plural
1yr ago
I think you're right. I have a friend in academia who's been trying to convince me that I'm actually autistic rather than my previous diagnoses of anxiety and depression. And I'll admit that it would be nice to have that diagnosis instead, even though I don't think I'm autistic, and certainly don't fall far on the spectrum if I am. Autism just feels like a more tangible/acceptable disorder than simply saying depression/anxiety. Though my friend seems more into the idea of it being an identity for me than anything else.
plural
1yr ago
Yeah, I hate Destiny 2 because they basically took away things I spent money on and both pvp and pve just feels like a treadmill of weekly chores/missions, but man do they know how to make shooting things fun.
FPS games aren't really my thing but I've recently heard good things about Trepang2 but it's apparently very short. I've also heard near universal acclaim for Titanfall 2 and it's, from what I've read and heard, the epitome of move fast and shoot stuff.
plural
1yr ago
I know nothing about gridiron football or Taylor Swift but it seems obvious that it was an ad. I can point to the fact that during the entire NFL season the entertainment news site Deadline (which doesn't do celebrity gossip) ran a weekly story basically about Taylor Swift sitting in the stands during the games. It had the same vibe as these SNL ad stories they do every weekend where they basically describe the opening monologue from SNL and two sketches as if they need to be covered and are part of the zeitgeist but it's just another crappy sketch from a show that hasn't been relevant in years. I mean it's likely a circle of different media companies (Taylor, NFL, entertainment media) feeding and trying to broaden all their fanbases. Like a car commercial inserted into a TV show that's handled clumsily. Even people that don't realize it's a commercial can recognize that something is inauthentic about it. Maybe there's nothing intentional on either Taylor (probably impossible to tell) or the NFL (I haven't seen any of the broadcasts with her) about this but the entertainment media is absolutely using this, stoking it, and reveling in it when it might not even exist as a thing if they didn't.
My thought was, at first, that it must be a huge spectacle style distraction for them to run a news story about it. But the consistency of the articles and lack of any substance made it obvious it was an ad. The complaints make sense to me "Why do you care they're cutting to Taylor three times a game?" Because it's an ad and ads are annoying. Ads recently have an ideological bent which makes conservatives especially wary of them. Conservatives, to some extent rightly, see weird astroturfed media shit all the time dedicated to hating/destroying them because the media is mostly their enemy. The fact that they decide to create a conspiracy because the astroturfed weirdness of this is obvious and they're just making the mistake of thinking that this is political because most of the weird astroturfed stuff from the NFL in the past years has been political is understandable. And the fact that conspiratorial complaints get platformed to discredit real complaints is just business as usual for the media.
plural
1yr ago
Well, now you're moving the goalposts, I wasn't talking about whether they broke the rules but if they were comparable to the above post's rulebreaking.
It's not about length, you literally didn't put in enough effort for me to adequately understand what you meant by your response because it was just a vague half-answer that may as well have told him to google something. Which could have been a glib dismissal (as a sarcastic example of the responses to yours) or a genuine attempt to direct him to information but it was vague enough that I couldn't parse it.
I don't think anyone should be in trouble for their posts in that thread but if they are it should start with the OP. The OP post was literally just boo outgroup disguised as boo ingroup with some extra boo outgroup thrown in as well. The fact that you were hurt as a vegan is important but you never made mention of that in your post and kept it vague. If you hadn't been vague and said you were a vegan and effective altruists/rationalists have a good handle on explaining the rationale behind their lifestyle that isn't annoying then the responses to yours would be as bad as the one you're saying is comparable but you didn't, which is my point about being low-effort, not that you broke the rules but that you simply didn't put the full amount of effort I would expect of someone invested in the topic to give, which as a bystander makes me think you don't care all that much on the topic and the responses to yours may break the rules but don't really matter all that much because they're responding to someone that doesn't care all that much.
