@somethingsomething's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 11 05:05:23 UTC


User ID: 1123



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 11 05:05:23 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1123

I think it has to do with gender in the sense that gender is one of the primary ingredients of social groups, even in the hyperliberal paradise of today. For instance you probably wouldn't expect that behavior of male feminists. (edit: unless they're mansplaining to TERFs I suppose). But in the context of this article, with older generations, I think the male version of this is far more common since it was given a lot of room to fester years ago compared to today with men.

Apologies, I missed your parenthetical completely. So how I see it is that with blowhards, it's less on the surface about intelligence but it's related. Regardless of their IQ, blowhards say dumb stuff because by their nature they are bullshitting all the time. If you know something they don't, then voicing that will intimidate them, and they will only accept that behaviour from people they see belonging to a certain kind of social category of mostly belligerent men that they feel comfortable sparring with, and that excludes many women and plenty of other men as well. Exchanging ideas for them is a deeply vulnerable status game, and they try to play to win, even while undermining themselves with all the bullshitting.

But with this strategy it's not just about preferring dumb women. It's actually just as effective to put down and shut down intelligent men or women who try to challenge them. Women who experience think "he just wants a dumb woman." But what he really wants is typical narcissistic desires of adoration and winning and so he cruelly shuts down challengers as a kind of crude tool to get what he wants.

I think this "prefer dumb women" idea could be refined to be a bit clearer to describe what it's pointing to but I think it's how it feels on the surface when you are dealing with these kinds of people. You know something they don't, you tell them, they confidently explain to you why your wrong even though you know they are BSing. Among certain groups of men, I think this behavior is depressingly common.

Why is your criteria that men must explicitly state this preference? There's been infinite debates on "mansplaining" but I believe there is a kernel of truth to it and it's revealed through behavior. I think the gendered aspect is overrated though and what you're really dealing with are blowhards that are socialized around other blowhard men, and I find them unpleasant as a man to a similar degree and would hate being married to one. Importantly though, these types have no self-awareness and are unable to articulate their true preferences.

When it comes to literature I am certainly not paying enough attention, I basically don't read anything contemporary besides excerpts here and there, and so I don't really have the grounds to make such a sweeping statement. But regarding "scripted" media, screenwriting, I feel pretty up to date on how things have degraded from what highs we managed to reach in the past.

On the other hand, when you talk about writers who can't even get in a magazine I feel like I just don't care. It's like when everyone says there music is just as good these days, you just have to find certain bands etc. It's just nothing like the amount of experience and culture of excellence in the music industry in say the 70s that elevated everyone together. Art goes beyond individuals, and plucky youths can only get so far. I don't think there are exceptions to this rule, I think great art always comes through the world as a movement, and dies out with the movement, and the fame is part of that, because it's how the culture spreads, it orients people's motivations, and puts great expectations on the artists to continue to grow and deliver, see Goethe. Even Van Gogh, the talented loser, wanted to be famous, and was part of a great movement, even though no one gave a shit about him till he died, he was still elevated by the works around him and elevated others in turn.

Yeah, I think there needs to be a kind of environmental momentum, and the critics are part of that. From the critic side I think it's a combination of ideological capture plus the poptimism movement which I think is actually the worse offender in terms of lowering standards.

And yeah your thoughts on punch ups makes a lot of sense to me. My imagination just tells me no one wants to say no to the writers room, everyone just wants to flatter each other and avoid confrontation, that kind of thing, that seems to be the attitude in the air these days.

I was going to make a similar comment about how VG writing is just bad, but I don't think it's just because they're nerds. It feels almost like the human race has become worse writers in the past few decades, it's like the torch was never properly passed on and it's become a lost art.

Well in a sense I agree you used too much detail, but I think a more succinct defense of hip hop that covers more ground is possible. Mostly I think the essay would be more convincing if it didn't read as such an apologetic and more directly addressed the issues conservatives have. I also find it annoying because I feel like I've seen hip hop described in this way to the point of cliche, it just seems to be the way hip hop fans speak about it as a kind of collective unconscious (and I implicate my former self in this as a once big hip hop fan).

If I were to summarize the analysis of the "dancing" tweet you posted, I'd say "hip-hop is decadent and conservatives don't like that." Then the response would either be hip-hop isn't so decadent or that actually decadence is okay, and you appear to argue the former.

One issue I have is that I see most modern music as decadent, and so arguing that hip hop influenced modern music doesn't move me. But I lean more towards decadence is fine, and it's just a kind of natural part of culture, and you basically need to navigate it for yourself with a measure of stoicism. But also, as a multi-culturalist liberal, I think a lot of the "Black" construction around hip-hop and in general is unhelpful when it's bought into by the right or the left. Anyone I meet who has "Blackness" as a sticking point, either way, is someone I would hope that introducing Jazz to would help loosen that and help one move towards common humanistic values.

