Recent surveys show a significant growth in support for far right, anti-immigrant parties among young men in Europe:
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-young-people-right-wing-voters-far-right-politics-eu-elections-parliament/
I'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
Perhaps relatedly, surveys by the Dutch health service has shown drastic declines in acceptance of homosexuality in the last few years.
In Amsterdam, 43% of young people accept homosexuality - down from 69% two years ago. In Utrecht acceptance of homosexuality fell from 71% in 2019 to 46%. In Zeeland 46% of young people thought trans people were "normal" two years ago, now that is only a quarter; with young people thinking trans people are "wrong" went from 13% to 25%.
https://www.out.tv/nieuws/minder-dan-helft-amsterdamse-jongeren-accepteert-homoseksualiteit?acceptCookies=66578e14186b3 (in Dutch, but Google translate does a good job).
Again I wonder what is the driver in this drastic change, and what the potential long term impacts are.
QuoteWhat caused this?
The rise of the new far-right is not an unexpected phenomenon. Economic, social, and political affairs culminate to act as different factors, beginning in 2007 with the Great Recession. These factors can be grouped and analysed as the 'triggers' of one of the greatest insurgencies of far-right politics since the end of the Cold War.
Vital to enabling support for their social policies, economic factors form the backbone of support for the far-right. In their analysis of the far-right rise in the 21st century, Georgiadou, Rori and Roumanias find a significant correlation between economic insecurity – including high unemployment and negative GDP growth – and support for what they call the 'extreme right'.
Worsening economic conditions, particularly high unemployment, primarily fuel the social outrage that manifests as support for anti-immigration policies. The researchers found that extremist right parties amplify their opposition to immigration 'through ... feelings of economic insecurity' driven by high unemployment. I believe economic factors are necessary for the recruitment of previously apolitical working-class individuals who attribute blame for worsening conditions, high crime rates, and unemployment to immigrants. Blame is also placed on perceived 'globalism', which carries economic consequences such as the globalised import economy and social factors like increased migratory flows and multiculturalism. This allows for far-right social ideology, typically characterised by hard protectionism and nationalism, to arise.
Supporters of the Italian Social Movement (MSI) give fascist salutes in January 2024 to commemorate the anniversary of the death of two neo-fascists in 1978. (Credit: Francesco Benvenuti / AP)
The social changes that led to the rise of the reactionary 'alt-right' in the US during the 2016 Elections have recently started affecting Europe. These changes primarily involve what far-right politicians see as attacks on tradition and the 'national spirit', ranging from support for LGBTQ+ rights, environmental concerns, Islam, atheism, and family forms incompatible with the traditional European nuclear model. Most far-right party political platforms identify migration as the greatest social 'threat' to the Western national spirit, particularly the rise of Islam in historically homogeneous Christian Catholic and Orthodox societies. In Western Europe, migration has had the greatest cumulative impact on France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria and Sweden, where Muslim populations have grown significantly since the start of the century. The far-right denounces immigration as an ideological challenge, accusing immigrants of resisting cultural integration, thereby diluting the West's national spirit, and as a pragmatic attack on Europe, based on sweeping generalisations linking immigrants to increased crime rates.
Political Factors
Two main political factors have predominantly facilitated the mainstreaming of the far-right in European politics. The first is the prevalent disunity of left-wing opposition parties in Europe. The second is the mismanagement of the economy by neoliberal centre-right parties and the perceived lack of a possible alternative, or what Peter Mair called "The Hollowing of Western Democracy".
While the far-right's social platform is centred around opposition to the 'cultural left' (LGBTQ+, immigration, climate crisis, etc.), their political and economic targets primarily align with the right. Their most consistent political activism revolves around the state of the working class, which they perceive as neglected by traditional politicians. This is not an attack on left-wing politics; rather, it critiques the neoliberal economic order, which they believe has failed regular citizens amidst the economic and political crises that hit Europe since 2008. Except for brief periods in Germany and Greece, left-wing parties have not formed stable governments after 2010, and thus the blame for the current economy falls on the traditional centre-right and right-wing neoliberal governments in power during the 2009 crisis, which largely continue to govern Europe today.
The rise of the far right can be attributed to two main political factors. Firstly, the lack of strong opposition from the left, evident in countries with multi-party systems where the opposition vote is distributed amongst several anti-capitalist, socialist and communist parties. This fragmentation has allowed far-right parties, who can amass more concentrated support due to their smaller number, to rise as the 'defenders of the nation', and those that most staunchly oppose the status quo. Secondly, the adoption of neoliberal economics as the status quo for the modern European Union, and its continuous failure to prevent the economic crises of 2008 and 2020, combined with dying support for left-wing socialism, allowed for the far-right to gain traction as the 'alternative' route for citizens who are tired of the precarious economic conditions. This dissent manifests itself in Euroscepticism, the rise of which threatens the stability of the European Union as an economic and political project.
