@HaroldWilson's banner p

HaroldWilson


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 October 03 21:22:34 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1469


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
HaroldWilson


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 03 21:22:34 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1469


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is that necessarily relevant? For example, if a child was taken from their parents by CPS for their safety and went into foster care with a much more functional family, which offered him a better life than his alternatives with his previous family or in a orphanage or whatever, would that child still not have legitimate grievance if they were mistreated in a lesser way by the foster family?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


One is implying you should introspect furiously, and consider surgery, just because you have particular preferences




The other commentor said this but I don't see why using the concept of gender implies that deviating from gender norms is a sign of trans-ness. Just acknowledging something exists isn't an endorsement of the way its currently treated in society. What I mean by that is that if I use gender to refer to the socio-cultural attributes generally associated with being a man or woman, especially those with no direct link to sex, that by no means entails that I also think it's good that there are such gendered attributes, and if you deviate from what's expected you therefore need a sex change. Indeed, there are many gender abolitionists who would do away with any notion of gendered attributes if they could, which would presumably also render the whole idea of transitioning obsolete, but they still use the concept of gender - in order to criticise it - but it usefully describes an existing phenomenon.


Also, literally no-one of any relevance claims 'you're a boy if you play with trucks'. What gender is for, among much else, is to describe the expectation that boys play with trucks, which exists whether I like it or not, which has no connection to sex that I can see.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your original comment didn't acknowledge Trump could lose fairly though - 'it will take another vast and more ridiculous campaign' is what you said. What I'm driving at is whether you think just Trump losing is itself prima facie evidence for fraud.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"But you benefit from the perpetuation of a system of racial privilege and oppression"




Again though, whether you agree with this or not, it still doesn't really imply fault. As an analogous case, I could say that those from richer backgrounds benefit from the perpetuation of entrenched class inequalities, but that doesn't mean I'm suggesting any individual rich person is somehow responsible, as these are systemic problems.




There is some hypothetical systemic racism narrative that scrupulously avoids blaming modern white people just minding their own business, but it's not the one we get in the real world.




It may be the one you get from a minority of activists etc., but in the mainstream I don't think the 'every white person is complicit' line is that prominent - I don't think you'd ever see it from the vast majority of Democrats.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Could Trump run and lose? Sure, and it will take another vast and more ridiculous fraud campaign.




So is it your view that Trump simply having less support in the crucial states by election time is simply an inconceivable outcome?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Racism, either systemic or individual. It's all white people's fault.




The systemic part of that doesn't really imply the latter; at least not regarding present day white people. It may be some white people's fault, say slaveowners or Jim Crow politicians, but that isn't especially divisive because no-one defends either of those today. Individual/unconscious bias is a bit divisive, but I don't see why the historical explanations really are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We could call them sex roles instead. Gender isn't needed.




So we could indeed rename it but what would the point be? It wouldn't change anything. You're 'without gender' examples still includes roles at least two of which are not really connected to sex in any meaningful sense. Gender is present there whether you want it to be or not. Also, I'm not sure why you think that using concept of gender somehow entails that one must believe that expressing gendered attributes of the opposite sex necessitates a sex change. It has no real bearing on that question.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the importance difference though is whether those petitioning for a policy themselves know/consider it to be contrary to the constitution, rather than whether it actually is ruled as such by courts. So the point is that Trump didn't care if it was contrary to the constitution, he wanted it done anyway.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Plus nationwide mail-in ballots.




Yeah, those evil Democrats making mail-in ballots allowed  for all in Arkansas, Montana, Utah, Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think they are lying because even if there was fraud - which there wasn't - that still wouldn't make them the 'duly elected and qualified' electors, because the process for choosing those is clearly set out and they did not satisfy it. They weren't just saying we ought to be the electors, which would be fine and expected from someone who believed there was fraud, but that they were the electors, which is simply false from any perspective - or at least that's how I understand it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).




These are plainly not analogous. In the gun control case, those advocating gun control clearly don't view it as a violation of the second amendment, whereas as I understand it the charge against Trump is that he knowingly advocated an action which would violate oaths of office.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Interesting/notable things happen in films at much higher rates than in real life for very obvious reasons, and the exact same applies here. It's not intended to be statistically representative, and if you judged every film by this exacting standard almost all would end up as 'unrealistic'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The root cause of the problem was inventing gender and the best solution IMO is abolishing gender.




Just because you don't put a name to it that wouldn't 'abolish gender'. Whether or not it was conceived of as such, gender roles as separate from sex clearly existed prior to the semi-recent past - without the existence of gender, what would it even mean to behave as 'more masculine' or 'more feminine'? If anything, putting a name to the notion of gender surely helps to abstract behaviours away from sex rather than strengthening, as without it the only language with which to describe gendered behaviour is sex-based.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The gun controllers are mostly more concerned with annoying the red tribe than keeping guns away from bad actors, civil rights lawyers will pounce on anything with a disparate impact, the red tribe hits defect on the issue because see #1, and few of the people in the gun policy space even care about the actually common bad outcomes.




