@aqouta's banner p

aqouta


				

				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

Friends:

@aqouta

Verified Email

				

User ID: 75

aqouta


				
				
				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...

Friends:

@aqouta


					

User ID: 75

Verified Email

In a more formulaic and low stakes corner of the culture War Ubisoft has announced "assassin's creed Shadow". The series is known for offering open world exploration set in various historical locations and times from the Nordic to ancient Egypt. This installment is appearantly a popular fan request in being set in fuedal Japan.

The culture War angle is that the game has two main characters, a female assassin and a disputed historical black warrior named yasuke. Now I haven't played one of these games in over a decade and am not particularly invested in this title but the response has been a fairly clean case study in marketing by controversy and I think it might be worth dissecting.

In my corner of the web I first learned of the game's existence from the preemptive "man, racists right wingers are going to hate this" posts. And indeed if one looked it was not hard to soon after find right winger racists filling their niche in this tired dance. One can always find bad takes that isn't what is interesting about how this kind of thing develops.

A trap seemed to be set, I don't know which end first broached the topic of "historical accuracy" but because it took the form of what legitimate criticism might look like the culture War quickly fell into a groove of progressives defending the historical existence of yasuke being a real samurai and pointing to other popular media depictions of him as well as pointing out that the assassin's creed series includes other widely disputed historical claims like Benjamin Franklin's possession of a magical golden apple. The anti-progressive backlash is in a hard place because I think there is something legitimate there but the shape of the discussion is not condusive to making the argument.

I think most of the anti-progressive front probably doesn't have an issue with a black sumurai in a game made by people they trust to have making awesome games as their first master. There's something itching in the back of the head of the backlash crowd that the reason we have yasuke isn't because a black guy in Japan makes for interesting segments of blending into crowds but because the people making the game have an anti-majoritarian view. The same thing that gave us yasuke is what motivates someone to put on a "fuck white people" shirt.

This is a feature of the culture War I'm seeing more and more. Proxy battles that few people care deeply about but have features that make them better or worse to do battle on. This game seems like favorable terrain from the woke angle and it's tempting to just give them it but I understand the impulse to fight on the terrain anyways.

I'm not sure why you expect your experience as an older gentleman to have much to do with the experience of twenty somethings which is more central to the original point, family formation. Things change greatly as you age.

only one side is telling them the path to having a 34-year marriage is getting pregnant at 15 years old

That isn't what the words you've quoted have said. They say that is a path, not the path. Any sane pro lifer in this day and age would probably Counsel waiting until graduating high school before marrying the sweet heart and, maybe naively, they'd Counsel not having sex until then. But if you do have sex before then, and that sex does result in a pregnancy, they'd say you should not abort the pregnancy and instead raise the kid, leaning on your family and the family of the father for support in doing this which they also think should be provided.

The attitude of conservatives towards women's sports in my lifetime has been blase at best and condemnatory at worst.

This frequently made point is over stated, at least unless by 'conservatives' you mean the online presence rather than the actual constituents . Conservatives with daughters want their daughters to be able to compete and while I've met plenty of liberal parents with kids in sports nearly every conservatives parents I've met has had their kids do sports. Sports in general are conservative leaning(this again is not to say that most normie left leaning people aren't also involved)

I doubt many conservatives would care too much either way; they might not exactly rail against the idea of a school being forced to spend ungodly sums on unprofitable women's sports because they spend millions on the football team

I always find this comparison facile, the men's sports are profitable, they subsidize other parts of the school not the other way around.

But the relevant governing bodies imposed testosterone limits, and while we can argue that those limits are too high or too low, we can't argue that no man is meeting the most lenient ones without taking supplemental estrogen.

And without the conservative railing this might not have happened, and it still doesn't seem fair. Fairness really matters in sports, violating it is a big deal. Did you actually ever play sports growing up? It takes a substantial amount of time to be competitive, undermining that with unfair practices is crushing. You can see how upset unfairness makes whenever a referee makes a call that people think is incorrect.

One thing you never hear about is what the actual women athletes have to say about this.

Of course you don't, they'd be canceled.

And if those most at stake don't care, then why should we? After all, when it comes to the priority of things, sports are pretty far down the list.

Like all appeals to "Why do you even care about this? It's so unimportant". The response is obvious. If it's not important and we care more than you do then let us have our way. If you think it is actually important enough to fight over then drop this shaming act.