Finally, fascism doesn't always replace the neoliberal status quo from the outside – it can also arise through internal party transformation. The recent reshuffles of the British Conservative cabinet have led to a much more right-wing and conservative cabinet consisting of non-elected officials, all through a process mainly devoid of public input. The political blunders and extremist rhetoric of Suella Braverman as a short-lived Home Secretary are a testament to how mainstream politics can be infested with right-wing elements in plain sight.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2024/02/06/the-creeping-ascent-of-the-far-right-in-mainstream-european-politics-and-how-to-stop-it/
What's youth unemployment like in Europe? I know Spain and Portuguese are bad, which inevitably leads to resentment of immigrants (ignoring the fact that immigrants often do the jobs locals don't want to do anyway).
As for the gay thing, maybe just a pendulum swing thing?
Quote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMRecent surveys show a significant growth in support for far right, anti-immigrant parties among young men in Europe:
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-young-people-right-wing-voters-far-right-politics-eu-elections-parliament/
I'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
I mean there's all kinds of things:
-first - there's just the rise of immigration itself, and being anti-immigrant is a kind-of natural reaction. In Canada we've had legal immigration at record levels for several years now, whereas in Europe there've been huge waves of refugees.
-social media. I'm just shocked at the kind of racist, anti-gay (and anti-trans) stuff I see on Twitter - and that gives a kind of permission structure to others once they know they're not alone with these kinds of views.
-nature of European politics. When mainstream parties refuse to really even engage in issues like immigration then the far-right becomes your only option
Just off the top of my head, hardly a comprehensive thesis.
The theories I've heard that make sense are around the decline in traditional male dominated jobs and rise in female dominated jobs, whilst at the same time culture remains largely the same with the traditional pressures on men to be providers and tough and all that remaining.
Iirc I posted a video about it in the youtube thread not too long ago.
Quote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 03:47:21 PMThe theories I've heard that make sense are around the decline in traditional male dominated jobs and rise in female dominated jobs, whilst at the same time culture remains largely the same with the traditional pressures on men to be providers and tough and all that remaining.
Iirc I posted a video about it in the youtube thread not too long ago.
Huh. I was thinking male dominated trade skills seem to be doing better than ever. I think it is probably better today than ever to be a plumber or electrician.
But then other male dominated jobs like auto mechanic are getting pretty ridiculous with all the proprietary shit and the desire by the auto manufacturers to control every aspect of their vehicles making this profession increasingly inaccessible to average guys who used to do very well.
But I guess other traditionally male dominated jobs like IT, medical doctor, or lawyer are now increasingly female. But they are still good jobs yes? And men still are the majority I think, just not as dominant as before.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2024, 03:41:53 PM-social media. I'm just shocked at the kind of racist, anti-gay (and anti-trans) stuff I see on Twitter - and that gives a kind of permission structure to others once they know they're not alone with these kinds of views.
I don't know if this is a cause or effect but yeah. Nothing opens the eyes of a sheltered middle class straight white guys eyes to how racist, homophobic, and sexist society still is than social media. It is amazing. At one point I at least thought "being racist and sexist is bad, mmkay?" was something most everybody agreed on but actually...no. So yeah the "rise" of the far-right might just be because racism, sexism, and anti-LGBTQ stuff are just popular opinions. So perhaps as more centrist right wing parties dropped those opinions, others swooped in to take advantage.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2024, 03:55:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 29, 2024, 03:41:53 PM-social media. I'm just shocked at the kind of racist, anti-gay (and anti-trans) stuff I see on Twitter - and that gives a kind of permission structure to others once they know they're not alone with these kinds of views.
I don't know if this is a cause or effect but yeah. Nothing opens the eyes of a sheltered middle class straight white guys eyes to how racist, homophobic, and sexist society still is than social media. It is amazing. At one point I at least thought "being racist and sexist is bad, mmkay?" was something most everybody agreed on but actually...no. So yeah the "rise" of the far-right might just be because racism, sexism, and anti-LGBTQ stuff are just popular opinions. As more centrist right wing parties dropped those opinions, other swooped in to take advantage.
It's a combination of people who once held racist/sexist/anti-gay opinions but wouldn't share them out of fear of society disapproving of such views, and other people being exposed to such views and being taught they're okay.
