wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
Actually, Dr. Tao signed a letter asking for the stick to be deployed against his classroom.
Do you mean the UCLA white supremacy statement, this letter that says punishing a fellow mathematics faculty member for speaking out against diversity statements is wrong, or a different third letter? Or, do you mean that signing the first white supremacy statement was detrimental to his classrooms because its ideas are terrible? If if it's the last one I agree.
In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political. That is emblematic of the cultural dominance and the ensuing blindness that follows. It's why I say, "Stick, good." However, the guy had the rug pulled out from under him. He didn't have it pulled because of who he is, what he said, or what he did. He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze. He issues a call to non-action: "the luxury of disengagement is no longer a viable option." Crying foul is not an ideal response to any behavioral correction, but this isn't the most direct, targeted, or deliberate discipline.
I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating. Like getting in a discourse time machine: smart, good natured people carefully walking around that which still cannot be seen. A mutual understanding of university culture and recent history does not appear to be forthcoming. I do not expect academia to kiss the ring of Trump. For that reason I am glad TracingWoodgrain's criticism of Tao went viral. Tao's position and sentiment is common enough, so a public critique is positive even if it does not garner significant agreement.
Trump can't do any of the things that require influence inside an institution. All Trump can do is hit with stick. The stick is dumb, the stick is indiscriminate, but it's the stick in his hand. Dr. Tao is justified in complaining about the stick and I applaud him for it. Complaining about the stick is normal. If we don't already consider it a human right to complain about the stick, then we should consider it.
There is a cost to the stick and it is painful. This is unfortunate-- disastrous for some people I know. Of the anecdotes I've heard, such as jdizzler's below, everyone thus far has earned my sympathies. I hope we can look forward to a future without punitive actions against universities or research funding.
I've written before:
The institutions should function in a way that they can manage their own reputation and credibility.
In the end, all the stick can do is make it easier for any individual to assert pursuit of truthisms in the face of others who aim to paint big red targets on their back. Become a wee bit wiser to act a little more like good stewards. The only lesson worth learning is that conservatives will throw the entire package of higher learning into the boiling cauldron if they perceive it as an intolerable, hostile institution. Yes, that includes the Good Parts, because, unfortunately, much is packaged together under a generalized monoculture.
One can argue against the stick, one can hate conservatives or Trump, and they can continue to look down upon one or both. Surrender is not required to respect the stick. There is certainly no risk of counter-revolution in research labs or in the student body.
My main criticism is once the stick is proven real it must be shown to be avoidable. To critics that believe the academy is only good for culture war and who are committed to its destruction, I must insist we complete thorough, competent audit of research funding to save the Good Parts.
wemptronics
1d ago
Maybe not on the Continent, but there is some limited demand for this American export in the UK. This guy found space at the University of Edinburgh and got to work Confronting The University of Edinburgh's History and Legacies of Enslavement and Colonialism.
I don't think anywhere is going to welcome a significant influx of Very American academics. "They're taking our jobs!"
wemptronics
5d ago
Have you read Children of Men
Is the book good?
wemptronics
8d ago
How poor would you need to be to enjoy money and opportunity at little cost?
Strategic Indo-Pacific military base home values are looking up. Mauritius has a GDP of ~15 billion USD. Put one and one together and the question becomes why wouldn't they want the islands? I wonder if the Chagos Islands might now be the single most lucrative asset for Mauritius. On top of the strategic value, Chagos adds a yuge additional Exclusive Economic Zone away from home. Surfers eagerly await imperialist eviction.
wemptronics
10d ago
If you didn't freeze edits at that point as well, yes.
I don't think they should remove edits or deletion because of one or two serial delete guys. Freeze edits and deletes after a week. Allow authorship to disappear on account deletion. A balance of considerations.
Noting that when I paid dues to The Motte's Conservative Party treasurer I was told the motto was "Change? No!" All these so-called suggested "improvements" are making me a little uncomfortable.
wemptronics
10d ago
don't allow edits
Ruinous! Posting functions should trend towards forgiving so as to encourage contribution from would-be or marginal posters. Locking people into mistakes that demand more clarifications might be tedious.
don't allow deletion
More reasonable. Ideally users can delete their profiles and history, but the contents of their posts remain up. Maybe an edit lock that only goes into effect after so many days would make the most sense.