Maybe it's just me but I think the rules are sieved through each response made. Nearly every post three deep breaks the rules but eventually it becomes "no fun allowed", no quips, no jokes, no turn of phrases, no statement of opinions without reams of ink. If you have a problem with those posts they stem from the OP and you really have a problem with that which basically stated the exact same thing but also said "change my mind." I understand you were hurt but you really shouldn't hold onto it like this because this situation is not comparable.
plural
1yr ago
I rarely agree with Hlynka but there's a wide gulf of antagonism between referring to groups and going after individual posters. Also, those responses to your post were about as low effort as your response was and not directed at the higher effort top-level post, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about this being analogous.
plural
1yr ago
This is how I rate them, if I think the comment is breaking the rules but isn't likely to lead to more breakages then I'd say bad. If it breaks the rules and will likely lead to more breakages I rate it with a warning. I think I've only ever said something deserved a ban once but I save that for anything I think deserves a permaban only.
I'm more lenient than the mods (not lately though, things are pretty chill these days compared to reddit) but I also find it hard to ever say something definitely deserves a ban without context so most of the time I treat the warning as if it would lead to an actual warning/a short ban/a week ban because with more context it could be any of those things. I also rarely get served up with duty for egregious comments, anyway.
I mean how should you rate it? Use the metarule and treat janitor duty as a way to hopefully shape this place in the way you'd want it to be through suggestion. Otherwise I wouldn't dwell on it too much. I don't think they're using the janitors as juror votes.
plural
1yr ago
Leftober is kinda cool but the 13th month will always be Smarch to me.
And what's the next part of that thought? Because KMC started his comment saying that this was an argument against "sex work is work" and not tennis is different than sex it just happened to be applicable in that situation. I mean arguing that sex work is different from other work seems trivially true and not actually what people are talking about. Shame and discomfort can be applied to many kinds of work for many kinds of reasons and I don't think that disproves that they're real work, whatever real work is supposed to mean.
I mean the subtext here is that sex work shouldn't be allowed, should be shunned, something along those lines? And not just proving that sex is something that evokes discomfort and shame for many people and that its especially exacerbated by imagining or experiencing their family in sexual situations.
plural
1yr ago
It's also not a fair hypothetical unless you think there's no difference between incest and sex. There's not a different name for playing tennis when you do it with your family.
The indirect hypothetical has more to it but I also wouldn't hire any of my family as a doctor, a contractor, to clean my house, be my personal trainer, but I also think this also works from the other way around. A lot of people who are of certain professions wouldn't want to have to do it for a family member either and wouldn't want their family to participate in helping them financially, and it's probably very much related to shame but mixing personal life and work is just innately uncomfortable for some people.
It's a wide net though to catch shame and discomfort or government compulsion. If the idea is that it's fake in the sense that being a model, actor, streamer, artist, athlete, is fake either because it's something that people would do for fun or it's not particularly hard, then I get that angle a lot more but then I'm not sure what the validity is for. I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed of their relatives for playing videogames on twitch and wouldn't tell anyone about it or watch them do it, but a lot of people wouldn't read their novel written by a family member if they thought it was too prurient or violent or was just something they were culturally opposed to. I'm sure there are many people ashamed of family members being janitors. garbage men, house cleaners and wouldn't hire them or recommend them to friends.
Anyway, I think if the original hypothetical is as ridiculous as saying tennis and sex are the same it's not really helpful to just up the hypothetical up a notch and say that incest and sex are the same.
plural
1yr ago
Is being a gynecologist not work because a mother would refuse to let their daughter do a pelvic exam on them? Or if you require opposite sex if a father refuses to let their daughter do a physical/prostate exam/colonoscopy?
plural
1yr ago
I remember reading an askreddit thread of a European or possibly Australian asking why there was so much toilet clogging in their media when it literally never happened to them. Some people who had experience in America and different countries explained that American sewage pipes were an inch or more smaller than European sewage pipes.
I couldn't find that specific reddit thread but there was a thing that had this link: https://pottygirl.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/why-do-american-toilets-clog/
Which suggests the clog factor is mostly about different design.
plural
1yr ago
Elba as bond I think is an interesting point. Mainly because most of the race swapping doesn't seem to be for any reason other than race swapping.
