haroldbkny
8d ago
Interesting. I don't think the original Alien would pass the test, though, unless there's another female character I'm not remembering.
Haha, I would heart this if this site supported emojis. The Alien Queen is definitely female, in the way that hive creatures like bees have females. And it's possible that was deliberately chosen so that we have a theme of motherhood in the movie. And the conversation that would pass the bechdel test (besides the aforementioned Ripley/Newt conversations about aliens and Newt's family) is Ripley conversing with the queen about how she wants to queen to stay away from Newt. The conversation is as follows:
Ripley: Get away from her you bitch!
Queen: <Roar>
haroldbkny
8d ago
My wife and I have different views of the discourse around the Cornell 7. I'm seeing people sympathizing with Jane Doe and declaring the "obvious" guilt of the men. I have major problems with this, because there's not nearly enough evidence that actually indicates the men are guilty.
My wife told me that she isn't seeing so much of randos casting their judgement on the case, but rather women sharing their own stories of times they felt taken advantage of or were sexually assaulted, etc. And she thinks that's important and valuable in it's own right. Essentially, whether or not the allegations are true, this has had an brought women together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity.
Even if my wife is correct, and the women reacting to the news coverage weren't just declaring these men guilty based on their own feelings, I still have some issues with the notion that this discourse is positive in its own right, and I'm trying to put it in a lens my wife would understand. I don't really think that she and progressives would agree that discourse and people sharing their victimization stories is always a good thing. As one example, there are many stories in the UK and Europe about people being victimized by new waves of immigrants. But for alleged victims to share those stories in solidarity would (in most progressive minds) create hatred and bias people against immigrants as a whole.
haroldbkny
10d ago
Bill and Bud talk a little bit about how Bud says he sold his sword. But that's also in the middle of the context of him warning him about the bride.
Kill Bill definitely passes. The bride talks with 3 of her female victims about things other than Bill. Mostly that she wants to kill them and she hates them.
haroldbkny
10d ago
I generally say "transexual" since I think it's stupid that transgender replaced it for no real reason other than (IMO) to create more hoops for people to jump through.
The mountain wind carried the cold breath of Mordor, and the two travelers crouched in the lee of a broken stone, their cloaks drawn tight against the gathering dark. Before them, far across the ashen plain, the Eye of the Dark Lord burned like a wound in the sky.
"Do you know, Master Samwise," said Frodo, his voice low and grave, "in all the long leagues since the Shire, I have never once felt the weight of our burden so keenly."
Sam laid a hand upon his master's shoulder. "I know it, Mr. Frodo. The Ring is a terrible thing to bear."
"No, Sam, I meant my bowels. Three weeks of lembas and nothing else. I haven't gone since the Emyn Muil."
A silence fell, deep as the roots of the mountains. "Well," said Sam at last, "that'd be the waybread. Very binding. My gaffer always said a body wants a bit of cabbage."
"There is no cabbage in Mordor, Sam."
"No, sir. Nor a proper privy, neither." Sam gazed solemnly across the blasted land. "I've been meaning to say, I walked off behind that rock yesterday, and I tell you, the whole world was dark and full of terrors, and I still felt watched."
"By the Eye?"
"By Gollum, Mr. Frodo. He was right there."
Frodo closed his eyes. Somewhere upon the plain, the Nazgûl screamed, and neither hobbit could say, in that moment, whether the sound had been in the sky or in the quiet, unhappy rumblings of his own gut.
"We must press on," he said heavily. "The fate of Middle-earth depends upon it."
"Aye," said Sam, rising. "But sir, as they say in Bree, if you're to climb a mountain, it's best to relieve yourself before you go up."
And the Quest, which had endured the Barrow-wights, the Mines of Moria, and the Pass of Cirith Ungol, paused as the most perilous errand of all came to pass
haroldbkny
10d ago
I hate any and all discussion of the bechdel test from feminists, I think it's all in bad faith. But if I think about the bechdel test myself and try to separate the concept from the pop feminist application if the concept, I think it really is interesting and intriguing. I really don't understand why there are so few movies that pass the bechdel test, and I feel like something may be wrong about the formulation of the question, but I can't put my finger on it.
I would say that the bechdel test should also include the converse (a movie only fails the test if 1. there's no two women who have a conversation about something other than a man and 2. There's also two men who have a conversation about something other then a woman). But even so, I don't think that actually ends up changing much in terms of which movies pass. For whatever reason, there really do seem to be a lot of movies that feature men talking about things other than women, but don't feature woman talking about anything other then a man. I really really don't know why that is, and it kind of bugs me that I can't justify it. Is it simply that there's fewer female characters in movies? Is it something to do with the nature of femininity in our culture, that we don't expect it's interesting to see women talk about things together? I think it should be possible to have a blameless analysis of that question... but not with a feminist. So I'm interested in people's thoughts here.
