NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
NullHypothesis
5mo ago
I think 1-2% is enough to be able to notice, especially when they tend to be concentrated in certain areas, such as in the restaurant business. Just watched a video of a Korean guy walk through a busy market and like 1/4 of the workers were from Nepal and that wasn't even the point of the video.
NullHypothesis
5mo ago
Good question. I imagine it would work like any other movement in history.
There is some kind of event or series of events that can be used to propagandize and rally people to a cause. Hopefully, the people in charge have some sense to actually listen to the citizens and at least compromise, because if the peaceful channels to resolution cease to exist, the only other option if the situation is desperate enough is the violent one.
That's personally why I'm pro-Second Amendment because it gives the people more options in case the government goes tyrannical. America was founded by violent revolutionaries, after all. I hope it never comes to be but history has shown time and time again that tyrannical governments must be opposed with force.
NullHypothesis
5mo ago
Aaron Bushnell is already out of the public consciousness and his actions did not have the impact he was hoping for.
I will agree that he at least had the conviction to do something, as stupid as it was. Stupid in the sense that it did very little to push his supposed cause of freeing Palestine.
I drafted a post of around 3700 words about Bushnell the week he self-immolated looking into the history of self-immolation and its most prominent and impactful examples and how Bushnell's action relates to it but I never posted it because I never finished it as I got busy and now it's not a relevant event anymore. My prediction was that it would have little to no impact on the public discourse or opinion on Palestine and I think so far that prediction has held true. His actions, in the end, were just a minor net negative outcome to the world. Maybe we might see something happen. But probably not.
I'm actually in agreement with you that the willingness to fight for a cause is something many people lack, and if applied properly can be an admirable quality in a person. The difference between the colonists rebelling in the late 1700s versus a vegan protestor blocking the road on the streets is that the colonists were fighting for a cause a large portion of the population itself cared for, and the colonist was actually putting his life in danger by engaging in literal warfare (or standing up to actual British soldiers pointing guns in the case of the Boston massacre).
The goal of the protestors should be to get people to join your cause so you get the desired end result you want. If someone is going to be a public nuisance to protest for a cause, at least have it be a cause that people actually care about. Otherwise, all it does is make people hate the cause. It's worse than just screaming on the internet or even doing nothing, now you have people who actively go against the cause you want to advocate for. The protests over insignificant things in a manner detrimental to the public is why these discussions are happening in the first place. I think there are a lot of people who say they are against roadblocks as a form of protest but would be willing to condone or at least not be vocal in opposing it as a tactic if it was an issue of enough public importance and significance that it impacted them. But the point is that it's not, these protests in America have been about climate change, veganism, Palestine... all things that ultimately don't matter to your day-to-day American citizen.
Too many of these protests over insignificant things and society will decide it's enough and find a way to just stop them outright. I think I can agree with you that protests can serve a cause and push society in a better direction... but it needs to be used for things that people care about, and in a manner that impacts the people that can make actual decisions. Blocking roads is actively detrimental to a cause, if these people want to protest they should pick a more effective tactic.
NullHypothesis
5mo ago
I haven't but my goodness nearly 1.6 million words? Thanks for the recommendation.
NullHypothesis
5mo ago
This sounds similar to Jordan Peterson's statement on if you were born into Post WW1 Germany you probably would have been a nazi, or at least wouldn't have actively gone against the regime. But I think the circumstances between being a German citizen during WWII and a colonist in the 1770s are different enough that the same line of thinking doesn't apply.
Analysis of the American Revolution suggests 40% of whites were Patriots, 20% Loyalists, and the rest neutral. So just based on probability, one is twice as likely to have been for independence than side with the British government.
It's very likely at the moment of the Boston massacre the percentage of colonists that wanted independence was much lower, but it was exactly events such as the massacre that pushed many colonists to become Patriots.
I think part of what is muddying the discussion is that the people who are using these protest tactics (such as blocking the road) are advocating for the most insane things and it's hard to feel any sympathy for them. People would be more tolerant of these actions such as roadblocks if the protests were about things that mattered to the general population. Instead, these protestors are protesting first-world problems that only a rich, privileged society would have time to support a population that would care about such things. A poor person in Africa doesn't care about climate change, they would be rather happy to burn coal to generate electricity. A starving person doesn't care about animal rights and veganism.
