@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

There are at least four categories: Racist, not racist, opposed to racism, and Kendi-approved.

Tolkien was in the third. Lots of Americans are. Telling your drunk uncle not to use the n-word is in this category, as is arguing with racists on the Internet. It would make sense, in a vacuum, to call this “anti-racist.”

Kendi is attempting to apply that legitimacy to his own category. As pointed out across this thread, Tolkien would likely not meet his seal of approval. It is rhetorically useful to call his category “anti-racist” precisely because many people would like to be in it.

Getting upset at the normal, sensible meaning of the word is ceding the battle.

If you believe Kendi is wrong, and there are more than two states, what would you call them?

I’m using “anti-racist” for direct opposition to racism, even if it doesn’t subscribe to postmodern structural theory. Getting upset when people use the reasonable version of the term instead of the academic one seems counterproductive.

I’m guessing you’re not talking about the Rick and Morty crusader from last week’s CW thread.

Hmm.

I’m not sure if it’s significantly worse than it was on reddit, though I have to agree that the potential consequences are bigger. The worst excesses of troll posting seem to be under control (and the rules are still enforced), but yeah, that’s not going to prevent the selection bias.

Scott’s reign of terror back in the SSC days seemed reasonably effective, but the influx of users was powered by his essays. Meanwhile I don’t think I’m ever going to share an effortpost from this site in the same way I would an established Scott piece. It’s charged in a way the SSC comments tried not to be.

I don’t like baseball, mainly because it’s too slow. Therefore I have to endorse the changes.

Wow, I must have missed the memo.

"It's cool, we won, you can take the sticker off now."

Who is coordinating this action? Who is telling league execs and players' publicists that their great work is over? You're hypothesizing a conspiracy tailoring its response to the level of institutional capture. This also suggests that the last couple years were the only ones where those darned woke moralists felt threatened enough to exert overt pressure!

There is an easier and more realistic explanation. Those slogans were never important. For a brief period, the invisible hand identified them as a cheap appeal to the current Cultural Moment^TM. In the absence of that signal, most everyone went back to the default.

I keep seeing complaints that RoP is particularly woke, but they don't seem well substantiated. Most articles talking about it spend more time 1) calling detractors racists and 2) pointing out how the original works could be problematic. Example.

Maybe this is because they focus on race and not the show's relationship with gender? I haven't seen as much on that side.

I agree with your conclusion, but didn’t read Supah’s comment like that at all.

“Overt social pressure” is distinct from status. Trendsetters aren’t changing tactics because the ideology became “less important”; they’re pursuing a separate goal. He was definitely asserting that pressure and not status was the goal.

Edit: per his clarification, pressure was obviously not the end goal. It was a means to policy ends. This is still a reading that does not rely on trends or fads, but activist strategy.

the point of education

This is a more complicated issue than it might appear.

American schools serve a complicated role as an educator, babysitter, and social service.

Some of that falls under “necessary skills” in terms of socialization and, in theory, physical fitness. Other parts are more vaguely prosocial, keeping children at desks instead of selling hypothetical drugs. And there is a surprisingly broad category of benefits to parents, especially if they are not part of a traditional household. The single mother or the dual-income couple is better able to participate in the economy.

Feeding children is mainly in the middle category, It is a reasonably means tested and selective way to keep the poorest from starving. But it also helps compensate for poor or overcrowded households, reducing their food costs. And, even more tenuously, the program is supposed to maintain nutrition with obvious benefits to society.

So, even though it is barely coupled to the creation of educated citizens, school food programs serve a number of widely accepted social roles.

I’ve been under the impression that the “moar funding!” angle has been less popular since Bush 2. Partly due to the stellar reception of No Child Left Behind and partly due to the recession. But then I’ve also been out of public school for long enough that it may have passed me by. Aannnnnd I’m down here in a part of Texas where the property taxes completely define school mappings. So take anything I say with a grain of salt.

Okay, but what’s actually wrong with Galadriel?

It’s one thing if her “path to glory” is too much like capeshit. I have no idea how one could make a Marvel movie in Middle-Earth, so if they really tried to do that, I wouldn’t be surprised that it’s trash.

Of course, that would be true regardless of the political slant.

“Path to glory” power fantasy isn’t new to the setting. It’s the default for video games, of course. Shadow of Mordor trampled all over Tolkien’s themes and worldbuilding, but after a few months of grumbling, the intended audience decided it was kind of badass. This suggests that the problem with RoP runs deeper.

On the political side, there’s a difference between woke casting and woke writing. Gender-flipping or race-swapping a character doesn’t necessarily change their arc (even if it pisses off fans). Writing the plot into a corner to score ideological points is a bigger problem. I have yet to see examples of RoP screwing the latter up.

So how much of the backlash is political, and how much of it is about general writing quality? Did wokeness somehow prevent a decent show, or was it incidental? What did Galadriel do?

You may be interested in the short story God-shaped Hole by 0HPLovecraft. Not linking, as it’s quite NSFW.

It deals with some similar themes.

This is my thought as well.

