problem_redditor
No bio...
User ID: 1083
I think this is what you're looking for, and no it's not Jonathan Haidt's work. Here's a prior summary I wrote of the findings while TheMotte was still on Reddit: "It used data from voter registration data for faculty members to determine the Democrat to Republican (D:R) ratio of an array of social science fields, namely economics, history, communications, law and psychology. Out of a sample of 7,243 professors, 2,120 were not registered, 1,145 were not affiliated, 3,623 were Democrat, and only 314 were Republican. That's a D:R ratio of 11.5:1. Of the five fields, economics was the most mixed, with a D:R ratio of 4.5:1 (which fits pretty well with my perception of economics). History was by far the most skewed, with a whopping D:R ratio of 33.5:1." Note 60% of history and journalism departments, 45% of psychology departments, and 20% of economics departments have not even a single registered Republican in them. Granted there were a significant portion of people that were not registered as either Democrat or Republican and it's not beyond the realm of possibility there are some hidden conservatives in there, but still a failure to find even one registered Republican professor in such a large percentage of departments is really bad and rather shocking.
There is, however, also a paper Haidt participated in that reviewed a lot of evidence of bias against conservatives in academia (specifically social psychology) though. The rundown of the findings is basically that in social psychology 82% of people identify as leftist, 9% are moderate, and only 6% are conservative. Only 18% of respondents within academia state they would not discriminate against conservatives; 82% admit they would be at least a little bit biased against a conservative candidate. This is only capturing what they are explicitly willing to state; the actual prevalence of bias against conservatives is probably higher.
I've been mooching around Sydney as of late trying to find some lesser-known historic heritage sites in the city that are nonetheless impressive. So, nothing obvious like the Queen Victoria Building, St. Mary's Cathedral and so on. Two of the historic buildings I visited recently surprised me.
1: Yiu Ming Temple. This is a traditional village temple in Alexandria built by settlers from Guangdong circa 1908. It's rather surprising to me that this even exists in Sydney; what makes it even more surreal is that the temple's hidden behind a large brick wall and a row of shops. So it's isolated in a small cranny blocked off from the rest of the city, and stepping past the gate into that weird little back street feels like entering a little pocket of Asia. It even smells exactly like Asia (probably due to all the incense being burned). Highly trippy visit, actually. I've heard there's an even older one that dates back to the 19th century in Glebe, I may pay that temple a visit sometime.
2: The Cathedral of the Annunciation of Our Lady. I visited this one today. It was initially built from 1848-1855 in Redfern as an Anglican place of worship, but was later sold to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and reconsecrated as a Greek Orthodox church. It's really unassuming on the outside and seems like your typical brick church, but the interior is jaw-dropping. Rows of chandeliers hang from the ceiling, the altar is adorned with an insane amount of golden finery and the ceiling is covered in frescoes. It doesn't seem to be well known - it was completely empty when I visited, yet it's probably one of my favourite historic sites I've visited in Sydney and in my estimation it's even comparable to many churches in Europe in its architectural beauty.
Here are photos of each of the sites (I know the resolution isn't always fantastic, my phone is a potato, deal with it).
The anecdotes aren’t necessarily something you should rely on, and it’s a mistake to draw your conclusions on that basis alone. Men are harassed more across the board, but the methods through which one would seek to piss off the sexes differ. Women aren’t usually targeted just for being women, but bringing up their femaleness is a sure-fire way to set women off (especially in gaming where they are fairly uncommon), and so it gets used sometimes as a vector of attack when the target is female. But you can’t conflate that with “women are targeted for being women”. Who woulda thunk it, being touchy about your identity group also means it can be used by people to attack you for any reason.
I've found that the belief that “women are targeted for being women” is usually not soluble to any kind of argument, evidence or really anything at all. It's a Truth that supersedes reasoning, acquired almost entirely from a mix of personal biases + social osmosis (which is a self-reinforcing collective phenomenon arising from many examples of individual bias). Look how the discourse around street violence has proceeded with the presumption of women-as-most-at-risk when nothing could be further from the truth. Women are always justified in their endless self-victimisation, even when they are not, and for some reason no one ever sees anything wrong when they insert themselves into majority male spaces and demand the entire culture change to fit them because it makes them feel unsafe. This is the kind of thing that makes me firmly in favour of enforced male spaces, ideally with strict "no girls allowed" policies or alternatively severe gatekeeping based on unambiguously masculine standards of behaviour - every space that attracts a significant amount of women always gets hectored and lectured and eventually adapts to cater to their level of comfort.
