Zompist Bboard Again

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:04 pm I'm willing to not objectify people who don't want to be objectified

Sorry, isn't that a baseline expectation? You shouldn't objectify people regardless of whether or not they tell you not to.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:42 pm Okay, but just to be clear, I'm not stopping you from saying something you want to say. It is the other way around.

Yes. Correct. This was my precise intent. If someone is saying something inappropriate, I do in fact want to stop them from saying it.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:30 pm Sorry, isn't that a baseline expectation? You shouldn't objectify people regardless of whether or not they tell you not to.

I've given a lot of explanations for why I believe that's the wrong approach.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:27 pm Simple: self-moderation. I've changed a lot of habits (e.g. using the correct pronouns for someone who's decided the old ones were wrong) not by critically evaluating why I might want to keep using the old ones, but by correcting myself whenever I do. Likewise, if you want to stop obsessing over women's bodies, catch yourself doing it and make a goddamn effort to stop.

I've tried that for years. I can keep it up for exactly three days at a time. What's wrong with imagining women to be something like Vihart's icon instead? I'm referring to this post:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:01 pm That doesn't sound right. I chose the word blob because I noticed noticed that women's abstract self-representations of themselves tend to be distinctly un-"curvy" like the icon on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOGeU- ... Djhm9Zs_wg I didn't mean to insult anyone.

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:32 pm Yes. Correct. This was my precise intent. If someone is saying something inappropriate, I do in fact want to stop them from saying it.

Okay. But I don't think this approach is the right one.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:01 pm I chose the word blob because I noticed noticed that women's abstract self-representations of themselves tend to be distinctly un-"curvy" like the icon on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOGeU- ... Djhm9Zs_wg I didn't mean to insult anyone.

Sorry for not including this in my last post but it honestly didn't register until just now: this has got to be one of the most bizarre chains of logic I've ever read. I'm sorry but it truly is. Let me see if I have this right:

1. Women on the internet sometimes have abstract avatars, by which I suppose you mean not using a photo or drawing of themselves.
2. These abstract avatars are, according to you, typically not curvy.
3. Therefore, describing women's bodies as "blobs" is perfectly acceptable.

??????????

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:41 pm Sorry for not including this in my last post but it honestly didn't register until just now: this has got to be one of the most bizarre chains of logic I've ever read. I'm sorry but it truly is. Let me see if I have this right:

1. Women on the internet sometimes have abstract avatars, by which I suppose you mean not using a photo or drawing of themselves.
2. These abstract avatars are, according to you, typically not curvy.
3. Therefore, describing women's bodies as "blobs" is perfectly acceptable.

??????????

I'm not a native English speaker. "Blob" is how I would describe the average shape in which women choose to freely objectify themselves. I didn't think it would be insulting. The word sounds cute to me.

rotting, give it a rest. If you don't understand why your language was creepy, try to figure it out, or PM me to discuss.

/me rolls eyes

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:45 pm

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:33 pmI genuinely am not sure how to respond to all... *waves vaguely* all of that. I've written out several responses and none seemed adequate. I guess what I will try to say in simple terms is that human bodies are inextricably linked with a human person. You cannot separate the two. Every body belongs to a person. When you objectify the body--which you both are quite literally doing by describing women's bodies in terms of objects--you are objectifying the person. You are denying that there is a person inhabiting that body. And I don't give a shit if a dead guy two thousand years ago disagrees.

Fair enough. Quite honestly, I have often wondered about the ethics of aesthetically evaluating the bodies of women for precisely that reason. Perhaps it would be better if I were asexual or at least attracted to men instead.

Within your own mind, I think such evaluations are likely to be made whether you want them to or not. Most people are drawn to certain things visually, and I don't think this is inherently good or bad. What you do with expressing your thoughts can be, depending on how, when, and why you do it, but a thought cannot hurt anybody until the result of your acting on it (or not, if you don't act on an impulse to save somebody or something like that) is a reality. Perhaps the act of expressing it is what you originally meant, though.

