prof_xi_o
1yr ago
They'd pretend it's all planned and go begging to China.
Which is particularly interesting, because I saw some commentators talking about how the war in Ukraine was causing big problems for many of the (relatively) poor debtors in china’s belt-and-road initiative, making china unhappy about the war and less likely to aid Russia.
I saw this idea (that belt-and-road debtors would be hard-hit by economic fallout from the war) floating around before the grain deal was struck, so maybe the state of the global economy is different now. There was that big showy meeting between Putin and Xi recently.
Also, isn’t it in China’s interest to have a weaker northern neighbor?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
That's fair, but plumbers aren't also public figures (usually). Part of being a pro athlete is becoming and being a public figure, and that's part of why they are paid so well and receive sponsorship offers, etc. Without the eyeballs of the masses being good at a sport would be far less valuable, and if athletes help people get invested in the team through their brand as a public figure they become more valuable and teams have more incentive to use them on the field (of course they have to be good as a prerequisite).
I'd say that a roster player in a sport like American football, where there are ~50 people on the team, can get away with not being a public figure. But that means they can't enjoy the benefits of being a public figure and have to keep a low profile, because they're a roster player and can easily be replaced.
Another factor that the sports media sometimes talks about is locker room dynamics. It's unclear to me if this is a real thing, ideally pro athletes would be consummate professionals and only care about their colleagues' athletic performance. But if it is a real thing, I'd imagine that sometimes players who rock the boat publicly may also do so privately. When it comes to the OP's example it seems unlikely that this is relevant, but maybe it's relevant more generally.
Are you suggesting that 0% of a player's off-the-field conduct should be considered in decisions about whether to play them (criminal misconduct aside)? In principle I agree, coaches who want to win a game should play their best-performing players. But coaches will bench good players for not attending weekly practices, so should that not count? Teams could make internal, social agreements about individual player conduct that could be broken, should that not be considered? I'd be comfortable saying that 2-5% of a pro player's social conduct can and should be a factor in their employment (with wiggle room for different sports and for stars/franchise players).
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
One problem is that all the current (human-rated) vehicles aren’t designed for affordable trips to space— they’re designed around constraints that will make them prohibitively expensive.
Dragon is for NASA (nuff said), New Shephard is boring (probably the closest to scaling into the vicinity of affordable though), and from my armchair virgin galactic seems like an expensive deathtrap (no in-flight abort? Manual controls?). Realistically, Starship won’t carry humans to orbit for many years (if ever) because of launch abort feasibility issues.
Maybe the next iteration of tourism vehicles will be more promising (for the less-wealthy among us). Something like a V2 of Dragon but built for tourism and cost from the beginning maybe. Flying humans reliably is wicked hard.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is great advice, thanks for the suggestions and the story.
I’ll consider this approach.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I should have done this to begin with, but I read through some of the stuff that J.K. Rowling is being pilloried for (by some). I didn't really care all that much beforehand, just saw the memes, etc.
I read this article which summarizes her essay, includes some tweets, and includes quotes from a few of celebrities.
I read her essay from 2020
There's not that much in there that I take all that much issue with. I think fearmongering about people fraudulently changing gender to predate women isn't much of a real concern (though I can see how survivors/victims of assault, etc would feel that way). It probably happens but not often. Prisons and shelters already have systems in place already for preventing inmate-on-inmate violence/assault, and clear cases of fraud can be caught (isn't there still tons of inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons anyways? Is the sex of inmates really the issue there?). Could probably make a utilitarian argument that allowing gender change is good enough and improves lives for enough people that 1-in-a-million (this number isn't really fair, maybe it's one in 10,000 or 1 in 1000) cases of fraud are fine.
But I think what you're saying is that even if you don't believe that the trans-in-women's-spaces issue matters, that's the worst of what J.K. Rowling has said, and this can't be construed in good faith as transphobic. Is that right? I don't think transphobic is a good word to describe J.K. Rowling, but I think some of what she said can easily be construed as offensive or threatening.
Sex-segregated spaces like prisons or women's shelters have historically been sex-segregated for good reason--because women are characteristically vulnerable to men in certain specific ways. You can't say "that's a cherry-picked case" while also maintaining that Rowling is somehow transphobic; her opposition to the statement "trans women are women" extends only and exactly to the cases that are so obvious, your instinct is to call them "cherry-picked."
The reason I say this is cherry-picked is because it's not relevant to the reality of the debate-- it's such a rare example that it's mostly useful for rabble-rousing.
