@desolation's banner p

desolation

Where my cosmic imperialism girlies at?

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

				

User ID: 1157

desolation

Where my cosmic imperialism girlies at?

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1157

Here's to hoping that the next four years do indeed make America great again, again.

Hope springs eternal!

if not the United States, where would you go?

Ulaanbataar. The steppe nomads will rise again!

Wouldn't they be similarly worried about getting sued out of business and their license revoked for not treating sepsis?

What a stupid, self-abrogating way to discuss something.

It was suggested in a reply that part of the switch is that Minority Ethnic will fall out of usage because White British are a minority ethnic when distinguished from the overarching "White" category in City of London and City of Westminster. Still the plurality, though.

Which led me down the Wikipedia hole. The UK Other White population pyramids are pretty fascinating, there's almost no male surplus at any age across any subpopulation. Noticeable female surplus of White Germans and White North Americans at almost every age. White New Zealander/Australian is less symmetric and "smooth" than the rest.

Oof, yeah, totally forgot about that one.

Salim and the Jinn came to mind after more thought, though I'm sure most people now complaining about Gaiman still wouldn't take kindly to calling that one deviant.

I appreciate the effort to debate and ask this question, but the problem is that defining "they" down to actual names is quite an arduous task!

I'll take an example that affected my life last year. My wife taught at a suburban (exurban?) Title I elementary school. Majority-minority classes. It has been a trend for several years, and mentioned above in this thread, that disparate impact policy may have been well intentioned but boiled down to "it's basically impossible to suspend students, even if they're violent." She had one student that needed a great deal of help and had violent outbursts. A violent 2nd grader can't do that much, but he could throw a chair or destroy the room. Policy hamstrings teachers against doing anything. So at least once a week, he'd have an outburst and she'd shuffle the rest of the class out to wait it out.

Nobody argues for "public schools should be held hostage by their worst students, and basically non-functional multiple hours a week," but somehow we get there anyways. I can't point to any individual that wants that. It's the result of a long string of decisions and beliefs, some good and some horrifying, a massive messy web of lawsuit-avoidance and ideological pandering and EdD/PhD overproduction.

Should I name the principal? No, she wasn't too bad and I believe when she said she's hamstrung by the school board (and the feds, Title I!). Should I name the board? Well, I certainly vote against them but they're not the source of the idiocy, they just help enact it. Where does the idea come from upstream of them? I'd love to be able to point at one person whose work could be erased and schools could go back to functioning, but unfortunately that's not the way it works.

the people who think our main problems are caused by Oppressors organizing society to keep the oppressed under their heel

Ibram Kendi, Nicole Hannah-Jones, Robin Diangelo, Sara Rao, Liz Warren, Tema Okun, every person that took any of the aforementioned loons seriously, every journalist that doesn't work for an explicitly right-wing media source, every sociologist, every critical theorist, 80+% of university professors that aren't economists.

American Gods

Have I just blocked out or forgotten the deviancy? Yeah, Laura's death seems like a cosmic punishment for infidelity, and the ancient god in Wisconsin (?) is disturbed but I don't remember it being a sexual thing. Might have to just pick it up for a reread.

I don't remember any of the short stories being particularly weird in this way, no.

The way Laura dies in American Gods is a bit salacious but not like this kind of thing; it's something of a cosmic punishment for infidelity. I don't recall Neverwhere or The Ocean At The End of the Lane being explicit, but it's kind of in the background of both that Gaiman is channeling a disturbed psyche. I didn't expect these kinds of revelations, but they're not surprising, either. Maybe I just have very low expectations of fantasy authors from 80s England.

An above description of The Sandman comics gives a couple hints, also his parents were abusive and his father nearly drowned him for Scientologist reasons.

LOL at your new flair.

I don't know how to argue on that except...don't?

Well, it's a phenomenon that seemingly a large number of people agree exists and is meaningful, but refuses to name itself, works the euphemism treadmill in an attempt that no name sticks for long, every blowhard commentator comes up with a new name to sell their book, etc.

Since I've been told that nobody calls themselves woke anymore since it got treadmilled by the right, I don't think it's such a bad thing to save it as a negative descriptor and hope that a positive descriptor comes along that sticks for more than five minutes for the parts that aren't terrible. It's not an ideal situation, I agree.

If the question is "wokeness is receding"

I was addressing your question of attempting to define it, not addressing OP's question at all.

