prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I have some trans friends (who I love dearly) and they are offended by some of J.K. Rowling's remarks and beliefs. When they see Harry Potter content (including streams and clips of the new Harry Potter game), it can be offensive and threatening for them.
Growing up, I had a fondness for Harry Potter. I read all the books, watched all the movies, and to this day I have a deep nostalgic attachment to the franchise. I don't personally have an issue with Harry Potter, and all I have seen in terms of criticism of J.K. Rowling was Dave Chapelle's stand-up special (not particularly critical) and a blog post about an inflammatory tweet J.K. Rowling made about a male rapist transitioning and asking for internment in a women's prison (this seems like the edgiest of all edge cases and only useful as an inflammatory wedge).
I believe that my trans friends should be able to browse the internet without seeing content they deem hateful/disturbing (like harry potter content). But I also sympathize with people who want to play the new Harry Potter game or watch their favorite streamer play the new game.
Furthermore, there's an issue where if a streamer has trans viewers (I'd imagine most of the top 100 streamers have at least a couple, and the top 10 streamers in any channel have many trans viewers), by playing the new Harry Potter game the streamer is knowingly streaming content that will offend (some of) those trans viewers (admittedly not all trans people will be offended by the Harry Potter stuff).
My current position is that I hope the hubbub and streamer playthroughs of the game will subside in a week or two and we can just forget the whole thing. But I think this kind of tension will come up a lot. Like the next time Dave Chappelle releases a special. I will want to watch it.
How can I support my trans friends while also being okay with people enjoying the new Harry Potter game?
How should I feel about streamers who choose to play the new Harry Potter game on stream? In some sense they have disregarded my friends' feelings and excluded them from their community!
Any response is much appreciated.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
On its face, and from my comfy armchair, consuming my western news, the invasion of Ukraine seems like such a colossal waste of human lives and military power.
When I think about other recent conflicts, the ones that come to mind were also incredibly wasteful, but they make sense to me in a way that the Ukraine war does not (maybe because I'm not russian?). The recent examples that come to mind are the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the American defense of South Vietnam. These were arguably also very wasteful but maybe not on the scale of the Ukraine war. Are these good analogies for the war in Ukraine?
My initial ideas relate to the idea that Russia had a lot of military power that was sitting around unused and a bunch of petro income that made any sanctions less meaningful. Maybe the invasion/war hasn't actually been costly? Perhaps Russian leaders (and the hawks among them) saw nationalist fracturing of the tech supply chain coming anyways and this just accelerates it?
What does Russia get for the tremendous expenditure of resources in the invasion and following conflict? Is there some piece of context that helps the invasion make sense to a westerner?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I've been seeing media reports (1) about ISPs asking for companies (especially companies that use a lot of bandwidth like Netflix) to pay for network infrastructure. A quick google led me to a number of articles (2,3,{1}) that read something like:
"Large corporate bandwidth user resists efforts by ISPs or governments to make them pay for bandwidth use" (this is a little bit flippant, but isn't all that far from the truth).
My intuitive response is that users of bandwidth should pay for it, including large companies. This seems fairly straightforward, right?
Another article (4) mentioned that "net neutrality" is the idea that prevents ISPs from charging their customers. How is this defensible?
Another quick google leads me to this article (5) which mentions that one advantage of net neutrality is freedom of speech (which the modal mottizen might be inclined to support), but this goes against the straightforward argument that customers (e.g., Netflix) of a service (network infra providers) should pay for it. What gives?
Sources:
-
This week (mar-2023): https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/netflix-fights-attempt-to-make-streaming-firms-pay-for-isp-network-upgrades/
-
More than a year ago (sep-2022): https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/google-fights-latest-attempt-to-have-big-tech-pay-for-isps-network-upgrades/
-
More than 10 years ago (feb-2011): https://www.osnews.com/story/24357/internet-infrastructure-who-should-pay/
-
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-pays-internet-infrastructure-simon-dillsworth/
-
https://www.itpro.com/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
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
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
Seems reasonable to dismiss Aella’s experience as an outlier and criticize her surveys as less than rigorous (As an aside, if they are in fact rigorous I’d love to see some sort of review, I’ve been wondering about this).
Meghan loses a few points for refusing to answer the “what would change your mind” tactic, but I think if it was a boxing match she would have scored more points. It felt a little bit like a boxing match.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Sure, I’ll admit that general intelligence is a factor for some students when they choose to take honors classes.
I’d argue that for most students (middle of the Bell curve) the choice is related to other factors like signaling to colleges, their work ethic, their family dynamics (pressure from family, support from family), and their desire to challenge themselves and not be bored.
Edit: I forgot to add that which class a students’ cohort takes is probably a huge driver as well
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Interesting, @netstack expressed a similar sentiment below.
