iprayiam3
1yr ago
With race swapping, the thing is that it's not all bad and not all good and its that simple. People who completely reject or embrace it are wild.
One of the complexities is that it can take a few forms.
One form is re-examine the story in a different cultural / racial frame. This is completely fair, but you have to allow that people who don't prefer the new frame, or lament the opportunity cost of telling that story in the old frame aren't necessarily racist!
I love Cats! and try to see it when it's on tour in my area. If one year, a major production decided to do a hip-hop remix of the musical, I have no fundamental opposition to such a thing existing. But I can practically assure you that I would find it unappealing personally. However in a world where there were infinate Cats! musicals touring my town every week, I would actually prefer some of them be off-the-wall remixes in every way. But in the real world of scarity, Cats! productions are closer to zero sum. I either have to choose to pay to see a production I like less or not see it at all this year. Suppose, due largely to politics, it became trendy to mostly go forward with the Rap Cats version in the future*. Am I not allowed to be disappointed? Movies based on IP are even more zero sum.
(*There's actually a real analogy. Post George Floyd I will essentaily never be able to see the real cats again because songs were cut and rearanged due to 'racial' concerns about pirates.)
The other kind of race swapping is culture neutral. done in a way where the color or the skin is completely immaterial to the character portray. there is nothing at all wrong with this on its face. But there are three concerns.
- It's sometimes just a motte and bailey for cultural reframes. Then all the criticisms above apply PLUS you were lied to to deflect your criticism as racism.
- Immersion breaking. Part of what makes high production quality high quality is the depth of the immerision. Cheap sets feel cheap. Period pieces or blood line unrealism can break immersion and feel cheap or hokey.
- Meta-trends can also break immersion. If you watch 10 films all with race swapped leads and each on their own works just fine, but you know that the studio heads made big noise about race swapping for the sake of it, about representation, and about making Hollywood less white, etc, you might still have your immersion broken by the clear politics behind the trend, even if each one works self contained.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
That's all fair. I can accept that this shouldn't have been a top level.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
But you both basically caused the original thread to fall further. Id get it more if there were like five other posts that buried the original discussion, but there aren't.
The sort by new means that your post would have been second if you had both just posted in the original topic. Does being the second post from the top really make you feel like a thread is buried?
And there is a slippery slope problem here. If you two do it, what if everyone that responds to you also just chooses to post at the top level? The threading becomes a useless feature. Your thread gets buried even faster than normal, and no one is happy.
Three posts on one topic isn't bad for readability, but breaking a suggested rule twice in a row is bad for the legibility of suggested rules. I specifically do not want people to see these two courtesy violations and think "ah I should do that too".
Fair enough
There is nothing wrong with reviving a dead topic from last week.
I didn't mean to suggest there is
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Understood, but meta food for thought:
- when you're responding to two existing top levels at once, it's hard to. Especially when it's increasing branches of generalization. Ben's OP was an analogy for a epistemic process, but delved very densly into a narrow score-keeping point about economics. Sometimes 'thematic' trends are hard to distinguish new topic from old.
- The suggested flow is somewhat less effective than it was on Reddit for whatever reason, I'm not sure of. By the time a topic is a day old and two down, it's effectively dead. This flow strattles the line (poorly imo) evenescent stream of conversation and post-style topics. We end up with, in the worst of both worlds IMO- uncommented on posts, vs fleeting conversations.
To the extreme effect, Ben's own post was a response to a thread from last week. He, correctly I imagine, top-leveled it here instead of responding there because that CWR post was effectively dead. The same effect works at a micro scale on top levels within a post. I don't have a suggestion for how to fix, but I'd be interested if anyone else notices it worse than it used to be?
Perhaps, I've just gotten used to DSL's forum style of functionally bumping discussions with the newest comment to the top. Perhaps some of it the (contentious) hiding of thumbs up for so long, but it ends up feeling like posting anything 'down thread' feels like shouting into the void.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I think the best answer to both @Ben___Garrison and @Frequent_Anybody2984 below is found in this recent NYT article:
New Normal or No Normal? How Economists Got It Wrong for 3 Years.
We can go back and forth one whether the underlying datasets were right or wrong all along, whether the forecast models were accruate within an exceptable margin, and how far out, whether your own prediction or post-hoc interpretation is vindicated.
But the fact is that the 'experts' in their communication, reporting, framing, advisement, and forecasting were wrong. It is plain, and clear and widely known. To disagree, is to disagree with the experts on what the experts believed.
