PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Is all this culture war crap basically because all the attribute names (STR, INT) can be interpreted to mean things like "Strong" and "Smart"?
Do people get all up in arms about Charisma? What do most people even think when they hear "Constitution?"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I think this is mostly true, and to elaborate: It's the idea that racial bonuses could be non-egalitarian on average.
I'm not a DnD player but I suspect that on average, all racial bonuses are the same like +1 to attribute or feats, or whatever it is that races get. If it wasn't so, some races would be at a numerical disadvantage. That the racial bonuses are comparable is only out of the kindness of the game designers' hearts (or game balance or whatever).
But it is not logically necessary. You could imagine the racial bonuses were not comparable. It's almost like dissolving a question. By removing all racial bonuses, it changes the entire shape of the world, and dissolves the notion of differences between groups on average. You can't even think of group differences, like you said.
If orcs are stronger than humans, that's a mere stereotype. Players are free to make their orcs high STR, but it will be at the cost of other attributes during character creation. It's driven by Just-World aspirations that all individuals are fundamentally equal, even if there are individual differences.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I knew not to fall into the trap
What trap? Is this a married thing?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I'm surprised how much rap/hip hop was in those links -- I would have expected mostly country, but I wasn't surprised at how pro-God it was.
I was listening to a secular rock playlist and these 2 songs both came on back to back. So it's not just marginal ideological Christians talking about this stuff. Although, these 2 try to be less confrontational about it, so maybe it's not "protest music"
-
Zombified by Falling in Reverse
-
Planet Zero by Shinedown
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Like a Boss by Lonely Island?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
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.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
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.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
With regards to (1) there is some equivocation between the biological meaning of a drive (in which case sex is a drive, as any scientist would tell you) with the spiritual or moral meaning of drives. If "sex is as important as food" really was an axiom of most people, then prostitution would be legal and sexual redistribution would be in the overton window. So I don't think bullet (1) is valid. Your other points seem solid though.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
The one could instead simply say, "sex is good, if its consensual" without resorting to sophistry like, "intercourse without consent isn't sex."
Now, there are very important aspects of sex where the consent and desire is important. For example, I would not expect incels to get off on rape for the same reason they don't get off on prostitutes: they wish to be desired. I don't think those are the kind of considerations feminists have in mind when they say "rape isn't sex."
Focusing on consent might be counterproductive though, if another goal is to e.g. taboo age-gap relationships between older men and younger women. "Power differential" discourse has all of the tools necessary to simply declare such relationships rape.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
First, let me clarify my invocation of incels: I wasn't making an empirical claim about the real community. My sentence should be read as tautological: "There are some people who wish to be desired" and I used "incel" as the closest-match within inferential distance. I think enough incels fit this profile that I wasn't being dishonest. Since my post was arguing that "consent is not an important aspect of sex aka intercourse," I thought it honest to give a case where consent was the vital concern.
Now onto your reply: I think risk-aversion fits the incel profile exactly. What did you mean by virtuous? Normally, I consider "moral" and "virtuous" to be synonyms. I'm not sure if "I wish to be desired" is really moral, but I would say it is flattering, because it doesn't require admitting cowardice. I think most incels claim to be smart (forbidden knowledge, woke/redpilled, etc.), but do not claim to be moral.
I think you're right that incels don't take kindly to the idea that they are cowards, so I do feel a little confused. My current best-guess is that by calling incels cowardly, you are making empirical claims (for example: that they have agency and can change their lives), and so you are contradicting incel orthodoxy. I'm not sure if incels even can get offended, by anything.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
First, I want to note that my use of "body" here is a kind of metaphor for reproduction, which it sounded like you understood.
Next, I want to make sure I understand your point, so I will paraphrase what I heard:
You are making a fallacy of the converse. You claim (a) "all a woman is valuable for is her body" but really your facts only imply (b) "a woman's body is far more valuable than a man's body"
Certainly, (b) is correct, because we don't make a big deal out of male rape victims.
The reason we also know (a) is correct is because rape is worse than murder, because most people get mind-killed about the subject and low-decouplers write extensive mental gymnastics (masquerading as arguments) asserting that rape is a special case that has no analogue.
In an alternate world where the same emotional valence was not applied to any rape but was instead only applied to, say, domestic abuse, we could say (a) is false.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
What does "push on the notion of deconstruction of the hierarchy" mean? I'm familiar with left-leaning ideologies saying "hierarchies bad" and calling everything fascism, but what does the power-sex question have to do with it?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I don't know if this has already been reported. I tried to search for it but realized my folly as the only search term that came to mind was "Reply"...
In the middle of writing a post I highlighted text in the parent comment and hit "reply." I was hoping that it would automatically quote that text and add it in the middle of my comment. Maybe that was silly of me. But it completely overwrote my comment, where a better user experience would be a kind of "Are you sure? your comment is not done..." kind of alert. It's a little awkward, because as far as I can tell, this codebase prefers to silently persist drafts when you return to comment (I just now checked with the back button) instead of using alerts at all.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Now I'm confused because you added objectification to the mix! Are you saying incels believe "we don't see prostitutes because objectification is wrong?" Because I certainly never have heard them say that. I think incels mostly say (a) "we don't see prostitutes because they aren't authentic." An alternative reasoning, (b) "we don't see prostitutes because objectification is wrong" seems mututally exclusive, completely incompatible. I do agree that (b) panders to their critics, but I've never seen it. And of course, professing (a) lets them hide from perhaps the true reason, the aptly-lettered (c) "we don't see prostitutes because we are cowards"
everyone suddenly agrees with me that maybe we can't just believe such people and they may be rationalizing their failure/avoidance.
