Rosencrantz2
2d ago
I just gave it a cryptic crossword clue and it completely blew it. Both wrong and a mistake no human would make (it ignored most of the clue, saying it was misdirection).
Not to say it's not incredibly impressive but it reveals itself as a computer in a Bladerunner situation really quite easily.
Rosencrantz2
7d ago
In a vacuum I agree with you but then I realise I really enjoy Marina Hyde for the Guardian, who is a phenomenal prose stylist and puts her biases on the page in something like this manner. She is funny, verbally inventive and scathing enough that you (or I) can enjoy it for what it is without mistaking it for news. You have to be good at it though, it doesn't work if you try to do a news article with five semi-amusing phrases thrown in just for spice.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
I don't know about this idea of 'storytelling' as far as defining which art is best either, but I do think you need way more context than just some imagined innate sense of 'beautiful colours and patterns' to realise that a Persian rug is nice. The rug also happens:
-to belong to an old tradition
-to be made of natural materials
-to have had care lavished upon it
If you take these aspects away you could end up with something resembling a plastic play mat, with an AI generated pattern printed on it, that was created in five minutes. This would not be nearly as pleasing. You need some sense of wider context to appreciate what is in fact lovely and what is not.
Scott's essay also seemed to miss this, which is why I think he seems to really like imitative architecture and McMansions. In fact he likes them as much or more than the original old architecture they are copying, which is very strange to me.
Rosencrantz2
14d ago
As for the political content that reddit is worried about, that's just the stuff I myself watch/read anyway, so stopping my own kids from watching/reading it would be even more bizarre and hypocritical.
So you'll need to signal flip the political content in the thought experiment to stuff you profoundly disagree with.
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
I wonder what the teacher would have said to a boy who said he wanted to be a dad.
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
If you can self-study to the same level then definitely do it! It takes a lot of self-motivation though. Humans are social creatures and being around other students and professors is the typical way to become invested and excited about your ideas as they'll have more purchase with those around you. The internet and new remote learning models could maybe compensate for some of this but not all.
Then, obviously, the career value of a degree, any degree.
Rosencrantz2
25d ago
Thousands of English professors might be unnecessary but why the heck not? We had many more monks in monasteries whose whole job was just upholding a way of life and an institution. As long as they're deeply passionate about it (which I think most English scholars are), I think they're adding to the sum of human fulfilment. There are hundreds of millions of people doing bullshit jobs, after all.
Rosencrantz2
27d ago
Russians hacked the voting machines and changed vote totals to ensure Trump would win. That is very clearly an example of a conspiracy theory.
So here I for sure agree with you. Phrased like this, it's on a level with QAnon and flat earth.
The others not so much. That Kavanaugh for instance was a sexual abuser is nothing close to a conspiracy view, he was accused by a professor. This doesn't require any kind of nefarious shadowy cabal, it requires Democrats to be more disposed to 'believe women' and some motivated thinking, and the Republicans to see plausible doubt that he did anything at a party decades ago, certainly enough that they can give their ally the benefit of the doubt. There's no specific coordination, no outrageous nefariousness, just a he said/she said that's split along lines of self-interest.
Anyway, I agree that both sides use ambiguous and provocative claims, only for many to retreat to more reasonable specifics when under pressure. My only point is that such motte/bailey strategy should be separated from off-the-reservation beliefs that are different in kind because they include implausible specifics, usually to do with central coordination or schizo leanings that the believer is very special. That a pizza restaurant is a paedophile market. That a government higher up is speaking to you directly on the dark web. That the space landings were faked.
I maintain that's a useful distinction.
Rosencrantz2
28d ago
So the second one sounds like an example of a conspiracy theory – it's not just an exaggeration but implies a shadowy cabal who's really in control. Unless the speaker just means Trump is a 'Russian asset' in the minimal sense that his existence is of value to Russia (rather than in the spycraft sense).
The others seem a bit more like rash overclaims than complete fantasies to me though it really depends on how the speaker elaborates on what they mean when questioned. Russia did interfere with the 2016 election, for example, but it does not appear at all likely it made a significant difference to the outcome.
Rosencrantz2
28d ago
What is the patriarchy or whiteness except the ultimate in shadowy central planning?
Depends on how it's cashed out and elaborated on. I believe it to be patently obvious we live in a patriarchy that has been making slow-motion improvements, but that this fact is just a reflection on millions of people's net behaviours over time rather than something anyone has ever nefariously discussed in a group.
Rosencrantz2
28d ago
A conspiracy theory typically involves some shadowy group doing something in a centrally planned way. Your bullet points are all just badly worded versions of perfectly reasonable observations about uncoordinated human behaviour.
