like the current influence progressives have is little more than the dog that caught the car. I think they have been given a 'lets see what you've got' moment in culture and society, and once the current environment, which is more politicized and emotionally charged and thus does not apply a normal degree of critical thinking to ideas, passes, I think people are going to look back and observe that they really fucked it away and lacked serious recommendations when they were given the reigns. There is a way of doing this shit that makes sense, but that is not the way things are being done.
The responses to this are a little out there IMO. They tend to be 'not seeing diversity in film has no impact' or 'it's not weird for two white parents to give birth to a black child'
It's kind of funny to watch this conversation play out here as I'm taking a break to watch House of Dragons. The guy who would inherit the throne if the princess hadn't ostensibly had kids with his brother, meaning they are the true heir to the throne, is currently laying his case down in court and making the formal allegation that they are not his brother's true kids and when he talks about how he knows they aren't his kids he's just like "vibes are how I know! I just have an instinct for this sort of thing!" Like even within the premise of the show, that a black guy is married to a white woman, they are just so afraid of stating the basic fact.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
I think that's idealistic and ignores human nature. We gravitate to people that are like us. Also, kids are dumb. They are going to internalize and notice when no characters look like them. That can convey the notion that positions of authority, or being the hero, is not really meant for them.
We can convey to them that they don't need to be the same color as the hero of a movie to relate to them, but at the same time it does beg the question of if they actually can rise to be the hero or successful or whatever, why isn't anyone in movies that looks like them doing that. And, really, i think even adults overestimate their ability to overcome shit like that; it can be internalized and lead to the perception of a barrier that doesn't exist. A lot of shit shit is occurring at the subconscious level.
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
Hey honestly if they explained it in a way that makes some degree of sense, as it seems they did, I'm fine with it.
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
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
I thought you meant that in the scene he does say he knows because they aren't white. For the record, he did not make that claim. He just said they were bastards and was beheaded.
I think the actor saying that in the link you shared demonstrates that, to some extent, ignoring the race of characters is pretty absurd. Because the actor, as you linked to, said it was obvious because they are white. But because of the belief suspension that we are supposed to have with respect to race, and as many have lauded on this thread, you don't know if that belief is supposed to be suspended or not. I am certain that this practice is going to recede or at least done in less absurd ways.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
I honestly don't know. Maybe it was.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
I agree, but when it was suggested that they were not her kids, they never said it was because they were white. at that point, the seal had already been broken when he called them bastards. The guy's head would've been chopped off whether he said it was because they were white or not. There would have been no additional downside to bringing up their race as the reason, unless Westeros is more woke than I thought.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
alright fair point. i didn't get past the first episode.
IIRC though it was the dad that was black. I don't know if it was a main character that I'm referring to. It was just in the first episode when they introduced the hobbits.
But that's sort of my point. In some cases we are supposed to suspend this disbelief and in others we are not, and there is no particular indicator to determine when this belief is supposed to be suspended. Like we're supposed to know that the black mom is the stepmother but not know why there's one black elf in a community of white elves?
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.
GuyOnInternet
1yr ago
i share your view on rings of power tbh. wanted to like it, was excited for it, but it's pretty underwhelming.
concerning the black elf, if there is a rational justification for it I'm fine with it. but each of these species of humans, e.g. the elves, is very genetically distinct and appears to mostly stick to themselves with respect to mating. i think there could plausibly be a rational explanation for it but given that all the other elves are white they've gotta give some sort of explanation
definitely agree with your third paragraph. doing this sort of thing sort of implies that all logic be suspended if it's to achieve a DEI end. I don't know why people think this way of doing it is the only way to achieve diversity in film. it almost strikes me as a power move: this doesn't make sense but this idea is so supreme that we can make you accept it either way, even though there's a more reasonable way for us to do this.
the rest of your comment, also disagree with. we are often expected to suspend disbelief in movies but there's always an explanation for it; absent that we are left to say 'i think i was probably supposed to suspend disbelief there but I'm not sure. so this other thing that's happening doesn't seem sensible; are they going to explain that or am i just supposed to know I'm supposed to suspend disbelief there, or did i miss something?'
This truly strikes me as something we are going to look back on in 10 years as an indication of the degree to which absurd thought was allowed into the mainstream.
An article was recently published which found that the reason women aren't as represented in leadership roles as much as men are is that they simply do not aspire to leadership roles as much. I cannot describe how annoyed I am at this. Over the past, say, 10 years, the notion that sexism is infused into corporate structures has dominated and been a key battle cry, and it was said that evidence for this was clear using an equity lens (that, simply put, women are proportionately less present in leadership roles which necessarily means that the structure is sexist). How the fuck did no one think to ask 'could it be that women simply do not aspire to leadership roles?' This strikes me as a real face palm moment for feminists. At the outset, it's a valid criticism that the research just hadn't been done prior. But
A. it's a widely known and uncontested fact that testosterone promotes status seeking behaviors. Why was that not the null hypothesis?? I'm not an academic researcher, but I question the intellectual integrity of anyone performing research in this area that failed to extrapolate out such a basic and widely known fact, even at a superficial level.
B. Given that women are, naturally, the most ardent students/researchers in academic studies, how the fuck did none of them, when thinking about the reason there are less women in leadership positions, think to observe the basic fact that they themselves do not aspire to a leadership position??
I think this really highlights the inadequacy of identity lenses and equity as an analytical tool, as they systematically and by design fail to consider endogenous factors. This is a perfect example of why causal forces cannot be easily inferred based on inequitable outcomes. Reverse causation is a serious and, at least conceptually, easily avoidable flaw. This really highlights the risk of low quality research for bodies of thought driven by identity and ideology.
I hate to have this ranty tone, but this is quite literally someone railing against the system for years and years claiming it is corrupt because it will not give them something, while failing to disclose that those people actually don't really want that thing.
More options
Context Copy link