Tanista
1mo ago
I mean, the bigger question is whether Hollywood movies filmed abroad or with too much foreign labour will get hit by tariffs, which would screw the entire industry.
Tanista
1mo ago
How much of it is just that people want to unabashedly discuss and analyze mainstream/progressive works?
Does it matter?
In practice the unsubverted government saw competent wizards (reacting to a real threat) as a threat to it. Its response was to select the longhouse manifest, Umbridge, to totally remove all practical knowledge in favor of book learning and indoctrination in schools.
The subverted government was obviously even worse. Most wizards are incompetent at defense magic, and as a result seem powerless once Voldemort starts imposing his will. The well-meaning apparatchiks like Umbridge reveal themselves to be tyrants just waiting for an excuse.
In practice the message ends up being that you can't trust the government (not even to protect itself) and so must defend yourself. That's basically the RW American take and the Ministry of Magic is arguably more arbitrary and illiberal than the US state.
Tanista
1mo ago
Habermas' criteria for his minimal facts is that "vast majority of even critical scholars must recognize the occurrence’s historical nature"
I can see how later Gospel material doesn't meet that standard while Paul's vaguer mentions of appearances right alongside his talk of persecuting the Church would. There's the naturalist assumption. And critical scholars accept at least seven undisputed Pauline epistles and no Gospel's attribution to an Apostle or follower of one has the same level of consensus AFAIK. So someone would likely have quibbled about the "apostle's claims" while Paul's own claims of a vision combined with vague claims about appearances to Peter, James and the 500...maybe not.
He's just being conservative I think.
they seem to be borne of desperation to latch onto anything that will allow the consensus-supporter to dissociate themselves from cringe (internet atheists and professional skeptics?) and potential professional repercussions (would a prominent "Jesus was fictional" proponent have an easy time, e.g., socialising at relevant research conferences or asking to access the Vatican archives?).
Eh. Whether or not Jesus did exist, I think you're vastly overestimating how much scholars care what laymen think. There are some who make bank off laymen like Ehrman but he's atypical. For most, it's just not that interesting and yields little status or new research. Richard Carrier is actually a historian and even he gets little attention, nobody cares that much what Hitchensfan2909 is doing.
Scholars didn't reason backwards from the cringe. They already believed that Jesus was a historical figure long before the internet cringe started and simply don't want to deal with it.
Professional consequences also doesn't explain it all. Yes, the scholars in religious institutions often have to swear to faith statements and can be fired if they deviate from doctrine. But these people are obvious - Mike Licona lost his job for denying the literal raising of the saints in Matthew. Like...no one is under the impression that he or anyone in his position would deny Jesus' existence.
But critical scholars in more secular spaces have said some pretty offensive and lurid things from the perspective of traditional doctrine (Dominic Crossan iirc denies Jesus was given a tomb and claims that he was tossed into a mass grave and left to scavengers like any criminal) and they get away with it all the time.
If we're going to psychoanalyze, I think you actually accurately represent the general public's intuition that skepticism of Jesus' existence is more radical than the alternative and their suspicion that people are dodging it out of deference to religion (or their underestimation of just how hostile critical scholarship can be to traditional doctrine). And I think this impression is why mythicism is so attractive to atheists despite their usual deference to expertise.
Re: the Resurrection, I'm not convinced it was such a radical notion at the time
Paul says the crucified Messiah is the stumbling block and folly, because that bit requires a Messiah claimant to die without fulfilling the prophecies and be raised. If you're reading from a secular POV, you have strong reason to be skeptical of Jesus' prophecies of his own death and resurrection (just as everyone is skeptical of his prophecies about Jerusalem) so you have a yet another Messiah claimant being brutally disproved by being hung on a tree and then followed and seemingly deified by Jews (while every other such movement died out)
it being found empty would have been plenty good enough to start hopeful speculation that he had returned,
The problem is that Paul says that Jesus directly appeared to people like Peter who, unlike the Gospel writer, we believe are probably his contemporaries.
Between that and the reference to the appearance to the 500, it seems like someone had to have had some delusional/bereavement episode that then spread.
But the Christians who make the case - e.g. Habermas - often skip the tomb since it first appears in the Gospels (I think Crossan denies Jesus got a grave at all since criminals weren't supposed to, despite the story having a plausible explanation). They focus on a few "minimal facts" which even critical scholars allegedly agree on.
The half-dozen facts we usually use are these: 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
With those few facts, it is weird. How weird depends on how strong you think the borders between paganism and Christianity were. But it seems like at least someone, maybe Peter, had a delusion (or lied)
Tanista
1mo ago
In a post Sunday night on his Truth Social platform, Trump said he has authorized the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to slap a 100% tariff “on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.”