Which part is the major issue? Is it mass deletion or user edits bamboozling your replies?
As with all funny but obvious malapropisms bored children's TV show writers did it before the internet did.
wemptronics
11d ago
Throwback T-saturday*
I've developed a burgeoning, if still nascent, interest in the IRA. I was reminded of a post from ancient times. Mcjunker's quality contribution on The Ins and Outs of the Kilmichael Ambush where, a week after Bloody Sunday in 1920, the IRA hit the Brits with unprecedented lethality in an orchestrated ambush.
Maybe this topic or post isn't so much fun, but I figured one or more interested parties might not have had a chance to read a dusty old effort post. I felt like I rediscovered it, enjoyed reading with new old eyes, and thought to share.
- If only this was some flavor of Tsar related it could be Tsar-turday. First one's free, folks.
I don't think this degree of victory lap is earned just because Mississippi taught its poor black kids to read better than California's. Also, there might not be a better way to catch a state's attention than by rubbing Southern success in their face.
Mississippi is supposed to be dumb and backwards. Ipso fatso anything that contradicts this is due to unfair, fraudulent, or underhanded tactics. You can't just spend $32 more per student to teach an entire state of inbred hicks to read more better. Oh, they're making fake would-be 5th graders take the test? That explains it.
A good way to keep kicking the same dumb dog with a finger in each ear, but I don't think it's one that can last. Involved parents prefer effective education more than they do values that say holding kids back is emotionally damaging or mean. Involved parents vote with their feet. Uninvolved or uninterested parents might prefer their illiterate kid get failed upward than the hit to their pride, but that's the school's problem. The schools have lots of problems and seek the path of least resistance, but the school can always point blame above.
California legislature tried at least once already to push science of* reading. They failed. There's another go so it will be interesting to see if it fares any better. This story got a lot of press. States can choose to teach kids to read, but only if they have the power and wherewithal to say, "Tough luck, toots. Teach the program." I, for one, hope we improve education for kids. But, if shame fails to sufficiently motivate, then there is always honor to be found. You may keep your Kipling, Shakespeare, and Twain. They may keep their compassion and progress. Who has the honor culture then?
If you make it illegal to do this or stretch some disorderly conduct law, the people who will get collared will largely not be these guys
I ran into an example of this in even a small town policing context. An older Dead Head hippie lady decided to create, then cycle through semi-permanent campsites nearby an elderly relative's property. One camp she chose was as close as possible to private property while technically still sitting in national forest. I'm talking yards when there's thousands of acres of accessible national forest to choose from. She must have decided a great cosmic injustice had occurred when more secluded alternative sites were offered for her, uh, more natural demeanor and trash. Areas that would be out of view of a sweet, old God fearing woman.
If the squatter was ever liable to exude nice old hippie vibes instead of robbing your campsite is karma, also fuck you scumbag vibes I never saw or heard about it. One expects, unless you're in Vermont or something, a Sheriff can be called out to apply some pressure on behalf of an elderly taxpaying resident. If not to drive a squatter out of town, then at the very least to make a token effort to comfort a voter. "Yes ma'am, you give us a call" instead of "Sorry, nothing we can do-- federal land." Nope.
Eventually this was resolved with trashy, angry nudist hippie squatter moving on. Maybe there was liaising between police and National Forest Service I never learned of that aided in getting the squatter to move on, or maybe the federal land excuse really should dissuade any action. Regardless, I was left a greater impression that the injustices and costs of small town prejudice in law enforcement are mostly just that. Not any great leeway to actually get stuff done or help people that should matter.
wemptronics
25d ago
Hah! If you don't damage property or health I don't see why it would be illegal. I'm in. Where's the kickstarter?
Chatting on Discord is left coded in a way chatting never was in, say, the heyday of IRC or the short era of relevance for AOL chatrooms. Discord is/was primarily a platform for gamers. Gaming being left-coded checks out in a Gamergate way, but not so generally. If you're looking for left of center gun groups Discord is where you will find them. It's a weaker generality than reddit or Bluesky, but still is one.