To express confoundedness at this trickling down into people updating priors against experts' guidance or to make silly analogies that this is just 'vibes' from out-of-step, misunderstood lived experiences, is incorrect.
And to alternatively admit, that 'yes, yes experts were wrong for the past 3 years, especially in what they communicated to the public, and in ways very obviously and coincidentally partisan, but please believe the current diagonsis of the economy right now because it's what the expert data tells us', well sure, I'm listening, but you need to do better than make insulting hokey analogies about lived experience or tell me that your Muslim friend is smart, but jihadistic so, I should just listen to the experts now.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I'm sorry, is this a different take on our initial exchange? I thought we already shared our mutual points fair enough.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Maybe this has already been thought up, and maybe it's already done but there should be multiple baskets of goods, and they get updated on a lag. With all baskets needing to be reconciled.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Do you think Ezra’s lived experiences are a valid rebuttal here?
If you beleive Ezra's anecdotes as true, then yeah maybe you should update your simplistic model slightly. I think you're doing some bullshit leading by calling this 'Ezra's lived exerience'. These are datapoints that can help us question other data sets we might be suspicious of, or help us complexify our model.
So if we can accept as true Ezra's claims of several isolated instances of black aquaintances being treated poorly by cops, we can try to better understand those anecdotes:
Does Ezra live somewhere that is typical of the racial crime statistics? Are Ezra's friends a nonrandom selection of black people, especially regarding crime statistics? How much can we tease Ezra's friends' experiences from confirmation bias / misatrributed causes. That is, are white people treated similarly by cops but interpret it differently or report it back to Ezra less frequently?
Notice that these are all increasingly difficult to answer questions and the last one is near impossible for Ezra to tease out. To treat this 'lived experience' as comparative to a much cleaner objective anecdote like my expenses went up by this %, brings serious dubiousness to my accepting your 'analogy', but nevertheless.
Suppose we can answer all of those satisfactorily, and Ezra's 'lived experiences' still disagree with the data.
Next you might be able to come up with some kind of alternative theory that reconciles those experiences within your statistics. Maybe these people are hassled by the police because black people do commit more crimes, so they are more likely guilty than a white person. perhaps Ezra's experiences are true, but his causation is backwards?
I'm not sure what the analagous frame is for economic explanation. But Ezra's second hand experience, if trusted, provide evidence toward how the system works.
Or maybe, Ezra's friends stories are credible examples of black people being unreasonably hassled by police at a rate within his circle quite higher than chance or satisfactorily explained by the above explanation or considerations. (maybe Ezra's lived a few places and this rules out local corruption).
In such a case, if the question isn't whether we beleive Ezra, but whether his anecdata should cause us to update our interpretation / understanding of the actual raw statistics, then yes of course it should. At least to some degree.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
If you're tempted to disagree from your own emotions, then pray tell how Christians came around on IVF.
Oh, Catholicism certainly hasn't come around on that. I am absolutely one of those who welcome hurdle to your technological and human advancement both from within and outside of my Christian faith. I fully understand the animosity toward the religious from your point of view, and of course I understand the metaphorical (and cathartic) language about picking a bone with a god you don't believe in; I simply wanted ot point out that I still find it an offputting frame from the other side (though of course you're not appealing to someone like me when saying it). It's a sentiment meant for one's own side, I suppose.
As I was telling @Meriadoc yesterday, if I ever meet the Omnibenevolent loving Creator who created ichthyosis vulgaris, I'll kick them in the Holy Nuts.
I've heard this sentiment before, and I think Tony Robinson has a bit about this. My question is, would you really? I get that this sentiment is meant to emphaisize the incredible apparent irreconcilability between a Good God and the suffering in the world, which in turn is evidence against the former.
But, as someone on the other side of the belief equation, it screams emotionalism compromising your sense of 'rational' skepticism.
Like I'd take the atheism/agnosticism of someone more seriously who said something like:
"If faced irrefutably with God, I'd be incredibly humbled! My very strong prior against Him would be shattered, and I'd have to acknowedge that a significant part or more of my epistemological model led me astray. I'd like to have that clarified before making any further decisions. Consequently, it's very difficult for me to predict how I'd approach any other pre-existing greivance past that epistemic event horizon."
In other words, if you were faced with being absolutely wrong about your agnosticism, you really wouldn't stop for an instant, temper your contempt for a moment, to scratch the possibility that your view of the problem of evil, of theodicy, was also incomplete?