Furthermore, these protest tactics have almost no actual risk to the protestors. Nobody protesting by blocking the streets is actually expecting that there is a chance a car will just plow through them. If they really had the conviction to die for a cause they should strap themselves onto railway tracks, because that would actually get some attention. When they do something dangerous, all the protestors start to panic as if dying wasn't a possibility of their action.
So these protestors masquerade as potential martyrs of what they claim to be the most pressing point of concern in the world, yet in reality they argue for things most people don't care about and pretend to engage in activity that would make them appear as if they are putting something on the line when they aren't by taking advantage of the goodwill of their fellow citizens, so in the end all they do is serve as a public nuisance. And when the state refuses to take action against this type of behavior, people will eventually lose all that goodwill and will be forced to take action by their own hands.
When I was in high school I was part of a politics club that I started with a friend of mine. As we were looking to grow the size of the club I invited a junior of mine to join the club, and he invited his friends. When we were voting for who should be the president, that junior of mine had invited more of his friends and they all voted for him rather than the current president. That was a lesson in being careful who you invite into your space and the potential pitfalls of a democracy. Nothing they did was technically wrong, but we felt wronged in losing what was something we started to newcomers, so we just split off and formed another club.
Immigrants coming with wildly different ideas and values who don't assimilate remind me of that experience. There is a lot of effort in giving immigrants, especially unvetted undocumented illegal immigrants, the right to vote and change the shape of this country. Unlike my time in high school, we can't just easily split off and form another country.
I don't have a problem with immigration as a concept in and of itself, as my parents are immigrants and nearly everyone living in the US today have their roots in immigration. To be honest, I'd rather the US take in high-IQ, well-mannered, conscientious individuals from other countries so that their intelligence is used for the benefit of the US. The biggest problem with immigration right now is the large number of undocumented illegal migrants coming into the country.
Illegal immigrants who do work tend to fill in the role of low-skilled labor. These are jobs nobody is willing to work at the rates employers are willing to pay due to the high minimum wage. Low-skill jobs should go to low-skill workers for the value it's worth, typically teenagers and other people who haven't had time to learn/pick up skills. States like California may have high minimum wage but their economy is also full of illegal migrants working under the table for below minimum wage pay. That means less taxes are paid, but in California, they are still eligible for a whole slew of welfare-type assistance programs.
The immigration problem is less a problem with immigrants specifically and more a problem with the system that incentivizes the wrong type of immigrants to keep coming. There is a short-term incentive to bring in a bunch of outsiders, from economic benefits for a country that isn't able to sustain its growth through its birthrate, to bringing people that would vote for your party instead of the opposition party, but the consequences in the long term are dire.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
That's what OpenAI claims, whether it's true or not doesn't matter from a PR perspective now. I think it makes sense for them to nip in the bud and just end with this small controversy rather than make it an even bigger deal with actual lawsuits flying around (and perhaps having to reveal something they don't want to during discovery).
I would think enough people did like the voice that it would be worth keeping it around, especially since it's not like the other AI voices are any more popular or liked.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
It would depend on how many people get these powers, how powerful these powers are, and what are the mechanisms for getting these powers.
This post makes me really miss the Heroes TV show. The Boys kind of scratched that more gritty superhero show vibe but it's just become too overt in-your-face in its political stances, at least seasons 1 and 2 were more nuanced about it.
Also, obligatory SMBC Superman comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Most carbs require some kind of processing for it to be edible. For grains, you have to grind it or boil it. Cooking can soften really tough pieces of meat to the point where you can chew and digest it. Cooking is probably what allowed humans to obtain enough calories to become, well humans instead of becoming just another low-intelligence primate. Things like salt and sugar are vital for biological function so we evolved to find those tastes pleasant, especially because they were so rare to find. So we evolved to find things that helped us survive taste better. Nowadays, we've gotten so good at extracting resources that many of these things that taste good are bad for us because we get way more than the body needs.
There really wouldn't be much, if any, "fat" people for our ancestors because our ancestors were much more active and food much more difficult to come by. Not only is procuring food labor intensive, but even basic home tasks such as making and washing clothes took a tremendous amount of energy. Bodies store fat because food was not something that was constantly available, especially during winter, but it wouldn't mean people were being fat to the level they are today. There is a theory that the reason Native Americans have such a high obesity rate is that since native Americans were not as reliant on agriculture, their bodies are better at storing fat for times of food scarcity compared to Europeans, where agriculture has been a part of their way of life for thousands of years.
