Rosencrantz2
1d ago
Are you genuinely trying to think from Denmark's point of view, and imagining that if it were you speaking in the Folketing, you would say, "What harm can it do to enter negotiations?" Would you say to the Greenlanders, "We're thinking of selling you out of self-interest and fear of American aggression, but don't worry, we'll definitely put your interests first, even though you won't be our citizens any more afterwards?". Would you say to your Danish voters, "We know you hate the idea of selling off our territory, but let's see what price they'll pay and then talk about it afterwards." Would you say to other European nations, "We know you hate the idea of selling off bits of our continent and the precedent that sets, but we're just talking, don't be so agitated."
Or would you just make a red line and keep your territory, dignity and support intact?
Talk us through how you imagine a rational Danish leader handling this.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
The most direct counterpart to this that springs to mind is another UK documentary that came in the midst of a similar moral panic (and also leaves the audience to make up their own mind): '1000 Men and Me, The Bonnie Blue story' by Victoria Silver. This had similar profile to the manosphere one in the UK but would not have benefitted from the Netflix effect globally.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Just seems like your standard scare piece, like they moved on from climate change, declining bee populations, or unhealthy fast food meals, and now its the big, scary red pill men who are corrupting the youth and we should be having a satanic panic about it RIGHT NOW.
I mean that might be its role for some and the reason it's been made, but it's Louis Theroux, he is just meeting influencers and asking them questions and then leaving long silences for them to hang themselves, just as he has done for many other interview subjects. There's not really any editorialising. You can say it's selectively edited to make them look bad but if you watch it, it's hard to say it does anything than show conversations with them play out in real time and leave it to the viewer to make their own judgements (which will surely be negative, because the interview subjects are objectively absolute bell-ends).
And I make this point semi-often... they always fail to offer up a competing vision of true 'healthy' masculinity that men should aspire to instead. Or to point out a non-toxic male role model that actually engenders the values they suggest men ought to seek to represent.
I think that's a hole in the culture generally, but this particular documentary is hard to watch without seeing a clear contrast between Louis Theroux himself and the influencers. He is weedy, softly spoken and awkward, but much more comfortable in his psoriasis-striken skin than they are in their suntanned muscle suits. He actually comes across as much more masculine and secure than they do. Albeit adorkable fearless modern day Socrates may not be an ideal your average teenage boy is going to gravitate towards (although I actually did as a teen).
Yes. Social algorithms are inherently polarising and the same forces are at work in the opposite direction for many women, in such a way that knowing what the "other side" is looking at makes people dislike each other even more and even (worse) become genuinely more unlikeable. Ban algorithms! (I don't know if I think this but probably could be persuaded.)
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls?
Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing.
Well, I don't doubt there's some truth in this but if we're in the noticing game it seems crucial to also notice something else: there is a strong psychological motivation to generalise from some women's questionable dating choices. It lets men who are feeling difficult feelings blame them on women. Then they get served algorithmically with more "opportunities to notice" the questionable dating choices, and become more invested in an explanation that excuses what they may see as their own failure. And conversely, they are highly motivated not to notice women's "good" dating choices.
To be sure this is a form of torture for the men who are sucked into it, and you have to feel for them, but it is going to be hard to be clear eyed about these things if you miss out that massive piece of the puzzle.
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
Quite obviously Trump is a total asshole though so he is hardly going to respond in the way that you or I would prefer. It's not unreasonable to criticise him on these grounds, but to criticise him for lying, bullying, being an asshole, believing in conspiracy theory, not being long-term, etc etc is simply going to be water off a duck's back to his supporters because those traits are his entire thing.`
The only way to get through is to show that he is weak.
Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.
Isn't this what Trump and Trump supporters actually want you to think though – that Trump is a lying bullshitter who will dunk on you if you upset him, regardless of the truth/falsity/merits of the case? That way he can build a coalition that maintains loyalty and enables him to use his bully pulpit to ram things through in a way others could not, because they are afraid to oppose him. That is how his whole operation works. If he didn't lie and bullshit, it would be possible for his opponents to use reason and evidence to combat his insults, which would defang them significantly. They have to be regarded as insult theatre, not grounded in reality, to act as effective in/out-group markers.
I would have thought that MAGA supporters would at least tacitly accept this characterisation, though I confess they sometimes surprise me.
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
This is a bit confusing. If sex is labour, isn't rape more akin to forcing someone to labour against their will, which is likely to involve committing a serious crime, not just an instance of robbery?
Rosencrantz2
8d ago
It's a list written to sound specific but it's incredibly open ended. "Permanently denying Iran nuclear weapons" sounds like it must entail either regime change or a permabombing campaign that goes on forever. If they do a lot of damage to Iran's military structures but entrench its regime and cement its determination to get nuclear weapons, what's permanent about that?
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
Does focusing one's campaigning on one's own government, instead of others, really count as an isolated demand for rigour?
Rosencrantz2
15d ago
I agree that the books are surely making fun of progressives, though Murderbot also finds the crew members to be cute, and wants to protect their foolish existences. The overall worldview of the books reads to me as sympathetic towards progressives, while also recognising that the capitalists, while unpleasant, better understand the brute realities of the world.
This paradox is what makes the story interesting.
