prof_xi_o
1yr ago
My main complaint about Picard (aside from the departures from tradition, which aren’t a dealbreaker for me) was that it turned into bland, mediocre sci-fi TV. Not high-effort enough for me, so I petered out after a couple episodes (maybe a season?).
Star Trek Discovery was pretty good (if you lower your expectations appropriately and ignore/skip most of the main character’s monologues and emotionally-focused dialogues).
The Halo adaptation sets me off though, I was upset about it for a while. I’ve cooled off now though, and have found equilibrium around the position “many people who didn’t have any attachment to the franchise beforehand probably enjoy the nice, mass-market TV show that doesn’t really capture the best parts of Halo except for a few fight scenes.”
Needless to say I haven’t watched past the first 3-5 episodes of Halo, and that includes skipping scenes from the non-master chief plot lines entirely.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is cool, I will keep it in mind and recommend it if the opportunity arises. Thanks!
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I should have done this to begin with, but I read through some of the stuff that J.K. Rowling is being pilloried for (by some). I didn't really care all that much beforehand, just saw the memes, etc.
I read this article which summarizes her essay, includes some tweets, and includes quotes from a few of celebrities.
I read her essay from 2020
There's not that much in there that I take all that much issue with. I think fearmongering about people fraudulently changing gender to predate women isn't much of a real concern (though I can see how survivors/victims of assault, etc would feel that way). It probably happens but not often. Prisons and shelters already have systems in place already for preventing inmate-on-inmate violence/assault, and clear cases of fraud can be caught (isn't there still tons of inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons anyways? Is the sex of inmates really the issue there?). Could probably make a utilitarian argument that allowing gender change is good enough and improves lives for enough people that 1-in-a-million (this number isn't really fair, maybe it's one in 10,000 or 1 in 1000) cases of fraud are fine.
But I think what you're saying is that even if you don't believe that the trans-in-women's-spaces issue matters, that's the worst of what J.K. Rowling has said, and this can't be construed in good faith as transphobic. Is that right? I don't think transphobic is a good word to describe J.K. Rowling, but I think some of what she said can easily be construed as offensive or threatening.
Sex-segregated spaces like prisons or women's shelters have historically been sex-segregated for good reason--because women are characteristically vulnerable to men in certain specific ways. You can't say "that's a cherry-picked case" while also maintaining that Rowling is somehow transphobic; her opposition to the statement "trans women are women" extends only and exactly to the cases that are so obvious, your instinct is to call them "cherry-picked."
The reason I say this is cherry-picked is because it's not relevant to the reality of the debate-- it's such a rare example that it's mostly useful for rabble-rousing.
If you're looking for ways to "destroy her with facts and logic" then you're being a pretty shitty friend.
This doesn't necessarily follow. Sometimes a good debate amongst friends is fun. I'll admit that in this instance I was being flippant and making a cultural reference, and that "destroying her with facts and logic" would not be a good approach. What I meant by this was "One approach I am considering is disclosing my true position to her and laying out a reasoned, rational case for why I feel that way."
And really--if she's a decent friend, you saying "I think you're great and I like your company, but I just disagree with you about some of these things and I'm worried that our friendship might not survive our disagreement,"
This is good advice, I am thankful for your responses here. I might try something like "I support you in any of your efforts to boycott the new Harry Potter game. Someone recommended me this cool adblocker that can do keyword filtering on YouTube. [provide reference to uBlocker]. I need to confess that I am not personally offended by Harry Potter content and won't be filtering it out of my own internet experience. I understand that this might offend you, but I value our friendship and want to be honest about my personal and political views. [hopefully this leads to a good discussion about why she feels so offended by J.K. Rowling and the new Harry Potter game and I can further refine my position].
In hindsight this approach would have been preferable to avoiding the subject, if the opportunity presents itself I will give it a try and report back.