If you're looking for ways to "destroy her with facts and logic" then you're being a pretty shitty friend.
This doesn't necessarily follow. Sometimes a good debate amongst friends is fun. I'll admit that in this instance I was being flippant and making a cultural reference, and that "destroying her with facts and logic" would not be a good approach. What I meant by this was "One approach I am considering is disclosing my true position to her and laying out a reasoned, rational case for why I feel that way."
And really--if she's a decent friend, you saying "I think you're great and I like your company, but I just disagree with you about some of these things and I'm worried that our friendship might not survive our disagreement,"
This is good advice, I am thankful for your responses here. I might try something like "I support you in any of your efforts to boycott the new Harry Potter game. Someone recommended me this cool adblocker that can do keyword filtering on YouTube. [provide reference to uBlocker]. I need to confess that I am not personally offended by Harry Potter content and won't be filtering it out of my own internet experience. I understand that this might offend you, but I value our friendship and want to be honest about my personal and political views. [hopefully this leads to a good discussion about why she feels so offended by J.K. Rowling and the new Harry Potter game and I can further refine my position].
In hindsight this approach would have been preferable to avoiding the subject, if the opportunity presents itself I will give it a try and report back.
Part of the problem is that some of my trans friends have expressed that they don't feel like pushing their views on other people, they would just rather avoid the issue entirely. So I want to be careful about bringing it up to be sensitive to their expressed desires (back to that filtering out offensive shit idea).
There's a whole body of literature devoted to treating alcoholism (and also what people affected by / close to alcoholics should do). I am no expert here, but if you feel like classifying your partner as alcoholic, some of what comes to mind is setting boundaries that protect you (maybe this is what you mean by breaking up should this behavior recur again). To be fair, I sometimes worry that pathologizing alcohol use isn't productive.
Here's one of the top google hits I got, one suggestion that stands out to me that you should consider is:
Rather than obsessively monitoring your spouse’s drinking behavior, keeping constant tabs on their whereabouts, attempting to discard their alcohol, lecturing them, forbidding them from drinking, or pleading with them to stop drinking, you may choose to practice the art of actively releasing control over your spouse’s alcohol use. You did not cause their drinking, you cannot control it, and you cannot cure it.
This is only one approach that they mention and your mileage may vary, but maybe a dose of this in whatever intervention you pursue would be useful.
I think you (or a dispassionate observer in you and your partner's vicinity) should do some very careful analysis of the problem. Some people use therapists/counselors/religious entities/etc for this. People in relationships with alcoholics are often recommended therapy for themselves. What triggers/motivates the undesirable behavior? It may be a combination of factors (stress, relationship issues, friends who are alcoholics, dissatisfaction with life, unhappiness, just wanting to have fun and let loose, they feel like they aren't in control).
Have you considered setting up a way for your partner to get blackout drunk once in a while in a safe way? Like maybe they want to do this every 6 months or so.
Make sure you are safe, focus on your own needs first, support your partner as you can, including by separating if that is the appropriate intervention. This shit is hard, but you can do it. Good luck!
Edit: punctuation
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is exactly what the linked twitter post is pointing at: thinking it not just funny, but hilarious, to have another political tribe turn up and run roughshod over existing members and culture.
Right, right, it's obviously offensive, but you have to admit there's a joke there, the stereotype of ham radio is super-nerdy/technical which is a stark contrast to the (stereotypical) queer propoganda.
Sure, to be fair to you it sounds like you have had some bad experiences before, and that sucks, honestly. And it sounds like the strategy you used was to withdraw from those communities. If you had a second chance, would you do the same thing again?
What would you say to my trans friends if you were having lunch with them and they brought up the Harry Potter issue?
edit: clarification
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I think we're getting a little bit off-track here, I am sympathetic to the idea that demanding to take down objectionable content only leads to taking down other less-objectionable content in the long-run. For the sake of argument let's say my trans friends aren't planning on harassing anyone (I believe this to be true, but could be wrong).
Imagine you had a friend who was upset about getting served Harry Potter content and one of their favorite streamers had streamed the new game despite it being clear that some of the trans folks in her community were against it. What would you say to them? Would you avoid the subject?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Ahhh, they are actually talking about ham radio-- I thought that was a euphemism. That's hilarious, imagine spamming ham radio with queer propoganda! There is additional irony because in the US AM radio (admittedly different from ham radio) is considered to be almost exclusively "Red Tribe" or US right-wing. I've heard US left-wing people complain about it.