It's also my observation that women don’t get more abuse than anyone else when they play games. They don’t get more harassed than men on the internet in general either (if anything it is the opposite), and this finding has been replicated when looking across the board, even in samples which are most likely to attract online criticism like politicians and journalists too. And men don't just experience relatively harmless acts - serious online abuse is also more likely to be directed at men by the way. But people are much more sensitive to harsh comments and threats directed at women than they are when directed at men, who are generally expected to be able to take it and/or dish back; we have no such expectation that women do so.
"Online harassment" in general is one of these very many areas wherein women actually receive preferential treatment but the popular consensus somehow seems to believe it's the opposite based on what people find emotionally salient. Women really dislike being in male spaces wherein they will sometimes be treated like men (bullying and threats will be slightly adapted based on gender to optimise for mental damage regardless of who they are insulting, but the phenomenon isn't distinct), and many men take offence on behalf of female dignity when women are treated like men too. And as soon as any large number of women enter a space, the norms quickly adapt to cater to feminine sensibilities. I've seen these attempts at social enforcement in real-time, too - I was once in a close-knit private server populated almost entirely by men, and the only woman in there was a girlfriend of one of the men who would routinely storm out of calls in response to any off-colour joke (as an aside they later broke up and she started dating one of his friends in the server immediately after, which spelled the end of the whole thing).
EDIT: added an extra sentence. I will also leave this very angry, drunk-narrated two part video here. Part 1, and part 2. Bit vitriolic, but I agree with it.
As I understand it, in the West that practice is primarily concentrated in the American South, isn’t it? The general concept exists in multiple places, but my impression is that in many of these areas it’s not exactly accepted across the board - many people think it’s weird, and it’s certainly not entrenched enough for fruit vendors to serve a packet of salt, let alone shichimi, alongside it (maybe in Japan they do). There’s a real difference in acceptability and uptake.
@srf0638, @self_made_human, point taken on Mexico and India; I’ve never travelled to either of these countries so I don’t have much context for their culinary preferences (though I am considering visiting the latter someday; Kailasa Temple alone would justify the entire trip).
Thanks, really enjoyed your trip reports on China as well. There's gonna be many more of these in the future as I travel.
I didn't take any notes as I went, I wrote the entire thing after the fact. It was just rather memorable. Going from swimming under a subterranean waterfall to having cookies and tea with the grandson of a feudal mandarin within the span of a few days was insane and felt like a weird fever dream.
problem_redditor
11mo ago
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Agreed, buying it for yourself as a 40-year-old adult is infinitely more based.
problem_redditor
11mo ago
I definitely wouldn't say they deserve to be constantly browbeaten and driven into self-hatred, and it's true they have issued official apologies over the years. I'm not the largest fan of inherited guilt myself, and wouldn't want to subject the Japanese to that. But it would kind of help their perceptions of sincerity if they didn't enshrine the Martyrs of Showa in Yasukuni Shrine, and if multiple heads of state and government officials didn't ceremonially visit it (granted, visitation is spotty, certain Japanese PMs have made efforts to distance themselves from it).
Consider if Germany had maintained an official shrine in which Nazi war-criminals were worshipped, and if large groups of members of the Bundestag had visited that shrine over the years. Would people have believed the original official apology to have been sincere under those circumstances? I'm aware the PM has no say in who the shrine venerates due to the separation of church and state in Japan, but when they're torn between their sense of nationalism vs. wanting to distance themselves from their actions in WW2, they're likely to select the former.
I dunno, I actually have a very high regard for Koreans and their mindset. This is just an anecdote but I did visit South Korea a while back and left with a very positive opinion of the people there - in fact they're the loveliest people I've ever met in any country, the hospitality they showed us travellers was just overwhelming. So many of the locals there actually went out of their way to help us and make our experience better, I wasn't expecting it at all. They weren't too hung up on social propriety like the Japanese sometimes are and they didn't help in a way where they were just politely showing service to foreigners, they did so as if they actually wanted to make sure we were safe and comfortable. It may well be my fondest travel experience, and part of the reason why is that it just felt so genuinely welcoming.
