@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Other than AEO, I like reddit.

You're not wrong, but I feel like this is one of those times where the old saying applies: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Kind of off-topic, but what the hell is that columnist smoking!? No, a boy who goes "don't worry, I have pads just in case my friends need one" would not be drowning in prom invites. He would be relentlessly mocked and ostracized for that behavior. The only scenario in which it would perhaps go the boy's way is if he was hot, in which case he doesn't need to do that to attract girls anyway. Just an absolutely bizarre take that makes me wonder what the heck the writer is even thinking.

Nutrition isn’t a serious barrier, so what’s your excuse?

I don't think there's anything immoral about eating animals. I don't need an excuse.

This is only tangentially related to your post, but I totally agree with your effusive praise for Ramy. The show is brilliant, even though I rarely feel like watching it (because I don't feel like being sad most days). One of my biggest takeaways from the show was also about representation, similar to yours (though slightly different). To me, the show perfectly demonstrates why the push for representation in media is complete bullshit.

On paper, I should in no way feel like the show is for me, right? I'm a white Christian from the Midwest US, so Ramy and his family are about as outgroup as it gets. But actually I feel a deep connection to those characters. Part of that is the way the writers deftly ensure that everyone gets humanized (even characters you think are just there to be villains). But part of that is because growing up in a conservative Christian environment, I get it. I may not be Muslim but I totally understand feeling like you're just a bit out of step with the world because of what your faith teaches. I totally understand being a young man with a young man's unbearably strong sex drive, but with no ways to fulfill it without breaking God's rules. I totally understand having friends who vacillate between "don't take it so seriously bro" and "whoa how can you do that, you know it's sinful". I totally understand having parents who love you but wish you could live up to the faith more.

So while Hollywood probably thinks that show doesn't represent me (because it's about brown people who don't share my religion), it turns out that it actually totally does represent me. I feel seen, as the kids say. And the fact that I can identify so strongly with the characters on this show really demonstrated to me why the demand for representation in media is bullshit. It's because the people who are pushing this don't get it at all. They think that what people want is to see characters who superficially look like them. But what I want, and what I am willing to bet everyone wants, is to see characters who go through what I go through. I don't give a damn if the characters share my skin color, religion, or gender. That stuff is surface level. What actually matters is having people who live like you do, and have experiences similar to yours.

I feel like you wouldn't disagree with any of this, and is what you're getting at when you say you want "true representation". I just feel like it's so different from the "representation" that the woke ideology pushes, that it's really not the same thing at all. Representation, as practiced by Hollywood and the like, is complete bullshit. It doesn't actually represent people at all because it doesn't understand them. Having characters with similar culture and lives (or "true representation" as you put it) is what we need.

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because the way politics works in the US, all the nuances and caveats you listed (and which are a key part of your overall point) would go completely unheard by people. We live in the country of the soundbite (not that we are necessarily unique in this, of course). The instant gun rights advocates said "I admit that if all guns were confiscated, murder rates would go down", every single gun control proponent would be writing editorials that said "even gun rights advocates admit gun control works". They would run campaign ads that go "Senator so-and-so admits gun control works (insert sound clip here). Yet he voted down these measures every time, blah blah he is the devil vote for me instead." In short, it would be a complete disaster for gun rights and for the careers of those who advance them. The latter outcome is probably the bigger of the two, of course, since politicians are pretty much the most self-serving creatures in existence. But even people honestly considering the cause of gun rights would have some concern about the former outcome.

It's kind of like when Scott Alexander writes an essay about some controversial topic or other. Every single time, he includes a million lines trying to say "yes, if you take this one sentence out of context it sounds bad but that's not what I'm saying and you fail at reading comprehension if you think that". Every single time, there's at least one person who is unscrupulous enough to take that sentence out of context and use it to demonize him. And every single time, Scott is caught off-guard because he made the mistake of believing he was dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Or at least until he stopped writing about controversial topics (which is probably the right call for him).

So yeah, that's why gun rights advocates don't do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying that's praiseworthy of them, or even that it's merely acceptable in a "I don't like it but I understand" kind of way. Just that's why. The gun rights people are playing politics, and politics is full of flat-out evil people who will twist your words into a weapon against you the instant they can. So they prioritize not giving those people ammunition.