I would recommend listening to A Love Supreme and reading the liner notes if you haven't. It's something to really think about, and I think could alter your view towards what the components of a song are/can be.

I think this essay fails as a defense of hip hop. You can't just go through a list of how cool this sample was or this lyric, or this genre fusion. I've listened to a lot of hip hop and explored the history, and there's a lot of complexity under the surface level "coolness" that is pretty compromising. There are plenty of intolerant or less informed ways to dismiss it, but the kind of over the top glorification you see here just doesn't move me.

There is talent in the genre, and it compares favorably in a lot of ways to the braindead pop today. But if you're talking about "black" music, it doesn't hold a candle to what black artists were doing in jazz, just nowhere close. And on the other hand I feel like the "blackness" of hip hop has been artificially maintained over time, whereas jazz was explicitly multi-cultural and that is one of its many better values as a genre.

That wasn't Gladwell's idea, the very beginning of his essay attributes it to Gregory Trevorton. As someone who identifies strongly with your caricature of a midwit, I have to say this is what annoys me most about Gladwell fans, that they think he came up with anything original.

Let's say there are three ways people can generally react to you: Disgust, pity, and respect. I believe that there is a world where as a group autistic people are generally treated with respect. Going on the stack means trading that for pity. Either is better than disgust. But I think the respect is worth aiming for, and I think it's where we are trending anyway. I certainly don't think of autistic people the way you describe, and don't know anyone that openly does. I work with autistic and non-autistic people and everyone is respectful to everyone, no one is making fun of anyone behind their back etc. I think things like this would be way worse like 20 years ago.

But looking at that study, which was a survey, it basically confirms my beliefs. You have this broadly shared set of behaviors in regards to masking across autistic and non-autistic, with some extras only exhibited by autistic. But then you have the shame response coming from the autistic group that hates it, that feels suicidal etc. What I believe, and I accept you may disagree, is that there is a shame element here, that is making the masking feel worse than it really is.

Lastly I'd just say that the fact that you have been able to find people you are happy and liked around is a profoundly good thing, and should be enough once you've found it in a stable place. At that point, you can weather the storms, because you have your people. And you can still fight for social change and respect etc. but you don't need the sham that is the progressive stack to do what it does, which I think is vampiric and ultimately soul-destroying, but that's just my personal opinion. Cheers.

I mean it's a sham, and it's leading to a less liberal society, and if you embrace it you're part of why it's worse. If you don't believe in personal responsibility or you get brainwashed, or don't think to much then you can live with that comfortably. If you're striving to be the best version of yourself, it's a hindrance. And I think the material benefits in return are ultimately not that consequential.

Well to be frank, I've met plenty of high functioning autistic people who I think could do a way better job at masking, and I doubt many people are really doing all the things I suggest, I think most people just find a rut they're comfortable in and see how far it takes them. If autistic people want to show the receipts, and really lay down a whole list of things they do every day on the normie grind to impress me, I'm all ears, but it better be significantly more onerous than what say, a NP person with some social anxiety has to do.

But that said the question of how much sympathy people get for how much trouble they go through is basically a worthless train of thought. Most of the sympathy going around is false, virtue signalling, or confused. Each human being is lucky if they find a few who really understand them, are there for them, and able to listen reciprocally. If you haven't found that person, you're no different than an able white guy with no friends. You're two sad sacks looking for people who understand them. There is literally no difference in that respect, because for each person there are other people who understand, or who are willing to listen, and you only need a few. If that isn't filling then something deeper is wrong.

You don't want to be on the progressive stack. Being on the stack means being treated like a child, it means that your wins can always be questioned, and it means the worst representatives of your "group" become the loudest and most influential.

You want to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and fix whatever is making you miserable as long as you have consciousness and basic analytic abilities. I think this starts by learning what is actually abnormal. To some extent, "stimming" and "masking" are things everyone does. Everyone "learns" social cues, some just are naturally better at it. Everyone acts differently among different people and everyone has certain aspects of themselves that they hide from others. It's just a matter of degree for these things, even if the degree can be quite high and even though a lot of this stuff starts with outside factors that we don't control.

But I think the dislike "NTs" have towards autistic people is very similar to the dislike towards depressives, because I think (I suppose controversially) that people with both conditions can work on themselves to basically be normal, but both people of both groups often resent the idea that they can. For autistic people, I think they should just record themselves on their phone, and just try to analyze how they are talking and how others are talking in conversation. They should find NTs they trust and ask them to itemize everything they do differently than they are supposed to.

What will the result be? Probably shame. Being told how you are wrong or different naturally results in a lot of shame. And this is where I think a lot of the pushback comes from autists, from depressives, from minority groups, etc. But that is the point where you can say, I'm a grownup, I can deal with shame and move forward.

Yeah I edited with what I think is a better estimate, I don't know where the app is getting calories from, possibly just adding to some baseline. Never really bothered double checking the number since I was losing weight anyway but now I know!