Edit — Addendum: The rest of the conversation above is... very strange and difficult to comment on.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:29 pmWithin your own mind, I think such evaluations are likely to be made whether you want them to or not. Most people are drawn to certain things visually, and I don't think this is inherently good or bad. What you do with expressing your thoughts can be, depending on how, when, and why you do it, but a thought cannot hurt anybody until the result of your acting on it (or not, if you don't act on an impulse to save somebody or something like that) is a reality. Perhaps the act of expressing it is what you originally meant, though.

Yeah, that is what I meant. And again, I am very sorry for my thoughtless remarks.

I don't think I read far back enough to see them. I just gave up after a while, I guess.

Today, while I was walking along the street, I almost lost my glasses twice. They simply fell off, apparently because I had somehow gotten the mechanics of the glasses/mask combo wrong. Anyway, both times, I managed it to catch them while they were falling. And that's why I'm posting this at all - I was honestly surprised that I have such good reflexes!

I had this problem Tuesday when I went for my second shot. Worse, everything was fine until I decided to take my mask off and put it back on again, and then after that my glasses just wouldn't sit right and I couldn't wait to get back home and take the mask off.

I've had this problem a few times even without a mask. I think they used to sell glasses holders at places like CVS - a cord with hollow ends that you put the earpieces into, fed through a mechanism to make it adjustable - but I haven't seen them in ages. I've been meaning to try to find them on Amazon for several years, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

I came across this very nice piece today:

The tilted political compass, part 1
The tilted political compass, part 2

I have no idea if that actually makes any sense as political science, and I suppose it's much in the same vein as the usual political compass, or the Myers Briggs scale.

Also, tag yourself! Like the author, I'm pretty clearly in the 'liberal' corner.

Part of the appeal is that I generally can't place my views very well on the traditional political axis, or on the political compass. This one works better for me, though it's not quite satisfying either.

Just today I was thinking about an early idea I had to create a compass for the political parties in my writing, most of which would be so wildly off the map that our familiar political compass would occupy just one tiny quadrant of it. I got the idea from https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompa ... l_compass/ ... and there's more where that came from too, though I havent really looked around myself.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:57 pm I came across this very nice piece today:

The tilted political compass, part 1
The tilted political compass, part 2

Interesting stuff. I think there's something to it, maybe more so than the usual four-quadrant compass, which seems to be designed by libertarians to give libertarians far more prominence and separation from Republicans than they actually have.

On the plus side, Nerst (the author) can use this to explain something about Swedish politics, which neither the left-right dichotomy or the usual four quadrants can do. Whether this is more generally useful I can't say.

I like the "thrive/survive" dichotomy far better than the "coupled/decoupled" one. I'd note that Nerst is partially reconstructing George Lakoff here (his "nurturant parent" vs. "strict father" dichotomy).

But do I have quibbles? Oh, I have quibbles! I'll just limit myself to two.

First, his discussion of the "survive" mentality:

In a “survive” scenario (think famine, war or zombie apocalypse) mistakes are costly, outsiders are potential threats, keeping order is paramount and we can’t afford to be too generous towards the weak lest they pull us down with them."

This is telling, because it's absolutely backwards. No, in an apocalypse we don't all become selfish Nietzscheans. He mentions war: the usual effect of war is national unity. All of a sudden, old hierarchies are shunted aside. So in the UK in WWII, you had a national unity government, the queen working as a mechanic, the foundations laid for the welfare state. In peacetime, generals are big on discipline and hazing and other Spartan nonsense; in wartime everyone is laser-focused on winning the war.

We don't have a zombie apocalypse to look at, but the global pandemic is close enough. Nerst's timing is unfortunate here: he was writing just before the pandemic got serious. Was the best behavior during the pandemic a selfish concern for only one's own skin? Not at all, that was the recipe for hundreds of thousands of deaths; right-wing regimes (Trump, Johnson, Bolsonaro, Modi) were all singularly unequipped to handle the problem.