The behavior you're describing (talking/being sexual) isn't limited to trans (or even queer) people, I've been in all-male workplaces where talking about sex and sex acts was commonplace (there were porno magazines in the break room). That isn't to say that the behavior is appropriate, though.
It seems like what you're describing is the same thing my trans friends are describing with regard to Harry Potter content? Am I wrong there? Like you don't want to see/hear offensive content in those hobbyist spaces and want to filter it? Thankfully the internet can maybe one day provide this functionality in a way that ham radio cannot.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Looking at your friends' social media, do they treat other people with this level of respect?
Good question, to be honest I exclusively interact with them in private spheres. I would hope my friends treat others with respect, and I'd be willing to forgive some transgressions.
I don't quite get this one-- is the post quoting an extreme tweet and then providing commentary? I read this as "I'm going to go annoy some people who don't really deserve it," which sounds annoying. Maybe in some contexts that sentiment would be justified (though not necessarily the action), like if they were implying "some people annoyed me, so I'm going to go annoy them back." Not saying that's what's happening there, just a little confused at what that post is saying.
In fact the demands for comfort are often part of that strategy: forcing "friends and allies" to constantly debase themselves obsequiously following every new demand without question.
That's an interesting tweet-- in a vacuum (without the culture-war context) that would be the perfect algorithm for updating prior beliefs, if the last step included some wiggle room for the alternative conclusion. That said, most would read that tweet within the culture-war context, in which it's arguably kind of offensive, because it assumes the poster is always right.
At some point you will have to choose between obedience and self-respect.
I appreciate the advice, I will consider this.
Edit: punctuation
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I think you need to rethink what you are saying here. If you mean that literally, then obviously Harry Potter and JK Rowling (just for a start) would have to be scrubbed off the Internet.
Wait, that doesn't necessarily follow-- the idea is that we can tailor our media experiences to see the content that we want to see right? And filter out content that we don't? This could be through features on our social media or regular media websites or by choosing what content delivery channels to consume, right?
I would also ask if anyone else should be able to browse the Internet without seeing content they deem hateful/disturbing. Radical feminists? Muslims? White nationalists? Surely you can see the problem here.
Same idea here, isn't that what we do already by choosing where to spend our time on the internet and with human and automated moderation?
No offense, but you very much sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be a good ally to all your trans friends who are telling you that anyone who plays the Harry Potter game or watches Dave Chappelle is hurting them, but you also want to play the Harry Potter game and watch Dave Chappelle.
None taken, and I don't think ally is what I'm going for here, just a good friend. Like, what would you do in my position? Do you have any advice? Based on your reply, I would guess you might try to talk through the issue with them? Try to convince them to play the Harry Potter game? Thus far I have just avoided the subject.
For the record, I would like to watch Dave Chappelle again, don't care if I play the Harry Potter game.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate your points. All I have is my intuitive sense of why people choose honors classes. It sounds like my intuitive model of those people is different than yours. That's fine.
Edit: actually this wasn't your initial post, it was someone else. Apologies.
I went and re-read your initial post. My claim was that:
it’s okay to allow students to self-select (or students and whoever is telling them what to do) and decide how much schoolwork they want to do.
I went to American (US) public high school, and my recollection is that the main differentiator for the honors classes was that there was more schoolwork (more note-taking in english, more books to read) and the kids who took the classes were "better." Maybe that's not true across all high schools. I think that maybe International Baccalaureate (IB) or Advanced Placement (AP) would be better examples of places where true high-performers go.
I'm just saying that, due to the filtering effect of honors classes, they're generally going to consist of students who are higher in general intelligence than the broader student population at the given school and grade.
I'm inclined to agree, as long as you're saying that the average intelligence is higher. Maybe that's too much of a nitpick, but certainly there would be overlap in the distributions of general intelligence in honors and regular classes.
Teachers aren't perfect at gauging a student's potential ability to make use of honors classes, but I believe they're better than chance.
I'd rather use standardized tests for this, wouldn't you? Or a combination of standardized tests and nomination by teachers of students with merit? Teachers have all kinds of biases, and some teachers are terrible (many teachers awesome).
Edit: clarification in last paragraph
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I don’t think that high schools sports is a good analogy for honors classes. And I meant middle of the bell curve within students who take honors classes. The smartest kids will need educational experiences tailored to their needs (arguably honors classes might not be the best for the smartest kids). But for most kids in honors classes I would guess that their motivation is not “I’m so smart I need honors classes.”
