I'm married to someone who is pretty progressive. It's very hard, but you can make it work, if both people are committed. We can each talk with each other and understand where the other person is coming from, even if we don't agree. Some progressives would simply write off anyone who thinks differently, and if you were with someone like that, it may never be able to work.
While the ability to talk is important, probably the most important thing is to understand that people are compartmentalized, and to learn to compartmentalized politics. Sure, it'll come up every now and again, and it should, but for years the wife and I just argued at each other over and over until we were both sick of it and miserable. We've been much happier since we both agreed to just not talk about politics as much anymore.
I really really hate the progressive messaging over the past half decade trying to imply that anyone who thinks differently is evil, and you can't get along with them. I think it's so illiberal and probably doing lots of damage to society. But these memes, like the "human rights are not politics, so therefore if you disagree on what I think are human rights than you're human garbage," are pervasive. There are others like this, too, trying to, if you ask me, unfairly change the rules of politics in society. If the person you're seeing cannot understand that these memes are probably not accurate, and that you can be a good person despite holding different viewpoints, then no matter how much effort you put in, it sadly would be unlikely to work out.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
There are certain topics that I won’t publicly touch even in a space like this
Seems to me like in this post and your replies to people, you did publicly touch it in a space like this.
But I appreciate you doing so. I think the Motte is usually pretty rational, but I've been surprised at how much people subscribe to the "the Left is full of pedophiles" narrative around here, which to me really does seem to be a purity spiral. And I think your identification of the motte and baily strategic equivocation is pretty spot on. I don't really understand how people come to these conclusions. It just seems so much like people on the Right/Center trying desperately to find a weapon to strike their enemies with, and it seems too close to essentially what the Left has been doing for over a decade. Except replace "racist" with "pedophile", because both are equally hateable by society.
I understand the Right's desire to do this. Since all forthright arguments seem doomed to fail against the Left, why don't we fight fire with fire? Except that for people like me, that just makes me dislike the Right/Center more. I hate the use of fire, not the Left.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I know it's unlikely that anyone here has a better idea "than stop giving a crap about what filmmakers believe,"
My answer is not to stop giving a crap about what filmmakers believe, though you may think that it's functionally equivalent to that. My answer is that we should be investing in the idea that people are complex, and that we can compartmentalize the things they do in life. I think that proliferating this idea, the idea of compartmentalization, is the most powerful way that we can take down the woke left, antifa, and everyone else who spreads the horrible, harmful, illiberal idea that you can only get along with people who agree with you on everything, and that not agreeing means that they are a terrible person. I understand and sympathize with your viewpoint, and I certainly have felt it strongly at times in the past. But I personally have learned that the notion that we can compartmentalize, and get along with each other, is one of the most important values to me, and is what is missing the most in our modern woke society which generally wants to act on the idea that we should condemn all but the most right-thinking people.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
This also reminds me of when I saw tons of people back in March bitching about people spelling the capital as Kiev, saying this was culturally insensitive and that this actually matters.
Is this really worth paying attention to any more than the last 17 times Trump was supposedly nailed for some criminal activity, and half the country said "got'im!" The last time was just like 2 months ago, and I haven't heard anything about it since then! This is so exhausting. I'll pay attention to this and study up on it once it actually seems different than any previous instance of him being brought under charges.
It seems that 3D CGI animation has completely won against more 2D traditional animation styles. Looking at the animated media consumed by my kids these days, EVERYTHING is 3D-modeled CGI. I don't know of a single piece of animated media for kids that is not anymore. But is any such 3D CGI better than traditional animation? When I say "better" I mean, does it make better art than it would be if they did the same thing in traditional animation? Is there anything that this medium does really really well? Does it connect with us in a better way, make us feel more in any way?
I'm going to guess that the best thing that CGI does is "be cheaper". This makes sense, as once you produce a CGI model, you can use it forever, and you can adapt it to make new models. Do you want to make a scene of a crowd cheering? For traditional animation, you'd have to draw each person in the crowd over and over and over again, 24 times for each second. That's a lot of people to draw! For CGI, you can take one model, change it slightly to make other people, or use other preexisting models, and then animate them in a much less time consuming process than drawing frame-by-frame.
However, most 3D CGI stuff that I've seen looks kinda bland. As a case study, we can look at all of the Disney live action stuff vs the original animation. With the original animation, the artists pour lots of character into their characters. They exaggerate movements, change their faces to be very expressive with human-like characteristics. With remakes that extensively use CGI like The Little Mermaid and The Lion King, the characters are just kinda flat. I suppose this is exacerbated that Disney has tried to make all of the characters seem anatomically appropriate, resulting in Simba looking kinda like he's meowing instead of horrified when he sees Mufasa die, etc. But even without this caveat, I can't really think of any CGI that I feel like did something amazing. As another example, I've heard about the animators who make pokémon sprites complaining when pokémon switched over from 2D sprites to exclusively 3D models starting around 2013 ish. They complained about how you just can't give the same level of character to a 3D model as you can to a 2D sprite. Just making something look realistic does not necessarily make it better art.