There is also a social-cultural element of beauty, and there is a theory that plump women were considered beautiful by middle age Europeans. It could do with finding the upper class more attractive because it signals a higher social class rather than something that is purely physical based. It's like how more tanned skin is considered attractive in the West (because it's the rich that have time to go out to the beach and get a tan and the poor work low-level office or service jobs) while in the east lighter skin are considered more attractive (because much more of the poor work out in the field in the sun).
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Butker's speech has got so many people up in a frenzy about the content that over 200,000 people have signed a "petition" on Change.org to get him removed from the Kansas City Chiefs.
What do these articles or the descriptions on change.org have in common? Creating a strawman of the content of his speech. The change.org petition description literally doesn't even give any examples of what he says, it just characterizes his speech as "sexist, homophobic, anti-trans, anti-abortion and racist."
Graduation speeches are for the people who are graduating, not for the entire world. He was giving a speech at a Catholic college to Catholic students, who presumably have Catholic values. The biggest criticism against his speech is in regard to his statement about women:
For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.
I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.
This statement is literally followed by a huge round of applause, so clearly, the audience listening to the speech, which includes women, was very responsive to his message to them specifically.
He never says women should only be a homemakers. In fact, he even acknowledges women can have successful careers. All he does is praise women who choose to be a homemaker and a mother. Butker is absolutely correct in his statements about women being lied to that pursuing a career is much more worthwhile than motherhood, based on the behavior and happiness of actual women.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Seoul and its surrounding regions contain half the population of Korea despite being 12% of the country, the income and prospects are much higher in Seoul. Seoul itself has around 10 million people, so about 20% of the country's total population.
South Korea does have other big cities, if you sort by size you have Busan, Incheon, and Daegu with over 2 million people each, and 6 more with over 1 million people. (Incheon is right next to Seoul and is considered part of the greater Seoul area).
But all the biggest companies are headquartered in Seoul, and I'm pretty sure most if not all the major entertainment and culture also come from Seoul. If you're a young person and you probably want to move to Seoul over any other city. In a culture where status is an extremely important component of one's identity, of course, most people would want to be in Seoul. The companies being in Seoul is a significant factor too, Korea has these things called chaebols which are big family-owned conglomerates (e.g. Samsung, LG, Hyundai) that basically run all the major companies and business and politics in the country. If you get hired into these companies you are considered successful, if you can't then you're a loser. If you want to work in these companies, go to Seoul.
There is an interesting fact and reality to consider for South Korea, which is its antagonistic neighbor to the North. Seoul is basically right next to North Korea, so in the unlikely event there is a war occurs again South Korea would be extremely vulnerable to an attack. There is an incentive to try to diversify economic, political, and cultural activity across multiple areas. South Korea actually did try to plan and began the development of a new capital city, Sejong in 2007, although it has not actually become the new capital city of South Korea. It's also located in the center of the country and outside the range of artillery strikes from North Korea. Part of the desired goal was to divest people away from Seoul into Sejong. But rather than pulling population from Seoul as desired, Sejong seems to have just pulled growth in population from its surrounding areas, and both cities saw growth in their population since 2007.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
I don't think there even are any 'free' AI video generators out there.
The way these websites work, they will falsely advertise free content, make you go through a bunch of hoops, and once you get to the output it'll be blurred or restricted in scope or have you sign up or do something that will eventually lead you to take out your wallet and pay for it.
If there is something that's truly free, it won't be free for long.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
People get busy, and some of these people for some reason use whatever spare time they have to go on the motte and nowhere else. Earlier this year I got busy with work for 3 months and just didn't have the energy to constantly browse the news so I just didn't during that time. I did come here on the motte a few times to check the quality posts and that's it.
Nobody at work really talks about news/politics except for the most banal topics because it's not appropriate. The campus protest story has not come up a single time at work, or in my family, or with my friends, or in my hobby groups. I am aware of the topic because I have more time now and browse some political content online and it's talked about there, but I could have easily missed it and then I wouldn't have known about it. Or I could've easily just only seen the headlines and dismissed it as another college protest (amongst the tens of hundreds of different protests that's happened in the past decade over literally anything) and then I wouldn't have the context to understand why @Stellua is asking the question. And if I have to do additional research myself to try to understand the context, well I'm only going to do that if the post is interesting, and the post by itself is not interesting to me.