Rats are known for their commitment to understanding over vitriol, even if imperfectly or to a fault. It's good your local rationalist group hasn't cast you out despite approaching disagreement politely with a demonstration of shared values, but that's what I'd expect.
Text chats, in my experience, are not less prone to flamewars. Especially for those with high percentage of combative people. There is maybe a higher ceiling for trust in chatrooms than a forum, but also greater familiarity-- that cuts both ways. Flamewars on forums commonly devolve from posting to chatting-like text. Voice chats and in-person communication provide additional meaning and off ramps for those so inclined
wemptronics
26d ago
Doesn’t discord share that culture? If I pick a general hobby discord I expect to find an overrepresentation of trans moderators, pride flags, and progressive mantras. Just as I would at reddit. The Discord devs either cater to this audience or share the culture.
My experience with discord is limited and potentially outdated, but I have the impression of overlap between the Discord user identity and the average redditor. The redditor is older, but they're both likely to be socially progressive, with the younger Discord user more likely to identify as a radical.
My personal suspicion/conspiracy is that there's serious coordination on various Discords to astroturf reddit. Reddit is the biggest left of center messaging platform online. This suspicion is reinforced some stories like this one, where discord is used to manipulate messaging on reddit. Not by the DNC, Qatar, or Russia psyops, at least not directly, but by passionate believers in The Cause who happen to be prolific contributors on reddit. I am sure there's plenty of Discords that aren't of the mainstream discord culture, but the same can be said of certain subreddits.
It also occurs to me that chatting, the main discussion method on a Discord, is a different type than the more complete posting of a forum.
wemptronics
27d ago
I don't know about its forecasting value, there's plenty of mess, but sure I'm not opposed to publishing a finer tune on your substack
A Report on the Relatively Recent Desire to Kill for Preah Vihear Temple & Thai Politics
Cambodia and Thailand are shooting at each other over temple ruins again. The same ruins at the center of the last temple related border dispute. Admittedly, Preah Vihear temple looks like a pretty rad, old temple. Oddly, neither Thailand or Cambodia host substantial numbers of practicing Hindus. It's the principle of the matter, I'm sure.
I. Preah Vihear: Origins
The French, as a benevolent colonial neighbors should, sought to clarify French Indochina's territorial relationships with its neighbors in the early 1900s. This included what is now Thailand, then Siam. In the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907 Siam ceded some territory and Siam gained some territory. What's relevant for this post is that it was agreed a geographic watershed would mark the border in an area between French Indochina and Siam. A simple natural barrier makes the cartographer's life easy.
Colonial overlords are popular for mucking up maps and France is no exception. True to stereotype, the French ignored terms set in the treaty when they put pen to paper. They either misunderstood the geography or decided to take the high ground for themselves. Mistake or not no one cared about forgotten ruins in the jungle, so Thai officials never contested the discrepency. That is until the 1950's-- a half century after the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1904. Thailand was nation building. It sought out opportunities to build nationalist sentiment, centralize control, and develop ethnic asabiyyah among its people. A perceived injustice can go a long way.
Thailand made its move shortly after Cambodian independence. There is no dispute that Thailand struck first in 1955. Thailand did not strike with bombs, bullets, or sneaky covert ops. The government of Thailand did something more insidious-- Thailand built a road.
That road went to Preah Vihear, because it was easy and they could. The same can not be said for Cambodia. The linked picture demonstrates why the Thai claim is not without reason. According to the wording of the 1904 treaty, the demarcation of the border should be on the "line of the watershed." That big valley below the temple? That's where the water runs. The water lands on the high ground and makes it way South to Cambodia. Water-shed. The cliff? Not the watershed. What's on top of the cliff? Not the watershed. So, Thailand built a road into Cambodian territory. Despite the fact that they relied on, and shared an understanding of, France's 1907 Annex I map for 50 years.
