MWei
1yr ago
When it comes to representation in media I still do think it's mostly about the bottom line. Even if most people prefer seeing white men on tv that doesn't mean the profit maximizing strategy is to make all your shows feature only white men. I suspect adding a token x character/story line is almost always a profitable decision because most people that don't like it won't stop watching because of it, but the people that do like it might actually watch it when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Having said that, I've recently moved away from thinking big corporations make woke decisions only because it directly improves their profit. It's hard to explain things like really aggressive diversity hiring at tech companies.
One possibility is that the best hires care a lot about progressive ideals. Even if the ideology causes the product quality to take a hit, it's still a better product than you would get hiring someone else. That seems to be the case with Will Graham.
Another possibility is that in elite circles progressive signaling gives you more status than the extra money you would have made not signaling.
MWei
1yr ago
I think the following analogy holds in many ways: internet porn is to sex as romantic AI will be to human relationships. Internet porn is a kind of superstimulus that doesn't quite replace actual sex but people will settle for it if the other option isn't available. It may reduce the aggregate incentive to seek sex. Some people may come to depend on it in pathological ways. Porn didn't displace sex entirely and I predict neither will AI. If I had to guess why I'd say that sex and relationships are deeply connected with validation, and it doesn't work as well when we know it's all just a show constructed for us.
MWei
1yr ago
If sex was the endgoal then visiting a prostitute would suffice. If a convincing emotional experience is the endgoal then I think there are apps out there now where an actual human will pretend to be your loving bf/gf. Neither option on their own seems like they can replace a real relationship. Imo, the issue is people on some level understand that it's just not "real", and that makes it both pathetic (in the eyes of society) but also unsatisfying (on a personal level) for most people.
MWei
1yr ago
I don't think so. I expect society to be quite accepting of a relationship between two people that don't have functioning genitalia, perhaps due to birth defect or accident. I don't expect society to be accepting of someone who is in a relationship with a sex doll even if it's anatomically very accurate.
I suspect nothing short of AGI would bring AI gfs/bfs into the mainstream. The problem is that it would be common knowledge that these AIs don't actually understand what we're saying. But I could see people using it secretly as a kind of stand in until they get a real gf/bf.
Edit: to be clear by mainstream I mean having an AI bf/gf is normalized and not considered cringe. I think that was the interesting thing about the world in Her. It makes sense because in that world AI is fully conscious.
MWei
1yr ago
Honest question, what exactly is meant by economic collapse here? It's not obvious to me why a lower birthrate would be so disastrous. Even if production output goes down there's less people to produce for, right?
MWei
1yr ago
As someone that's been in the same relationship for over a decade, I agree with a lot of this. But one slight disagreement is that I wouldn't say I've ever made an explicit personal commitment to the idea of a long-term relationship. The way I would describe it is that I feel that I get a lot out of the relationship itself, which is different from getting something from the person I'm in the relationship with. In that way I think it's similar to having children. You don't really ask "what do kids bring to the table" and if you do then you're probably going to convince yourself it's not worth it. You have kids because you want to be a mother or a father, the value is in taking on that role and in forming and building that relationship. Sharing your life with someone that has their own agency (even if they use that agency in frustrating ways), the game of trying to make things work together, experiencing the emotional highs and lows.
So I would say that one of the important things for a long-term relationship is that both people really want to be in a relationship and they value being in a relationship.
MWei
1yr ago
I would say that it is related to the proportion of role models that are observed, but not the way you're suggesting. If there are zero prominent black doctors, lawyers etc, then I wouldn't expect fewer rappers to help encourage black kids to become doctors or lawyers. Likewise I don't think more black rappers and basketball players will make people forget there was a black president.
MWei
1yr ago
While I mostly agree with the model of women's behavior of the posters here, I also agree that it's often presented in a bitter and uncharitable way. I'm not really convinced that men can't hide these attitudes for the short term, but I think it would make it much harder to have a healthy long term relationship. To some extent, human nature when it comes to sex and dating is just unflattering, and that includes men's. Personally I try to stay aware those realities without anger or judgement.
MWei
1yr ago
This argument that men pretend to be friends so that they can get sex strikes me as a rationalization. The situation makes the woman feel bad so she finds a reason to direct the blame onto the man. You never hear about this problem of "pretending to be my friend to get sex" when the feelings are reciprocated. Shouldn't the deception be just as bad a betrayal whether the feelings are reciprocated or not? If the man was more clear about his intentions it could still easily spun into a creeper accusation. The thing that actually matters is the extent to which you can avoid making the woman feel bad or uncomfortable. To the extent that you can't avoid it, you just have to accept the risk that the woman will think you're a creep.
MWei
1yr ago
A role model is someone you feel like you can emulate and increase your chances of success. When a kid imagines a successful lawyer, doctor, whatever, do they imagine someone that is similar enough to themselves that they could even try to emulate that person? Do they have the thought, "If that person can do it, then why can't I"? In this scenario representative share is important. Seeing a lot of people like you doing something makes it feel a lot more possible than seeing a few people do it. Also, since visibility is so important, having to look up that person is much less useful. Having to look up your role model means you already had the thought that you wanted to be someone like that, when the issue is that kids are not having that thought in the first place.
MWei
1yr ago
It makes sense if promiscuous women are judged as lower value. Asking someone to be FWB means you thought there was a possibility she would say yes, which is essentially an accusation of being "easy". Having a reputation of being easy means lowering your chances of a long term relationship with desirable men and increasing your chances of getting propositioned by undesirable men. You would suffer all the downsides of having low social value. A harsh rejection would be necessary to clearly deny such an accusation.
I can see how someone learning about sex and relationships from reading feminist leaning sources would mistakenly think its okay to ask to be FWB. Feminists push for a world where women are not judged for their sexual choices. If there's nothing wrong with being easy then there's nothing wrong with just asking politely as long as you calmly accept a "no". In fact it would be asking for consent, which is the only acceptable thing to do before any kind of sexual escalation.
MWei
1yr ago
Off the top of my head there was a prominent trans character in Orange Is The New Black, and there was a boy with Downs Syndrome (I think?) in Ozarks.
MWei
1yr ago
Most of the culture war over transgenderism hinges upon the definition of "women".
This always struck me as a kind of map/territory confusion. The culture war hinges upon whether trans women should be referred to with feminine pronouns and be allowed in women exclusive spaces. Does anyone in this debate really care about anything else? It's like when people argue about the dictionary definition of "racism". Getting to a "true" definition is impossible and pointless because in this case words are just a proxy for the real issues.
But you haven't said why it's clear studios are leaving money on the table. Even if some people prefer shows without woke content, do they care enough to stop watching? Do the people that care enough to stop watching outnumber the new viewers that are brought in? Sure, for the people that actually refuse to watch you could say there is untapped market share, but it's not like there's literally no shows without progressive content. Maybe whatever amount that is out there now reflects the actual demand.
My prior is that in the face of cold hard cash most people don't cling to ideology, particularly people that end up in positions to make lots of money in the first place, and particularly large corporations. Really, how much market inefficiency can a business tolerate? If viewership of every woke show literally went to zero, do you think they would continue pushing them? If we look at the most successful shows and movies now, they are diverse and progressive (marvel, last of us, etc). I think that "big corporations only do things to maximize their profits" is usually a strong default assumption and you need an even stronger argument if you want to argue against that.
More options
Context Copy link