Something I've never seen mentioned but am curious if it works for others is choosing to only walk to the grocery store. It seems to align a lot of things the right way, and seemed to help me lose weight. It's basically the only exercise I do and fitbit says I'm burning like 1500 calories a day (not sure how accurate that is). But you do buy less groceries, and what you do buy you are carrying back all the way, and you also generally are making more trips since you can only carry so much.

Dedication-wise I think it's nice as well because you only have to stick to one choice, instead of a bunch of different will-testing choices.

Edit: Forgive me, I am a noob at calorie counting, so scanning through walking calories burned online, with weights etc. I think it should be around six hundred for my particular route.

Yeah I see it similarly, it's not necessarily cynical (though it can be, see geeks/mops/sociopaths model), mostly it's throwing out a claim without much thought with an intensity and a direction. If challenged, they just perform rhetoric after the fact to justify it.

Personally I think this is the default way we think about things we are ignorant and emotional about and it takes deliberate action to avoid it.

I think well done 2d animation tends to look more "real" than 3d animation for anything organic, which I think has to do with the complexity of organic movement that is too time consuming to replicate with 3d models (when all it takes is the right pencil stroke to emulate in 2d). I also notice this with "muppets", if you watch Fraggle Rock for instance they show a ton of expression and liveliness that would just be too time consuming to do on a computer.

I think if you aren't satisfied with what Pixar is putting out, you're probably not going to find anything more visually sophisticated than that in the realm of computer graphics.

Isolationist right goes way back and has been vying for power internally. Trump capitalized on the failures on the neocons and the hawkishness of Hillary Clinton to get the first electoral win for this faction in a long time, and with his substantial influence, convinced a lot of voters on the right that this was the way to go.

Fair enough, I may have to update my model, but I still believe that in some sense there is a conspiratorial mindset towards to modern use of patriarchy, and I believe in some sense there is some feeling of things getting "worse" in a way that is behind it, see the negative reactions to the Stephen Pinker view of the world coming from the far left. And I do think there is an inconsistency between the loudness/anger/direness of the attitudes on the social justice left and any understanding that things are getting better. And I think that reflects the reality that things are more mixed than you portray, where you have the rising depression rates, higher loneliness rates, and how those are pressured by various gender-defined experiences (instagram for girls, school for boys, etc.)

(FWIW I know woke is largely defined by the right, it really doesn't matter, what matters is is it a clear/useful way of looking at what I'd call the loud social-issues-focused progressive wing of the left)

That things are getting better is not a view internalized by feminists or the left, Pinker is not popular in those circles, and to believe that is basically to be naive. The whole point of "woke" was to wake people up to the idea that that kind of belief is for the privileged and not based in reality.

That doesn't account for things getting worse. If gender issues are getting worse while traditional values are receding then there must be some other variable.

Well I think I mean categorization in a different way than what you describe. I'm aware of what you're talking about but I am thinking of the way progressives tend to isolate problems into categories and define immoral antagonists for each. Gender issues are cause by patriarchy, race issues by whiteness, economy issues by capitalists, etc.

They don't consider that (1) good intentions or moral behavior (defined by them) can have negative consequences and that (2) bad things can happen because of things outside the category that they have defined them in. That is, the idea that men were hurt because we sold jobs overseas doesn't make sense to them, because it's a gender issue with an economic cause. It must really have been the patriarchy at the root of the issue, because that's the only thing that can cause gender issues, since the patriarchy is the antagonist of the gender category.

I think the hidden logic for these types of claims look like this:

  1. Traditional values are unfair to women and morally wrong
  2. Progressive values are fair to women and men and morally correct
  3. Problems in the world are caused by moral failings relating to the "category" of the problem
  4. Therefore the cause of a problem in the "category" of gender must be the result of the strength of immoral values regarding gender in the world.
  5. Because traditional values are in recession and things are getting worse, there must be a secret conspiratorial strength to the traditionalist values, and this is the patriarchy.

This is why patriarchy is hard to define. It can't just be the traditionalist trappings that have managed to remain, because it is something that needs to be in power right now manipulating society.

So I'd argue that rather agreeing with that the patriarchy exists, instead argue that it is a tool used to avoid the reality that traditionalist values can't possibly be the engine causing the problems of the western world today because it is just too weak.

This just reads to me as generically how people act. Self reflection is rare across the board. Getting all of your experiences validated and listened to is rare too. All of us go through life trying to open up to people, even those we are close to, and often being disappointed with the results. Those that get super upset by this are usually codependent and can't hold their own beliefs steadily without others validating them.

It goes to show that with the arrival of therapy culture and BLM, the white progressive is no better than they were 10 years ago. Validation only goes so far, and too much demand for it breeds codependency.

look them in the eyes, ask short open ended questions, have a concerned, serious expression on your face, help them move towards a conclusion that they feel like they can move forward with, and thank them for opening up with you.