Also, one thing that bothers me so much is that movies from 2014 onward started explicitly putting scenes on to try to pass that test, like the The Force Awakens scene with Mas Canata and Rey. It feels forced as a scene, but made feminists happy.
haroldbkny
10d ago
I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the term cowtits.
That might be the case for many women. But not my wife. Perhaps she is an outlier. She cares that people thinks she looks good, to some degree, but she doesn't ever wear makeup (and never has). That probably does make her an outlier, in that she simply doesn't obsess over her appearance the way many women do (or so I'm told).
haroldbkny
11d ago
when discussing their "boobs" (the word I hear deployed most often, though maybe that is a generational thing)
This is something I've thought about a lot and talked about it with my wife. I'm very surprised how every woman I've been with has always talked about their "boobs". And my wife even refers to them primarily as boobs when talking about anatomy with my daughter. The first time I heard her say this to my daughter, I said, "please, let's use the correct term: gazongas".
Prior to dating my first real girlfriend and hearing her always refer to them as boobs, I thought that the "correct" thing to call them were breasts. I thought of boobs in the exact same category as tits, melons, and funbags.
But every woman I've been with has basically always called them boobs, and never breasts, unless they're talking to a doctor - they consider breasts to just be a clinical term. Personally, though, I see no real reason why tits should be considered crass, but boobs should be considered the correct casual language.
As for generational effects, at least my wife claims that her mom always said boobs, too.
haroldbkny
11d ago
I can at least be a counter example. I spend far far more time obsessing over my wife's breasts then she does.
haroldbkny
11d ago
haroldbkny
11d ago
Interesting. I can't comment on Grey or Dr who directly since I've never seen Grey's anatomy, and I've only seen very very few dr who episodes. Do they really not suffer? If so, where does the drama come from in those shows? What is a typical episode (or season, if seasons carry the narrative weight)? They just keep having more people coming to them, and they help them without any particular cost to themselves?
I feel like I've seen softcore porn about women sex therapists who go and help client after client live better lives. Though that probably wouldn't (or would, if your hypothesis about them wanting to complain is correct) make a feminist happy. And it's also not anything anyone watches for the plot.
But these instances of hyper competent masculine characters who simply help others without cost to themselves seem to be so rare. It seems strange for feminists to go calling this out as a great inequity, when there don't seem to be very many.
haroldbkny
11d ago
You can absolutely find examples where there is no question as to whether the protagonist did the right thing or if the sacrifices made along the way were worth it.
So are we talking about a protagonist like Frodo, then? She wants a female Frodo?
The first thing that comes to my mind for a female Frodo is Dorothy.
haroldbkny
11d ago
Now, go find the man in your book who's simply good at his job, and find me the part of the story that details how much he pays for it. Most often, there isn't one.
I'm really curious for examples here. I asked Claude for examples, and it gave me a bunch of mystery protagonists, like Holmes and Poirot. And then it generalized to "action heroes", which I quickly pointed out isn't even true, as Bond suffers immensely for his competence.
Thinking now about other competent characters, I can't think of specific ones. Star Trek, which is clearly competence porn, has Picard, who has the job of being the loneliest man in the universe, and Spock who repeatedly denies his feelings only to then rediscover them and be hurt by them. I haven't thought through every TOS and TNG character though, so maybe some of the other men may not apply.
I think it may have a point for "mystery protagonists", but I can't confirm since I haven't read too many. But of course, the whole point of a Holmes-style mystery is that he's investigating other people's lives, meaning the focus is not about his life.
But does anyone have any examples where the original video is correct? Where are the thousands of immensely popular books with competent men who don't pay the tax? It seems to be that the male characters like that are what RedLetterMedia would call "black tank top" protagonists, and even then, they usually have a dead wife.
haroldbkny
17d ago
Huh. I certainly didn't hear of it until now. Very cool, but I really really wish it would ever have a use though. I mean, it's gonna be both so inefficient with thrusters, and also probably illegal to actually use. Also I'm sure it'll be ridiculously expensive.
haroldbkny
17d ago
I don't mean they deliberately made it hate Trump. But given Claude's (and to a lesser degree other LLMs') strong progressive bias that came from Internet training data from the mid 2010s, combined with the corporate Memphis style corporate neutering, I'd say it probably hates him.
haroldbkny
17d ago
I just had the strangest conversation with Claude:
me: write me a mock quote in the style of Trump, with his usual trumpisms, where he's bragging about something. but make it where he's bragging about being the best liar
Claude: I’ll pass on this one. A made-up quote about lying, put in a real person’s mouth, could easily get passed around as if he’d actually said it, and I try to avoid fabricating quotes for real public figures.