That makes sense to me (that the invasion was a miscalculation), but why continue the conflict now? If that were truly the case why wouldn’t Russia seek to de-escalate and extricate itself to rejoin the global economy?
Also, my recollection is that after 2014 Russia began saving up a rainy day fund of a few hundred billion dollars in foreign currency, which when combined with ongoing income from exporting natural resources meant they could withstand sanctions for a few years. Wouldn’t that indicate that they believed a prolonged sanctions regime was possible before they invaded?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
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.
Why is ridicule an appropriate reaction in this case and not civil discourse? (this is an earnest question, not rhetorical. Would you lay out the case for this approach?)
Edit: clarify earnest-ness
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
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
In principle this sounds nice, but in reality pro players need to kick ass on the field/ice and also not piss off all the people that buy jerseys. And they need to say inane boring shit during press conferences even if they don’t feel like it. If the guy on the bench can play 90-95% as skillfully and will also do the other parts of the job then he should definitely play over the brand risk who is slightly better.
I couldn't think of a single case where students picked honors classes due to any sort of peer influence
This is fair, but I have anecdata to the contrary-- let's call it a draw on that one.
And basically no student is going to think "I'm so smart I need honors classes;" rather, it's more "I'm smart/good at academics enough to take honors classes and excel which is better for my college prospects than taking regular classes and excelling (and I'm smart enough that the risk of taking honors classes and being mediocre is very low)."
I like your characterization of a hypothetical student's motivation better here, it seems more plausible.
If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're saying that the primary driver for students taking honors classes is their general intelligence? I still think I disagree, and would argue that social factors are a bigger driver (when you take into account the whole distribution of intelligence in a given honors class). I'd be curious to know if there's relevant research.
Edit: singular possessive
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Back in 2019 Alex Byrne wrote one of my favorite essays on the incoherence of gender identity and as far as I can tell no one has managed to offer a solid refutation.
I love the part of this essay where he goes through the various definitions of gender identity. That is fascinating, and to me illustrates that they are indeed kind of incoherent (or minimally useful outside their specific context, like political/social activism, clinical care, etc). I'd be curious what those definitions are now (it's been a few years)-- perhaps they have evolved as the cultural battle lines shift.
Instead of using these shaky definitions as a basis for a half-assed mathematical (philosophical?) proof he should have gone on to look at formal definitions of male, female, man, and woman with the same rigor. I'd imagine that they are also riddled with inconsistency or context-specific bias. Humans are complicated and muddy (especially at the margins), and any comprehensive "truth" needs to reflect that reality.
Personally I think that some are threatened by the idea of trans people because their existence suggests that our closely-held ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman might be too simple. In the future, when the gender identity people have won (because reality is in fact complicated), we'll probably have more creative (or straightforward?) ways to signal "I can provide semen" or "I can bear a child" or "I can provide you your desired sexual experience."
In that future it wouldn't surprise me if we came to accept that people's "switches," as Byrne puts it, are often innate but also at times flexible and subject to change on a biological basis, whim, trauma, or desire. It's just that the current political/social climate can't accommodate that reality, and current medical technology can't support wearing a different gender to work every day of the week.
Is there some irony that we're talking about burdensome Australian swimming pool regulation in a gun-control thread?
Edit: the joke being that (so I hear) Australian gun control regulation is also burdensome
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I’ve never seen a black person treated worse than an equivalent white person.
My brother and 3 of his friends/roommates got pulled over for a traffic violation a couple years ago. It was a major interstate in the U.S. about an hour from a large metro area. There was a white guy driving and a white guy in the passenger seat and two black guys in the back seat. Culturally, they were all middle-class college kids. The cop/trooper asked for the driver’s ID and the ID of the two black guys, not the white passenger.
I’m cherry-picking a bit of your post that’s beside the point you’re trying to make, but it’s fair to say that sometimes people (including law enforcement) let stereotypes drive their actions.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
First of all, I hope this poster has read https://www.themotte.org/post/195/what-to-do-when-you-get
Ah, cool, thanks for that-- I hadn't read it. There is some good advice in there.
Second of all, I'd like to express my disappointment in nearly every response I've seen them receive. The fact that their question, which appears to have been made in total good faith, is still getting dogpiled and drive by downvotes is vicariously embarrassing. This isn't a culture war issue.
Hearing this feels really good, and I can see how you feel that way. The replies were arguably kind of harsh. I am fine with the response I got, although in my ideal timeline the responses would have given me more intellectual ammunition, terms/ideas to google, and examples/stories of how to disagree with your friends.
Before posting I did, for a brief moment, wonder if I should post in the culture war thread instead of wellness wednesday but went ahead because it was clearly framed as a personal issue, and I was basically genuine.