I don't think it particularly is receding. Even though it's ebbed from the pandemic-induced mass psychosis a lot of the attitudes are sticking around, and we as a society (and even worse, as The West) are not really wrestling with what it actually means to be multicultural, multiethnic liberal democracy.

Mark Zuckerburg just claimed that the bias he struggles with in his business is because of the overabundance of "feminine energy"; I hardly see that as symptoms of a decline.

Yeah, that's what I didn't like about Huemer's definition. Many people have entrenched ideas about what "racist" and "sexist" means, and even when presented with examples of anti-white (or "politically white" like Asians in school admission cases) racism or anti-male sexism, they'll say that it's justified on historic grounds (regardless of the actual people affected).

Inspired by in part by Michael Huemer's definition I would rephrase it somewhat more generic along the lines of: all discrepancies of outcome are due to pervasive, systemic biases rooted in unchanging, historically-defined oppressor/oppressed dynamics, and such dynamics outweigh most or all other concerns.

More cynically, "wokeness" is the logical outcome of trying to apply intersectionality to the real world and the result of Christianity-influenced universalist ethics stripped of the supernatural elements, combined with certain common social trends, resulting in acceptably-demonized populations and sanctified, above-reproach populations.

For some examples of your later question of "aggressively performative," land acknowledgements as secular prayers come to mind. Surely the people saying them don't have any faith that they do anything beyond some vague 'raising of awareness' that doesn't actually... you know, repatriate the land or anything.

Anything involving people like Robin Diangelo, Ibram Kendi, Tema Okun, Nicole Hannah-Jones, etc: aggressively performative, actively making the world worse if one attempts anything they say. One would do less damage to the world by simply burning their money in a ritualistic sacrifice. I kind of think that's why audits of BLM vanished from the news cycle so quickly- people did want to treat sending money to scam artists as ritualistic sacrifice, they made a payment on their sin-debt and just wanted to move on.

I fear I am succumbing to a temptation to label anything bad as woke, and related yet good ideas as something else. But that is pretty much my stance on the word: while there are positive contributions to be made to the world in the name of social justice, much of what has happened in the last 10 years has been major, predictable failure modes instead, and that collection of failure modes is "wokeness."

Yeah, the vaguely-magical aspect attributed to bureaucracy is a major reason I struggle to think of it as a meaningful threat.

but the black papers must have?!

The OCR isn't great but yes, it was covered by multiple black and at least one "alternative anti-war" papers in North Carolina. Unclear if there was any rage associated or just reporting.

Any thoughts on how to get leftists back that aren't sockpuppets of trolls plaguing Scott Alexander spinoffs for 10+ years now?

Going with Amadanb's belief this was an Imp, so not the kind of leftists we actually want.

You seem fun and a good commenter, so I hope you stick around a while!

gay people are not the only people who can contract AIDS and HIV.

Outside of Africa they're somewhere around 95% of people that take PrEP, though.

It is not exclusively for gay people, and it's not exclusively for orgies, but I don't think you'd appreciate it any more if they had hedged with a description that covers 95% of Western usage.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Say you have an original population of fare evaders that are disproportionately one race, but represent only a small fraction of that demographic in the city. If the larger population of that race comes to believe (almost certainly accurately, in a case like NYC over the last several years) that lack of enforcement is at least partially contingent on race, why wouldn't they take advantage of the "unofficial" policy for free fare? People of other races recognize that they are more likely to be enforced-upon, and so do not change the rate at which they dodge fares.

Surely one can think of a series of events in the last five years that changed how law enforcement behaves around certain demographics, especially in large metropolitan areas.

People can complain about the bitcoin not being a currency because it's transaction capacity is too low. Or that it lacks the easy of use that cash has.

Bitcoin isn't a currency because it's wildly deflationary. A $300K mortgage in ~2012 bitcoin would presumably mean the holder now owes a value equivalent of $3 billion. Would the value be pegged to whatever it was when the mortgage started, so back then you "owed" whatever, 30K bitcoins and now you owe 3?

At this point much of my hatred of bitcoin is fueled by resentment and a shitty education that didn't include things like "hedging one's bets" and "EV," but I thought it was a stupid idea then and a stupid idea now. I undervalued how much alpha there will always be in betting on stupidity.

The dingus

Love learning new technical jargon!

(Just kidding, this really is a fascinating conversation to someone with only a bit of gun knowledge)

Well, damn.