It's a curious problem I think. I am against most of that stuff being taught in school but the whole "teach the controversy" thing must have some limits. What would my enemies do with this veto? I'm not so sure the opt out is the correct thing to demand, the battlefield should surely be the curriculum itself.

Yes, despite deep skepticism of the trans worldview I've always modeled it as more confused than evil or anything. The people behind it clearly think they're making the world a better place and that there are tons of kids that are suffering immensely worse lives for not being found and allowed to be "who they really are". They don't seem to adequately grapple with the possibility that someone could be deluded into believing strange and untrue things about themselves especially when those things are packaged into appealing memes that contain soothing explanation for why they don't fit in or are confused at puberty. They genuinely believe that if someone say they're trans there is a special sense that definitely have in their head that is providing them total proof and that it can't possibly be imagined.

I find the autonomy listed a bit misleading for a couple reasons. First, they know exactly what kind of teacher is going to sign up for teaching this course. But more importantly they control the fundamental curriculum with the test design. AP teachers teach to the test, they'd be failing their students their valuable college credit if they didn't. We can pretend like the teachers get to pick the curriculum all we want but if critical theory is on the test critical theory will be taught, simple as that.

Right, I have in the past argued that it is actually not too much to ask for young people to not have sex in high school. I just didn't want to make this a post about that argument so I gave theoretical ground.

Reliance on the "phenotypical null hypothesis" is uninteresting, and really I find the name to be ridiculous as it is just simply asserting an unearned null hypothesis status. It's the same kind of critique that the possibility that we're actual brains in a vat means I can't be certain about measurements during woodworking. Sure, granted. But you understand that this doesn't actually impact policy discussion right? I don't need proof against solipsism to accurately measure a cut of wood and I don't need a unified theory of genetic determinism to find out that the policy proposals of blank slatists fail in every conceivable way and we should stop listening to their batshit theories. Maybe there is some allergen with a simple intervention that will equalize all populations on average on IQ tests and achieve racial achievement equity and I'll celebrate that discovery more than you can image, but you don't get to call it a null hypothesis when literally no evidence has ever pointed to it being true.

This all falls apart rapidly on works that require actual spending to make. Good luck funding the millions of dollars it takes to produce a AAA video game without the possibility of ROI. Not everything can be a one man operation that can afford to live lean.

The scales falling from my eyes moment was when the Wonderlic "Race Norming" scandal came to light in 2019, and a significant portion of users here defended it. To be clear, The NFL had been collecting Wonderlic score on players since the late 70s, and what they got caught doing was artificially adjusting the scores of high-performing black players downward to change the racial distribution of disability payouts. On a dime I saw users who had claimed to support standardized testing flip from "the data obviously supports our conclusion" to "we must correct manipulate the data to better reflect the truth

Can you link to this? I might have missed a subthread but this does not comport to my memory of this particular scandal.

The pro-trans camp will say that trans representation in women's sports is important because [grand matters of fairness and justice in our society];

Allow me to rephrase this as fairly as you have represented my position. The pro-trans camp tries very hard not to actually think of the ground truth of what transgenderism means. If they do the farce of trying to hold in their head that gender is both a social construct and also an innate characteristic will cause painful cognitive dissonance. So when a topic, like sports, comes up that noticing the physical reality of trans people comes up they just obfuscate and point to the applause lights of "We're doing something important to blah blah blah past injustice, blah blah blah equality blah blah blah representation". It doesn't matter even a little bit to them that the ground truth of what they're arguing for is impossible to justify. That including trans women in women's sports defeats the entire purpose of the division. It is not about women's sports at all to you, it is about dissolving the category and you do not care about the costs.

[giving fewer nice things to mtf trans] (a goal that is easily painted as vindictive or outright Voldemortian).

It is my opinion that there is literally no such thing as an MTF trans person. It is a made up category that will not exist in two decades. It is incoherent to reason about giving or taking things away from people who share a common memetic delusion. You and your allies have created this suffering you are attempting remedy.

I find it hard to view a world with less and lower quality art/media but all of it is free as better than a world with higher quality art/media but only most of it is free and what isn't is easily affordable to someone with a very achievable income.

The game design perspective is an interesting lens to take to this. People are 100% in control of whether or not they threaten to kill themselves. If this yields any advantage the meta will develop to always threaten to kill yourself.