"You can't do that," Cambodia protested. To which Thailand responded, "You and whose French Foreign Legion?" Thailand then immediately moved troops to the temple on its fancy new access roads. In this way Thailand becomes de facto owner of Preah Vihear. Without firing a shot and for no great cause except the geography agreed with the action. Thailand can get to it while Cambodia faced a steep climb. The two nations bicker over this border dispute for the rest of the 1950s until the Cambodian government grew tired Thai intransigence.
II. The Peaceful Making of a Violent Grievance
The Cambodian government wanted resolution, but must have decided against warfare, because they took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In 1962, the ICJ considered all the evidence and unambiguously ruled in favor of Cambodia. The primary reason the ICJ gave can be distilled to acquiescence by conduct. Thailand knew of the map, Thailand used the map, but Thailand never bothered to object to its inconsistencies. Given enough time without objection silence became, in the eyes of the ICJ, consent. Here's a PDF link to the 1962 ICJ ruling, but it is not exciting. Thailand begrudgingly accepted the ruling after they made clear they have cause to dispute other nearby areas. Thailand withdrew its troops from Preah Vihear Temple, but maintained a presence within several hundred meters.
Fast forward another half century without Preah Vihear news and, in 2008, Cambodia lobbies UNESCO for Preah Vihear to be added as a World Heritage site. This upsets Thai nationalists who were energized by turbulent, exciting times. A military backed coup a year prior had sent Thaksin Shinawatra -- Prime Minister, political dynasty patriarch, wealthy telecom mogul and oligarch -- into exile. If the perfidious Cambodian wasn't enough to demand action of the noble Thai people, then the fact Thailand's very own Foreign Minister supported the UNESCO bid certainly was. This led to the resignation of said Foreign Minister who, as an ally of now ex-PM-in-exile Shinawatra, was basically asking for it.
On July 15th, 2008, five days after the Foreign Minister's resignation, Thai and Cambodian troops exchanged gunfire near Preah Vihear. One Cambodian soldier was killed in the skirmish. It is here that we can say Preah Vihear Temple claims its first casualty. He died not due to tensions of the Vietnam War, nor did he lose his life for reasons downstream of Khmer Rouge horror. The first man fell 100 years after a treaty led to the creation of a map. A map everyone used and a map the French likely fudged for a theoretical benefit they'd never realize. This conflict heats up and, over the next three years, dozens of killed and hundreds of wounded can be attributed to the fight for Preah Vihear.
Cambodian representatives returned to the ICJ in 2011. This time they sought a ruling that would address the surrounding areas of Preah Vihear-- roads, hills, trails, and access stairways. The ICJ ruled in favor of Cambodia once more. The court declared the entire promontory as Cambodian clay. Thai officials begrudgingly grumbled.
III. Thailand's Turbulent Politics and the Shinawatra Dynasty
Which brings us to today. This past spring Thai soldiers shared misgivings with visiting Cambodian tourists. A Thai soldier steps on a mine and tensions are heightened. Come July, a metaphorical bombshell: Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended from her role by a high court. PM Paetongtarn, a Cambodian translator, and the leader of Cambodia Samdech (Khmer honorific) Hun Se were engaged in a diplomatic call to decrease tensions. PM Paetongtarn's political opposition leaked the call, framed it as overly friendly (calling him "uncle"), accused her of appeasing a hostile nation, and declared an investigation into her potential treason. The PM claims she did nothing but represent her nation's interests. She awaits trial.
Here is one translation I found of the controversial phone call snippet. I didn't see anything I would consider treasonous. But, if the translation is accurate, then I can see to how the PM's enemies could smear her with it. It might be too informal, too chummy for diplomacy with a nation that's can be considered hostile. Inside the transcript, however, she states she needs to consult with her military before concluding the matter. On its face, this is deferential towards the military-royal establishment-- her main political enemies. One interesting irony in the translated excerpt:
PM Paetongtarn: Right now, the administration is at its weakest, ever since I took to the office, it is this matter on Cambodia which I myself chose to not respond to any allegations posed to me yet. This is because I both love and respect Mr. Hun Sen and therefore if there is anything you want, please tell me directly. Just lift up the phone and tell me. Whatever it is that isn’t news will not become news, what you saw leaked was the product of the press, when you haven’t talk with me one-on-one, when we talk as a group, these things can leak. If you talk to me personally one-on-one, there’s no way this could leak anyways.