It used to be okay for something to not be for you.

It pains me that this is such a lost thing nowadays. There's nothing wrong with things that don't appeal to everybody! In fact, I would go so far as to say that's what makes life interesting - we can each be into different things that others would find unbearable, and we are better off for it because each of us is happier than with something that tried to appeal to everyone at once. But for some reason, that's now treated like it's morally abhorrent.

Also, maybe it's just my skewed perspective but it seems like the actual rule is even worse than "we must water everything down for everyone". It seems to be only the things that nerdy men enjoy which get this treatment. Board games have to be PC, video games must remove any trace of sex appeal because that scares off women, programming must be packed full of diversity statements and codes of conduct, etc. But nobody expects the local crochet club to change to appeal to men, etc. Basically, it feels like society kicked nerds out in the 80s, we went "ok whatever we're going to do our own thing", and now 40 years later the bullies are back to kick us out of the communities we built as a refuge from them in the first place. It really grates.

One thing that really gets me in this vein is when hardware I already own gets worse due to forced updates. For example, I own a PS4 (bought it when they came out). And at the beginning, the "video" section of the UI was great. Just a simple list of all video streaming apps you had installed, pick one and go.

At some point, they overhauled the UI to make it advertising-centric. Now, when you go to the video section of the UI, most of the screen is dedicated to ads "helpfully" telling you about some new show you can go watch. You have to go past those to get to a little strip of icons for "featured" apps, so you can just go into whatever app and watch your content. This strip is also a form of advertising, in that it forces the big name apps (whether you even have them installed or not) to be in the list, prioritized over any apps that haven't gotten Sony's favor (probably haven't paid them enough money). It doesn't matter if you don't have Apple TV installed and never used it, it will always be towards the beginning of that list. And because the screen has space permanently taken up by the "featured" apps, it means that some smaller apps you use simply may not have the space to appear. The old style "just show me all the apps I have" listing is still there, but you have to dig through one or two screens of UI to get to it.

To me, it is completely outrageous that Sony would do this. It should arguably be illegal. As a consumer, I try to make informed decisions and only buy products that have a good experience for me, the user. But what am I supposed to do when corporations can ruin a product I bought after the fact? I don't have a way to determine if some mega corp will decide to screw over its users for profits years down the line. This sort of thing robs me of the one power I had in the marketplace, and it really upsets me.

I have a lot of disagreements with Richard Stallman. I think he's an ideological zealot who is too insistent on purity to an ideal that doesn't actually benefit 99% of users, and I think he has an overinflated sense of the importance of his contributions to open source. Nevertheless, when some shit goes down like what Sony pulled with my PS4, I can't help but sigh and go "fuck... Stallman was right."

How can people trust with this level of malfeasance? How do we get the trust back?

The same way you get trust back in a normal human relationship: you apologize unreservedly, make concrete steps to prevent the issue happening again, and accept that it will be a long time (if ever!) before the trust is rebuilt to what it used to be.

In this case, that means that first, everyone who repeated this false evidence needs to retract it, and apologize for their error in repeating it. No holding back because they think that fighting racism is a noble goal, no minimizing to try to avoid reputation damage, nothing. Full on admit the fault and apologize. Second, this man himself needs to be banned from ever doing research again without supervision from someone more trustworthy. Third, publications which repeated this falsified research need to brainstorm a plan for how they will catch future problems like this, and that should include a good honest look at how their own biases helped it to happen (because I have very little doubt they didn't check too closely because this research confirmed some editors' biases).

The medical profession needs to do that not only for this case, but for any other cases that come to light. And then wait. They will no doubt be beaten up in the short term by people who are angry at having been betrayed. They will get this thrown back in their faces from time to time. But eventually, if they are patient and keep acting with integrity, the wound will (probably) heal and the trust will be back. It's not an easy or fast process though.

For a young woman that has any sex life, the possibility and consequences of getting pregnant loom large.

Indeed. That is why one should not have sex unless they are prepared to face the potential consequences. It's not like women simply wake up pregnant and had nothing to do with it.