Part of the problem is that some of my trans friends have expressed that they don't feel like pushing their views on other people, they would just rather avoid the issue entirely. So I want to be careful about bringing it up to be sensitive to their expressed desires (back to that filtering out offensive shit idea).
Would hindus and muslims object to content creators eating beef/pork? I don't know from experience if this is true or not, I will defer to you here. My guess is that they wouldn't mind, based on my Jewish friends not caring if the content creators they watch eat kosher.
I think a better analogy would be something like if J.K. Rowling were to depict the prophet Mohommad like Charlie Hebdo did. I personally am okay with Charlie Hebdo publishing pictures of the prophet, but I understand that this offended and upset many muslims (I don't condone any of the violent responses).
To Muslims (I gather this from media, etc, I am not muslim), depictions of the prophet Mohommad without the proper ritual are super offensive, to trans people, some of the shit that J.K. Rowling (and Dave Chappelle) say is super offensive. Like, that seems okay (that they are offended), right? Are trans people suggesting that they will feel an anxiety-filled death if they see harry potter content? I think that's not fair. In my experience trans people fought for a boycott (valid choice for activist action) and criticized people who didn't boycott (also a valid choice for activists), is that crazy?
Edit: forgot pork
Why is ridicule an appropriate reaction in this case and not civil discourse? (this is an earnest question, not rhetorical. Would you lay out the case for this approach?)
Edit: clarify earnest-ness
There's a whole body of literature devoted to treating alcoholism (and also what people affected by / close to alcoholics should do). I am no expert here, but if you feel like classifying your partner as alcoholic, some of what comes to mind is setting boundaries that protect you (maybe this is what you mean by breaking up should this behavior recur again). To be fair, I sometimes worry that pathologizing alcohol use isn't productive.
Here's one of the top google hits I got, one suggestion that stands out to me that you should consider is:
Rather than obsessively monitoring your spouse’s drinking behavior, keeping constant tabs on their whereabouts, attempting to discard their alcohol, lecturing them, forbidding them from drinking, or pleading with them to stop drinking, you may choose to practice the art of actively releasing control over your spouse’s alcohol use. You did not cause their drinking, you cannot control it, and you cannot cure it.
This is only one approach that they mention and your mileage may vary, but maybe a dose of this in whatever intervention you pursue would be useful.
I think you (or a dispassionate observer in you and your partner's vicinity) should do some very careful analysis of the problem. Some people use therapists/counselors/religious entities/etc for this. People in relationships with alcoholics are often recommended therapy for themselves. What triggers/motivates the undesirable behavior? It may be a combination of factors (stress, relationship issues, friends who are alcoholics, dissatisfaction with life, unhappiness, just wanting to have fun and let loose, they feel like they aren't in control).
Have you considered setting up a way for your partner to get blackout drunk once in a while in a safe way? Like maybe they want to do this every 6 months or so.
Make sure you are safe, focus on your own needs first, support your partner as you can, including by separating if that is the appropriate intervention. This shit is hard, but you can do it. Good luck!
Edit: punctuation
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
J.K. Rowling appears to be as trans-positive as it is possible to be without accepting outright falsehoods or social policies that literally and demonstrably endanger women.
This seems like a stretch, can you elaborate here? Like the thing about a rapist asking to be imprisoned with women is hardly evidence that women in general are in danger (I'll admit maybe I'm just ignorant here). It's a cherry-picked example of an extreme edge case that's easily handled on a case-by-case basis.
If they're really your friends, it won't hurt them that you enjoy Hogwarts Legacy; they have no reason to think it will hurt you.
This seems disingenuous (although it's poetic), I don't think anyone's under the illusion that it will hurt me-- isn't it about politics or something?
I do my best to function as a moral exemplar to them, and I like to think they are doing their best to do the same for me. Our disagreement does not preclude any of that.
How do you address topics with your friends that you know you disagree on? Can you give an example? Especially when they come up organically, in the course of regular conversation? This happened to me today, and I avoided the subject.
In no plausible sense have they disregarded your friends' feelings (how could they even be aware of your specific individual feelings?)