“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” he wrote, complaining that other countries “are offering all sorts of incentives to draw” filmmakers and studios away from the U.S. “This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”
The White House said Monday that it was figuring out how to comply with the president’s wishes.
“Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made, the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again,” said spokesperson Kush Desai.
First of all: how is this an emergency? I don't follow the logic.
It's quite clear that Hollywood studios search for tax incentives both within and outside the US. That's nothing new. It is supposed to be getting worse. California is supposed to be suffering from this competition due to COL and alternatives., including in animation:
And the decision was emblematic of a trend that’s been accelerating over the last decade or so, according to data laid out in the study. Between 2010 and 2023, California’s share of the highest-grossing animated films dropped from 67 to 27 percent. Between 2019 and 2024 animation employment dropped by nearly five percent in California while other jurisdictions saw major upticks (more than 18 percent in New York, nearly 72 percent in British Columbia and nearly 13 percent in Ontario).
However, Hollywood gets the majority of the profit of VFX dominated films and maintains strong market share worldwide, especially at the higher budget ranges. The stories are still American-made.
The problem for film seems to be the confluence of increasing competition, COVID killing the habit and studios cannibalizing their own product. Would it really help to force all of these companies to produce and film stuff in the US, especially with AI looming? Seems like the problem of Indian VFX firms may solve itself.
I am seeing some takes on the more left-wing side that this is essentially Trump promising to break something in order to get another set of companies, and a perceived left-wing industry at that, to try to curry favor with him (he seems to be high on his ability to cause shocks merely by speaking). Though one wonders why he would. If this is a partisan thing the decay of California as the nexus for film and tv would be a win better than almost anything he could extract from them for the conservative movement.
Tanista
1mo ago
Grant that crazy attracts crazy, and whoever originated the more fantastical miracle stories may have likewise just been psychotic at the time, or something.
Or you ignore the traditional narrative that the Disciples wrote the Gospels in which case you don't need a hoax, or delusion. It's just later believers believing what they're told or extrapolating from what the Hebrew Bible says the Messiah will do, an old tactic and not a sign of being insane or mendacious.
Except for the original resurrection claim of course. Strangely, the Disciples may be better candidates for delusion than Jesus. It's possible that Jesus really did think he'd bring about the end of Roman rule in some political sense with God's help like many other unfortunate Jews of the time. But at least some of the Disciples clearly believed that he was resurrected , which is noted by Paul to be very odd by the beliefs of the time, and were willing to be martyred despite having a front-row seat to the mother of all disconfirming events.
I've actually seen this used as a modern version of the Lewis argument by secular Christians who can't appeal to miracle claims: the Disciples had first-hand knowledge and were devout Jews. It's insane for them to go with the divinity of a crucified criminal. Unless...
From a practical perspective applying the social responsibility to cultural producers also seems easier. It feels like they've weaseled out of that responsibility somehow
Quite the opposite. All we hear about is how cultural producers have vast control over the general society and how they should use those powers for good instead of abdicating their responsibility.
The rise of endlessly and self-consciously didactic work is a product of moralism not its absence.
But Vivek appears to have missed the last 30 years. Right after his youth came Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The nerd became cool. Over the late-90s/early-2000s, the nerd was an ascendent underdog
Thats because what Vivek is actually complaining about is the absence of sufficient credentialism (in his eyes, I imagine many Americans think there's already too much).
He wants some South Korean/Indian model where people are told what to grind and then rewarded for meeting the goal with the right certificate.
The actual computer nerd hero origin story is about breaking the path, one way or another. You're cooler for dropping out of Stanford or some such school that an immigrant child would kill to get a degree from to do something amazing.
The Social Network has a scene laying this out. Zuck doesn't need the class. He's that good. That's the dream. Not getting a nice shiny A.
As for Woke Culture being the fault of nerds...debatable. I recall when nerds were the irreverent types. If anything, that was the line of attack: nerds were low SMV types who were inordinately pleased with themselves and resentful at women for not agreeing.
I remember when feminists were hunting nerds for wearing the wrong shirt or having the wrong opinion.
I'll cop to the dishonesty with which nerds approach their own sexuality. But , even here, we're downstream of a generation's worth of negative messaging about what nerdy men actually like. The overly-online "Step on me mommy" stuff is viscerally disgusting but it is safe/"unproblematic" after constant objectification discourse around unapologetic nerd thirsting for their sex symbols. In the real world it doesn't matter as much. But people don't want to be continually whined at or browbeaten online.
Why wouldn't it just be that what happened to everything else happened to nerd spaces too, especially since a lot of successful nerds were within the academy or tech companies in liberal states and nerds can be quite secular and progressive?
Tanista
2mo ago
I distinctly remember seeing the "ironic homosexuality to avoid asking a girl to dance" strat at our first high school dance, because it wasn't exactly common behavior to ape the gays.