Also with a side of "boy who cries wolf" - of people who hold views not 100% in agreement with the latest leftist discourse being labelled as racist/sexist/etc who then go "fuck it why even bother trying". Call it the JK Rowling effect - she made some very mild and reasonable criticisms of some trans issues, got absolutely pilloried for them, and has now gone down a fairly explicit anti-trans rabbit hole.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2024, 03:51:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 03:47:21 PMThe theories I've heard that make sense are around the decline in traditional male dominated jobs and rise in female dominated jobs, whilst at the same time culture remains largely the same with the traditional pressures on men to be providers and tough and all that remaining.
Iirc I posted a video about it in the youtube thread not too long ago.
Huh. I was thinking male dominated trade skills seem to be doing better than ever. I think it is probably better today than ever to be a plumber or electrician.
But then other male dominated jobs like auto mechanic are getting pretty ridiculous with all the proprietary shit and the desire by the auto manufacturers to control every aspect of their vehicles making this profession increasingly inaccessible to average guys who used to do very well.
But I guess other traditionally male dominated jobs like IT, medical doctor, or lawyer are now increasingly female. But they are still good jobs yes? And men still are the majority I think, just not as dominant as before.
Yeah the nadir of skilled jobs training seems to be behind us. Might take a while to get the numbers needed (which means good money for trades in the meantime). The stigma of trades that started in the 80's and went to the early 2000's seems to be gone. Universities did some good PR work with the "you need higher education to succeed" mantra where people thought trades were shameful.
As for those male dominated careers you mentioned, I thought young women dominated at the mid to low levels but burned out leaving the older employees still male dominated? Is that gone now? Or am I just misinformed (possible :P )
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2024, 03:51:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 03:47:21 PMThe theories I've heard that make sense are around the decline in traditional male dominated jobs and rise in female dominated jobs, whilst at the same time culture remains largely the same with the traditional pressures on men to be providers and tough and all that remaining.
Iirc I posted a video about it in the youtube thread not too long ago.
Huh. I was thinking male dominated trade skills seem to be doing better than ever. I think it is probably better today than ever to be a plumber or electrician.
But then other male dominated jobs like auto mechanic are getting pretty ridiculous with all the proprietary shit and the desire by the auto manufacturers to control every aspect of their vehicles making this profession increasingly inaccessible to average guys who used to do very well.
But I guess other traditionally male dominated jobs like IT, medical doctor, or lawyer are now increasingly female. But they are still good jobs yes? And men still are the majority I think, just not as dominant as before.
Think of those graphs of primary, secondary, and tertiary employment.
Back in the mid 20th century industry was the main mass employer. These days it's, what, 10%? Whilst services have taken over.
As blue collar jobs have declined, pink collar jobs have risen.
And then yes, women are increasingly daring to intrude on the higher end traditionally male dominated jobs whilst the lower end service jobs traditionally female dominated....little willingness from men to go that way .
Quote from: HVC on May 29, 2024, 04:01:06 PMQuote from: Valmy on May 29, 2024, 03:51:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 03:47:21 PMThe theories I've heard that make sense are around the decline in traditional male dominated jobs and rise in female dominated jobs, whilst at the same time culture remains largely the same with the traditional pressures on men to be providers and tough and all that remaining.
Iirc I posted a video about it in the youtube thread not too long ago.
Huh. I was thinking male dominated trade skills seem to be doing better than ever. I think it is probably better today than ever to be a plumber or electrician.
But then other male dominated jobs like auto mechanic are getting pretty ridiculous with all the proprietary shit and the desire by the auto manufacturers to control every aspect of their vehicles making this profession increasingly inaccessible to average guys who used to do very well.
But I guess other traditionally male dominated jobs like IT, medical doctor, or lawyer are now increasingly female. But they are still good jobs yes? And men still are the majority I think, just not as dominant as before.
Yeah the nadir of skilled jobs training seems to be behind us. Might take a while to get the numbers needed (which means good money for trades in the meantime). The stigma of trades that started in the 80's and went to the early 2000's seems to be gone. Universities did some good PR work with the "you need higher education to succeed" mantra where people thought trades were shameful.
As for those male dominated careers you mentioned, I thought young women dominated at the mid to low levels but burned out leaving the older employees still male dominated? Is that gone now? Or am I just misinformed (possible :P )
I feel like IT is still fairly male-dominated, but medicine and law have definitely crossed over to being female dominated at this point.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2024, 03:59:26 PMIt's a combination of people who once held racist/sexist/anti-gay opinions but wouldn't share them out of fear of society disapproving of such views, and other people being exposed to such views and being taught they're okay.
