@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

How would the test misclassify you? Your role in this community seems completely consistent with a wokeness score of 0%.

Someone who infers "anti-woke" somehow means republican or right-wing in any way is wrong, but that's not a problem with the test.

long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence

While tiki torches don't have a long history at all of being associated with the altright, I am pretty sure Charlottesville started that association. I've met people in real life mention tiki torches as if they automatically imply someone is altright, and have heard someone say, "now I can't use tiki torches anymore."

If tiki torches are a shibboleth for the outgroup, and the law is just a tool to beat them, then who's to say the tiki torch doesn't have a long pernicious history of a signal for violence? Was there any principle behind the "cross burning has a long history" here? Wasn't it just, "cross-burning is a low-status racist thing, so sure let's punish them."

Other commenters here have already pointed out the angle that epithets can be what you say to someone when you just want to hurt them, and that shouldn't be considered racism proper.

There seems to be some slight disagreement over that. It appears some won't settle for stamping out prejudice, and want a world where racial epithets are a line that can't be crossed.

The differing perspectives over this point lend evidence to an idea I've expressed before, which is a fundamental disagreement over the sacredness of race and racism. This also explains other social rules, like why certain off-color jokes about racism are wrong, even if the joke itself is not prejudicial and actually mocks racists. Racism is Not a Laughing Matter.

"Human rights instead of politics" is not a particularly remarkable redefinition.

The entire point of mere politics to me, looks plainly like the ability to get along with people you disagree with. That link contains a quote by the pope-at-the-time (is there a word for "contemporary relative to a historical source"?) saying that homosexually is not a political battle, but a "destructive pretension against the plan of God." Both this and "human rights" are vague concepts and are mostly applause lights anyways.

Even the podcaster knows "political" is a Motte-and-Bailey. At this timestamp she describes how "the personal is political" is a good rhetorical device but is not accurate when taken out of context. That is to say, it is using "political" the normal way, to mean "controversial."

Redefinitions of this kind, be it using Human Rights or God's Plan, or even Something Else, are simply rhetorical techniques to say "you can't disagree with me." Well-behaved thiests will often debate biblical interpretations, even though they agree that God's Plan is paramount. Likewise, if you asked an honest progressive, "How do you know Roe v Wade is a human rights issue?" you could get a few different responses:

  1. You will have blown her mind, as she did not really consider that. The situation is now up for debate. That's what those pro-lifers were saying the whole time?

  2. She will provide an argument.

I predict that most "human rights issue, not a political issue" types would just stare at you and say "wow I can't even."

Write hundreds of words to yourself that nobody else reads and get laughed at.

Call those words "git commit history" and suddenly it's ok!

What does it mean for them to succeed? People say that a lot of the draw of twitter is that it lets the common person talk with celebrities. If enough of a coordinated media effort happened like, the kayfabe will definitely look as if Buzz Buzz won, and there will be a bunch of the usual suspects declaring victory over racism.

Even if Buzzbuzz amassed only one-tenth the users of twitter (in real people, not bots), who's won? Keep in mind that knowing the true statistics and trying to publish them would probably be hatefacts. How would normies learn the user statistics? There are a lot of people who think /r/The_Donald's subscriber and active user counts were throttled and generally subreddit population numbers were astroturfed back then. These people also anticipate that Buzzbuzz's user counts would be inflated.

In short, wouldn't a world where barely anyone migrated to BuzzBuzz look very similar to a world where most people did?

Maybe I'm just a cynical biased culture warrior, but Elon's acquisition doesn't seem like it changes any culture- or Truth- producing institutions, so does it really matter which social media sites have more active users?

In 2014 or so I saw a silly Facebook video from some low-tier rag (I think it was called NowThis -- I think they're still around but they no longer put out low effort CW) praising the "hella diverse" cast of some sports team or something -- it was all black women. That was probably the first time I noticed "Diversity" was one of one of those words.

If the legacy of slavery etc. really is as damaging as claimed, then the focus on the blacks over the browns, reds, and yellows makes sense. It doesn't explain the focus on women, gays, and trans though.

What's worse is, "What percent of a thing is environmentally/genetically determined" is itself environmentally determined. In an environment where not everyone is well-fed, height isn't completely genetic, because there are people who are short because they've been malnourished. Once you feed everyone, the environment is no longer determining who is short, it's just genetics.

(Unless I've made a mistake here) This paradox is pretty contentious though because it seemingly undermines many revolutionaries. If something is even a little bit genetic, the revolutionary seems to be steering the future where it becomes more and more genetic. Since revolutionaries aren't out there measuring how genetic and meritocratic society is, I suspect "there is some nurture to it!" is basically said in bad faith, by people who are salty.

That is to say, being short sucks whether its because of your genetics or because you're not well-fed. The Short Revolution uses the nature/nurture argument to justify the guillotine.