It was mostly just anxiety I think. People grew out of it before the next year.
And there's no southern America that's richer and larger egging on Texas. There's no way they're equally improbable.
Tanista
2mo ago
the kids now see the gay or trans kid as a weird alien species of human not like them.
Seems logical but not how it played out IRL. LGBT identification has risen in younger generations.
Tanista
2mo ago
I mean, I didn't think he had strong opinions on LBJ-era affirmative action EOs either.
"Civility" I think we should hang on to or fight for. It is possible to be civil while maintaining moral disagreements. Happens all the time here and that's good.
The discussions that fly here civilly wouldn't be seen as such in many spaces, certainly school. Even that term carries baggage.
I'm also not sure it matters. "Diversity" may not have had the progressive meaning until it allowed one to discriminate on diversity grounds and now the term has been used as a license so often that invoking it in certain context just screams progressive thing. "Safety" was also ruined when it became useful.
It was clearly practical historically. I can see why a polity of a certain age would have specifically enshrined religious protections during its founding.
I'm not sure how practical it is now given the decline of religion and the rise of religions that are totally servile to CURRENT_YEAR mores and the existence of secular ideologies like Marxism and nationalism that are clearly capable of motivating stubborn behavior.
Given the Trump administrations' rooting around for left-wing orgs to cut, I'm a bit suspicious that nothing has come out about this if it is the case. They've found much less notable forms of weird behavior.
Tanista
2mo ago
There is no evidence that the groups that are noticing now would ever keep their noticing private. Especially on a Yglesian model where no one questioned their underlying assumptions. What reason would they have to stop something they've always done?
Progressives see a measure of prestige that implies a hierarchy with some people or institutions ending up with less, and try to "fix" this by rejiggering the measure to be more fair on the grounds that prestige will then be more fairly divided, ignoring that some hierarchies are not purely arbitrary and can't be molded that way.
Tanista
2mo ago
Have color-blind admission policies and don't care about the outcomes, and there is really no good reason for any decent person to wonder why there are more Ashkenazi than Black faculty members.
I don't know how anyone could believe this about our world. Maybe a different one with a different history, but there's just no way people here don't notice.
But then the wokes decided that a system which produces disparate outcomes must be unfair.
They decided on it because they noticed color-blind meritocracy wasn't getting the job done.
Tanista
2mo ago
There are obviously dissenters, but the pro-equality bureaucracy trans activists hijack is far more popular when used for its original purposes than for this stuff. I'm of the opinion that that general ethos/bureaucracy created the problem but most people are not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In countries like the US this is even more obvious than in Britain because the laws often being exploited for trans activism (Title IX) were clearly about sex and have to be turned to a new purpose by much less accountable Presidential actions compared to passing a new law.
That's why there's so much forced teaming and the constant implication that being anti-trans is in some way racist.
I have no problem with a principled attack on quotas. "Why do you care if it's only one?" is what I find meaningless.
Because:
Again, I think that the numbers matter.
The principle matters, especially when we're dealing with something that clearly can spread and has no strong limiting factor. People used to make these arguments in sport because no one ever saw a transwoman win. No one can guarantee it'll stay within the bounds of their proportion of the population.
People who actually dislike quotas should be the people most confident about this it seems? Presumably you think men are overrepresented in certain spaces for a reason. Letting them identify as women will just cause this overrepresentation to spill over.
On a much more basic level one wonders what the point is? Are people who were raised as men up until X year (sometimes they transition already into middle age) saddled with the same problems that prevent female advancement?
But whatever, apparently we have quotas. If you have, say eight out of 20 board appointments thanks to your quota, and then you bitch that one of them is a trans-woman when that seat is clearly the birth-right of a biological woman, that seems incredibly petty.
Quotas can be good or bad. But, if a society has already accepted the need for a quota system, trying to police who is allowed in is the least petty thing in the world.
It would be absolutely horrible for a feminist quota system if everyone could just say that men counted for their purposes and the underrepresentation problem was declared solved as a result.
What justifies the violations of freedom that allow that material control?
America has a liberal counter-narrative to totalitarian optimism, in theory. It's supposed to have much stronger protections than even many other liberal nations. One wedge that allows the defeat of defense mechanisms like freedom of association or federalism and hell, just even entry level noticing about transgender athletes is the condition of African Americans, to an actively uncomfortable degree ("black women would suffer more from attempting to police femininity" is a take that would be considered Stormfront-tier by SJWs if it wasn't SJWs saying it).
The Civil Rights movement is still considered an important enough pillar to base all of these arguments on (or the laws extending these protections to more and more people) and any modern attack on freedom is justified on the grounds that those values were already attacked during the CRM, and this is universally considered to be the right thing.
And the more that gets stacked on it, the harder to default.
It's the wedge they have, and it's been very effective.
More options
Context Copy link