This isn't quite correct-- literally no one was surprised (that's hyperbole, sorry, but you get the point) that there was a boycott of the game and loud pushback.
But you've absolutely no reason at all to fault others for playing Hogwarts Legacy or streaming it. And if your trans friends think less of you for being insufficiently enraged by their own pet neurosis, well, then they are not very good friends.
So to go back to the specific example that prompted my post, the friend I was talking with today didn't behave that way-- when the issue came up in conversation and I kind of side-stepped, she did as well and we didn't speak of it again. I didn't feel good about it for a few reasons, one of which was I wasn't totally sure how I felt about the issue. I'm hoping to get some more clarity and then either destroy her with facts and logic or live and let live (or maybe a wild third option I hadn't considered yet).
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Your question sets the situation up so that it's expected for me to show some kind of empathy for the friend who's upset, because isn't that what friends do?
Sure, it may require some empathy for my friends, probably more for me though. Maybe it's quibbling but I am sympathetic to both the viewpoint that harry potter content is objectionable and the viewpoint that harry potter content is fine. Sympathetic to streamers that stream the game, but understanding of why that's potentially an issue.
The issue is that I haven't seen they slightest semblance of reciprocation from progressive groups when I get upset at something. Alex Kurtzman shits all over Star Trek? Get over yourself you racist nerd! And so on.
Well that doesn't seem very charitable of the progressive groups-- I have had mixed experiences with the new star trek stuff. I'd be curious if you have a link or a quick summary of the criticism of Kurtzman's take on Star Trek.
- In my perfect world: I call my friend and idiot for fretting over the HP game, and streamers streaming it. My friend calls me a retard for being upset at the new Star Trek. None of that has any negative impact on our friendship, and we even actually enjoy these heated exchanges.
- In my second-best world: I do some active listening routine for my friend, trying to get to what upsets them, and conclude with "yeah that sucks". They do the same for me, re: Star Trek.
- In the demonic hellscape we are forced to live in: I keep my mouth shut. Change the subject. Start avoiding my friend if they keep pushing.
This is great advice, and exactly why I'm glad I posted. I went with option number 3, but I really want to be able to have some level of option number 1-- maybe not calling them an idiot, but being able to discuss it like we are now.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
This is exactly what the linked twitter post is pointing at: thinking it not just funny, but hilarious, to have another political tribe turn up and run roughshod over existing members and culture.
Right, right, it's obviously offensive, but you have to admit there's a joke there, the stereotype of ham radio is super-nerdy/technical which is a stark contrast to the (stereotypical) queer propoganda.
Sure, to be fair to you it sounds like you have had some bad experiences before, and that sucks, honestly. And it sounds like the strategy you used was to withdraw from those communities. If you had a second chance, would you do the same thing again?
What would you say to my trans friends if you were having lunch with them and they brought up the Harry Potter issue?
edit: clarification
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I think we're getting a little bit off-track here, I am sympathetic to the idea that demanding to take down objectionable content only leads to taking down other less-objectionable content in the long-run. For the sake of argument let's say my trans friends aren't planning on harassing anyone (I believe this to be true, but could be wrong).
Imagine you had a friend who was upset about getting served Harry Potter content and one of their favorite streamers had streamed the new game despite it being clear that some of the trans folks in her community were against it. What would you say to them? Would you avoid the subject?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
The tweet about spamming ham radio with queer chatter is not a productive analogy. It's funny but clearly inflammatory and uncivil.
I think the better analogy is queer people talking about queer things in the context of a hobbyist space that isn't coded queer. The queer people didn't seek to make anyone uncomfortable, but KingOfTheBailey was offended, threatened, and ended up being excluded as a result. That is a different scenario than what I described but a better analogue.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Ahhh, they are actually talking about ham radio-- I thought that was a euphemism. That's hilarious, imagine spamming ham radio with queer propoganda! There is additional irony because in the US AM radio (admittedly different from ham radio) is considered to be almost exclusively "Red Tribe" or US right-wing. I've heard US left-wing people complain about it.