Nope, no way this could leak. Very suspicious! To explain some of the hardline pressure on the PM we require a brief political overview.
The Shinawatra family is a powerful political dynasty. The aforementioned ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Paetongtarn's father, was exiled after being removed from power in 2008. PM Paetongtarn's aunt, Thaksin's sister, was similarly ousted in a 2014 coup. I'd call the Shinawatras New Money elite. The Shinawatra family's electoral power lies in rural, populist support. They are extremely wealthy and curry electoral favor by maintaining regional patronage networks in the country's North.
Shinawatras are in competition with the more conservative establishment elite. This is the traditional royalist establishment. The Old Money, Old Guard wield power from Central and Southern Thailand. It collects this power, places it in the capitol and coast, then manages much of the country with unveiled force. The Old Guard also maintains the marriage between monarchy and military. The establishment has control of the judicial branch such that ousting a PM, changing constitutional law, or dissolving political parties is barely an inconvenience. The censure and prosecution of political enemies has become routine in Thailand. The party dissolution is often predicated on the basis of criticizing King Rama X, thinking about criticizing the monarchy, or not supporting the monarchy enough.
IV. Why?
I sought out information on this conflict, because I was curious about the history of what was commonly reported as an old feud baked in blood. It's not an unreasonable assumption. We saw similar skirmishes to today just over ten years past. While the border dispute is old the willingness to send boys to fight and die over it is not. There is some military value of the land disputed, but not any significant amount when compared to 1904. These days there is some value in tourism at the temple, though I doubt enough to offset the costs of F-16 sorties.
These neighboring nations share a long border and a longer history. Each carries its own motivations that encompass more than any single, simple item like a temple. A conflict cannot be reduced to a 9th century Hindu temple. Still, the fight for Preah Vihear most resembles a manufactured conflict of political convenience to me. A nationalist narrative to be pulled out of pocket as political winds dictate or as an opportunity to cook up a kind of conflict comfort food. A home cooked war.
Does Israel actually want to be the ones distributing aid?
I don't know. The March-April blockade ends with Israel propping up, scaling, and now supporting its own sanctioned distribution network. The GHF posts daily press releases. Today's message is the same as yesterday's:
“As we exceed 91 million meals delivered to the people of Gaza to date, we are taking a moment to reflect on the adversity we’ve overcome for this herculean humanitarian mission. Our aid staff and local partners have demonstrated tremendous courage and commitment to those in need.
“Looking ahead, we will not stop until our mission to feed as many Palestinians in Gaza is accomplished. We are also offering to distribute UN and other international organization aid for free — we have the scale and operational efficiency to feed more Gazans, and we encourage all humanitarian groups on the ground to partner with us. The people of Gaza are depending on us and we cannot let them down.”
Israel wants to at least threaten a commitment to solely manage aid distribution. If you think "ceasefire talks" are serious, and Israel is going to sign a deal for some hostages, pack up, and go home, then this is simple leverage to speed that process along. If you think ceasefire talks are not very serious, and to me this appears very possible, then this may be the start of the long haul. It looks like one stage of a plan than it does negotiating leverage, but I'm open to other interpretations. If the UN does hand over its trucks to the GHF I'll be more certain.
Moving further into a true pariah status does not engender sympathy. The further a nation is moved into Certified Rogue State™ category the easier it becomes for people to justify and excuse hostility against it. Bad Guys get what they deserve. A high degree of tragedy in relation to their offense is required to turn Bad Guy into sympathetic character. For Israel, without the Certified Rogue State™ status, a reversal among Palestinian Aficionados might require something like tens of thousands of casualties from a chemical gas attack in Tel Aviv during a peace summit.
It's been 30 years since the end of apartheid in South Africa, yet considering South African whites oppressed in any fashion is not very popular. If South African whites were slaughtered at scale they'd garner some more sympathy. The value of this hypothetical changing sentiment a personal judgment.