Can anyone point to any 3D CGI media that does something really well, that elicits an emotional response that traditional 2D animation could not? Is CGI just a cost-saving measure to churning out bland media?
No one answered my question last week, probably in part due to my posting it a full day after the OP's top-level comment, so I thought I'd post it again here. I'm really interested in the answer, if someone could steelman the new blue checkmark strategy and mechanics for me.
I still don't understand, what is the point of the blue checkmark in new Twitter? When I first heard about the $8 charge I thought it'd be a good idea. I thought it'd be a way for anyone to pay $8 for the service Twitter will perform to verify that you are who you say you are. I thought basically, you'd pay the $8, Twitter would assign someone to review your credentials, then you'd get the checkmark. This seemed like an improvement over the previous process because anyone could request a checkmark review as part of an after upon process, and you're also helping to fund the work it will take to do it
Now I see on Twitter's site, it says explicitly:
Accounts that receive the blue checkmark as part of a Twitter Blue subscription will not undergo review to confirm that they meet the active, notable and authentic criteria that was used in the previous process.
If the point of verification and checkmarks are to prove that you are who you say you are, and now that verification process and proof no longer will happen, then what's the point? To prove that you have $8 to spend? Are people supposed to believe that accounts that get the new blue checkmark are authentic, when no verification actually happened? It's so confusing.
Please correct me if any aspect of my understanding is incorrect. If the new system really does make sense, I'd be glad and would like to know why. Could anyone steelman it? As it stands it seems just like an attempt to have a one time cash-in on a new mechanism that's going to ultimately destroy the credibility of the blue check system entirely.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I guess, but I also feel like it's terrible to have to make it painful for people. Ask almost anyone how they want to die, and they'll say something like "painlessly and in my sleep". How many people actually die like that? Very few. I don't expect most suicides are as painless as lethal injection would be.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
And that access to porn is a bad idea, I've personally seen what crippling porn addiction can do to a man.
What exactly can it do? Make men that don't want to have sex with real women anymore? That doesn't sound like nearly the end of the world, other men will gladly step in to fill the gap. And for those men, does it create severe unhappiness, or just men who don't care to participate in the rat race of trying to get laid. Also, doesn't sound like the end of the world.
haroldbkny
5mo ago
Is any of this supposed to contradict what I said in my last post?
There are pedophiles everywhere. You know the arguments: The plural of "anecdote" isn't data. Chinese Robber Fallacy, etc.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
It's been my opinion for some time that radical feminists, like Marxists, are correct on their analysis of their subjects
I disagree in general. Maybe they might be right on some things, but in general their analysis usually suffers from having to always frame things into a position that women are oppressed, even when it doesn't really make sense. They have a whole term for this, "benevolent sexism". When men hold doors for women, to a feminist it's not because society values women and wants to treat women well, it's because society erroneously thinks women are too weak to hold their open doors. When men stand up for women, it's because men think women need their saving, etc. When women get less severe prison sentencing then men, and there are fewer homeless women, it's somehow because society hates women. I think they're way off base in their analyses of these sorts of things.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
Same. I have never ever felt like exercise was even the least bit enjoyable, and I've tried to enjoy it. I've spent long amounts of time trying to get past that initial painful hump and into the addiction phase everyone tells me will happen. It's never happened. In fact I don't even really believe people anymore when they say it's enjoyable. I assume it's some mix of bragging and them conflating the effects of exercise with the feeling they get after exercising. Or maybe masochism.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I always see people, even on the Motte, talk about how women are constantly fearing that they're at risk of getting the killed if they don't comply with men. Then they go along and do everything they think the men wanted them to do (based on no concrete evidence), and then blame men for their own stupid, interpolated to the nth degree, actions. Often, they even blame individual men who didn't intend anything in the first place.
I can't stand this. Men are not mind readers, and most men are not bad people who would take advantage of women like this. At some point, we have to say that the woman was irrational, and wrong to blame innocent men for her own decisions. If someone is terrified about something with no evidence, and they act based on their fear, they don't get to blame random people that they've projected their fears onto.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I agree with your steelmanning, and think that you're correct in saying it But I also think there may be additional factors at play. We can go a little deeper to examine why they feel the way they do. For example, it's possible that most of the liberal educated bleeding-heart college women don't live in areas which would be impacted by increased crime, increased immigration, etc. They live in a sheltered bubble, and they're happy to believe the rhetoric as long as the chickens never come home to roost on their personal property. It's possible that women who live closer to the border or in urban centers would feel really different on those policies.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
In all honesty, no. I can't say I do without severely watering down the meaning of the word empathy. If I felt a non zero unit of empathy for every dying child in this world I'd be emotionally crippled by the weight of the world's suffering.
That's definitely true, and a real issue for having empathy for all of humanity. It's a problem I have as well, I don't think having empathy exactly like that is effective or helpful for anyone.
