@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

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!

Most of my friend groups who were woke (we're talking pre-2015, so before woke meant what it meant now, and before Trumpism) would often denigrate "frat kids" and "the popular kids" as being "country club republicans" etc. These friend groups were very art/theatre-kid-adjacent. I think calling it "top of the pole" or "bottom of the pole" is too simplistic, but there's definitely some pole-stuff going on.

This would predict more spectators for e.g. male sports than female sports which as far as I know checks out.

Who's greater, heavyweight fighters or mediumweight fighters? My instinct says "heavy" because the number is bigger but I might be wrong.

The conclusion I've been under for awhile has always been that these competitions are segregated like this out of a sense of fun (to participate or to watch); it's boring to watch men beat Serena Williams or watch a heavy guy sit on a toothpick.

While people are answering the poll question, I've seen little commentary on the history. As I remember, NPC first became a term from a tweet that went viral in certain dissident right spaces (at least that's how I heard it).

It was a study about self-reported internal monologues, and how a surprising (to some) fraction of people report "not having an internal monologue." I think this tweet went viral among people with a certain personality trait, I would guess: unusually introspective, high verbal IQ people who have some sort of emotional baggage that make them feel scorn for their more ape-like peers.

The term NPC as opposed to sheeple or anything else probably resonated with this audience because it is a videogame term and lets the group bond. If a more general term was used then the meme would not have been as viral to this audience.

You still see viral tweets really similar to these ones, for example, one involving a survey and glass of water rotated, and something else i can't remember. These tweets usually have un-PC results, like clear differences between how men and women answer the questions.

This audience is anti-woke so naturally NPC would become applied to more partisan politics, especially with how the modern information landscape quickly changes mainstream narratives about COVID, protests, etc.

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.

Every few weeks I shutter at the thought that my own passion project will be beset by this one day. I don't blame either party here, when the enemy takes what you love, that really hurts. Neither party here seems to be inherently motivated by coding the thing. Unless I've not read it carefully enough?

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.

For a couple years before the twitter thing, I was starting to see verbal skirmishes between journalists and Elon. Given that he codes grey-tribe tech and the general hitpieces that have been done on him for awhile, the real reason people are bothered by Elon is just that he is the enemy. It has nothing to do with trans issues. Any lists that someone gives (e.g. Breeding kink) is not a reason to hate him, but those items do work as nice excuses.

A little off-topic, but only a little: When I was watching the youtube trailers for Disney's newest Star Wars show Andor, I was also getting a lot of "bot vibes" from the comments. I would see 3 or more comments in the past 24h posting the same praise verbatim all by accounts with what appear to have a name and a face. Especially visible faces, certainly too visible for anyone doing anything interesting on the internet. (Nobody posting here would or should be using a youtube account like that).

I wasn't sure if these are bots paid for by Disney, with extra visible faces and names to appear real in a "methinks the bot doth protest too much" kind of way. Or, if they are influencer shills. Either way, it seemed really unnatural. Andor didn't seem especially unnatural, it's just the last trailer that interested me enough to watch. I suspect other corporate products have this issue too.

"Trans women are women" strikes me as the even-more-obviously shibboleth question. Agreed that this is generally a shibboleth test. Can a "wokeness test" not be scientific or useful or correct if it's merely a shibboleth test?

You're still focusing on the words as being vehicles for literal meaning the way a scientist would use language. What do you mean they can plausibly say they support anyone? The sign is a rather obvious signal of conservative allegiance posted in the 2020s. You don't need plausibility to get that documentary "What Is A Woman?" removed for hate speech when the signaling game is obvious to everyone except mistake theorists.

Absolutely nobody makes this distinction you're making between:

  1. what the conservative sign did -- listing a couple of axis (axes?) and omitting other axes

  2. what the politician did -- listing a couple of directions on an axis and omitting other directions

The problem I see with group pointwise badness is it lets you tar saints. The problem I see with uniform badness is it lets you tar normal people. It seems to me that ever talking about groups is less fair than just dealing with pointwise bad people. This is made worse because often when people complain about groups, they gerrymander and redefine things to play games.

You used examples of criminals and human rights crimes, so when it comes to legal justice I would say generalizing is unfair - just punish pointwise bad people.

What's a more appropriate context for when we should generalize groups as being "bad" and ignoring individual differences?

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.

Most people read into social subtext, so if you say, "blacks underperform for reasons other than discrimination" what most people hear is "blacks are bad, or somehow inferior." Although you didn't say the cause was genetic (in fact you explicitly gave other possibilities too!), it comes off to most people as being about genetics, just because lots of americans learned in school about scientific racism and how genetic arguments were used to justify slavery or discrimination. It doesn't matter if that's ahistorical, school gave many of us that impression anyways.