I guess it's nice to fantasise that all your opponents can be easily dismissed because they just hate you, but that is almost never the case. ERPOs are precisely designed to help reduce the number of poorly-adjusted people with access to guns, but Republicans lose their shit about those too.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


While offering broad agreement, I will offer some slight pushback on this. Liberal women have not reasoned themselves into the fear of firearms, but I will say that I've had luck persuading a couple of them to be much less afraid by having a conversation about why I have guns and taking them shooting. You can't fix everything all at once, but people can be won over on guns by being a gun nut that isn't actually a nut.




Yawn yawn yawn. Wow, sure is amazing that all of your opponents (or the women anyway) are irrational idiots who will find their way to your correct opinion with some gentle guidance. Anyway, how is 'why you have guns' at all relevant to a policy discussion. Policy is made for aggregates, no-one should care on more than a personal level why you in particular have guns.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can you give some specific pieces of coverage from MSM that you think were simply wrong in these instances? Otherwise this is rather vague - I mean you can't just say something so vague as 'Russia - they were wrong' without substantiation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


he most important detail suggests that the journalists are idiots and/or they believe their readers are idiots. Or they're just lazy and lack the instinct to think through the contradiction of having a limited, valuable (even if you don't value it, plenty obviously do) product marketed for $0 would work.




I don't think this really applies to 'journalism' as a whole because the people on the hippie celebrity remedies beat are probably not the finest - or most industrious - the profession has to offer. Or even more likely, these articles had a total five minutes of man-labour put into them, so all the writers had time to do was copy/paste bits from the press release before they have to move on and push out the next article onto the website. How many people actually care about it enough for it to be worth having a journalist spend more than the bare minimum effort on such an article?


Incidentally, that who-pays-who think has always occurred to me too; there's an amusing John Finnemore sketch about that but about one of those fast food/media tie-in things you often see.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Review of Yes Minister – televising the British deep state (in 1980)
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The bureaucrats nearly always win




FWIW, I don't think this necessarily gives a completely accurate impression of the show; especially as the series go on, Hacker gets his way quite a lot; just off the top of my head, he gets one over Humphrey on defending St George's island, the national database, moving soldiers to the North, Humphrey testifying about the bugging in one of the last episodes, the phone tapping petition (in the death list episode), over that bureaucracy/waste/select committee thing, the Buranda speech/oil loan, and moreover in many episodes they are working to the same ends. The Channel Tunnel, the threatened abolition of the department etc.


So, at some points in the series, it almost approaches an even contest. And iirc, Humphrey and other senior civil servants do now and again admit that if a minister, or maybe just the Prime Minister, is really dead set on something they often can't stop it. Plus, Hacker seems to be a less competent minister than the average


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Clearly this is not a smart man, as AI is vastly more significant than even either of the above.




Really? In one sense his statement is almost trivially true given that no steam engine, no AI.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe if all one reads is online crap one would think that, but in the real world there are huge numbers of journalists doing enormously important work. Just pick up the Economist, FT, New Statesman or many, many others, or tune into the World Service and you can read and hear it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The rich and powerful celebrating the deteriorating conditions inflicted on the poor and powerless.




What is this even in reference to? Where is this happening among actors except inside your head? You seem to have constructed this idea of the heartless New York journalist who hates the working class, but on issues such as working conditions and minimum wages they are surely much more pro-workers' rights than the median. If you want people didn't 'ever give a crap', maybe have a look at Republicans.




Eva Bartlett




Lol. A credulous hack. Just being anti-US doesn't automatically make you brave and noble or produce good journalism, especially if you're running cover for dictatorships; she is ostracised for good reason.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
By 'they' you presumably mean the right, who resist(ed) any expansion of either the safety net that might have helped displaced workers and opposed significant government investment in industry, new or old.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In the case of journalism, while you may call their arguments motivated reasoning you are completely misrepresenting their stated position, which is not that automation is bad in AI because journalists just deserve their jobs more than everyone else, but rather that journalism is an important public service the quality or accuracy of which may be negatively impacted by AI.


In the case of the actors though, you seem to be objecting to... their union trying to resist the introduction of practices which will be unfavourable to its members? That's their job?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why would the studios want to make AI replicas of minor actors no one can recognize when they can use generative AI to create virtual actors that look like no real person?




Someone I heard talking about it on the World Service a few days ago (an actress representing some union or organisation or other) basically said that things like reshoots and follow-up gigs in, for instance, TV shows can be pretty important for small-time actors, and what she was worried about was that production had sometimes started filming with a real actor to begin with, but if they wanted to make changes/add small pieces late in the day using AI for such things. She objected to this both on the count that it deprived the actor of income from reshooting but also that it's unfair for them not to be able to 'control' their own performance, partly in the sense that they might not be happy with the quality of the AI performance and that that might reflect poorly on their reputation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


(it's a comic book film).




Well exactly; it's not supposed to be realistic, so criticising on those grounds would be absurd. But if you're making a film at least partly based on real events that is being sold as an important story that needs to be told, the bar is obviously going to be considerably higher as far as realism goes.