Aren’t honors classes purely opt-in (no analogy for tryouts and selection)?
I would guess that more students pick honors classes because their friends are taking them than any other (explicit) reason, which you can’t always say for someone who makes the varsity baseball team.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Interesting perspective, I love the idea that when there are strong "tribal" affiliations it can be a valid choice to explicitly have representation.
I'm going to have to think about that duality you mentioned-- maybe it's not just the american progressives, like the war in Afghanistan/Iraq come to mind, there's the justification for those invasions (both of which were arguably or factually bullshit) and the reality, which is taboo to mention
Someone down below mentioned "Orthopraxy" as opposed to "Orthodoxy" your point about the rabbi brings that to mind.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I was hoping that the culture war roundup would be that place (where current happenings get a little bit more wiggle room), but based on the feedback I’m getting it sounds like the community expects more effort out of top-level posts.
If you have any specific suggestions or some top-level posts you really like I’d love to hear/see them
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I apologize since you asked us to >be nice
No need to apologize, appreciate the criticism.
Not trying to troll, just looking to flesh out my own knowledge. Seems reasonable to expect more effort out of top-level posts, but what does that look like?
A timebox for research beforehand (you must spend 10 min researching and 10 min writing about the topic before posting)?
What are the characteristics of a good top-level post? Do you have some examples of your favorite top-level posts?
DSL seems to have a much >broader number of topics to >discuss.
What is DSL?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Sorry, to be clear I thought what you had to say was interesting and relevant. It had to be said though, I was hoping it would just be one of many comments and wouldn’t be disruptive
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I also did not like him handwaving away the social construction model for race but allowing it for gender. He needed to make a much stronger case for that to make any sense.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I don't believe males belong in female prison, regardless of what crimes either of them commit
This seems reasonable, but do you believe this because of some moral or religious principle? Why is that the criteria for which prison to put people in?
Like what if we could contrive a scenario where a prison operator puts their trans (MtF) women prisoners in female prisons and then some metrics that the prison operator cares about get better? Like total number of rapes goes down. Or violent assaults go down. Wouldn’t allowing that policy be better than clinging to the idea that prisons should be separated by gender/sex because [insert principle here, or just status quo?].
I’m not a prison expert, so I can’t say that this contrived example in any way reflects reality, but the point I’m trying to make is that the reflexive, intuitive “trans women shouldn’t go in men’s prisons” might not reflect the complexities of the real world (Like for example a more common issue is trans women who commit crimes {after becoming trans} and then are imprisoned. Where do they go? Prison operators don’t want them raped or assaulted (they’re on hormones, so physically weaker on average and may present as more feminine).
I’m not saying that the contrived scenario matches reality, but I am curious what your response is to that idea.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This claim (hypothetical male rapist becomes trans, is transferred to women's prison without care or thought, then commences raping other defenseless women inmates who are all smaller and weaker than her) suggests a whole host of hypothetical realities without evidence, and then you go on to suggest something vague about trans people in general.
An uncharitable reading of your post is that rapists being put in with any prison population is worse than trans people being put in with their corresponding prison population. That's a wild claim and not at all reasonable. Trans people won't become trans to switch prisons.
I am actually curious though-- is there any evidence for your line of thinking? How many trans rapists are there? I've heard of one case, and I haven't heard any of the details (like it's super important to our discussion to know if the rapist continued raping people or if they became a model inmate). One case (or even a hundred) doesn't rise to the level of being able to generalize about trans people.
I also would like to know more about how inmates in various contexts perceive the option of becoming trans. Is it really as simple as wearing a wig?
Also, should we be incarcerating criminals based on their powerlifting totals (sum of bench press, squat, deadlift maximums) or based on reasoned analyses of their expected behavior? People raping each other in prisons is a solvable problem, and if any inmate thinks becoming trans confers an advantage, that's a solvable problem as well.
At best the rapist argument brings up a logistical issue for prison operators.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
So, I appreciate the case you've made (and the story), but I got to thinking:
That dangerous tendency was brutally stamped out by saner members of those communities, not by civil discourse, but by relentless, cruel "dead unvaxxed kid" memes.
Are you sure the memes and shaming are what caused the change in behavior? Wouldn't the simpler, more likely reality be that when kids started dying and getting really sick, enough people changed their minds and herd immunity got better and the status race around anti-vaxxing waned in popularity?