To be certain that in the event you are wrong about God's existance, you'd simply move down to your next argument - grievance against His supposed benevolence, comes off as a tell against epistemic hygeine.
TLDR; I am always puzzled by people angry at a god they don't believe in. I think the anger and disbelief undermine eachother.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I thikn the moderate here is someone who wanted the statue moved to a museum.
IMHO, the Charlottesville controversy itself and the national politics surrounding it were enough to make the statue of historical significance, aside from it's object level of depiction of Lee. It should have been preserved in a museum for that reason alone, as an artifact of the Charlottesville event, rather than as a memorial of the civil war. Destroying it seems stupid on that front. That statue is a culturally signficiant artifact of 2017 politics.
Like if someone used a civil war era gun to kill the pope, the gun would take on more significance as the pope killer, than as a civil war relic. Then if someone came and melted it down because of it's racist ties to American slavery, I'd be flabberghasted at the missed point.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I agree that personality is not super modifiable, but we then have to ask whether particular behavioral or thought patterns are actually central to one's personality.
I think you can absolutely train yourself into and out of certain patterns, based on feedback mechanisms. People can certainly practice their way into better interpersonal skills.
For example, there are people who like to talk a lot, and are on some level wired to be loquacious and never going to become a tacitern hermit. But these people may progressively talk more and more, somewhat out of fear of getting interrputed or losing another chance at the attention of their interloqutor. Thus people are more drained by their talking, and interrupt or ignore them more often, and the cycle deepens.
I've literally observed people acknowledge and break that cycle through practice. Understanding that turn taking and swallowing urges to jump in can actually produce more pleasant interactions, folks can adjust their interaction behaviors and settle into new patterns.
Of course, on a meta-level, it requires a pre-existing disposition for that kind of reflection and desire for improvement. You can't probably get someone to reflect their way into being a more reflective person. And drugs may well be a hack for that.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
There are a couple podcasts I'll listen to, not live, on youtube and some of them (but not others) will now have ads at like 1 every three minutes. And instead of just giving me a 5 second ad and moving on, it's this long shit that needs to be manually skipped after 5 seconds. It renders passive listening on youtube completely impossible.
I am unsure why some content gets this treatment and others do not. Is it chosen by the creator or an algorithm?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
The most charitable read here is that Musk thinks Wikipedia deserves less money, not no money
That's not the most charitable read, that's the obvious straight-forward read. Do you really think it's possible that Elon Musk doesn't know that servers cost some amount of money?
As others have noted below, Wikipedia doesn't need the money it raises to run itself, and hasn't needed it for years. Wikipedia could put it's assets / raised capital in a safe financial vehicle and run its servers forever on the profit. Elon Musk is 100% correct Wikipedia simply doesn't need a large yearly donation campaign to run itself as a website.
Musk is in an even better position to make this argument as he just massively cut the operational waste of a major website to prove the ridiculousness of the actual costs to bloat ratio. He is the only person who has ever done this at this scale, and thus is the best person in the world to listen to about wasted operating expenses.
I am not an Elon stan, but this is a willfully anti-Elon take that requires squinting his comment into absurdity just to prove how stupid he must be.
If you have been tricked into thinking Wikipedia needs your individual donation to keep the lights on, that's on you and on Wikipedia for lying to you, not on Elon.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
23 KOOKY J6 Infiltration: Subject to further revision with more specifics, but this scheme could not have been successful without first assuming "the crowd at J6 had a proclivity towards engaging in violence and lawless action". If so, it would obviate the need for the feds to have gotten involved in the first place.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I think if you replace proclivity with potential, that undermines your argument.
If you start with the theory "the deep state has a preferred outcome the optics of which discredits the right, Trumpists, and election integrity objections",
and the assumption that 'the protestors have the potential to take things too far in a way that has these preferred optics, but you have no assurances they will do exactly that
why is the idea of planting people to ensure it goes in the right direction kooky or unnecessary?
"We need to make sure this doesn't end up looking legtimitate, and we also need to make sure it isn't an actual massacre. We can't leave either of those to chance. Let's direct the powderkeg in a generally safe, but optically horrible direction."
I'm not saying this is true, I'm saying, I am unconvinced that this is Kooky, because the alternative is, "lets sit back and let them hang themselves".
iprayiam3
1yr ago
very substantially restrict their actual freedom
Here in America, speech is actual freedom, my man.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
If they're all in the same ballpark, where you need to get this granular, you're better off treating them all the same and deciding based on company / work / manager .