Regarding the Japanese and their "belief in Japan", I'm not exactly sure this is a positive - I get the sense they do so by ignoring all the warts and all in their own country out of a sense of nationalism, somewhat similar to how Chinese nationalists do so. This is exemplified in their treatment of WW2, where much of the country prefers to ignore it in stark contrast to other Axis powers like Germany. Koreans seem to be more self-critical and this is reflected in their media, but I think in some ways this is a good thing.
The key difference being that a lot of these #girlboss movies include lines like that essentially as fanservice for the audience and the creators don't really mean it
Not entirely sure that's the case, really. In general, I think the percentage of ideologues in Hollywood is higher than people think it is, and that these pieces of "fanservice" for the audience are actually the stated beliefs of many of those involved (see: the clip of the Disney executive producer effectively stating she had a not-so secret gay agenda which she inserted into films wherever she could). The ratio of true believers to cynical grifters is probably much higher than is usually acknowledged, especially once taking into account the fact that truly believing something is a great way to gain the corresponding benefits of that belief system without bearing the costs of deception. Even when they conduct fanservice, they are basing it on what they would personally want to see.
Whereas The Room is such a painfully honest, unvarnished expression of its creator's worldview and wish-fulfilment fantasy - it seems reasonable to conclude that the worldview the movie espouses is literally that of its creator.
That's odd because I view The Room as a bit of a nonsensical Rorschach test of a film where you could pick out any number of statements to prove any number of things. There are a number of scenes which try to model differing worldviews, I think, and there are even some hackneyed attempts to try and deepen Lisa's character a bit (e.g. introducing her mother Claudette, who pressures Lisa to stay in a relationship for money against her stated wishes, causing the affair in the first place). Wiseau is not very good at trying to represent these other perspectives, but the point he wanted to convey is also incoherent enough that it's difficult to tease out exactly what it is. Pretty much the only larger-scale point I can glean from the entire thing is that Tommy Wiseau is amazing and he should never have been betrayed, and if he had killed himself that would have truly shown Lisa/the actual real-life girlfriend she represents.
It feels a little voyeuristic, honestly. Like watching someone have a low-level mental breakdown over the deterioration of their relationship.
With regards to The Room itself: Lisa is such a uniquely selfish, manipulative and conniving character with no redeeming traits to speak of, who is pointlessly cruel and vicious to everyone around her just for her own amusement.
In general this is true of the majority of badly written films with badly written antagonists. I'm less convinced Lisa in specific is meant to be a stand-in for women and more an aggressive subtweet of an ex-girlfriend. "According to Sestero, the character of Lisa is based on a former lover of Wiseau's to whom he intended to propose marriage with a US$1,500 diamond engagement ring, but because she "betray[ed] him multiple times", their relationship ended in a break-up."
Coupled with Tommy Wiseau's self-insert character laughing uproariously when his friend tells him a story about an unfaithful woman he knew who got beaten up by her boyfriend so badly that she was hospitalised
See above; this is not surprising given the context of who Lisa is meant to represent. Yes, the movie is self-pitying and half-autobiographical, but I'm not so sure it's supposed to be an expression of hatred for all women.
The other quote you linked seems to be a... not abnormal thing to think after being screwed over during dating and relationships, so I'm not surprised one would put it in a script. In a similar vein many films have "I'm done with men, they're rapacious bastards"-style quotes by female characters who you are supposed to sympathise with, so I suppose I can say that if you contextualise those as making the films inherently anti-male, I suppose you're consistent.
those elements were just the icing on the cake of its nonsensical plot, illogical characters, bizarre dialogue and its creator's misogynistic, narcissistic worldview
I see this crop up every now and then in discussions about the film, and this evaluation of The Room isn't particularly coherent unless you consider virtually all movies that depict women behaving badly and doing things like "lying to hurt people" as misogynistic. Yes, Lisa is obviously the antagonist and is portrayed in a bad light, having an irredeemable female villain isn't enough to declare a film as advocating hatred of women. Is Gone Girl misogynistic? In addition, many films involve a female protagonist taking revenge on the man/men who victimised her (The Invisible Man, I Spit On Your Grave, etc, to name a few); people seem to have zero problems with those despite these films having far more negative portrayals of men than any kind of "problematic" female portrayal.