Where Nerst is right is that conservatives think that their attitudes are suitable for the apocalypse, or the near-apocalypse that they always think they're living in. It's precisely because we live in prosperous First World countries that this illusion can be indulged. Prosperous societies always have a subclass that idolizes "barbarians" and their manly virtues. This is not because they know any barbarians or actually have any manly virtues; it's just a way to criticize opposing factions.

One reason I dont like the "(de)coupling" axis is that it doesn't recognize that it's conservatives, not liberals, who are passionate about tribes of people like themselves. That mostly comes down to white, Christian heterosexuals. Nerst has mistaken populist resentment of minorities as a rejection of non-family attachments of any sort. No, what they don't like is having to treat people of color, Muslims, Jews, and gays as human beings. They are, and are encouraged to be, very loyal to people like themselves.

He's also weirdly out of date in thinking that fascists don't exist or are universally despised. Maybe in Sweden, but has he looked at continental Europe lately?

Next, I think this sort of theoretical musing completely misses the historical context. What are conservatives conserving? Existing hierarchies, of course. There is always going to be a Money Party, and it's going to find whatever allies it needs to win elections. The easiest set of allies are those that benefit from the current hierarchy, or can be persuaded by "cultural" arguments that they do so. But if necessary, Money will ally with the more progressive elements— most notably, in US politics after the Civil War. It took 60 years before progressives migrated to the Democratic Party. In 19th century politics, Money was an upstart and often allied with the bourgeois against the aristocrats.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:22 pm Just today I was thinking about an early idea I had to create a compass for the political parties in my writing, most of which would be so wildly off the map that our familiar political compass would occupy just one tiny quadrant of it.

Since we're all conworlders here, that's a good point. The usual political compass kind-of explains US politics in the last half-century and that's it. It'd be completely useless for (say) Italian Renaissance politics, to say nothing of the factions in the Imperial Chinese court. And alien species should throw in even more oddities.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:57 pm I came across this very nice piece today:

The tilted political compass, part 1
The tilted political compass, part 2

I have no idea if that actually makes any sense as political science, and I suppose it's much in the same vein as the usual political compass, or the Myers Briggs scale.

Also, tag yourself! Like the author, I'm pretty clearly in the 'liberal' corner.

Part of the appeal is that I generally can't place my views very well on the traditional political axis, or on the political compass. This one works better for me, though it's not quite satisfying either.

Similar to Robin Hanson's farmer vs. forager spectrum - that's probably what the "thrive/survive" axis is garbling. But it seems designed to put the reader in "liberal", just as the original political compass was designed to put the test-taker in "libertarian", and just as Hanson's spectrum was designed to put the reader in "forager". (The several paragraphs about how the opposite of liberalism is fascism don't help.)

It also doesn't harmonize well with the other political compasses popular with blog-readers, like the Albion's Seed thing. "Puritans" were richer than "Borderers" even before Plymouth, so shouldn't the "scarcity mindset" thesis predict them to be less focused on order and discipline? But the safe, rich, and comfortable (after some rough winters, at least) culture was the one that developed into (and, according to the political compass, still is) a theocracy, and the impoverished backcountry culture was the one that became extremely individualistic.

I've seen enough of how liberal types - including SSC-reading rationalists - talk behind closed doors that I don't really buy the "expanded circle of concern" thing either. (Of course, there's an SSC post about this.) When a self-described "Effective Altruist" talks about how the epidemic of opioid overdoses is good because those Trump voters in flyover country need to die, does this reflect an "expanded circle of concern", or just the fact that the Malawians getting the mosquito nets are in Malawi rather than Yugoslavia-on-the-Potomac? Conservatives and liberals both are "passionate about tribes of people like themselves"; conservatives and liberals both extend charity to people too far away to hate.