I consider abortion to be infanticide. I know you probably don't, and we don't have to try to argue with each other on it because it won't be productive. But I imagine you can understand how thoroughly unpersuasive your argument is for someone who thinks as I do, right?

I had a very similar experience with Moana myself. And I remember a friend at the time bitching that the movie didn't do very well, despite being super feminist etc etc. And I just wanted to shake him and say yeah, that's because people made the idiotic decision to try to sell the movie based on how feminist it was rather than trying to highlight that it was just a nice story told well.

And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

I actually think the opposite. It's profoundly unhealthy to care if people look like you, and we should be teaching our kids to not worry about such things. When I was growing up, I consumed media featuring all manner of people - black, white, male, female, you name it. I never cared if they looked like me, I cared if they were part of an interesting story. I think that's the attitude we need to cultivate in kids, not feeding the attitude that "yes it really does matter what people's superficial characteristics are".

OK, pacemakers are the only good argument against the ban I've seen so far.

No, that's not how this works. It's a free country. I don't need to make any argument against banning gas or electric stoves, whomever wishes to ban them needs to make an argument for it. And the bar is very high. Frankly, no supposed harm of stoves is likely to convince me that adults shouldn't be able to choose what they do or don't want to cook with.

I firmly disagree with both you and @Walterodim. I myself didn't marry until I was 32, but I assure you (patting myself on the back incoming) that I am both loyal and smart. It just so happened that I didn't meet a woman who would give me the time of day until I was in my 30s. Same goes for a good friend of mine. He's a good man in every way that matters, but he's never found a woman to settle down with. He would love to have one, but isn't having any luck with finding them. Same for a guy I grew up with in my church. He married in his 50s, but he's a good man who is very much worthy of respect. He just never met anyone before then.

The problem with the view you both are espousing is that there is a huge factor of luck in dating. You may simply never meet a person who you are attracted to, who is attracted to you, and who is good marriage material. You can tip the scales in various ways, but ultimately it's not in your control. Casting aspersions on someone when they could simply be an unfortunate victim of bad luck isn't a good thing to do, imo. It also kind of comes across as myopic - maybe you had the good fortune to meet someone who you could marry when you were in your 20s, but not everyone else is going to be so lucky and you should be sympathetic rather than judgmental.

Is it too much to say the Democratic Party is a criminal enterprise at this point?

Yes. Mainly because that is too broad of a brush, and captures many, many people who weren't complicit in this. I think it's fair to say that the current administration staff are guilty of willfully defrauding the American people; whether that makes them criminals or not I'm not sure. But if you call the entire Democratic Party a criminal enterprise that implicates every politician, every staffer, at every level across the entire country. That is too far.

Not every piece of media has to be for everyone. Let the traditionalists have The Northman, let the progressives have black Ariel.

In principle I'm ok with this, but there are a couple of issues when the rubber meets the road.

  1. A lot of these things are zero sum. The Amazon Wheel of Time show is the only adaptation we're ever going to get. It'd be nice if we could have "one really faithful adaptation for the book fans, and another full of progressive politics for the woke crowd". But that isn't possible due to the cost, so we get only one and anyone who cares is going to fight over their irreconcilable differences in how the show should be made.

  2. An all white cast simply is not allowed in modern day entertainment. So in theory we should be able to have some shows (or movies) be full of forced diversity, while others are all black, and still others are all white. But in practice, anyone who tries to make the all white show is going to be immediately shouted down as a racist. So we aren't allowed to have peaceful coexistence, much as that might be desirable.

Why wouldn't you, a shrewd businessman pocket the large amounts of stupidity tax that is sitting on the table there waiting for you there?

Because it's immoral to take advantage of people's stupidity. So yes, I can blame him.

Going to echo some other posters, and say it seems like you made the crucial mistake of trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. I've had ample experience on this with my wife - who, as one might imagine, trusts me and cares a great deal about what I have to say. With that big of a handicap, I should be able to convince her to not worry about things, right? Wrong. She doesn't get mad, she knows I'm just trying to help, but ultimately my attempts at reason don't help her. What she actually wants/needs from me is "I'm sorry you had to deal with that, that really sucks".