The honest blank slatist is then resigned to argue that genetics and biology is unfair. Is he even wrong?

The reason rape is worse than murder is because a women's value in society is her body. When feminists say, "a woman is worth more than her body" they are speaking normatively, or more accurately, saying "a woman ought to be worth more than her body." Undoubtedly, feminists will deny this, and say that no, they really mean a descriptive to be. "Rape is about power" therefore asserts the worth women.

When opponents of sexual redistribution say "sex is not a commodity" they are also speaking normatively. They will deny this, but prostitution's position as the oldest profession implies that descriptively speaking, sex simply is a commodity. Women intuitively understand the value of their sex appeal, as any cursory glance at social media reveals. I also have funny anecdotes of female friends volunteering egregious details of their sex lives (apparently women talk to each other about this) and once she figured out I wasn't gay, she was imminently disgusted at me. The implication here is that since I enjoyed hearing it, I was being a free-rider.

"Men undergo some experience and feel raped" is just about the most pathetic anecdote ever, so I might as well go all in and give an example of that, too. One time I gave money to a panhandler and I felt unsafe. It's unclear to me if feeling unsafe was important to my overall vibe, but it bared remarkable correspondence to a drunk college girl:

  • he didn't use force

  • I regretted my actions afterwards

  • I felt like a chump

I think the last bullet point here is very important to "the feeling of being raped." What's extra funny is already having crystalized these beliefs, I came across this clip (Did you know Chris Hansen had another show about catching a different kind of criminal?), so clearly jaded men like me aren't the only ones trivializing rape. (To those not aware of the context: the woman was a victim of identity theft and lost a lot of money).

To recap, if rape is about sex then an uncomfortable truth would come to light: that a woman's value is her body.

So I looked through the thread and I can't really find what's so crazy about this.

They took a creepy image and combined it with all sorts of random stuff, and then out come more creepy images? That doesn't sound noteworthy.

The twitter OP emphasizes in the replies that the noteworthy thing is that the derivative images seem to conjure gore and body horror. The original creepy image is merely creepy and doesn't have any gore or body horror. This isn't that noteworthy if the training associates gore and body horror with the generally demonic looking eyes and the raw wounded-looking skin that are already in the source Loab.

Since Loab was discovered using negative prompt weights, her gestalt is made from a collection of traits that are equally far away from something. But her combined traits are still a cohesive concept for the AI, and almost all descendent images contain a recognizable Loab.

It seems the researchers did negative(negative("Brando")) to get the original creepy image. I would be more impressed if negative(negative(X)) generated a Loab for many X, including things not anthropomorphic. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Given the way virgin is used as an insult on the internet, I think it's the conflation.

It's not quite a motte and Bailey but basically women can tell if a guy is unconfident and unassertive in exactly the way other men can tell. The only difference is other men don't care whereas most women will treat you differently in personal situations because of it.

Obviously nobody can actually tell if a man has had sex or not.

I think it's more like, playing loose with the truth as part of a signaling. Think: self-diagnosed mental illness and self-diagnosed food allergy.

Speaking as someone who (I think) feels similarly as OP, it's purely about principle. Family should be beyond reproach, as he wrote. In a hypothetical universe where I didn't get vaccinated, it should still be beyond reproach. I hope I'd have the courage to spew this kind of bile in real life if the old, tired topic of covid ever comes up in meatspace. I'd know my success when my friends reply to my rant: "wait, aren't you vaccinated though?"

Yes, and?

I understand why explaining "woke" stops the conversation, but what's wrong with explaining "pronouns?"

Volunteering preferred pronouns, or asking someone what pronouns to use are partisan behaviors. People saying it isn't partisan doesn't matter. Similarly, a Christian asking to pray for you or asking you if you've prayed about something would probably annoy you.

Why do I look stupid?

But to the trans-ness being invisible. The platonic ideal of a trans man is someone who everyone looks at and says "yes, that is a man, I have no doubt in my mind", and then never thinks twice about. The "trans" part, ideally, vanishes

Could you elaborate on if the trans-ness going away is kind of like a mental category thing, where onlookers know they are trans but it is as unremarkable as knowing someone's blood type; or if trans-ness going away refers to empirical predictions, where onlookers can't tell if they are trans?

Defining sex and gender as separate implies that someone can be obviously male and obviously a woman, I think. And there is not a woke consensus that trans people should pass as cis gender.

As for your trans allegory, what about the Matrix, or plastic surgery, or dyeing ones hair? Are these too mundane to be trans allegories?

Some of the new Disney canon is hinting at Thrawn being a major antagonist for the upcoming Ashoka show. In Star Wars Rebels cartoon show, Thrawn is a major antagonist. Wouldn't that mean royalties for Zahn?

I doubt someone went through various occupations. I think the occupation being journalists is definitely part of the rage. If the statistic was over an increase in number of woman welders who died, that wouldn't spark the same response in the intended audience.