It's a terrible film, but its "misogyny" is not one of the reasons why.
What are your favourite art hoaxes?
Pierre Brassau was the pseudonym of a chimpanzee called "Peter" whose art was exhibited and shown to critics, as an experiment by the Swedish journalist Åke Axelsson to see whether critics could tell the difference between avant-garde modern art and the scrawling of a chimpanzee. He convinced Peter's caretaker to let him play with oil paints and a brush, and included the paintings he considered the most worthy in an exhibition. The reviews were extremely positive - one went so far as to state "Pierre Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." Here is one of Peter's paintings, and here is a painting from the Bacchus series by Cy Twombly. I have to say, I, too, prefer the chimpanzee.
Then there's Disumbrationism. It was an entire fictionalised art movement created by one man - Paul Jordan Smith. Annoyed with the fact that his wife's realistic still-life paintings were panned by critics as being "of the old style" when she showed them in a local exhibition, he decided to make parody art under the pseudonym Pavel Jerdanowitch, and despite never having any art training or even having picked up a paintbrush in his life he "took up a defective canvas and in a few minutes splashed out the crude outlines of an asymmetrical savage holding up what was intended to be a star fish, but turned out a banana." The painting was initially called Yes We Have No Bananas, but he eventually entered it to an art exhibition under a new name Exaltation.
He ended up receiving a letter from an art journal praising the art and asking him for more information about himself, as well as an interpretation of the painting. So he invented a whole fucking backstory for Pavel Jerdanowitch (which culminated in him inventing the art style he called "Disumbrationism"), stated the painting was about "breaking the shackles of womanhood", and his name slowly became known. He was asked to exhibit the next year, and he painted another masterpiece: Aspiration. This was reproduced in the January 26, 1926 issue of Chicago's Art World, and art critics described it as a "delightful jumble of Gauguin, Pop Hart and negro minstrelsy with a lot of Jerdanowitch individuality." Later he painted Adoration and Illumination, which were also highly praised. He wrote on the latter painting "It is midnight and the drunken man stumbles home, anticipating a storm from his indignant wife; he sees her eyes and the lightning of her wrath. It is conscience at work."
Eventually he broke the hoax to a news source, and the ruse became widely known.
The Gift by Ishmael Ensemble is a tune I've been enjoying lately. It almost sounds Thom Yorke-esque, like it could've been a track on the album In Rainbows.
Also I've been looking into East Asian classical music lately and some of it sounds incredibly alien and bizarre. Here are two examples: Korean ritual music and Vietnamese court music.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Thing is, labels such as "progressivism" and "social conservatism" are constantly-shifting categories that get defined in relation to the norm, and the agreed-on societal starting point for debate has shifted left to the point that the social conservatives of today are liberals driving the speed limit and the social conservatives of yore are just horrible alt-righter fascists. The conservatism that many espouse over here is no longer inside the Overton Window.
Sorry for the late reply, been flat out.
I don't think they're exceptionally common here - really this forum's social conservatives are not representative of "social conservatives" in general, but there are a couple of users who are more adjacent to it and have opinions on sex and gender which basically justify displacing disproportionate amounts of responsibility to men. This part of their belief system is often not stated outright since TheMotte is generally hostile to this brand of thinking, but it's noticeable that they will shift between an "equality-of-opportunity" standard when it comes to discussions about what rights men should be granted over women (if they don't just elide that entire discussion entirely), while at the same time invoking men's supposed degenerate nature and women's inherent vulnerability in ways which would justify placing extra responsibility and deference on the part of men towards women. There is also a noticeable amount of focus on female safety sometimes in spite of women being a demographic that's far less likely to face violence than men. Especially when it allows them to pull one over on groups like the homeless or foreigners.