The behavior you're describing (talking/being sexual) isn't limited to trans (or even queer) people, I've been in all-male workplaces where talking about sex and sex acts was commonplace (there were porno magazines in the break room). That isn't to say that the behavior is appropriate, though.
It seems like what you're describing is the same thing my trans friends are describing with regard to Harry Potter content? Am I wrong there? Like you don't want to see/hear offensive content in those hobbyist spaces and want to filter it? Thankfully the internet can maybe one day provide this functionality in a way that ham radio cannot.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I am not in a good position to offer advice, I am in a moral quandary of a similar flavor myself. Some ideas come to mind:
-
pronouns is easy (for me at least) just use the pronouns people prefer to avoid conflict and rationalize it after the fact however you want (poe, mask, being kind, sjw)
-
Avoiding politics in your work setting seems like a great idea. Stick to the motte and work to build a community outside of work where you can talk politics
-
get tenure, then disregard 1 and 2
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Looking at your friends' social media, do they treat other people with this level of respect?
Good question, to be honest I exclusively interact with them in private spheres. I would hope my friends treat others with respect, and I'd be willing to forgive some transgressions.
I don't quite get this one-- is the post quoting an extreme tweet and then providing commentary? I read this as "I'm going to go annoy some people who don't really deserve it," which sounds annoying. Maybe in some contexts that sentiment would be justified (though not necessarily the action), like if they were implying "some people annoyed me, so I'm going to go annoy them back." Not saying that's what's happening there, just a little confused at what that post is saying.
In fact the demands for comfort are often part of that strategy: forcing "friends and allies" to constantly debase themselves obsequiously following every new demand without question.
That's an interesting tweet-- in a vacuum (without the culture-war context) that would be the perfect algorithm for updating prior beliefs, if the last step included some wiggle room for the alternative conclusion. That said, most would read that tweet within the culture-war context, in which it's arguably kind of offensive, because it assumes the poster is always right.
At some point you will have to choose between obedience and self-respect.
I appreciate the advice, I will consider this.
Edit: punctuation
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I think you need to rethink what you are saying here. If you mean that literally, then obviously Harry Potter and JK Rowling (just for a start) would have to be scrubbed off the Internet.
Wait, that doesn't necessarily follow-- the idea is that we can tailor our media experiences to see the content that we want to see right? And filter out content that we don't? This could be through features on our social media or regular media websites or by choosing what content delivery channels to consume, right?
I would also ask if anyone else should be able to browse the Internet without seeing content they deem hateful/disturbing. Radical feminists? Muslims? White nationalists? Surely you can see the problem here.
Same idea here, isn't that what we do already by choosing where to spend our time on the internet and with human and automated moderation?
No offense, but you very much sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be a good ally to all your trans friends who are telling you that anyone who plays the Harry Potter game or watches Dave Chappelle is hurting them, but you also want to play the Harry Potter game and watch Dave Chappelle.
None taken, and I don't think ally is what I'm going for here, just a good friend. Like, what would you do in my position? Do you have any advice? Based on your reply, I would guess you might try to talk through the issue with them? Try to convince them to play the Harry Potter game? Thus far I have just avoided the subject.
For the record, I would like to watch Dave Chappelle again, don't care if I play the Harry Potter game.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I have some trans friends (who I love dearly) and they are offended by some of J.K. Rowling's remarks and beliefs. When they see Harry Potter content (including streams and clips of the new Harry Potter game), it can be offensive and threatening for them.
Growing up, I had a fondness for Harry Potter. I read all the books, watched all the movies, and to this day I have a deep nostalgic attachment to the franchise. I don't personally have an issue with Harry Potter, and all I have seen in terms of criticism of J.K. Rowling was Dave Chapelle's stand-up special (not particularly critical) and a blog post about an inflammatory tweet J.K. Rowling made about a male rapist transitioning and asking for internment in a women's prison (this seems like the edgiest of all edge cases and only useful as an inflammatory wedge).