Like, I vaguely recall hearing that the DARE (anti-drug-use-amongst-kids program in the United States a few decades ago) initiative, despite its intention had no effect or the opposite of its intended effect. Isn't that true of many of those public awareness campaigns (and today many of them use coopted memes?) Are you sure that isn't the case with the SoCal anti-vax stuff?
I'm open to the idea that civil arguments aren't always the right approach. I do want to at least have a rationalization for my position, then I can start making convincing arguments and poking fun (ridiculing?).
Do you have any particularly good zingers you would use to ridicule someone who is complaining about the harry potter stuff? (I realize this sounds insensitive, but I would imagine there are some good ones, and the likelihood that I will use them against my friend(s) is low. It's possible that some of the zingers might have kernels of interesting arguments)
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
My main complaint about Picard (aside from the departures from tradition, which aren’t a dealbreaker for me) was that it turned into bland, mediocre sci-fi TV. Not high-effort enough for me, so I petered out after a couple episodes (maybe a season?).
Star Trek Discovery was pretty good (if you lower your expectations appropriately and ignore/skip most of the main character’s monologues and emotionally-focused dialogues).
The Halo adaptation sets me off though, I was upset about it for a while. I’ve cooled off now though, and have found equilibrium around the position “many people who didn’t have any attachment to the franchise beforehand probably enjoy the nice, mass-market TV show that doesn’t really capture the best parts of Halo except for a few fight scenes.”
Needless to say I haven’t watched past the first 3-5 episodes of Halo, and that includes skipping scenes from the non-master chief plot lines entirely.
Would hindus and muslims object to content creators eating beef/pork? I don't know from experience if this is true or not, I will defer to you here. My guess is that they wouldn't mind, based on my Jewish friends not caring if the content creators they watch eat kosher.
I think a better analogy would be something like if J.K. Rowling were to depict the prophet Mohommad like Charlie Hebdo did. I personally am okay with Charlie Hebdo publishing pictures of the prophet, but I understand that this offended and upset many muslims (I don't condone any of the violent responses).
To Muslims (I gather this from media, etc, I am not muslim), depictions of the prophet Mohommad without the proper ritual are super offensive, to trans people, some of the shit that J.K. Rowling (and Dave Chappelle) say is super offensive. Like, that seems okay (that they are offended), right? Are trans people suggesting that they will feel an anxiety-filled death if they see harry potter content? I think that's not fair. In my experience trans people fought for a boycott (valid choice for activist action) and criticized people who didn't boycott (also a valid choice for activists), is that crazy?
Edit: forgot pork
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Your question sets the situation up so that it's expected for me to show some kind of empathy for the friend who's upset, because isn't that what friends do?
Sure, it may require some empathy for my friends, probably more for me though. Maybe it's quibbling but I am sympathetic to both the viewpoint that harry potter content is objectionable and the viewpoint that harry potter content is fine. Sympathetic to streamers that stream the game, but understanding of why that's potentially an issue.
The issue is that I haven't seen they slightest semblance of reciprocation from progressive groups when I get upset at something. Alex Kurtzman shits all over Star Trek? Get over yourself you racist nerd! And so on.
Well that doesn't seem very charitable of the progressive groups-- I have had mixed experiences with the new star trek stuff. I'd be curious if you have a link or a quick summary of the criticism of Kurtzman's take on Star Trek.
- In my perfect world: I call my friend and idiot for fretting over the HP game, and streamers streaming it. My friend calls me a retard for being upset at the new Star Trek. None of that has any negative impact on our friendship, and we even actually enjoy these heated exchanges.
- In my second-best world: I do some active listening routine for my friend, trying to get to what upsets them, and conclude with "yeah that sucks". They do the same for me, re: Star Trek.
- In the demonic hellscape we are forced to live in: I keep my mouth shut. Change the subject. Start avoiding my friend if they keep pushing.
This is great advice, and exactly why I'm glad I posted. I went with option number 3, but I really want to be able to have some level of option number 1-- maybe not calling them an idiot, but being able to discuss it like we are now.
The tweet about spamming ham radio with queer chatter is not a productive analogy. It's funny but clearly inflammatory and uncivil.
I think the better analogy is queer people talking about queer things in the context of a hobbyist space that isn't coded queer. The queer people didn't seek to make anyone uncomfortable, but KingOfTheBailey was offended, threatened, and ended up being excluded as a result. That is a different scenario than what I described but a better analogue.
More options
Context Copy link