Probably not going to @ anyone here, but an example of a well-known social conservative with some appeal to younger men who I appreciate and yet who I think goes much harder on men than on women is Jordan Peterson (granted, his popularity has subsided recently and I haven't kept up with the newer popular conservative commentators). I do appreciate his commentary, I think he gets many things right, and I appreciate his critiques of feminist patriarchy theory. At the same time, his assignment of responsibility is highly directed toward men. As an example of this much of his dating philosophy centers around the idea that women should be picky, and men should adapt to their demands. He says about as much here in this clip, and asserts that if men aren't having success in the dating market, it can never be overly high or unreasonable female demands that are the issue. Women by definition cannot be the problem, and sexually unsuccessful men are at fault for not adapting to their preferences (this despite the fact that male status and attractiveness to women is relative, not absolute, so there will always be a group of men who are shafted by the 80/20 rule). So, men are to be the responsible adults yoked to meet their wants and needs, and this attitude towards men's role in society can be seen in his opinions on many topics. Men are conceptualised primarily through the lens of duty.
When asked "should women, in relationships, submit to men", OTOH, his assertion is that no, they should not. His philosophy on the role of the sexes in society often places obligations on men to cater to the wants and needs of women, children and society, and doesn't really impose very many sex-specific obligations on women in return. I've never seen him say anything even slightly similar to women in general, with the harsh tone of "Improve yourselves, buckettes, because you're shitting society up." Nor, apparently, should women surrender rights for the state of eternal childhood and lack of responsibility they enjoy. It's traditionalism for men and liberation for women, part 3000.
I would say they're not mirror images; namely, that 19th century patriarchal paternalism was far more consistent and reciprocal than things are today. Sure, men were the heads of the household with some legal power like owning the property that came into the marriage and being able to enter into contracts, but that came with a corresponding responsibility - husbands had a legal responsibility to support their wives and any children born out of the marriage, and what was considered "necessaries" for a wife (and kids) was dependent on socioeconomic status. So a rich man could not simply leave his wife in rags, feed her gruel and claim she was technically being supported. The courts would not accept this.
The next thing to note is that the husband, along with taking ownership of all of his wife's property, also took responsibility for all of her debts before marriage. Husbands continued to be responsible for all family debts contracted after marriage as well. A wife could also buy necessaries on her husband's credit (this was called the law of agency), and had the ability to act as her husband's agent. This is important because it means all debt contracted on behalf of the family's maintenance (whether made by the husband or the wife) was held to be the husband's debt. And defaulting on the debt meant he could go to jail. In the 18th/19th centuries, the vast majority of imprisoned debtors in England and Wales were men (all estimates of the sex ratios of imprisoned debtors are over 90% male), and it is likely that coverture was a very big reason why.
Now? The male end of the responsibility is still being socially upheld under a veneer of female helplessness and victimisation, and at the same time, women are equally as capable as men and all of that agitprop distinctly non-agentic framing that emphasises their need for special protections shouldn't impact your evaluations of their suitability for leadership positions that require one to exercise agency. You don't want to be a misogynist, do you?
I would note that feminist treatment of women as perpetual children and men as perpetual adults is highly selective and inconsistent. They'll selectively absolve the woman of all responsibility and place all fault on the man when these poor darlings are "pumped and dumped" and taken advantage of and supposedly manipulated into sex acts that get retroactively interpreted as predatory once the outcomes of the sex don't result in what they want. They will put out pieces of special pleading explaining how women's special circumstances justifies them being treated more lightly when dealing with them in multiple contexts, sexual, professional, criminal and so on. The same people who pull such shenanigans will generally not acknowledge that women's lack of agency and unique delicateness should ever affect how they get treated when they are in the running for leadership roles or positions which require one to take on a huge amount of responsibility. There is no consistency here, it's all "Who, whom".
The even more irritating thing is that much of these same beliefs are also sincerely held by social conservatives (including many users in this space), who tend to typecast women as "potential victims" and men as "potential problems"; they view women through a lens of what others can do for them and men through a lens of what they can do for others. They are exceptionally paternalistic towards women, have a tendency to place all responsibility and blame upon men, and will virtually only recognise "innate sex differences" in ways which justify special and preferential treatment for women. The acknowledgement that men and women are not the same only ever gets used in one direction, and this hypocrisy seems to be common in mainstream political thought on gender.