If that's all in the same ballpark, and you don't have a preference, then the answer is easy:
Go to the one that has the higher take-home pay and try negotiate the vacation up to parity with the other.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Now consider it from the perspective of a hotel guest with a wife or even worse a child. You going to be comfortable with them going down the hall to grab some ice or a soda? You going to let them run down to the front desk to buy a snack or even turn the corner ahead of you?
What happens when in the inevitable inability to effectively empty and clean full hotel every night, with a large percentage of unruly and mentally ill guests, a cleaning woman misses something and your kid steps on a needle walking around the room barefoot or jumping onto the bed?
What happens when someone's girlfriend gets raped in a stairwell
What happens when a toddler finds some candy that fell on the floor or in a corner and puts in in thier mouth before you can stop them, but whoopsie! it's** fentanyl and now their dead!**
iprayiam3
1yr ago
This is the first time I've heard of it and I hang out in rat spaces like theMotte, which are the only places ive ever ever ever heard anything about Hananai. My theory is as simple as this, I think your information bubble has led you to vastly over-estimate Hananai name recognition / brand awareness especially among the age demographics likely to buy books.
I think you're searching too hard for a reason, when your null hypothesis should be that he doesn't make the list and try to test the theory of why he would
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I think there's a possibility for another 'oops Trump' where the left goes along with beclowining the Republicans by giving legitimacy to a Gaetz that he then uses down the line.
The D's support recalling McCarthy presumably because it seems like an easy win to make the Republicans look bad, cause self-inflicted chaos and ultimately not end up any worse. But the side cost is legitimizing a Gaetz win.
Gaetz doesn't have leverage now in getting a new speaker elected. But he did just successfully flex power. If the Dem's don't think Gaetz in the future is a problem, whatver, but by joining him in a recall vote, he makes himself more legitimate in future congresses with different make-up.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Paging @2rafa, but I share a similar meta-hurdle with her that prevents me from getting too worked up about these cases, or at least tempers my emotional reaction to this kind of injustice.
I can objectively agree with you about the apparent stretching of judicial reasonability, the fear of impossible to defend against, the growing assumption of guilt until proven innocent, and the clear threat of these ideological kangaroocifixions creeping into other aspects of crime-and-justice that might actually threaten me. And I can agree about the campus-rape crisis from a few years back, and more recently Me-Too, etc.
Nothing that follows, dismisses the abstract principled disagreement with these judicial outcomes.
However, I can only laugh at the ideological blindspot from the 'liberal' crowd at these kinds of outrage-at-sex-scandal-outrage. The Motte is the same population, intimately familiar with the I never thought the leopard would eat my face meme, no?
These solution here is not to hook-up, not to have causal sex, not to get drunk and fuck people you're not married to. This is all a bunch of liberals pissed that we couldn't stop the ride somewhere between 1/2 and 9/10ths down the slope. Boo-hoo.
Maybe the progressive's impulse that there's something wrong with a lecherous 31 year old celebrity fucking a 16 year old, their inclination to beleive the legitimacy of her later feelings that she was prey-on and harmed, or their belief that going to a party and fucking drunk people, whether or not you are drunk is an excerise in poor judgement, aren't wrong. Maybe the progressive's judicial response is warped and fucked up, but maybe it's because the people who came before them tore down all the scaffolding and vandalized all the blueprints for a functional paradigm, and those same people are all outraged that those who came after aren't happy standing exposed shivering in the wreckage and be told all about their fReEdOm.
From where I stand, everything MeToo is people trying to put a roof back over their head, while the same people who tore down their original house criticise them for not enjoying the fresh air, and the people who built the original house are too busy tell them they're rebuilding it wrong, instead of telling the wreckers to fuck off.
I don't have a lot of love for the left's frames around mental health and therapy, but this point is just silly. Or rather would be better if you just stopped wtih the real issue of providing monetarily. Are you suggesting that 'seeing your dreams disappear' is somehow a real issue, separate from and contrasted with 'mental health' concerns. Same re: feelings of emasculation. You undermine yourself by begging the conclusion.
I suspect the 'lefty' who advocates therapy very much agrees that lost dreams and feeling emasculated are real issues, and would understand them to be the exact 'mental health' issues you are suggesting aren't invovled.
More options
Context Copy link