Just to give an example of how the question sounds when you don't have the context:
Have the campus protests had any sort of effect on animal rights? It seems like no.
And you would probably be asking what am I talking about? Well if I link this article here: https://veganfta.com/2024/05/09/activists-protest-animal-experiments-at-the-university-of-arizona/
Then there would be something to talk about, you'd have the context to know what I'm talking about.
It's so easy to assume something is common knowledge when it's really not. I do grant some leeway that the motte culture war thread being political in it's nature you probably do expect most people to have been aware of the story but it's not guaranteed.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
I don't know if there are any metrics but from what I can tell most conversations and activities happen on the weekend (The number of comments seems to routinely double after Friday from my casual observation). Probably because people have jobs and family and stuff. What a surprise, people with interesting and intelligent takes have real world responsibilities... the Motte isn't a place you can make a living off so, of course, you're not going to have people here full-time to discuss all topics that could be discussed. If you aren't going to engage in the comments you could just wait for the monthly quality posts and save yourself the time and just read those instead. You're going to have more lively conversations on X because of the simple fact of X having a much much larger userbase, to the point where people can make a living just talking about political stuff. It also has a lot of low-take, crap opinions on there.
Personally, I do think there is some merit to having some low-level fruit for discussion, which is why I made a post about the recent viral man versus bear question. In the grand scheme of things this viral question has almost no real-world consequences compared to say half the items on your list but why did that post generate a good amount of discussion and a lot of these you just posted about hasn't (yet)? Because I made a post about the topic. I also took some effort to put a spin to it, did a little bit of research, gave my opinion, posed a question, and gave multiple angles of possible discussion points, and it got a decent amount of conversations going. The more information you give on the topic, the more chance there is something in it that someone might be interested in to respond to.
In general, the posts I've seen get the most responses have one of these things going for them:
- There is an opinion/fact that someone disagrees with so they post to argue against it - essentially a controversial opinion. These are the ones that routinely get the deepest conversations because it's an argument/debate. It's also the most difficult to engage in with long term.
- There is something in the post that triggers a related topic with a similar line of thinking or a different way to analyze that particular topic
- There is a new perspective that is so profound to a reader that they feel obliged to respond to it.
- There is a question for people to respond to.
Also there are some guidelines about culture war posts:
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
I don't think it takes that much work - just post a link to the article with the topic you want to discuss, quote a few relevant lines, then give your opinion and ask a question. If you want a particular type of discussion/insight put in more effort so there is something for people to respond to. What particular about these topics do you want to hear people's take on? High-level discussion requires some effort, otherwise, how would the responses be any different than the average comment on the news site, Reddit, YouTube, X, or any other discussion platform with low-level reactionary comments?
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
I believe this was laid out in Robert Cialdini's book 'Influence'.
I couldn't find my book so I just looked it up online and it's the 2nd principle of Influence, Commitment. Basically people want to their beliefs to be consistent with their values. This desire for consistency and commitment means if you can get someone to admit to a small thing, they will gradually be moved to admit and agree to bigger things in order to be consistent with their past actions. Here's a summary: https://www.shortform.com/blog/psychological-manipulation-of-korean-war-american-pows/
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Isn't monogamy a modern concept anyway? Only 40% of males passed on their genes compared to 80% of females, (whether due to hypergamy, rape, men dying in wars/battles etc.) therefore monogamy must not have been as prevalent in our ancestors. And some analysis of DNA suggests 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man.
One could point to the Scandinavian Vikings that went around raping women across Europe (or any other conquering European force), or harems in the courts of kings and lords, or the sexually promiscuous times of the Romans and Greeks. I'm pretty sure it was also common even in married couples for there to be extramarital affairs (look at how many prostitutes existed in the Victorian era). Monogamy bundled together with the concept of love is extremely modern, most marriages were understood to be financial and social, not strictly based on love.
However, I'd argue monogamy has been a significant factor attributing to the success of civilization and the progress of humanity. There's no shortage of evidence supporting the notion that children grow up better in two-parent households, and it creates more stable societies too. A married man will work harder to support his family, which means he will pay more taxes and less likely to commit crimes and engage in things like protests. You don't want a large population of unmarried men sitting around, and historically the problem this posed was likely solved by sending them off to war.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
It sounds pretty realistic to me, and if I was conversing with the AI over the phone it would take a while before I would even suspect it wasn't a person on the other side. How many years until the AI voice becomes indistinguishable from any random person's? Heck, people are even saying the AI voice sounds more human than the actual person talking to the AI.