IMO, the Albion's Seed meme is much less bad than the other ones, because people can't even agree about where it's designed to put people. When SSC reviewed it, someone got mad about how the review was racist against the Borderers or something. I (and some other people I know) had the exact opposite impression - if the four founding cultures of the US were infinitely authoritarian theocrats, ultraviolent rapist slavers, Sweden Yes bureaucrats, and hill orcs, obviously the good ones are the hill orcs. (I think his intended goal was to put the reader in "Quaker", but his blog readership survey results show it didn't work - it's about an even split between Puritans, Borderers, and then Cavaliers and Quakers combined.)

It's basically Harry Potter houses - the two schemata are even isomorphic! - but that's still preferable to a 2x2 where the ends of both axes are labeled "good" and "bad". If you want a political typology that's accurate and useful, you could try, like, class. (Would it be "reinforcing existing hierarchies" to - another SSC proposal, IIRC - ban consideration of college degrees in the hiring process?)

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:02 pm
I like the "thrive/survive" dichotomy far better than the "coupled/decoupled" one.

Myself, I like the coupled/decoupled dichotomy, and I'm more bothered with the 'thrive/survive' thing.

My main objection is that both left and right are in full survive mode right now.
How many people now don't feel like civilization is hanging by a thread? It's also pretty hard to explain why that is, given that we're decidedly in the most prosperous and secure period of human history so far. (I have ideas about that.)

The main divide is that each side find the other sides' concerns ridiculous or offensive.
The left feels we're about one bad day away from a fascist/capitalist dystopia, assuming we're not currently living in one, and assuming an environmental apocalypse doesn't get us first.
The right feels we're about one bad day away from a communist/lesbian dystopia, assuming we're not currently living in one, and assuming the global Jihad doesn't get us first.

Well, I know that's an unfair portrayal of both sides, and I do share most of the left-wingers' concerns and none of the conservatives'. That said, both sides seem equally gloomy these days!

That said... Maybe that explains why the left has a tendancy to fragment, and why left-wing groups hate each others' guts. (Splitters!)

This is telling, because it's absolutely backwards. No, in an apocalypse we don't all become selfish Nietzscheans. He mentions war: the usual effect of war is national unity.

That's a very interesting take. But! If we know take into account the fact that there is no zombie apocalypse going on, a lot suddenly starts making sense.
Your average person doesn't really feel that threatened by Muslims, transgender people or worse, transgender Muslim. If you buy into, say, replacement theory, then you're surrounded by people that just don't see that they're being replaced by brown people and worse, don't even care if they are. If you want to stick with the theory, you have to assume you're surrounded by traitors! Then the siege mentality starts making a lot of sense.

One reason I dont like the "(de)coupling" axis is that it doesn't recognize that it's conservatives, not liberals, who are passionate about tribes of people like themselves. That mostly comes down to white, Christian heterosexuals. Nerst has mistaken populist resentment of minorities as a rejection of non-family attachments of any sort. No, what they don't like is having to treat people of color, Muslims, Jews, and gays as human beings. They are, and are encouraged to be, very loyal to people like themselves.

I'm not sure I agree. If you scratch a conservative long enough, you eventually get to the core of selfishness that is at the heart of the matter. There's a deep, deep fear that people of color and Muslims will end up costing you money and sex. (I'd rather not discuss the sex competition angle right now over breakfast, but believe me, it's there)

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:02 pm He's also weirdly out of date in thinking that fascists don't exist or are universally despised. Maybe in Sweden, but has he looked at continental Europe lately?

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:08 pm
Similar to Robin Hanson's farmer vs. forager spectrum - that's probably what the "thrive/survive" axis is garbling. But it seems designed to put the reader in "liberal", just as the original political compass was designed to put the test-taker in "libertarian", and just as Hanson's spectrum was designed to put the reader in "forager". (The several paragraphs about how the opposite of liberalism is fascism don't help.)