This recent article from WaPo via their local reporters is filled with anonymous and Unnamed General claims, so I take it with a grain of psyop salt, but its the first time I've seen a WaPo-like outlet assert that the food aid is important to Hamas operations with any specifics attached.
For instance, the officials said, Hamas seized at least 15 percent of some goods, like flour, and aid vouchers that international agencies had intended to provide to hungry Gazans...
A Gazan businessman said Hamas had imposed a tax of a least 20 percent on many goods. But the group also would take control of trucks carrying high-demand goods like flour, which could sell for up to $30 for a kilogram, and steal fuel meant for aid groups. Fuel supplies have produced high revenue for Hamas during the war, with the group both taxing and seizing fuel stored at gas stations for sale, said an Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with military protocol.
Taking control of the food distribution is the first yuge strategic decision that Israel has committed to following the invasion. If aid supplies are as critically important for Hamas as reason and reporting implies, then this is actually a plan to judge. Hamas can subsidize motivation with martyrdom, but even fervor requires sustenance. Assuming Israel doesn't starve everyone to death -- which I don't expect they will -- then the NGOs will cave before famine. They will submit to Israel's request to manage all the aid distribution and Israel takes full charge of the grain doles. I guess it is technically more accurate to call the GHF an American group sanctioned by Israel for aid distribution, but, is anyone under the impression there's any real difference in this case?
They are perfectly willing to watch Gaza starve until some entity comes out of the territory that they can negotiate with.
Which, until that happens, Gaza and the responsibilities associated with managing will increasingly fall to Israel. Until it finally becomes governance. Sure seems to me they wanted to avoid that outcome and may have even procrastinated decisions in hopes of an alternative. Israel left Gaza not 20 years ago. There's no winning. Not even if they defeat their enemies do they win.
At the moment Israelis may shrug callously at the idea of governing Gaza. Certainly not with any measure of goodwill or with any concern for headaches that are associated with that responsibility. Until I see the yet-to-be-seen viable alternative actually come into existence, then that's what the future looks like to me. Alternatively, Hamas has enough recruiting power to be fed by Israeli aid distribution while continuing to lead the forever war. I doubt it.
I expect a society that has a number of educators who endorse pedagogy that prioritizes niceties over competence will generate less competent individuals. Although, I'm not sure that Americans at large ever did value competence much.
As for the government, the USG didn't seem that smart during the Cold War either. There was the government that allowed an intelligence agency to believe a 1000 strong militia could successfully execute regime change in Cuba with an amphibious landing. Sure, the CIA was a silly place filled with wacky ideas and incompetence. The very serious people -- the ones who didn't think the Bay of Pigs would work -- decided it was all well and good. They could just as easily deny involvement with a carrier task force offshore.
The USG has been exposed as inept in counter-espionage for century. Does this plane look familiar, or maybe I meant this one? US intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement were repeatedly compromised at high levels right up to the end of the Cold War. Despite the fact Soviet espionage efforts were proven beyond a doubt from get go the USG allowed, decided, or forgot to correct the public's perception. Instead, they were led to to believe Soviet-friendly memes like McCarthyism instead of the reality that the nation's adversaries posed serious threats. Then there was that time where the USG unwittingly decided America and the rest of the world should go hungry and foot the bill for Soviet breadlines. Woops! Didn't think about that one.
The USG belatedly rounds up spies from time to time, but its counter-espionage appears dismal as it ever was. It could be that general government incompetence can no longer be propped up by blessings, luck, or being too big to fail. Alternatively, China could be a far more capable adversary than the Soviets ever were. China is also not without its own incompetent fuck ups despite our general interest and the Iron Curtain Great Firewall. COVID, ahem.
If I had to water down my thought to one feeling it’s this: black Americans are faking being black Americans.
I've shared that thought, although I'm not as sure it's new. I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take your word for it that the performance lacks the authenticity of a Friday.
Most black people are interested in protecting an ethnic identity. I'd bet that number approaches 100% when it comes to black entertainers. Cynically, because ethnicity means a target demo to make money from. Less cynically, because they are responding to cultural norms that push them to be black, and actors, often annoyingly, consider themselves representative.