Rosencrantz2
16d ago
Unfortunately not, just my own sense that dynamic rising entrepreneurs are bringing more innovation and open mindedness and that old ones are more focused on preservation, and that often the main impulses they are left with once their excitement and love have died down are grudges, which for most of us are thankless, but which they are able to indulge on a continuing basis. You may say I am going with a folk morality view of the wealthy here but I think there is at least a core of truth about the phases of billionaire founders' lives that is inevitable, in a Greek theatre sort of way, given the positions they find themselves in. I also think it is healthier to eat the rich in the knowledge they are similar to us, than to do it because they are fundamentally different (even if they are different along certain dimensions).
Rosencrantz2
16d ago
These people genuinely are *better" than you and me. Smarter, more driven, more ambitious, and more willing to take risks. All men are categorically not made equal.
Don't they start 'better' (in this specific sense) and then become 'worse' – more callous, more capricious, less able to understand others – as a direct result of their money?
Rosencrantz2
17d ago
I don't believe in rubber ducking. It has to be a real duck.
Rosencrantz2
17d ago
I have found that when you read aloud to an audience, you notice even more. You can even do live edits on the fly, knowing with certainty what is going to land with them and what is not, even though you were sure it was all necessary and correct when you were reading it to yourself five minutes earlier. It's a very weird phenomenon. The brain (mine anyway) needs high stakes situations to do its best work.
As you say tonnes of these things for both men seem pretty neutral, so not sure if this exercise establishes bias very clearly. (Who's to say that 'deportation of migrants' is a criticism – surely Trump wouldn't regard it as one. To take just one example.)
I also think a lot of the differences are a function of Wikipedia being by westerners for westerners, in the main. No, the summary doesn't mention Khomeini's trade policies whereas it does mention Trump's, but it would be bizarre not to make the latter prominent and I don't think that Khomeini's trade policies were among the most remarkable things about his life (?).
I guess you could have a more standardised biographical format where every leader gets a section on trade policy, etc, so as not to allow biased differences of emphasis, which might be a good ideal but a tad unworkable. The standardised side bars and overall headline structure of political biography pages are a good gesture towards this – perhaps they could go a little further but ultimately it's an encyclopaedia meant to be read, not a database.
Rosencrantz2
19d ago
I don't disagree but 'vastly kinder' led me to expect a much starker contrast.
From your description I was expecting far worse. Both entries are freely critical in terms of the facts selected for high level inclusion and neither are complimentary.
E.g. Khomeini's entry ends: "Khamenei's critics viewed him as a repressive despot responsible for repression, mass murders and other acts of injustice."
Trump's entry ends: "Trump's actions have been described by researchers as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history."
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
On the contrary, deciding which side is 'the worse side' is basically a side issue when forming an opinion about a military situation.
Rosencrantz2
22d ago
Well it's a mixture. Women's tennis often has more varied and exciting rallies because it's less serve dominated, for example, and see 07mk's view on ultimate frisbee.
Rosencrantz2
22d ago
I'd go further and say that women's sports are often better than men's sports because they can be more fun to watch. No pretending required: I sincerely don't care if the men could beat the women any more than I care that gorillas are stronger than weightlifters. When it comes to sports I'm exclusively interested in whether they are entertaining.
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
My ex once burst into tears in the middle of a restaurant because, after several days of sending me Instagram reels about female emotional labour (and me managing to discuss them as dispassionate sport), I sent her one reel back about how male weaponised incompetence (“babe, where do we keep the paper towels”) gets wives incandescent with rage but female weaponised incompetence (“what’s this light on the car dashboard mean”) is treated with amused paternalism by husbands. “Why would you defend being a useless husband who doesn’t know where the paper towels are?!?!” she wailed, over the wagyu beef I paid for.
I don't love the sound of your ex but this is surely a lot about areas where partners are proud to have knowledge. A lot of men are proud to know a bit about cars, compared to women being proud to know about cleaning kitchens.
Weaponised incompetence by women can be as legitimately annoying as by men, in household finances for example, but I definitely don't find it hard to understand why 'Where are the paper towels?' wrt one's own household would annoy someone, anyone, everyone outside of a household setup so traditional as to be anachronistic.
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
Do you have any evidence to think that UMC women were especially bothered by this? I didn't notice. For sure his low class taste is another way to mock Bezos in a world where a lot of people want to mock him (for reasons good and bad). I'm not sure I saw UMC women taking advantage of this opportunity more than the UMC in general though.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
The general argument form you've sketched, apart from the word 'environmental', is the core of a vast range of positions in politics. I agree we should be sceptical of all such arguments but there is simply no avoiding them, or it will be difficult for anyone to raise concerns about things unless they are personally unaffected.
My own view on the overpopulation question is that a flatlining population is necessarily good at some level of population/technology/culture, otherwise our species will be courting disaster. Whether we have got close to this point yet is an empirical matter.
Greenland is fairly important to Denmark and Danish politics, isn't? It was the topic of an entire season of Borgen in which Greenland-related issues nearly bring down the government. And in terms of population fraction it would be closer to the US selling off Mississipi than the smaller and more recently acquired American Samoa.
I'm not sure I buy this cool, businesslike approach that Americans would allegedly have to the selling of territory, especially if to a larger country, when we already know that isn't Trump's attitude to the buying of territory; he was hot and bothered and mooted military force when denied a negotiation. Your position seems to be "Yes but he never would have had to use aggression if they just did the rational thing and agreed to a negotiation, so really it's their own fault." Doesn't sound like how allies talk to me.
More options
Context Copy link