What worries me isn’t that you think some weird nerdy guys might deserve to be critiqued using hurtful names. What worries me is that you seem to measure offense and acceptable punishment on different scales for different groups of people, presumably for Social Justice reasons. If your fundamental ethics differ based on whether “friends” or “enemies” are involved, where does Charity go from there?

Helluva paragraph, hoss. I've been having that argument for years and only wish I had yours to build on. Thank you for being around.

Had a physical chemistry prof that tried wingsuiting once, and after that one time settled for watching videos of others. Hearing "Sail" by AWOLNATION always reminds me of him talking about Dwain Weston.

You seem to be coming from a liberal position where there are valid trans people and some number of bad actors that overlap. That line from OP strongly suggests they are not, so your simile doesn't work across that gap of understanding.

Bullying your advocates into silence is so much easier and clearly more effective, that there would be no way to enact this at this point. As wise as the founders were, they didn't take Adams' concerns about the religious populace seriously enough, nor did they include protections and predictions for what would happen if traditional religion went on hiatus.

Bizarrely, political affiliation is protected in California, though I assume there's umpteen loopholes for why this has no effect on reality.

Are there still Advisory Opinions listeners around here? Overall I enjoy the podcast, despite David French being... David French. If I never hear "Brahimi" again it will be too soon. Just say the two cases instead of wasting 10x as long talking about the other David coining the portmanteau! Moving on-

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services has come up on the pod, and will be heard in the upcoming SCOTUS term. This concerns a circuit split on the matter of proving discrimination, in this case in employment, where a "member of the majority" is held to a (considerably, IMO) higher standard to display discrimination. I continue to be baffled by the judge who wrote the opinion. It has gotten a little airtime, especially since the Sixth Circuit was French's stomping grounds, and one assumes it will get a lot more after oral argument and the decision next year. Interesting case, Motte-fodder, looking forward to the decision. I will be pleasantly surprised if it's 7-2, unsurprised 6-3, 5-4 irritating but also not too surprising; unless it gets wiggled out or mooted on a technicality instead of a substantive decision in which case just irritated.

In the most recent episode they spent a few minutes, much less than they've spent about engagement ring law, on B. W. versus Austin Independent School District. If you're having a good day, do not read this case. If you are easily outraged, do not read this case (that was my mistake). If you are a court nerd who wants to see how the Fifth Circuit decides what constitutes harassment, want to look at 9 judges for each side who are likely to be on shortlists for the Supes (Ho and Oldham already are for the right, they're in the dissent here, and Ho makes a showing with his own flashy dissent, even citing Ames), and can read absurdity without sparking an aneurism, go ahead. I am tempted to suggest skipping the standing decision entirely and starting on page 6 for the dissent, but that is an incomplete picture even if the standing decision says so little.

The TL;DR is- a student was bullied over the course of years, and the case basically asks two questions. One, does racial animus as an expression of political animus become, more or less, acceptable because political affiliation is not a protected class? Two, as the only prong of Title VI harassment contested by the AISD, does this meet the standard of harassment pervasive enough to "deprive the victim of access to education opportunities or benefits provided by the school"? The answer to the first seems to be yes and the second no, though I confess my charity burned to a crisp about three sentences into the standing decision so it may be a less than perfect summary.

David and Sarah believe SCOTUS will not take up this case, because of the question of political animus overlapping with racial. How unfortunate, as that is the interesting part to me. This generates quite a loophole in harassment law, even more so than the Ames differing standards of evidence. If you can smuggle protected-class-harassment in under another excuse, what's the point of the distinction?

They also bring up the two gender tshirt case and predict that when one of these cases does make it to SCOTUS, the result will be a lot more school uniforms and stricter dress codes. Like Hamtramck, I consider this superior to the alternative though worse than ideal: uniforms are a nice solution to "your rules applied fairly" where applicable.

Thank you for reading more into it.

Following up on a past comment on abortion by @naraburns: https://www.themotte.org/comment/250966?context=3#context.

An adjacent thought I've been wondering about is- to what extent are these outrage-bait cases routine medical (or patient) errors, that would've happened in exactly the same way but been totally ignored pre-Dobbs?

and treated with amused curiosity by the members of the fraternities.

Correct, it wouldn't be the members of the frats that pillory him, but any progressive-leaning group that heard about it if the troll/eccentric decided to publicize it. Cultural appropriation, infringing on their private spaces to be safe from white supremacy, etc etc.