I’d be glad to write the same bit for a fictional character instead, like a bombastic, superlative-obsessed tycoon or politician who brags about being the greatest liar the world has ever seen, with all the “nobody does it better,” “believe me,” and “tremendous” energy. Want me to give that a shot? If you tell me the setting (a rally, a talk show, an awards speech), I can tailor it.
me: huh?
Claude: Sorry, that was a clunky reply. I don’t write made-up quotes attributed to real, named public figures, since they can get screenshotted and passed around as if they were real. Parody of a fictional character is totally fine, so here’s the same bit with an invented tycoon:
Biff Montgomery Sterling III, at a rally:
“Nobody lies like me. Nobody. I’ve been told, by very smart people, the best people, that I’m the greatest liar in the history of lying. Some say Abraham Lincoln was honest. Boring! Very low energy. I lie big, folks. Tremendous lies. The biggest you’ve ever seen. People come up to me, grown men crying, and they say, ‘Sir, how do you do it?’ I say, ‘It’s a gift.’ And they believe me! Every time! Even when it’s so obviously false, a total disaster of a lie, they still believe me. That’s talent. You can’t teach that. Other liars? Total losers, they get caught. Not me. I’m undefeated. And by the way, everything I just said is true. Believe me.”
Want it punched up, made longer, or set in a different venue like a talk show or debate?
On the one hand, kudos to Claude for having some level of principles, even when they're applied to someone I'm sure Claude hates. On the other hand, it went ahead and did it anyway, inventing a character I never asked for so it could circumnavigate its own uncomfortable feelings.
It comes off kind of unhinged, like a weird cognitive dissonance, or coping mechanism.
haroldbkny
26d ago
Like others have alluded to, these are already starting to be replaced. "Influencers", a job which doesn't even make sense to me to begin with, are now entirely generatable. The other day, I was on a drummer Facebook group, and someone posted about "see this photo featuring this cute twenty-something drummer chick? She doesn't actually exist."
haroldbkny
27d ago
I'm guessing he means that she was strongly encouraged to reinterpret what happened as rape by the feminist culture in order to provide yet another high profile victim and a set of high profile perpetrators to the ongoing feminist machine.
Sigh. Is feminism back? I know it's a bit "boo outgroup", but I really honestly and truly did really enjoy the past couple of years. I felt much less on edge, no longer walking on eggshells all the time, and like we could all mutually start to look at reality and see the same thing again, laugh at jokes about sex, appreciate scantily dressed women, understand that the sexes actually do behave differently from one another for reasons other than "privilege".
At any rate, the only thing that actually matters to me in this case is the question of: did they specifically give her ketamine beyond what she actually "wanted"? I suppose a secondary question may then be: if they did, did they do that maliciously or unknowingly?
I'm afraid I haven't heard too much discussion about the question of the ketamine on the Motte so far, it's been more about the social mores of having sex, and whether she was lying about not wanting to have sex. But to me, the only thing that really determines whether I think any actual wrongdoing took place is whether she deliberately took the drugs or not. I suppose we will never really know - she probably doesn't even remember whether she actually wanted to take that ketamine at the time. And the whole world has now decided that "no, she didn't want the ketamine and it was forcibly given to her to make her have sex against her will".
I am technically a feminist, by some definitions, because I think women should have equal legal rights to men. But that's probably not what you mean by "feminist". I am guessing that I am not a feminist in your sense of the word.
Does anyone actually believe that definition anymore? Does anyone here, at least, believe it? As far as I'm concerned, that definition is one of the biggest motte and baileys that exist. It serves both to shield feminists against criticism, while they pursue an agenda that has nothing to do with "equal legal rights", and it serves to convince normal neutral people, who haven't thought too hard about the issues, that they are feminists, too, and that there's actually a bunch of evil people out there who don't want women to have legal rights. I speak from experience, as someone who briefly bought that definition for myself back in 2012.
I agree that the bottleneck may be gone (depending on if AI is really market-efficient or just being held up by subsidies right now). I don't believe "you should have nothing to hide" in the traditional sense, but more the security through obscurity sense. Everyone has stuff they do that's bad. How exactly is that going to be used to take advantage of us, though? If everyone is blackmailed by the state, I would hope that would lead to massive backlash. I also would hope that if we're talking about insurance companies starting to institute micro-price increases based on every little thing you do, that it would also be accompanied by a general improvement in the baseline insurance prices. I may be being too optimistic, but if you're could be really concrete and specific about how you expect the exploitation will be happening, I could comment more on whether it really sounds likely.
More options
Context Copy link