Remember when Halle Berry was Catwoman? Aside from the movie being garbage I don't remember anyone caring that Catwoman had been race swapped and that was because they chose an A-list (maybe at the time) actor with talent to play the character. Or when Michael Clarke Duncan was Kingpin? How about Sam Jackson as Nick Fury? Will Smith as Jim West? Similar feelings I assume will resonate with an Elba Bond. How about Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption?
It just feels like regardless of acting ability fifteen years ago they'd race swap Bond to Elba, or Doctor Who to someone with the star power of like Chiwetal Ejiofor. But nowadays they'll race swap the doctor to a third lead on a Netflix comedy. I'm sure he's a good actor but it's just an easy trend to spot where the race swapping also ends up making things cheaper production-wise. The Little Mermaid's black, "who's playing her?" someone who's black. The doctor is black, "who's playing the doctor?" someone who's black, and gay, and wasn't born in the UK. I think it's obvious that it feels different now because they really do it different now and it has a lot to do with agenda pushing or the pretense of agenda pushing to get a cheaper actor.
plural
1yr ago
Okay, Ben's top level response was to his own post that was a day old. I feel I need to clear that up so as not to present it as being somehow more acceptable than yours or frequent_anybody's.
But, to me, top level responses don't just dilute things to being a single topic that other people might not be interested in but generally feel rude or at the very least represent an etiquette faux pas that can cause unnecessary social strife. The implication being something along the lines of "your response was so bad I need to make another topic just to deal with it." or "I'm so right and you're so wrong that I'm taking this to a top level comment to give my argument that much more value."
Whether or not that's right, I see it that way sometimes, and I can imagine others do as well, and there's no way that's not going to ruffle other people who aren't bypassing the usual method of just responding to someone below their comment.
plural
1yr ago
How well people perceive themselves is also not a direct answer to how they feel about the economy overall. I can be better off financially than I was and spend the exact same amount on groceries but feel like the economy is shit because I'm buying a carton of 4 eggs instead of a dozen. Is the economy how financially secure most people feel personally? Is it inflation? Is it the GDP? Whatever it actually is doesn't really matter if people don't use that as their own definition. Most people feel like the economy is bad if their rent goes up and eggs cost a hell of a lot more.
Also, I think it's quite an extraordinary claim to say that people scoff at "lived experiences". I don't recall that being the case here at all, in fact most people here tend to defer to them when there's no data and when the data is contradictory it's posted and nobody usually mentions or scoffs at the "lived experience." Unless you mean of people that aren't posting here which I think is entirely different but even then I'd say that number is really low. It's really only applies to "racism" where "lived experience" is used as a trump card. You'll notice that most of the people responding didn't say that his numbers were wrong but they disagreed with what they mean or that they're the wrong numbers to measure what they're trying to measure. This is not using a lived experience to trump someone's argument, it's fundamentally saying that they disagree with the foundation of the definition. They may be using anecdotes and not "rebutting" the data provided but that's not the same thing.
OP pretending like he is the master of knowing exactly what the economy means, especially to other people without even defining it, and then throwing shade over nearly anyone who disagrees is not only petty but exceedingly arrogant. He asked people to provide data but then apparently when half the posts do he cites them personally as being unacceptable because it wasn't acceptable data. Food cost apparently does not matter at all to him, and using that as a reason automatically means it's "lived experience" and most of those reasons he cited were culled down to a headline to make them look as bad as possible. This just not the way we should communicate here and reads as someone who has only empathy for people who agree with him.
plural
1yr ago
Everyone has an anecdote about living in the world and spending money (existing within the economy). I've literally never been the victim of a prosecuted or investigated crime. If you went into a forum that was specifically for people that had been victims of muggings regardless of their obvious bias on the situation they're going to chime in with their anecdotes about crime data because they have anecdotes to share. This just seems like a silly overreaction to an unwanted response.
plural
1yr ago
There are usually two types of people who make things, those that find great satisfaction in them and those that can't really stand their own creations and just want the reaction of others. I think the only way to find out if you'd be in the former category is to make something yourself as others have said. Apparently, Stephen Spielberg doesn't watch his own movies once they're in the can and Quentin Tarantino watches his own for fun.