I believe she made the wrong choice but I strongly object to removing that choice. We should have exit rights to life. If you can't choose to end it all I don't think you can truly be free. My fiance is a psychiatrist that works at a public hospital where she sees some of the most chronically afflicted, she has stories and I'm aware that there are many common ways of being that I would choose death over. I trust no one but myself to decide what those states are. This is not because I trust the medical establishment but because I do not trust it.

Is cultural intervention honestly any more palatable than genetic pessimism to the opponents of hbd? Stop doing damage to society and you can examine the issue at your leisure. But if you're going to impose large costs on me and mine you need to have real receipts.

But also, that groups vary in average just trivially follows from the idea that different individuals can vary on the same measures. Any randomly selected group will vary to some degree just due to internal variance and it takes very little selective pressure to make that variance larger. It would require some kind of miracle for groups that were isolated for thousands of years to not vary somewhat and then we're just haggling on price.

I think the thing is that these people do mostly share some distorted version of my values in the way that the Nazis don't. The Nazis tried to exterminate a people that they thought were vermin while invading their neighbors in a war of aggression. While the WPATH people are doing what they're doing out of a mistaken application of empathy and harm reduction. The modal true believing Nazi is a hateful bigot, the modal true believing WPATH person is someone who cares a lot about trying to alleviate suffering even if circumstances tragically end up such that they are causing more suffering. The camps weren't the Nazis trying to turn the jews and undesirables into Germans, they were built for the horrible purpose that they were used for. Trans healthcare is built to help people.

If you ask me "We didn't actually get away with it, so you can't blame us for trying" isn't much of defense.

The NFL is not meaningfully "we" and I don't understand why you insist that it is. You have this habit of assuming people who violently disagree with each other are on the same time and then arguing against the people we disagree with instead of us. It's like you making a some point about culture and then I spend reams of text explaining how young earth creationists are wrong and thus your real motivations are some version of backwards theocracy.

While this is true their borders don't seem to reflect reality at all. The dominant strain on the left is absolutely not HBD believers who oppose a color blind meritocracy on the grounds of believing in HBD.

I've tried coming at this topic from a few different angles over the years and I frequently find that one of the biggest hinderences to debates around gender is that there are many different and at times contradictory ways to be on both sides of the various questions regarding gender in modern society. I've decided to lay out what I think are the fundamental questions that people disagree with. In isolation I think I can reason any option for any of the below questions but certain combinations of answers seem like they can't coexist

Questions in dispute in the debates around gender:

\1. To what degree if any is gender related to sex?

          A) gender and sex are the same thing

          B) gender and sex are tightly mapped but some people have a gender misaligned with their sex

          C) gender and sex are related but not tightly mapped

          D) gender is totally unrelated to sex

\2. How many Genders are there?

          A) two

          B) several

          C) Many

          D) A near infinite number

\3. Who or what determines what a person's gender is:

          A) society

          B) biology

          C) self

\4. Sexual orientation(gay/straight/bisexual) is primarily related to the [Blank] of the object of attraction:

          A) gender

          B) Sex

          C) Some combination of gender and sex

          D) none of the above

\5. Are the differences between how men and women behave more socially or biologically derived:

          A) Much more due to Social Pressures

          B) a near even mix

          C) Much more due to Biological differences

\6. How much can an individual's gender change over time?

          A) Gender can never change

          B) Gender is constant but someone's understanding of their gender can change

          C) Gender can change in response to dramatic life events

          D) Gender can be fluid and change frequently

\7. Is the relationship between men and women or the relationship between males and females the primary focus of feminism?

          A) men and women

          B) males and females

          C) both

          D) there is no difference

\8. How is gender felt from a first person perspective?

          A) an innate feeling separate from behavior and dress

          B) an inclination for certain behaviors and dress

          C) just the consequence of sex

Questions I'm excluding because while definitely relevant to policy discussions I don't believe are really fundamental to disagreements:

  • Are puberty blockers safe?

  • Do males and females differ in physical capability?

  • How well can any given transgendered person pass?

  • How much should we expect people to game gender affirming policies and what if anything should be done to prevent this

Examples playing with edge cases:

  • I - A Female dresses and behaves in a manner perfectly median in every metric for a woman in the society they live in. Is it legitimate for this person to identify as a man without changing any behavior?