One possible reading of my initial post (and some of the replies) is that I was trying to steel-man my friend's position (without knowing exactly what it was because I had avoided the subject), but in all honesty my views and position on the matter initially weren't all that well-defined beyond some misgivings, and I've refined my position a lot since then.
An uncharitable read might see some of the responses from prof xi o as sealioning.
Hadn't heard of this, I can see how it might fit some of my replies.
apparently this justifies an accusation of trolling, to the tune of a 45 [edit: 30, my back of the skull hangover sums aren't great] updoot difference
I did eventually notice the downvotes (maybe they don't show up on mobile or something? for some reason in some views I didn't see them) and my initial thought was, "that's odd, I should ignore that and consider it a sign of engagement with the content, I shouldn't let it discourage me from posting." I was more excited that I got some high-effort responses.
I also noticed that downvotes don't show up on people's profiles (comments do), and I think comments are a better signal of quality engagement (probably)
One problem with the downvotes is that it's not totally clear what they're about, here's my predictions about what they mean:
-
30% Your position is stupid, I'm not going to argue, just downvote, go do some research
-
30% I don't like trans people bossing around the internet
-
20% This should have been in the culture war thread
-
20% this is clearly a troll
P.S. I will be appropriately embarrassed if the OP turns out to be another d*rwin, until that point try leaving the internet at the door and treating everyone as if they are, in fact, sincere.
If my goal as a poster is to drive engagement with my post that aligns pretty well with the goals of a troll, is there an important distinction? I guess I also am interested in learning rather than just driving engagement/outrage, so that might be detectable.
I want to hear the d*rwin story
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
J.K. Rowling appears to be as trans-positive as it is possible to be without accepting outright falsehoods or social policies that literally and demonstrably endanger women.
This seems like a stretch, can you elaborate here? Like the thing about a rapist asking to be imprisoned with women is hardly evidence that women in general are in danger (I'll admit maybe I'm just ignorant here). It's a cherry-picked example of an extreme edge case that's easily handled on a case-by-case basis.
If they're really your friends, it won't hurt them that you enjoy Hogwarts Legacy; they have no reason to think it will hurt you.
This seems disingenuous (although it's poetic), I don't think anyone's under the illusion that it will hurt me-- isn't it about politics or something?
I do my best to function as a moral exemplar to them, and I like to think they are doing their best to do the same for me. Our disagreement does not preclude any of that.
How do you address topics with your friends that you know you disagree on? Can you give an example? Especially when they come up organically, in the course of regular conversation? This happened to me today, and I avoided the subject.
In no plausible sense have they disregarded your friends' feelings (how could they even be aware of your specific individual feelings?)
This isn't quite correct-- literally no one was surprised (that's hyperbole, sorry, but you get the point) that there was a boycott of the game and loud pushback.
But you've absolutely no reason at all to fault others for playing Hogwarts Legacy or streaming it. And if your trans friends think less of you for being insufficiently enraged by their own pet neurosis, well, then they are not very good friends.
So to go back to the specific example that prompted my post, the friend I was talking with today didn't behave that way-- when the issue came up in conversation and I kind of side-stepped, she did as well and we didn't speak of it again. I didn't feel good about it for a few reasons, one of which was I wasn't totally sure how I felt about the issue. I'm hoping to get some more clarity and then either destroy her with facts and logic or live and let live (or maybe a wild third option I hadn't considered yet).
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.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I’m inclined to agree, but do you also agree that having a different racial makeup of these honors classes relative to baseline is a problem? If so, how do other ideologies (non-woke) solve it in a productive way?
The actual effects of these actions are: parents that can afford it remove their kids from the district and send them to private school or move the entire family to a new district.
Yes, it also occurred to me that motivated/resourced parents will get their kids in with better teachers at the same school (even though they are all non-honors now).
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).
Hey! First time poster here. Please be critical.
I saw this article last week and am not sure how to think about it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-increase-equity-school-districts-eliminate-honors-classes-d5985dee
The TL;DR is that honors classes in this subset of all honors classes had a clear bias in terms of racial makeup relative to baseline. So they stopped offering honors classes.
On the one hand this seems super effective— with a strategy like this maybe in a generation or so when they start offering honors classes again there might be less bias.
On the other hand my intuition says that in general 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.
It seems relevant to the school-flavor culture war stuff.
Any links to previous threads on similar topics would be appreciated.
Curious to know more.
Edit: not bait, genuine curiosity. Got some good criticism about low-effort top-level-posting, would appreciate suggestions/pointers to excellent top-level posts.
Continued edit: Also curious what about this post codes it as bait? A few people saw it that way.
More options
Context Copy link