Perhaps I'm missing something but are you talking about Insite? Because that was the first such sanctioned facility in all of North America, and AIUI how that went was somewhat different: Insite was started in 2003 as part of a three-year pilot study, with a special exception to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act applying to it so it could function as a safe injection site. The exception was slated to expire in 2006, but it was granted yet another three-year extension so more research could be conducted. Health minister Tony Clement eventually stated there was a lack of health benefits and denied it yet another extension, meaning Insite would close, but a constitutional challenge was brought by the operators and proponents of the facility.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the benefits for already-existing users were clear and that failing to extend the exception would violate the rights of its clients as outlined by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the Section 7 rights to not be deprived of life, liberty or security in accord with the “principles of fundamental justice”. Note that the Court did not establish a positive right to safe injection sites, but did make it so that once InSite was established, depriving its users of that benefit would be a violation of their s7 rights. Because of that ruling, BC is now obligated to continue exempting Insite.
Case in question is Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society.
Seconded - I used to play piano, and Arabesque no. 1 was one of my favourite pieces to perform. It's almost unbelievably beautiful.
I can barely listen to recordings of it though, because so many interpretations of the piece play it way too fast.
Of course; there are obviously many load-bearing institutions that can't be burned to the ground without many disastrous ripple effects. But there are also a great number of institutions and/or subfields - including many of the Truth-producing academic fields and news sources which are most crucial to the spread of the ideology - which are not hugely critical to baseline functioning, and are kept alive in part through public money that frankly shouldn't be going towards producing propaganda-disguised-as-science with infinite degrees of freedom. Arson of these institutions is a public good, in my opinion.
It's Edmund Burke vs. Thomas Paine for the 50 millionth time. "Slowly and carefully prune away the rot" vs "Revolt and replace the institutions entirely". Jesse/Trace are advocating for the former, and interestingly enough much of the current conservative crop falls into the latter mindset, despite Burke being probably one of the most central figures to Anglosphere conservatism.
Not to go all Hlynka, but the modern right somewhat dovetails with the left in the sense that they have largely shifted from a Burkeian mindset to a Paine-like one overtime. I partially think this is the right seeing how successful revolutionary, scorched-earth tactics were on the left, and realising that advocating tactics characterised by stability and moderation don't work when you're fighting with people who really would like to (possibly violently) overhaul society. But more broadly, I think revolution is attractive to a general political coalition when they're heavily ousted from institutions and placed on the back foot, whereas gradual change that prioritises stability is preferred when these coalitions' beliefs are tolerated within said institutions - the risks and costs of overhauling the system in such a case just outweighs the potential benefit of marginal status gains. The likes of Trace are attempting to appeal to a gradualist version of conservatism that looks like a worse and worse value proposition as time goes on and the left's Long March through the institutions becomes increasingly apparent.
Personally, despite differing with conservatives on many things, I espouse a lot of heterodoxy that's anathema to progressives and would happily warm my hands on the embers of the torched institutions.
Tell me honestly: Am I boned?
I've worked in a small Australian tax accounting firm for 1.5 years. Every single time I ask for feedback on my performance people state that my work quality is very good and that I'm responsible; I was recently given one of the most complex jobs in the firm and I had my manager state in my last one-on-one review that she was impressed I was able to complete it with relatively few review points. In spite of this, I always get a score of 3 (meets expectations) when I'm being rated.
In addition, I often blow internal budgeted time on clients. For context I am badly, chronically burned out and have a tendency to collapse after every workday - it was particularly bad in Nov-Dec24 when a family member died, and the excess of writeoffs from this period has resulted in me getting a job review on a specific client to which I booked most of my billable time. I am not looking forward to that review. Lately I also find management being a little colder to me and I'm not sure if that's because we're nearing the busy season or if they actually have an issue but aren't willing to say anything. Everything about this feels so disconcertingly fake and I'd prefer people be direct with me; I would not like to get fired without much prior foreshadowing.
The final aspect that makes me paranoid is that they're introducing a new staff member tomorrow. I've been killing myself with anxiety for the past month or so and I can't really tell if there's something to this, or if I'm just psyching myself out.
More options
Context Copy link