Maintaining a culture that can induct new generations requires understanding and conformity. Time and entropy weakens the ties to founding myths and common understandings. A culture then places more importance on fewer pillars, popular ideas, and easily identifiable signals. There are still many black people alive who can share personal experience that bonds them to the black experience. However, these people are dying. As they die fewer grandparents share the old understanding of Civil Rights, racism, victimhood, etc. Young black people can (and do) try fit their experiences into the broader cultural framework and society, in this case, helps facilitate it. But, since these individuals cannot always credibly sell their stories as the same old stories they can sound little off. Did you know 13 unarmed black men are killed by police each year?
It's not unusual to hear black people tired of being black because blackness imposes on them. The bits that outright blame black culture is a less public grievance, because there's taboos, norms, and bad words to call people who fight this type conformity. The most socially acceptable way to express this sentiment in the mainstream is to primarily fault white people for the cultural pressure or, in entertainment, blame the Jews. Even with a few naysayers, demand for blackness remains staggeringly high. Black people favor more blackness, the studios want more blackness, many white people want more, but the black people selling blackness today lived different lives than the story everyone wants and is familiar with. Those within the culture can choose belief, others that are most inclined can humor it, but for the rest of us this is more difficult. It requires talent to sell us on an update that aligns close enough with our own. Maybe Sinners as a production didn't have much talent, but a show like Donald Glover's Atlanta did.
Black people may have another Tyler Perry to rally behind, but it's also possible we'll notice more performative blackness as relatively unblack, untalented people contort themselves to try and fill that demand. Blackness has already been fully commodified and commercialized, so maybe we can call it post-commodified blackness? Uber commodified? Flanderization also comes to mind, but what is an identity if not some grade of caricature or stereotype?
That said, if you're just now noticing this, then it's more likely something has changed your perspective recently. This is an ongoing, decades long trend, and Friday is a part of it.
wemptronics
1mo ago
At one point I knew his name and his position as a grad student. Thanks.
But Adelstein's take on veganism strikes me as aggressively, surely willfully obtuse
They appear to becoming more like performance art with time, which is likely the product of a growing audience.
If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you.
Listen, I did not intentionally trap those Sims in their living room. The placement of the stove was an innocent mistake. That fire could have happened anywhere! A terrible tragedy.
as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else
One man's instrument is another man's cross to bear, or something like that. They demonstrate that it's not as instrumental as you (or I) claim, or not instrumental at all, by existing and being more righteous. People in Africa or Indonesia get a necessity pass for now, but you, neighbor, have a choice. That is if they cast judgment. I've met more vegans who are simply tired of the same old jokes, jabs, and want to be left alone than I have met the stereotype, or vegans cognizant of utilitarianism for that matter.
I felt what I consider an appropriate level of bad one particular time I found a rat in a traditional trap. It was gravely maimed, and as I went to put it out of its misery I saw, as it had lain incapacitated, its friends or children had taken the opportunity to feast on its guts. If I had chosen to not put it out of its misery, then I would have thought less of myself. The experience did not make me think more highly of rats, but it's not as if I am above considering the suffering of other animals.
Targeting an animal one already hopes to exterminate for pest control is not outlandishly cruel. To argue against that one needs to argue against effective rodent control more generally.
If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me. Except, in this case, instead of one weird kid you make sure your child stays away from, it's all of society that is going out of their way to torture rats. That what I imagine and have been told the emotional prism is like for dedicated vegans. As a personal choice it is common and well enough. The personal choice I don't have much objection to. The more foreign value impositions, especially done in a way that where they only logically hint at the most moral ends, are where I find objection.
Well no one should accuse you of being an unprincipled hypocrite.
With Trump I was only pretty sure he would commit to immigration (good) and tariffs (bad). I thought tariffs were dumb and it turns out I still think they are dumb. I had little confidence what he'd do with universities, how real DOGE would be, and so on. I was reasonably certain he would more effectively exert his will compared to 45, but was uncertain what he'd choose.
More options
Context Copy link