  • II - A Female dresses and behaves in a manner perfectly median in every metric for a man in the society they live in. Is it legitimate for this person to identify as a woman without changing any behavior?

  • III - A Female, who dresses and behaves in a manner perfectly median in every metric for a woman in the society they live in, Meets A Female who dresses and behaves in a manner perfectly median in every metric for a man in the society they live in. They have sex. Was this a heterosexual coupling or a homosexual coupling? Does this answer change depending on what each partner identifies as? Does it matter if they never exchanged gender identity?

  • IV - A Male teenager is unsure about their gender identity, they are not classically masculine and are bullied for this. No one ever affirms their masculinity. They attempt a social transition and find those around them very supportive and constantly affirm their femininity which the teenager enjoys although doesn't particularly enjoy many of the feminine trappings. What criteria should the teenager use to gauge whether they are a girl, boy or other gender?

  • V - A Male who identifies as a man raised in a very standard American cultural context is abruptly transported to a different culture with exactly opposite norms for men and women but an otherwise similar culture. would you expect the person to identify as a man or woman?

  • VI - In A world where there are no visible secondary sex characteristics including strength differentials and a society where there is no social distinction between the sexes would this society invent gender? If so would gender primarily fall along sex lines?

Please feel free to compare and contrast how different sets of answers to these questions have different implications for these examples or new scenarios you find interesting or propose new relevant questions. I'm most interested in kind of mapping out how different 'factions' in the general debate might answer these questions.

edit: the formatting was right in the preview >_>

AI is a question of fundamental possibility: by contrast, with AI, there is no good reason to think we can create AI sufficient to replace OpenAI-grade researchers with forseeable timelines/tech. Junior SWEs, maybe, but it's not even clear they're on average positive-value beyond the investment in their future

You're just asserting this without providing reasoning despite it being the entire crux of your post. I know it's not reasonable to expect you to prove a negative but you could have at least demonstrated some engagement with the arguments those of us who think it's very possible near term have put forward. You can at least put into some words why you think AI capabilities will plateau somewhere before openAI-grade researcher. How about we find out where we are relative to each other on some concrete claims and we can see where we disagree on them.

Do you agree that capabilities have progressed a lot in the last few years at a relatively stable and high pace?

Do you agree that it's blown past most of the predictions by skeptics, often repeatedly and shortly after the predictions have been made?

Are there even in principle reasons to believe it will plateau before surpassing human level abilities in most non-physical tasks?

Are there convincing signs that it's plateauing at all?

If it does plateau is there reason to believe at what ability level it will plateau?

I think if we agree on all of these then we should agree on whether to expect AI in the nearish term, I'm not committed to 2027 but I'd be surprised if things weren't already very strange by 2030.

I don't understand how anyone can in good faith believe that even with an arbitrary amount of effort and funding, AGI, let alone ASI, is coming in the next few years. Any projection out decades is almost definitionally in the realm of speculative science-fiction here.

Then it's good the 2027 claim isn't projecting out decades.

I keep not seeing my perspective brought up in these threads so I guess I'll say what I can't believe isn't obvious. Why should I care at all about any of the people or things connected to this dude who I had not heard of until the collapse? If they had a knowing hand in the scam then sure, but what's next? Are we going to hear about his favorite ice cream shop and their complicity in selling such a monster ice cream? We don't even have two cases of EA adjacent scammers with which to draw a pattern, the only conceivable way I see this being bad for EA is that they're now down a lot of money that they expected.

But to point out that basically, you're not complaining that it's bad for the strong to dominate the weak. You're just complaining that the current social order doesn't put you among the strong.

I think this leans in the right direction from the previous poster but perhaps too far. They think that they already are "the strong" it's just for some peculiar political eddy the weak are given limited local situations where they can exercise a limited kind of crude power. It's difficult to model homeless schitzos as actually powerful rather than circumstantially able to exercise power because the State doesn't equally enforce the rules on everyone.

She was an adult, 23 years old. She was not some nonsentient dog that society grew tired of and discarded with no thought to her desires. I find her decision uncomprehensible, but it was her decision.

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_32_Members.png

What on earth is the fear here? Are we seriously still entertaining the idea that the west wants to invade Russia? For what possible reason? NATO doesn't expand by rolling tanks into its neighbor's territory, it expands by offering protection from Russia which does appear fond of the whole rolling tanks in approach.