I believe that my trans friends should be able to browse the internet without seeing content they deem hateful/disturbing (like harry potter content). But I also sympathize with people who want to play the new Harry Potter game or watch their favorite streamer play the new game.
Furthermore, there's an issue where if a streamer has trans viewers (I'd imagine most of the top 100 streamers have at least a couple, and the top 10 streamers in any channel have many trans viewers), by playing the new Harry Potter game the streamer is knowingly streaming content that will offend (some of) those trans viewers (admittedly not all trans people will be offended by the Harry Potter stuff).
My current position is that I hope the hubbub and streamer playthroughs of the game will subside in a week or two and we can just forget the whole thing. But I think this kind of tension will come up a lot. Like the next time Dave Chappelle releases a special. I will want to watch it.
How can I support my trans friends while also being okay with people enjoying the new Harry Potter game?
How should I feel about streamers who choose to play the new Harry Potter game on stream? In some sense they have disregarded my friends' feelings and excluded them from their community!
Any response is much appreciated.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
The chinese individuals I've met (and the descendants of chinese individuals I've met) seem to adopt western culture easily. If there was some genetic basis for chinese culture wouldn't you expect the opposite? (admittedly this is totally anecdata)
Furthermore aren't there examples of chinese-american celebrities adopting western culture? Jackie Chan? Bruce Lee?
It seems like you've cherry-picked some ideas and woven them into a nice narrative-- and while the narrative is coherent, it doesn't really do a good job of modeling reality.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate your points. All I have is my intuitive sense of why people choose honors classes. It sounds like my intuitive model of those people is different than yours. That's fine.
Edit: actually this wasn't your initial post, it was someone else. Apologies.
I went and re-read your initial post. My claim was that:
it’s okay to allow students to self-select (or students and whoever is telling them what to do) and decide how much schoolwork they want to do.
I went to American (US) public high school, and my recollection is that the main differentiator for the honors classes was that there was more schoolwork (more note-taking in english, more books to read) and the kids who took the classes were "better." Maybe that's not true across all high schools. I think that maybe International Baccalaureate (IB) or Advanced Placement (AP) would be better examples of places where true high-performers go.
I'm just saying that, due to the filtering effect of honors classes, they're generally going to consist of students who are higher in general intelligence than the broader student population at the given school and grade.
I'm inclined to agree, as long as you're saying that the average intelligence is higher. Maybe that's too much of a nitpick, but certainly there would be overlap in the distributions of general intelligence in honors and regular classes.
Teachers aren't perfect at gauging a student's potential ability to make use of honors classes, but I believe they're better than chance.
I'd rather use standardized tests for this, wouldn't you? Or a combination of standardized tests and nomination by teachers of students with merit? Teachers have all kinds of biases, and some teachers are terrible (many teachers awesome).
Edit: clarification in last paragraph
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
It's a problem if there is a causal link to historical events in the United States, right (redlining, slavery, Jim Crow, etc)?
I think that a stupid person could be successful in an honors class, they would just need to put in more work relative to their genius classmates. The honors class might even be better for it, as the stupid person might have different perspectives on the literature during discussions (in an honors English class, for example). I could see a stupid person in a math class being disruptive though, depending on what we mean by stupid.
Perhaps increasing equity cannot be done without degrading class quality to near non-honors levels, is that worth it?
What is the optimal distribution of stupidity amongst students for learning rate in a school classroom (this is a flippant question, it just occurred to me and sounded funny)? Is the intelligence distribution of a class the most important factor for learning rate? Or is it things like class size, teacher goodness, school funding, and student social support? Maybe we should filter out kids with poor resourcing so that the well-resourced kids can learn faster?
edit: comma
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Diana Moon Glampers is, inarguably, 'super effective'!