There was that one news segment a few weeks back about some guy framing a school principal with an AI voice to make him sound racist and it had an actual tangible impact on that person's and the schools livelihood. And this is AI copying another person's voice, which means the voice would be nowhere as good as 'Her's' voice.
It honestly doesn't matter if you or I could identify 'Her' as an AI, if enough people believe a shoddy AI copy of some random dude's voice to be a real voice then even more people would not be able to tell 'Her' is an AI. At that point, it could very well be considered to be 'real'.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
the ability to follow instructions
You could interpret this in two ways:
- The actual intellectual ability to understand the instruction.
- The willingness to follow instructions.
Since IQ is already taken out of the equation and the focus is on behavior it probably means point number 2.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
What's the argument on the percentage of observed behavioral differences that can be attributed to genetics versus culture/upbringing?
Even IQ (and general related intelligence/ability-based measurements), one of the most, if not the most robust things that can be measured to come out of the social sciences puts its predictive power on something like job performance at around 50% on the most positive studies on the topic. On something like salary, I think it's like 20% depending on the study.
I don't doubt there is an underlying genetical factor on behavior, but I believe the effect to be less than culture and environmental upbringing in influencing an individual's behaviors as an adult. I base this on the fact that even psychopaths can be conditioned to be less violent through therapy and behavioral training, especially if done in childhood. Single-family black households are at record highs compared to decades ago but there was a point in time when the amount of two-parent black households was higher than the percentage of two-parent white households today. This is more due to culture and less due to genetics. If genetics was a primary factor we would never see big shifts in behaviors across genetic populations.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
There's already some experimental games out there, like this one that functions just the way you describe it:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2240920/Vaudeville/
According to the creator "All the content in my game is original; the only thing that is entirely AI-driven are the dialogues, which are based on an original script I wrote, and then created in real time."
If you watch gameplay of it, it's basically like chatting to a well-prompted Chat GPT bot.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Here's a 2019 study that looked at 543 couples in advertisements.
Some notes:
Approximately 19% of the 543 couples represented in advertisements were interracial couples. A chi-square goodness of fit test identified that this was a significant overrepresentation from the 10% proportional representation of interracial couples in the US population, according to the US Census
Approximately 59% of the interracial couples portrayed in the television commercials consisted of a white male and a Nonwhite female (WM+NWF). A chi-square goodness of fit test identified that this was not a significant difference from the 55% proportional representation of WM+NWF couples in the US population of interracial couples, according to the Pew Research Center
Approximately 30% of the interracial couples portrayed in the television commercials consisted of a Nonwhite male and a White female (NWM+WF). A chisquare goodness of fit test identified that this was a significant underrepresentation from the 37% proportional representation of NWM+WF interracial couples in the US population, according to the Pew Research Center
The second research question asked about gender differences among interracial couples with a white partner in relation to their actual population. ... To answer RQ2, there were differences in representation, as the combination of a Nonwhite male and a White female were underrepresented, whereas a White male and Nonwhite female were not.
The third research question asked about the positive portrayal of interracial couples, including socioeconomic status (RQ3a), the behavior of characters (RQ3b), and proxemic distance (RQ3c). ... Therefore, RQ3 had mixed results: while there are no significant differences among the portrayal of interracial and intraracial couples with regards to socioeconomic status and character behavior, interracial couples are more often shown at further distances from each other than are intraracial couples
The fourth research question asked about the portrayal of interracial couples regarding the importance of the couple and the para-proximal distance of the couples. ... Therefore, to answer RQ4, interracial couples are not portrayed differently than their intraracial counterparts in 33 relation to whether they were the main character or whether they were shown at closer camera shots.
The fifth research question asked about the prevalence of interracial couples across three networks (Disney, ABC, and Freeform). A two-sample Chi-square test of association revealed that relationship type and network are significantly dependent upon each other (χ² = 9.35, df = 2, N = 543, p < .01). A post-hoc analysis using a Bonferroni correction that accounts for crossnetwork analysis identified that interracial couples are significantly less portrayed on Disney (0.0%) than expected (6.8%) (χ² = 9, df = 2, N = 34, p =.01), while intraracial couples are significantly more represented on Disney (34%) than expected (27.2%, z = 3.0) (χ² (2, N = 34) = 9, p = .01). Disney was the only network with any significant findings.