Personally, I derive a lot of satisfaction from things I create but I've never gotten anything perfect so I always get a little caught up in the fact that the imperfection could be fixed. I end up liking what I make but if you think that your own work will be perfect because it's what you want it just doesn't work that way in my experience, I enjoy it a lot, yes, but I'm often blind to what I would easily see as imperfections had I been from the outside looking in. So, maybe for a little bit you get that feeling that you've made something purely satisfying all your needs but in my experience that fades whether because the luster fades and you notice your own faults or others tear it down for you.
But it still feels worth it. You might not write your ideal novel, make your ideal game, but it's hard not to make something you enjoy when you know what you want. I mean, you'll know pretty quickly if it's something worth it or not once you have something tangible to reflect on. It's definitely a different kind of satisfaction that's going to hit differently than consuming something from others, and people praising you (sometimes) is just icing on the cake. But if you're going for perfection you're gonna end up making something like TempleOS.
plural
1yr ago
The letter says that there was a lot of misinformation/disinformation about the referendum and the mainstream media was complicit in this by showing both sides. Is Australia's media really like this?
I mean I have no doubt that there's probably a lot of partisan media but I'm wondering how true this is because my exposure has usually left me thinking that media there is about as left-leaning as America's.
Anyway, it's probably a good thing they went for that invective though if you don't want the pending disinformation bill to pass. I'd bet if that letter was a lot softer they could convince a lot more people that "a 'false sense of balance' over facts." needs some agency to force the media to make rules to be policed.
plural
1yr ago
What compromise could the right offer the left that they would want? And what compromise could the left offer the right that they'd be willing to give up? The right would probably want stricter voter harvesting laws and some kind of approval system for vote-by-mail, and better oversight for vote counting in exchange for what checking IDs at the voting site? Most reasonable right-aligned people I've seen do not believe that voter fraud in that sense of someone voting twice or without the legal right to vote voting is rampant or affecting the election count to a changeable degree. The left has all the power, is already in the lead for the most part, and gets a political issue that at worst makes them seem naive in that they're defending the poor and downtrodden.
Also, even discussing the compromise will shift the debate landscape and it will suddenly not be about what the unreasonable people are saying. It's easier to come at this saying, well if the problem is just people who shouldn't be voting having a higher barrier of entry to committing voter fraud then why couldn't they come to some compromise? Because the people that seriously want to do something about this topic have serious changes in mind and most of them have nothing to do with how their opponents characterize their position. So, the people that think thousands of people illegally voted to a degree to change the outcome of an election are not going to want this because they're likely unreasonable because they are the caricature their opponent uses as an example of the other side and the people who would make the compromise probably wouldn't see the value in compromising toward something that amounts to giving themselves a worse position because making it easier for people to vote doesn't work in their favor: most people are left, why would they compromise to get more people IDs to vote when they're likely to not vote for their side by two metrics because they're more likely to be left-leaning in general and also specifically more likely to be left-leaning because of the situation they're in. It makes no sense to give your opponent a win like that to get some law about people checking state-IDs which probably from the evidence, I suspect, would not change anything, and even if it would it wouldn't be enforced anyway.
And that state census solution of finding people for 10k and forcing them to register sounds like it would be insanely disapproved by both sides as being authoritarian government overreach that would likely never be fully finished. It sounds like a make-work investigatory bureau would be created for the purpose and they'd likely antagonize many people, accomplish very little, and end up being used for things entirely unrelated to its stated purpose because its purpose would be impossible to accomplish anyway.