Love the short story (hadn't read that one), but it seems like the most relevant criticism it presents would be that this policy change (no honors classes) limits competition. I'm wondering if the opposite is true (this policy change increases opportunities for competition).
If you agree that social/cultural factors end up filtering (in part) who takes honors classes, wouldn't removing that filter allow for more "honest" competition within the regular classes?
Is there also, like, an anarcho-capitalist (or maybe just capitalist?) argument for this kind of policy? Where each teacher gets to make their class as awesome or distinct as possible and then market-like forces dictate which classes kids take and which teachers/classes parents hold in high regard?
Does the International Math Olympiad's disproportionate asianness (and lack of blacks) indicate 'bias', and should that be retired until equity is ensured?
Yes, it indicates bias (could argue about whether it's bad or not). No, because there's no "regular" Olympiad to integrate with.
Anyway, why think / post so much about "whatever the media wrote about yesterday"?
So, this is a reasonable question to ask, but this is the culture war roundup, and this is clearly a culture-war issue, right? I certainly found it to be a thought-provoking idea (maybe it's not). I was (and still am) excited about all of the responses I've gotten thus far. Maybe what you're alluding to is that the culture war doesn't matter and that we should phase out the roundup? It doesn't seem futile to argue about the right way to educate kids, although maybe what you are expressing is fatigue at rehashing this topic (I get the sense it may have been discussed before). I'll admit that maybe too many resources (time/money) are spent on political endeavors rather than "real" endeavors. One thing that honors classes can give (that can't be provided by you or I reading with our kids) would be opportunities to critique literary works amongst peers (or the filtered "smart kids" in honors classes).
Should we only post about what our favorite blogger wrote about yesterday?
I couldn't think of a single case where students picked honors classes due to any sort of peer influence
This is fair, but I have anecdata to the contrary-- let's call it a draw on that one.
And basically no student is going to think "I'm so smart I need honors classes;" rather, it's more "I'm smart/good at academics enough to take honors classes and excel which is better for my college prospects than taking regular classes and excelling (and I'm smart enough that the risk of taking honors classes and being mediocre is very low)."
I like your characterization of a hypothetical student's motivation better here, it seems more plausible.
If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're saying that the primary driver for students taking honors classes is their general intelligence? I still think I disagree, and would argue that social factors are a bigger driver (when you take into account the whole distribution of intelligence in a given honors class). I'd be curious to know if there's relevant research.
Edit: singular possessive
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
If the target metric is racial makeup of classes relative to baseline, integrating honors and regular classes seems like an effective strategy, no?
From that frame of reference it being bad for the high-performing kids would be a side-effect, right?
Couldn't you argue that the high-performing kids would be incentivized to move towards private education, which would lead to more market forces being present in education? Could policy changes like this bring public school closer to its socialist roots and accelerate the adoption of private, market-driven education?
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
I don’t think that high schools sports is a good analogy for honors classes. And I meant middle of the bell curve within students who take honors classes. The smartest kids will need educational experiences tailored to their needs (arguably honors classes might not be the best for the smartest kids). But for most kids in honors classes I would guess that their motivation is not “I’m so smart I need honors classes.”
Aren’t honors classes purely opt-in (no analogy for tryouts and selection)?
I would guess that more students pick honors classes because their friends are taking them than any other (explicit) reason, which you can’t always say for someone who makes the varsity baseball team.
prof_xi_o
1yr ago
Interesting perspective, I love the idea that when there are strong "tribal" affiliations it can be a valid choice to explicitly have representation.
I'm going to have to think about that duality you mentioned-- maybe it's not just the american progressives, like the war in Afghanistan/Iraq come to mind, there's the justification for those invasions (both of which were arguably or factually bullshit) and the reality, which is taboo to mention
Someone down below mentioned "Orthopraxy" as opposed to "Orthodoxy" your point about the rabbi brings that to mind.
This is great advice, thanks for the suggestions and the story.
I’ll consider this approach.
More options
Context Copy link