Ah now I understand! You're saying that since mainstream orthodoxy is already in the business of calling incels deluded and (perhaps unconsciously) running from the truth in some cases (chins), why would we take them at their word for other cases (prostitutes)! That's a good insight I've never heard articulated before.
If I had to guess, it's because you're assessing incels from a descriptivist POV. You identify psychological factors (avoidance) and see how those cause the relevant behaviors.
The mainstream position is normative, saying, "incels deserve their lot in life." The easiest way to fit the chin issue into that narrative is to call them liars; but the prostitutes issue isn't really an issue. I don't think most people think about the nuanced beliefs of incels.
Maybe I'm wrong about the mainstream position and I've actually described an "anti incel" position -- I'm not sure.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It's true that we can't attribute any of those crimes to a single cause. There's not really any reason to reduce crimes to causes is there? People steal because they want things, and people rape because they're horny.
I've never heard a coherent defense of, "rape is about power not sex" that appealed to truth. They all appeal to something orthogonal, like, "it's good therapy" or "it brings positive social change." The slogan is not even wrong, it's just a tool.
I don't go as far as to say it's a tribal signal though.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I don't understand your objection. Are you saying people who read in particular find rape worse than people who don't?
I see TvTropes as being about fiction in general, so does your claim also apply to be who watch or play their media?
Although TvTropes is "about fiction," it is cataloging real phenomenons. I was making the (not so controversial, in my opinion) claim that society sees rape as worse than murder. That works of fiction portray this truth is downstream of real societal attitudes. "Why link to X" feels like a wrong question, unless you provide an alternative Y or have a compelling argument to leave it in plaintext.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
This is what I do:
-
put importance on empirical results and logic & axioms. So far I've never been called problematic for that.
-
use mistake theory. Act as if conflict theory is a blind spot I have. Make my opponent explicitly state their C.T. positions.
-
frame as if I am wanting to learn.
-
explicitly state positions that are too inferentially-distant to be clocked as problematic.
The one time I experimented by not doing this, I got yelled at, so generally speaking I think these pointers work. I'd say I learned what not to do in that scenario.
This might not work for everyone. For example, wanting to learn can be a cancellable offense ("Just Asking Questions", "Go Educate Yourself"), but it helps if you're debating your friends, who think you're an ally. (I still haven't decided if I'm actually fooling anyone with my less-than-enthused attitude towards the Movement. I also haven't decided what's worse: I'm fooling people or it always has been about humiliation. Could I fool myself?)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
I wonder if there's a kind of euphemism treadmill.
-
If a writer wants to claim something that is doubleplus true established Scientific Fact, then they can probably cite it as promoted by so and so many experts and journals.
-
If there's something that an editor wishes had expert support, then they probably won't brazenly lie, and they will have to use some verbiage for. Obligatory mention: "A source familiar with CNN says...".
-
If there's something an editor absolutely disagrees with, the verbiage must be different than (2)
-
If something is actually a debunked myth that experts condemn, the author will happily cite it (if it follows the narrative).
Note that criteria of (1) and (4) involves the availability of reliable sources and (2) and (3) are based merely on author attitude. This would mean items in bucket (2) and (3) are basically equally believable, but we still talk about them differently. (Propaganda, etc.)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
The feminist response to this is to dispute definitions. Since rape is specifically a show of power over another, animals without the cognitive machinery for complex culture, consciousness, and morals are simply engaging in mere forced copulation.
Any non-homosapiens species which may have the cognitive machinery capable for rape, clearly also has the machinery for patriarchy etc. and so the smoking gun is found.
There could be a real empirical disagreement here. It could be the feminist believes there is a sizable portion of rapists who, upon learning that their victim wants it would just completely change gears because the rapist's real goal is to be mean, not to get laid.
This definition has the hemlock problem where we can't say a person is raped unless we knew why the perpetrator engaged in the forced copulation.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
"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:
-
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?
-
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."
How do you phrase the question exactly? Is it the same phrasing I made? The reasoning I used was already that obvious to everyone here, eh?
Of course your experiences are exactly what I'd predict. Maybe I didn't emphasize it enough in my post, but those are the only 2 responses possible from honest progressives.
The dishonest ones who use "human rights issue not political issue" as a rhetorical device don't react that way. Of course, if you go over everything they'd ever said on the issue, you probably could construct an argument (go down path (2)). The reason they are dishonest is because the question dissolves the trick.
If somebody is saying, "Don't debate me" then giving an effective debate in response to that will obviously make them angry.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
It's possible that this is an effective strategy. But it's also possible it isn't. I know many young progressive women who know "libertarian" and "centrist" and the like are crypto-right-wing dogwhistles. I don't know how common that perspective is. Maybe that perspective is what "a deep understanding" entails.
Whatever it is that is causing normies to be shallowly progressive (Cathedral?) could add "centrist is a crypto-right-wing dogwhistle" to the doctrine, couldn't it? What would your strategy be then? "I'm no centrist; I'm a moderate-to-strong leftwinger." Doesn't exactly exude enthusiasm.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
What are "your views" that you tell them? Would you be able to off-handedly mention if the topic comes up, "Yeah, I think Ben Shapiro is basically right" and also not act like Ben Shapiro?
Your comment about Brooklyn doesn't really strike me as "supports trump" or problematic on the object-level. The reason someone would get mad at that trolling is if she thinks gentrification is too sacred to be joked about. Most people don't feel that way, and if they do a little bit, they would probably swallow (haha) their mild discomfort as a form of settling.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
Sure, a nicer beautiful person will attract more people than a mean one, but this motte is not what is implied by "they can't say whatever they want"
There are people so beautiful who can say whatever they want, and will still out-score people who walk on eggshells.
Independently, I concluded a few months ago that gender (the way activists use it) is itself an artsy-fartsy thing for artsy-fartsy people, which is to say, a Serious Thing.
More options
Context Copy link