Also, in some spaces it's not acceptable to attack black culture. The argument goes that: why build society where it's acceptable to act a certain way by fiat, when you could rebuild it so it's acceptable to act a different way instead? Or to accept both ways of acting. So, "believing black people should change" is problematic to many people.

At the end of the day, explaining black outcomes by discrimination is done in order to place agency, blame, and the responsibility to fix; on society at large instead of on black people in particular.

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!

This is a little odd, but not too odd because otherwise you would be also able to justify American chattel slavery. It's been said that emancipated blacks were unhappier on average etc.

Now, there are some things about being a slave that are, irrespective of being happy, potentially unhealthy. For example, it might be the case that slaves were malnourished or abused. Even if they were happy, keeping someone down and making them happy about it is generally considered bad.

I think feminists are making a similar argument. They don't care if (on average) women are happy being homemakers instead of programmers and CEOs. The feminist believes it is harmful, likely because programmers and CEOs are paid more and so are more financially independent.

I kind of see this angle, because I for one feel fortunate that I enjoy programming, and am good at programming, and I can make a buck while I'm at it. It's one of the few ways I feel like I'm meant for this world, and i suppose it is a little unfortunate (for them) that the median person does not desire this. I suppose women are disproportionately affected by this.

A lot of people don't like beats or brussel sprouts. (I hope I can form a consensus about this!) These people speak as if those foods are gross and icky and wouldn't even want to like them. But I would say, it is probably better to like them. It is inconvenient to be picky. Let us decouple our thoughts on brussel sprouts from our thoughts on liking them.

Feminism is kind of condescending in that it tells women what they should and should not want. Else, it must defend that the lot of a western woman is like that of a slave. The latter appears to be the more common strategy.

Is there anything wrong with the term "transwomen?" Some people would say the term is offensive, and you should simply write "trans woman."

I think the OP's blog post lays it out simplest: this is a policy question disguised as a definition question. No amount of definitions will cause anyone to be OK with me saying things like "male trans woman." Socially/mentally bucketing Lia Thomas and Joe Biden together is an example of one such contentious policy.

No amount of gerrymandered definitions will change which concepts people think are worth using.

Could you speak more plainly? Are you saying in the future incels won't be allowed to own possessions (because of incarceration, for example)? Or that in general people will own nothing and be happy?

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?

Can you support "public perception reflected that" a little more? A lot of the people in that photo look to be on the asshole's side, or did they restrain him right after this was taken? Also, you and I have the benefit of hindsight, so we know what the right side of history is. Maybe much of the public was actually on his side?

A lot of things that I think are "obviously disruptive" like lighting buildings on fire in the summer of 2020, I am pretty sure a lot of my friends would call, "important for social change." "No woman ever changed the world by being obedient" and those kinds of remarks. Only time can tell what the right side of history will be right?

"Right side of history" is a halting-complete problem!

Awhile back, there was some conversation about how a new social media platform could replace twitter if twitter users really don't like Elon Musk.

Today, I read about Bluesky social and it reminded me of that exchange. Now, the article includes a quote from Jack Dorsey that throws out a lot of applause lights, like "freedom," "choice," and "independence." Has anyone else heard about this?

Something I think is interesting is the remarks about needing an open-source model instead of a company. Whereas companies can change direction and leadership (Twitter...), an open-source standard can be implemented by all sorts of groups.

It's also possible that there will be attempts to migrate The Conversation off of twitter and onto Bluesky. I personally don't think it'll happen, but I'm also not brave enough to give any specific predictions or confidence numbers. Is anyone else?

How would voter ID help? Couldn't there be a case where someone has a voter ID but their vote was still cast illegally because of <insert reason>? If government erroneously lets people vote verbally (like in real life), wouldn't they also erroneously let people vote with an ID?

The only possible reason I can think of is with voter ID, if a voter could prove they had the ID. Would a voter really be able to prove they had an ID? Why can't voters (in real life) prove they were told they could vote?

Voter ID to me, solves the problem of voters deceiving government. This case is about government deceiving voters.

You're right, my brain was thinking "those the state decided were victims" and I ignored the shades of nuance within the state.

Yes, if I had read closely I maybe would have figured it out.

Discussing "the case" though, I had already read victim descriptively, meaning simply "those the court decided were victims" because that's how the word is used. (You allude to this when you note a different, objective-morals sense of victim).

Thanks for the clarification

If that was true, "I'm not a racist, but..." would be resistant to being labeled racist.

I think you and me must have very different intuitions on what the overton window is, and what "normies" believe. Many of these things are heavily regional, and even more importantly, I'm probably a mentally ill hermit (I won't speak for you).