I don't know what the solution is but from my perspective it seems like mostly people entrenched in this aren't looking for solutions because the issue is more valuable existing than a resolution of the issue because most people don't care. I'm against voter fraud (so is most everyone), I want to help the poor (so does most everyone). It's probably a political issue of magnitude precisely because it's really hard to politically step in it because the issue is so seemingly contained to itself. Other soundbyte positions like being "for jobs" (but what about free trade?) or wanting to lower taxes (but how will you pay for anything?) require much more complex solutions. The issues without compromise are the easiest to represent yourself with the more compromise that leaks into whatever the issue is then the harder it would be to take a stance or even talk about at all. I think politically wedge issues are too easy to give up because most of them have two positions with no real nuance that you can talk about while appealing to your base, if they start talking about compromise then they're talking to people who won't vote for them so what's the advantage in an election? And what's the advantage of making the compromise when it comes to governing for that matter?
plural
1yr ago
I suspect most people don't fully understand problems like this and don't follow through with the thought process that everyone lives if they take red. This could be because they're not really giving a lot of thought to the question itself and are just looking at a choice between two answers, one I live, the other I might live but I'm helping other people live. If the text of the choice for red included the part that everyone also lives if they all take red the answers might end up different.
Also, there's too much baggage around red, blue and specifically around a question that involves a red and blue pill. You're just asking for people to pick an ideological side without thinking for many people not wanting to be associated with the red pill when they're not thinking too hard about it and it appears to represent only naked self-interest.
plural
1yr ago
Well, I know that it's not apples to apples because of inertia and expectations but, right now, top level threads get much less engagement and very little debate compared to top level comments in the cw thread. And I still view being buried as a positive thing for broader engagement. Long endless threads on particular topics become dominated by whoever has the biggest hobby-horse investment in the topic and there's just endless multi-quotes between people arguing about nigh useless minutiae that a casual debater/observer has no interest in. Refreshing the topic constantly allows it to return to a state of wider focus. This is just my experience with forums and "general threads".
plural
1yr ago
The extra click is crucial for participation and being exposed to ideas you would normally avoid. In threads the title so important and half the time that title seems either like clickbait or something I'm not interested in or indecipherable without clicking to clarify. Going in and out of threads I may be interested in seems just like a worse version of what's done now. As someone else said when this was brought up before you end up reading things you never would before because they're all in one thread as top level comments. And I also think it promotes participation because it ends up taking the heat off of a top-level comment rather than a top level thread there might not be any real distinction but being buried in a 1000 other comments when people tear your ideas apart is a lot more comfortable than that failure existing on its own. I think burying old ideas weekly helps everyone, the deeper comments go the more angry and snipey they get and forcing a new topic is a great cooling method for that, I think the weekend and switching off to the friday fun thread then small scale questions thread helps with that as well.
The idea also segregates all topics. Some people might see that as a good thing but it's just an exercise in people radicalizing themselves. I can see dissenters becoming fewer and fewer as each separate single-interest topic is dominated by those that have a lot of interest in something. People will start avoiding threads started by users they don't like and it'll become even more about people who just agree with each other. And you lose that "there's someone wrong on the internet! this won't stand." drive where you see something that you think or know is wrong and feel compelled to correct them. A top level thread usually presents no facts or real ideas in its title and you lose that possible drive. Every new topic about people's specific bugbears will just be dominated by those people and become a "HBD general" or "AI threat general" or "Immigration general" if people think that the majority opinion dominates and destroys minority opinions now then it would only get worse.
It also creates an idea of staying-on-topic that limits conversation. You can go into a top level comment about the economy and then have people start talking about AI safety two comments deep and it feels normal and fine to switch to that and even if it would be alright otherwise you limit how many people are going to participate in that topic-switch or even know its there.
I do agree that it sucks if you want to post and respond to serious topics on the weekend but that could be fixed by staggering the thread's replacement every few weeks or so but otherwise I think thread level topics will just end up in worse quality probably worse engagement and more personally it would "fuck my shit up" with regard to how I consume what's on this site with all the extra navigation and clicking that it would require.
plural
1yr ago
Your mod warning might be right, but this post is an example of being a bad mod. You mocked three users to various degrees of uncharitability and antagonism and then warned them when you could have just warned them. And I'm not saying you need to be a robot or in deference to other posters all the time, just you know, mod comment gooder.
I really didn't like Knives Out because of how simplistic the plot felt to me. I never really thought about race in that movie. But I've heard someone say they liked that you could tell if someone is racist because they've disliked that movie. It broke my brain enough (and I was basically "outing" myself as a racist if I questioned this) that I didn't try to get any elaboration.
More options
Context Copy link