The LotR appendices were, shockingly, not TV ready. A team applied them to what is by all accounts a fairly standard plot. Much budget was spent on CG and costuming. Casting was more diverse than Peter Jackson’s oeuvre, presumably in an attempt to hit a slightly broader audience.

All pretty vanilla decisions, but because of the brush with diversity, critics have a nice scapegoat.

My mistake.

I maintain that the life cycle of slogans and stickers is better understood by capitalism than by activism. They were promoted--at a corporate level--to serve a market, and they faded away when that market lost cohesion. I think the distinction is important when gauging influence and popularity of the underlying movement.

Care to elaborate on the proposed mechanisms for either of those outcomes?

We keep the President away from those levers, relatively speaking.

I'd bet against the latter.

My assumption is that writing is hard. Cohesive or compelling writing is harder. "99% of everything is crap." Given a random TV team*, I'm expecting a starting point of mediocrity.

Now add the source material. Compelling worldbuilding, yes. Nail-biting plots and snappy dialogue, no. So they're required from the start to take some sort of liberties. Maybe in the hands of a bold visionary, that means subversion of tropes, detailed intrigue, a stylistic homage. We get a standard hero's journey.

Throw in some romance to hit one crowd, a couple "relatable" characters for others. Marketing is throwing in a demand for one or another actor. Are they running an agenda? Doesn't matter--it's not like the direction is going to conflict. Appeal to the diehard fans with a couple name-drops. Don't worry too much, they'll come back to Middle-Earth for anything. Fill in the stock characterizations and frayed plot threads with luscious set pieces and big-budget CGI, since money is flowing freely.

That's how you get something like this.

* As a side note, the two main writers are both practicing Mormons. Not exactly the first demographic I'd pick for woke ideological capture.

Thanks for elaborating.

That sounds absolutely abysmal, and definitely crosses the bar for blue-tribe pandering.

The racial angle is looking like the weakest criticism of this particular show. See this comment for examples of dumb characterization, Mary Sueing, and blue-tribe audience pandering.

Picking the top people isn’t the same as dictating policy for the rest. Case in point: the revolving door of Trump’s justice department. I’d expect just about any other executive to have a more stable department—and to still be unable to unilaterally shift culture.

Prosecution statistics aren’t a good example either. Look at the factors going into those 98% (!) of cases handled by plea bargain. How many of those reference the federal government?

Threatening lawsuits strikes me as more plausible, assuming there was standing. On the other hand, antitrust suits contingent on other behaviors is some banana republic bullshit. I hope to God we have protections against that rather than relying on decorum, but I’m not a lawyer. @ymeshkout, please tell me such a strategy would be nonviable!

Okay, but what if you don’t want them to leave?

Take the slur-spammer example. I don’t care if he’s within his natural rights—I would rather talk to a person with “common decency” rather than talk around a flood of slurs. The community can demand that he stop in the interests of the larger group.

Ousting for being insensitive is what purity spiralers do, and it’s also what functional communities do. It’s setting the boundary at the right place (and enforcing it fairly) that is contentious.

Sure is convenient that your outgroup is not only stupid, but also negligent and selfish.

Show some charity.

For comparison with the black and female DGU numbers:

  • 29.7% of white gun owners

  • 44.7% of Native American gun owners

  • 33.8% of male gun owners

I’d imagine a big correlation with SES, obviously, and there’s probably also an effect from ownership rates. The absolute numbers vs. population numbers ought to be interesting. Does the original paper give statistics versus income bracket? I can’t make an account to view it right now.


As for your overall article, I think it comes across as disingenuous. This is despite the fact that I agree with your conclusion, generally oppose gun control, proudly own [REMOVED BY REDDIT] guns, etc.! You editorialize in the captions: “don’t have to add name to registry (yet)”. You flip-flop on the “instant felons” term, qualifying it the first time but not at the end. I don’t know why you added the Taliban as the smallest entry on a graph titled “potential enforcement groups.” And you have some pretty strong (falsifiable) statements—in particular,

it is unassailably true that none of those 2,012 people are going to murder anyone with it because the criminals aren’t going to register their firearms.

This neglects at least two non-trivial groups: the stupid and the newly desperate. Even though that doesn’t change the conclusion, since most people don’t mind inconveniencing the bottom percentile of criminals, you are opening yourself up to cheap gotchas.

If you want to be convincing to everyone, rather than just your side, I think you could benefit from more caution. Make your graphs look studiously neutral; the numbers are ridiculous enough to speak for themselves. Take more care with your hyperbole. Personally, I loved the grocery example, especially the “851 stores” stinger.

Thanks for putting these together.

The number of times someone at my FLGS has said “get them while you still can” suggests quite a few.

dog parks, dogs relieving themselves on public property, automobiles, allowing crazy vagrants to roam the streets, library worker unions, teacher's unions, squeezing every bit of life expectancy from the gerontocracy, etc.

masks for children and not adults

Roman Empire demographic screed

The Venn diagram overlap of “could better benefit kids” and “the fault of pet culture” contains almost none of these things. Maybe choosing to build a dog park over a playground. The points about unions don’t even fit either circle unless I’ve missed recent developments in the Library Cults.