Now that's just my wife, but my experience has taught me that the same is true of people generally. If they are irrationally afraid of something, it simply does not matter what you tell them to try to get through. They didn't reason themselves into those emotions, and reason won't get them out. Or, in the cynical case of "they are acting like victims to achieve status", then your reasoning doesn't address what they actually think. Either way, it doesn't work.

Nothing you can do to fight human nature, sadly. Just remember for next time that reason isn't going to work there.

I mean, yes, there has been social change, but the vast majority of that has been positive in my view, and in the view of the vast majority of people.

Citation very, very badly needed. With all due respect, I think you're completely out of touch with what actual nerds (as opposed to the bullies colonizing nerd spaces) think. Apart from vocal progressives in Extremely Online forums, I have never encountered nerds who think that the invasion of politics (left wing or otherwise) into their beloved activities is a good thing.

Like, why do I want to be personally friendly with people who want to make the lives of my other friends worse?

For one thing, because you're wrong and approximately nobody wants to make the lives of your other friends worse. If you can't see that, then you need to take a step back (many steps back) and learn to view things from your opponents' perspective rather than your own.

For another thing, because that is how society works. We all have things we disagree strongly with each other on. Having a functional human civilization requires that we live and let live as much as we can. And sure, kicking people out of your hobbies based on your political disagreements does not by itself destroy that social contract. But it does undermine it, and like clockwork the illiberal attitudes of "let's kick the baddies out of our social club" turns into "let's kick the baddies out of good jobs" turns into "let's kick the baddies out of society altogether". It's important to fight this sort of toxic thinking on the small scale before people start to apply it on the larger scales.

I would be all for defunding the ATF, and I mean that in the literal sense (not the "oh we just meant reforms" motte that the defund-the-police movement fell back to). So far as I'm aware, the ATF doesn't accomplish a single positive thing for the people of this country.

For me the issue isn't so much gas, induction, incandescent bulbs, CFLs, or any of that. I have an issue with this idea that the government should be able to tell people what to do for their own good. That pisses me off. I try to make good choices for myself, of course, but I'm a grown man. If I decide that I would rather bear whatever health risks from having a gas stove, that's my right. I don't need or want a nanny state going "oh no you can't do that because that would be bad for you".

Do you have evidence that young men compete and distinguish themselves for access to me?

No disrespect intended, but this is common knowledge to the point that it defies belief that anyone would not know this (kind of like if you asked someone to provide evidence that people die if they stop breathing). If you're young enough you may not have realized it yet, I suppose. But young men spend vast quantities of effort to try to get attention (and especially sex) from women. It's the #1 thing on their minds, and a lot of things they do can be traced back to "showing off for the girls".

Or, as Chris Rock memorably put it: "Women are offered dick every day. Every [woman] gets offered dick at least three times a week. Three times a day, shit! That’s right, every time a man’s being nice to you … all he’s doing is offering dick. That’s all it is. ‘Can I get that for you? – How about some dick?’ ‘Could I help you with that? – Could I help you to some dick? – Do you need some dick?’" Yes he's a comedian and he's playing it for laughs, but it works because both he and the audience know how true it is.

Touche. This is some excellent next level pedantry, I salute it.

If anything, this is reason not to do it imo. Deleting posts just because they got downvoted is terrible behavior.

It's been a few years since I read Ancillary Justice, but I remember disliking it quite a bit as well. My main complaint, if memory serves, was that the author had some interesting ideas but never had a good story to back them up. The plot just was boring. And like you, I came away firmly convinced that the awards for the book were a diversity pick, and that if a male author had presented the same book it would've been panned.

In all honesty, at this point I would take the Hugos (and similar industry awards) to be a negative mark on a book, not a positive one.

I don't really agree with that. I don't have any real love for HBD, but IMO science is about the pursuit of truth. People should be free to advance theories, no matter how implausible or distasteful I may find them, if they can provide the proof to back them up. If it turns out they're right, then we need to face that with our eyes open rather than trying to shut them down by saying "ha you can't have the data, sucks to suck".

On top of that, as @Conservautism pointed out the NIH is a branch of the federal government. As a taxpayer, I don't want them to have any ability to deny access to their datasets. I paid for that, and I expect it to be publicly available.