A conspiracy theory such as flat earth or Qanon are in a completely different category.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
Even if you don't think that Russia has territorial expansion aspirations (which it does, but agreeing to disagree ...), the Finnish public is afraid of Russia invading and wants to defend against it by joining NATO. You can say that it's symbolic by the leadership, and the public is being tricked into being afraid of something that would never happen, but what is the evidence for that?
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
Finland clearly joined to prepare for a possible Russian attack in the medium term future.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
I would never say that a type of joke is "always" unfunny but if a joke has no twist or self-flatters the teller without much seeming awareness of the vanity involved (e.g. Maga thinking of itself as Gondor), it comes across as flat footed too me and lacks the element of unexpectedness I would need to enjoy it. It's not fake learned behaviour to no longer enjoy in general jokes about women being ugly, any more than it is fake learned behaviour to grow out of all kinds of one dimensional humour (mother in law jokes, dumb Irish jokes, etc). With exceptions for actually inventive jokes in those categories.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
But maybe what's actually funny is your troll act?
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
That is what I thought. Doesn't work for me as comedy even slightly, it just seems kind of mean spirited and slightly moves me from "4b is a slightly absurd reaction" to "man, their detractors are even worse."
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
What about that do you find funny? (I'm not even certain that I get it.)
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
I'm torn! In this thought experiment the dictatorship still has a majority population that is bent on genocide and they may get their way in time (else the dictator may have to genocide them to maintain power). But anyway, you can't go from 'prefers a benevolent dictatorship to a genocidal democracy' to 'doesn't care about democracy at all'. I didn't say democracy was the ultimate and only value I have, I just don't agree that no one cares about it.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
I don't see how covid presented much of an opportunity for Trump to cement his power. It was a hot potato he had to handle and made life more difficult for him.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
Legally, yeah.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
So why didn't he become a dictator during the first four years he was president? I've never heard a good response to this one. He was already president for four years, and yet we still have democracy. He's a known quantity.
A couple of things to this:
(1) It's hard to become a dictator in the US, would be one huge reason. When people are worried he's going to 'become a dictator' there are a lot of steps that would need to happen, only some of which he has any control over. The right war, the right resistance, the right economic resentments etc. He's not likely to declare himself dictator against the popular will, it's far more likely he'd subvert normal democratic norms and processes by consent. (2) When people find Trump's dictator-forward attitudes alarming, it's not only because they think there is a practical danger of him subverting democracy. It's that it feels like an offence against the office, akin to having a new vicar appointed who is loudly atheist. (Which actually I would like, but you get the analogy.)
Based on the above, I presume that you would thereby see my judgement as faulty. But the feeling is not mutual. I don't see your judgement to oppose Trump as incorrect; I just think you're a different type of person than me and you have different values, so of course you would think differently. You see me as faulty, whereas I just see you as different; and difference is not in itself a bad thing. Does this fact give you any pause?
I mean, yeah, correct, this is one difference between right and left. A huge part of the pain of this election is (a) feeling a degree of judgement towards the electorate, but then also (b) feeling terrible about this because it seems to confirm the right's stereotypes of the left as being judgemental.
I think the right's self image of being very tolerant of different opinions is massively exaggerated though: there are tonnes of people on the right who absolutely revel in liberal tears and obviously loathe their political opponents. You say you just see me as different but in the end our ideas are probably incommensurate so if you are going to impose your beliefs on mine (as is the right of those who win elections), how do you feel okay about it if you don't think your ideas are superior but just different? Do you just see it as a valid exercise of your tastes?
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
What do you mean? I can vote against him and campaign against him. Maybe I'll stand for office, I think my 'Stop the Gay-o-Caust' messaging would be quite popular. That is all the recourse I am entitled to.
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
Trump just spent four years claiming the Dems are an existential threat to democracy and stole an election, why didn't Trump supporters stop squawking on social media and buy weapons to assassinate them?
Rosencrantz2
1mo ago
That is cynicism gone too far. People care about living in a democracy because democracy appears to work better than the alternatives. I'd rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship whose policies match my beliefs, because in the latter case, if the government changes, I'll have no recourse. Do you think that is so unusual as a position?
I dunno, a lot of the filler in non brilliant non fiction books is serving the role of making space for you to think about something a lot, and trying multiple ways to teach something to up the odds of it lodging in the reader's mind. You can read a one page version of Atomic Habits and get all the actual informational content, but you won't have marinaded in it and spent time applying the advice to your own life in the way that you will if you read the whole thing. The ideas won't come across as so throwaway.
I'm truly not citing Atomic Habits as some example of genius! It's just I really don't think it's only status considerations that are driving book length works with relatively little informational content.
More options
Context Copy link