I believe you're both getting at the same point, in that the labels on the top/bottom axis are wrong-headed. The fact that there is a corner of evil should be a tip off that something's wrong with the analysis. The division is something else entirely.
I'd suggest 'Populist' vs 'Globalist' (though that's not idea either). Both right and left spill over into the top and bottom square.
That's why left-wingers get angry and confused at seeing fellow left-wingers having either (depending on personal preference) reactionary or capitalist views, or why right-wingers see so many of their numbers as traitors.

A Trumpist would see a 2002-vintage Bushite neocon with some suspicion (even though they agree on a lot of things): that's because neocons are kinda globalists, while Trumpists are more populists.
Then again, Sanders voters (Sanderistas?) had trouble voting for Hillary -- Bernie is left/populist whereas Hillary is left/globalist.
In French politics, there's something off with Mélenchon according to many left-wingers (including me, even though I often agree with him), this again, is due to the fact that he registers as populist. A friend of mine recently joined a very, very, very left-wing party -- and I was surprised by how much they have in common with reactionaries (hatred of the EU, for starters, and what I feel are easy answers to complex questions): again, populist vs. globalist.

The hard part is that there's really nothing wrong with being tribalist or globalist, or right-wing or left-wing. All sides can make a pretty compelling case. (It does look like the real nasty people are right/populist, but I think that's because it's where the money's at. Trump ran as a Republican but he's at heart a social parasite and sociopath with no values of his own; he could have just as easily run as a Democrat had it been possible -- he was in fact a registered one in the 90s).
To carry the Harry Potter metaphor further, the conclusion is that there's nothing wrong with being a Slytherin.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:08 pm It's basically Harry Potter houses - the two schemata are even isomorphic! - but that's still preferable to a 2x2 where the ends of both axes are labeled "good" and "bad". If you want a political typology that's accurate and useful, you could try, like, class. (Would it be "reinforcing existing hierarchies" to - another SSC proposal, IIRC - ban consideration of college degrees in the hiring process?)

Definitely! The author is amusingly aware of that; that follow-up post should be right up your alley: https://everythingstudies.com/2020/12/1 ... l-compass/

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:02 pm Since we're all conworlders here, that's a good point. The usual political compass kind-of explains US politics in the last half-century and that's it. It'd be completely useless for (say) Italian Renaissance politics, to say nothing of the factions in the Imperial Chinese court. And alien species should throw in even more oddities.

I agree with the general point but disagree with the specifics. Political compasses are rough map to Western politics, and they sort of work from the French revolution on. If anything, they're really good at late 19th century/ early 20th century politics: you can map anarchists, tory/royalistes, whig/républicains, Labour/socialists really neatly on them.
(For that matter, there is a left/right divide in Roman politics in late Republican times)

A theory I worked out over coffee, inspired by the American politics thread: the political compass is just a natural reaction to rapid societal change. They are, at heart, a SWOT diagram. Given any change, you'll find people who love it and others who hate it. Then looking a bit further, some will try to mitigate it, and others will take advantage of it. Now, increase the magnitude and rate of change, and you get very recognizable political divides.

In a more static kind of society you get something like court factions or Guelphs vs. Ghibellines: traditional allegiances are more stable and more important. (Not that either Italian Renaissance or Imperial China were static, but you didn't have to wake up every morning and adjust to ten new technologies and five traditional societal institutions being challenged like we do.)

The pandemic is an interesting case study, I think. Pandemics are nothing new, but the virus was identified and the genome sequenced before the pandemic even got started, we had a vaccine basically from day one (most of 2020 was spent testing it), we could quarantine everyone while keeping society relatively functional, we can test people and figure out who are aysymptomatic carriers and everyone can take a look at the numbers and try and come up with their own strategy.
None of that would have been possible ten years ago. I mean, I like to bitch about conspiracy theorists, but frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of them. If you pause to think about it, the amount of societal change involved is enough to leave you whimpering in a corner.



If, like me, the pandemic is bringing you down, a bit of an optimistic aside: if this had happened in the 70s, about one person in ten would have just died of unexplained pneumonia and nobody would have given a fuck. So really, we are getting better and nicer.