The tweet is a little confusing though, because these small percents really highlight how many of the killed journalists were men, so I'm not sure most people who see this will feel outraged at the dead journalists.

E: cursory glance at comments shows yes most people are a little annoyed it is about women, as opposed to just journalists. If this was crafted bait, it specifically was crafted to have a very slanted gender ratio. If nothing else, this is an effective way to talk about the number of journalists killed.

Based on my anecdotal experience of people wanting to learn programming from me, the only reason a person can't code is because they aren't motivated. I know lots of people who like the idea of coding, or like the salary of it, but they don't like coding. Most good programmers I know like it. There are things I like the idea of, or like the rewards of, but I don't like the activity of it (social games/PUA), so I stay bad at them.

I think that's way more important than the choice between games or formal whatever theory.

Some people have argued that to affirm a trans person is lying. I sympathize with someone who says, "if I call a trans person by his preferred pronoun, it feels like I am lying." If this is all that is meant, then I suppose the rest of this post isn't relevant. To me, the stronger claim is, "if society calls a trans person by his preferred pronoun, society is lying." I never bought that claim, because I never encountered a contradictory set of definitions for sex and gender.

But recently I realized the term passing is actually transphobic according to the definitions laid out.

This is pretty clearly a woman. I can tell because of the hair and clothes. I infer she goes by "she." If I had to publicly address her, I'd do so with she.

People typically speak of passing as a woman. Since I can infer she is a woman, it follows that she passes as a woman. But as far as I can tell, nobody would describe her as passing, because she looks transgender (i.e. male). Based on how "pass" is used, it seems to really mean pass as cisgender. To see passing in this sense, as a good thing, is deceptive. It also seems transphobic. Surely a less transphobic worldview would suggest she passes as a woman because I can correctly infer her pronouns, and that her womanness is just as beautiful as a ciswomans.

Inb4 replies castigating me for just now realizing this: nobody had ever crystalized to me that passing meant to misrepresent a trans person as cisgender because most discourse talks about "passing as a woman"

Am I missing something? Can anyone else steelperson all this?

This reminds me of the old athiest argument of, "you are a [Christian]/[Muslim]/[Bhuddist] primarily because of where or to whom you were born." I would suspect however, that most religious people are not convinced by this line of argument because they are, to use your verbiage, "real [Christians]." A "[Christian] by default" is someone who just hasn't encountered that argument, and upon realizing he is just conforming, would immediately renounce his religion.

The few Christians I've discussed this kind of reasoning with, have all asserted that even in alternate realities, they would have come to follow Christ anyways. This was enough to convince me that they were "real," and satisfied my curiosity.

We used to have a space for that (Bare Link Repository) and that experiment ended specifically because it didn't fit the community's goals.

In the past, if these hobbies were niche enough then the reviewers were hobbyists. Now, reviewers are journalists. A journalist's hobby is more like writing, and less about the domain one is writing about. (Compare: a programmer who wants to program something, but doesn't have enough domain knowledge to make a useful program). You can tell from all the articles that are vaguely game-related but the game is a backdrop for the article's actual thesis. Or, lots of "game reviews" that have flowery language that you can tell it's written by a communications major.

On the other hand, the game journalism I consume the most is for one game, by some guy, who actually plays the game. The content is brief, detailed, and the interpretation and analysis passes all smell tests. It's clear that they aren't just trying to fill some word quota for money.

The original poster compared a non-targeted harm (medical transitioning) to a targeted harm (sterilizing "the jews"), and I was pointing out a possible misanalogy. When I used the word "genocide" I was, by definition, referring to ethnically targeted cleansing.

People who believe in genocide necessarily think its worse than murder, or else they would just call it murder, and Hitler's crime would have just been murdering 6 million people. Instead, believers in genocide think the ethnically targeted component makes it worse than just murder. Because murdering members of protected classes is worse than just murder (See also: hate crimes).

Of course, for anyone who doesn't believe in genocide, they still probably think Hitler is a bad guy for the whole mass murder thing.

People who are against genocide aren't against it because they think murder or sterilization is wrong, they're against it because it targets a specific group or genetic line.

I was reading American Renaissance's "A White Teacher Speaks Out" (ctrl + f for goth) and a teacher described that his black students all seemed basically the same to him. (This might just be "seeing the other race as all the same"). Whereas in his experience the white students might form cliques. As far as I can tell, it is mostly whites who join gender subcultures. Just like goth etc., gender might be a way for white people to feel special.

I do not mean this in the uncharitable, "a way to be on the oppression pyramid" -- I don't think it feels like that on the inside at all. It could be that whites, being "normal boring default," want to feel more special and do weird and quirky things. Whereas people who are already a little quirky, a little weird, or less normal (racial minorities, actual gay people with abnormal lifestyles) aren't inclined to join weird subcultures themselves. Scott had an essay comparing this state of affairs to weirdness points but I can't find it.