However, I get around it by not thinking about the quantity of children/people dying around the world. Just think of them as if they're one, or a few people who are dying and need malaria nets or whatever. Think about, try to feel, how much pain they're experiencing, how scared they are, how scared and sad their family is, etc. That way, you can feel the empathy, which can get you to take positive action, but not have to be destroyed by the scale of how many people out there need help.
haroldbkny
6mo ago
I live in a very progressive part of the US. I had a moment earlier today when I was surrounded by some Jewish community members/friends, and they were talking about how difficult it's been at work for them this week, because they have to put up with many of their coworkers saying "horrible things" (read: things that they don't agree with regarding the recent events). These community members are the same people who went spouting all manners of progressive talking points in so many inappropriate and unnecessary contexts over the past 5 or so years, from BLM, to covid, to Trump derangement syndrome, and so many more issues.
I'm sure I wouldn't like what these people's coworkers are saying, but I find myself feeling more than ever wanting to say to these people, "So what? You can't have everyone agree with you". I guess I'm now an expert at being around people who say things that make my blood boil. I put up with progressives at work, in my social circles, in my local community events, in stores, who constantly barrage me with their unsolicited progressive message. I not only never say anything anymore, but I act as if I'm completely unbothered. As a result, I find myself having very little sympathy, but a lot of empathy for these pro Israel progressives. I'm sure the irony is completely lost on them, but it makes me wonder how certain people can go through life with so little perspective that they feel so put upon by people with different viewpoints, yet cannot fathom that they may make others feel that way with their own, and that maybe they're wrong to do so.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
Yeah, they're good points. I don't think there are clear answers to this.
I can't speak to EA funding politics stuff, but a few years ago when I was giving more to Against Malaria, it was certainly nice to be able to think about how this small amount of money would help to save real people's lives. Every bit helps to create a better world.
As far as people near us vs people far from us, yes, I agree that it should be more morally incumbent on us to better the lives of the people around us, vs far away and unrelated. But why not both? Some reasons you may want to donate to an EA style charity:
-
your money does go further in Africa than it does here. There's not anything you can do to save your friend's life for $5. If there is anything, then you definitely should do it
-
there are complex social politics that will go on in situations of you and the people you personally know. they may be offended that you think they're a charity case, they may not want to accept money cause it'd get weird, etc
-
tax writeoff
haroldbkny
25d ago
I agree with you but I also want to play devil's advocate a little bit. Do you, and I, and others actually feel like it'd be better to have a society that values the strong over the weak? It's not hard to imagine how that sort of society could be dystopian, too.
And is it a binary choice, or is there a middle, too, where we can have the strong and weak valued equally, or strong is valued over weak, but not so much that we get the effects we're seeing in society today? If I had to choose a society one way vs the other, I'm not sure which I'd choose.
haroldbkny
2mo ago
I'm not a Bush fan, but if I were to try to say:
- He managed the country without it dissolving or getting destroyed. I know this may be a low bar to some, but I don't think it is. It must be the hardest thing in the world to be the president
- He rallied America after 9/11. Getting the nation through that, and stoking feelings of patriotism and solace, and trying to get people to believe that they're actually safe in the face of the most unprecedented event in American history is no small feat.
Are you completely certain that the government was doing most of the work of locking people down? From my perspective. It all started as a grassroots sort of thing, the most vocal people decided that they wanted to be locked down and didn't want to be exposed to the virus, or expose people they thought didn't want to be exposed. It became very clear, very early on, that any company or government institution that didn't fall in line with this policy would face massive social sanctions, callouts on social media, accusations of violence and racism ("you're literally killing people and people of color are the most vulnerable"), etc from these most vocal proponents of lockdown. That was my perspective from leftist-city USA, that the government and everyone else was just doing what they were pressured to do. I don't know if that's true everywhere, though.
Tell that to my friend, who's going through this right now, and for whom it's required for her mild sleep apnea. Sounds like it's required if the state deems it so for your case. She definitely didn't opt into 2 and 3 of her own accord, she's super pissed about it!
Edit: I did just check in again. Sounds like you are correct that a CPAP may not be required. But for my friend, it was required simply because it was her doctor's recommended treatment. But in my experience which also matches with what I read online, doctors recommend CPAPs for everyone who has sleep apnea. They made it my recommended treatment even though my sleep apnea was at the mildest possible level. And like I said, she didn't opt into having to send her CPAP data, the state took it upon themselves to force her to be treated in a way she does not want, for a condition that has no impact on her driving.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
Why's that?
haroldbkny
1yr ago
You cannot blame someone else for something they aren't even cognizant of.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
There's probably something I'm not understanding about bidets, especially because I've never really looked into them too much, seen one, or used one, and because they have so many people who sing their praises. But they sound so unsanitary! Wouldn't flecks of poop go flying out into the bowl and onto the faucets, wherein particles will then get recycled onto the cavities of the next person who uses the bidet? Also, does spraying water really get you that clean? I'd think that most times, you'd really need to rub in order to get yourself fully clean.
I think a much better solution is to just use wet wipes. They allow you to apply elbow grease, not just lightly shower yourself off. And then you don't have to also worry about getting showered with particles of someone else's waste.
I guess when I said
I meant to be asking why so many leftists seem to have this vitriolic hatred for Reagan to this day, to see if there's an explanation besides just "they'll have vitriolic hatred for any Republican who's in power".
So are you saying that the left to this day hate Reagan because he actually had sway over the populace, and he managed to shift the country right?
More options
Context Copy link