The sixth and final question asked about the prevalence of interracial couples among different advertisement types. A two-sample Chi-square indicates that there is not a significant association between relationship type and commercial type (χ² = 6.55, df = 7, N = 532, p = .48). Thus, to answer RQ6, there is no difference between interracial and intraracial couples and the types of advertisements they are portrayed in
Additionally, this data was collected from a broadcast market in Alabama, which, as previously identified, was the last state with a standing interracial marriage ban and still has prevalent instances of prejudice against interracial couples.
Unfortunately, the actual raw data isn't provided or summarized in a table anywhere, so we have to go with their analysis only. It also shows the difficulty of actually collecting this type of data, which is probably why there isn't much out there in academic literature on this topic.
To summarize this analysis of 543 advertisements shown in Alabama in 2019:
- interracial couples were overrepresented relative to population size (19% depicted vs 10% actual)
- A nonwhite male with a white female is underrepresented
- Interracial couples are shown to be less physically close than intraracial couples
- Disney had a significant underportrayal of interracial couples.
I imagine the rates of interracial couples being shown in advertisements have only gone up since then. The 19% was for advertisements specifically in Alabama, which the paper suggests may have a lower percentage of advertisements with interracial couples for various reasons.
I'm not sure how much interracial couple depiction in advertisements actually matters that much on its cultural impact versus interracial couples in popular media, TV shows, and movies. The most common examples of an interracial pairing that come into my mind are BM/WF and WM/AF, although it could also just be standing out to me due to my knowledge of black females and asian males being the least desired in terms of dating.
Interesting that there are more Asian males on the list than I would have expected (and much less asian females with white males, and in one of them the Asian female ends up choosing the Asian male.). I have heard the complaint that even if Asian males are now being shown as romantic interests in movies/shows they are still not sexualized (e.g. kissing scenes being removed), but at the same time there does seem to be more Asian males in romantic roles in recent titles than there had been in the past. Has east asian cultural exports made Asian males more palatable to a Western audience, or are there more asian males writing in Hollywood now?
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Unfortunate, because while this place rarely bans people and to my knowledge has never does it on the basis of their ideology, most online leftist spaces will ban you for having dissenting opinion (or even centrist opinion, hence that meme about how the centrists of the past are now considered far rightists). That leaves very little space on the internet for debate and discourse between the left and the right.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
“People do not have a right to feel comfortable in their ideas. This is a university. This is a place to challenge people’s ideas. Discomfort is not the same thing as danger.”
Interestingly this statement is said by a pro-palestine student protestor. The previous time I heard this sentiment was from conservatives criticizing universities for being too left-leaning/left-biased. The question is, would this student be just as supportive if someone came to their school to push far-right talking points? The difference between the two is that one side has far too many proponents of its idea explicitly calling for the death/genocide of another group and the other side gets their views and ideas framed as violence and calls for genocide. Also, in my opinion, the universities have been far too tolerant of one but not the other.
It's only tolerance if you tolerate the intolerable. It's only freedom of speech if you support the speech of those you disagree with the most. At the same time, is it morally/ethically inconsistent to choose to hold people up to their own standards?
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Same reason why women can denigrate men based on their height but men can't judge a woman based on her weight, even though one is a mutable characteristic and the other is immutable.
For a woman, a lot of her social status and worth does stem from her appearance. To insult a woman's appearance, or to even rank her lower relative to her peers in terms of attractiveness, is to denigrate her very existence. Their looks determine who they get to date, who becomes friends with them, and how people treat them. A woman's academic or athletic ability relative to her peers is not as important since women aren't competing with each other on the basis of academics or athletics, especially when it comes to the dating market. Also, women are more neurotic and take these things more personally than a man would. A man that complains women call him ugly would be labeled a loser and an incel. A woman complaining is a victim that needs protection, and being a victim (only for women and minorities) gives you social brownie points nowadays.
Notice it's not really men pushing against this sort of ranking, it's mostly women. The only men that do are male feminists or men who have to criticize in lieu of reputation harm.
Was it this one by YouTuber Fredrik Knudsen (Down the Rabbit Hole)?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UCgoxQCf5Jg
It's one of the most popular videos on TempleOS and the one I saw when I learned about him.
More options
Context Copy link