Also with a side of "boy who cries wolf" - of people who hold views not 100% in agreement with the latest leftist discourse being labelled as racist/sexist/etc who then go "fuck it why even bother trying". Call it the JK Rowling effect - she made some very mild and reasonable criticisms of some trans issues, got absolutely pilloried for them, and has now gone down a fairly explicit anti-trans rabbit hole.
Well yeah that is the other part. Social media also opens you up to very unreasonable and counter-productive puritanical views. It is very hard to get somebody who obviously has personal and emotional reactions to statements about women or trans people or whatever to have some tolerance and compassion for people working out bad ideas online or who just make stupid mistakes. Or maybe have convictions that are not perfectly aligned with theirs.
We have spoken of this type of puritanical mob justice before. It is arbitrary and counter-productive and tends to start with a minority and radicalizes others in one way or the other.
I don't like it and I am not sure what to do about it. But also as somebody who isn't personally impacted by most of these issues I feel unable to going in and say "hey! Maybe try to be cool about this issue!"
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2024, 04:05:01 PMI feel like IT is still fairly male-dominated, but medicine and law have definitely crossed over to being female dominated at this point.
Dominated? Doubtful but maybe that now make up a majority.
Quote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 04:04:03 PMThink of those graphs of primary, secondary, and tertiary employment.
Back in the mid 20th century industry was the main mass employer. These days it's, what, 10%? Whilst services have taken over.
As blue collar jobs have declined, pink collar jobs have risen.
And then yes, women are increasingly daring to intrude on the higher end traditionally male dominated jobs whilst the lower end service jobs traditionally female dominated....little willingness from men to go that way .
Yeah ok but now you are talking about things that happened 40 or 50 years ago, long before even people my age were looking for work. I don't think young men today are shocked they can't just go into the local broom factory and find a decent paying job for life as nobody since their grandparents generation (or even great-grandparents) could do that.
And most pink collar jobs are very labor intensive with terrible pay. So what? The rise of the school teacher, office staff, nursing, and maid service worker has yet to occur.
Yeah one thing I would not blame is "the economy".
I remember 25 years ago being told that "Generation X would be the first generation to have lower living standards than their parents". Turns out that wasn't true - it's just that young people invariably start out on the lower rung of the income ladder and it takes time to climb.
I think part of it isn't really a change, but rather a realisation that there's something distinct going on in continental Europe. I think the US, UK (and maybe more broadly Anglo) perception is that the young people are left-wing and move right as they get older. That's held up in UK where age is the strongest indicator of voting preference; it's not that in the US but in 2016, for example, Trump won less than 30% of the under-30s. It's been true for a while that that doesn't reflect support for especially the far-right and radical right in Europe who have long tended to do better with the young (and the young side of working age) while doing worst with the old.
There are signs that's shifting in the US and, as in several of the examples in that article, there is a particular difference between young men and young women. An example of that gender gap among the young is in Poland, which in other generations basically doesn't really have a gender gap in voting patterns (similar in the UK, if anything women were more likely to vote Tory - but signs that's shifting):#
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GExCACzWAAAYz_q?format=jpg&name=900x900)
So I think there's two bits - why the young and why young men in particular.
I think one key factor across the West is increasing distance from WW2 and, I think, a decline in a sort of anti-fascist consensus as a core political basis. I think that's perhaps particularly strong in Europe where the support for the far-right is often lowest among 60 somethings who grew up marinated in that consensus and possibly with direct or family experience of fascism. FWIW I think you also possibly see the left-wing equivalent in the rise of young tankies online who are unironically praising Stalin or Mao. I think the most basic political consensus of the post-war era is dying because it was established 80 years ago. I also worry that as we move further from WW2 we will see - on the fringes - a rise in Holocaust denial as well as revisionisms of "actually Stalin/Hitler/Imperial Japan was good".
In the European context specifically I think the divide in expectations and experience is particularly strong. I think this has also started to emerge in the Anglo world but has developed later - the current Boomer resentment is an example. But I think in Europe, which has long tended to have higher youth unemployment than the Anglo world, the older people who are continuing to vote for the parties of their youth were people who experienced the Trente Glorieuses and have since had relatively comfortable retirements. The parties and politics of their youth delivered for them then and throughout their lives. I don't think that's been the experience of the young which is why explicitly anti-establishment parties are appealing.
Relatedly - again particularly in the context of Europe with the crash followed by a decade of Eurozone crisis, austerity and mass youth unemployment - there is evidence that the economic context you grow up in shapes your views particularly on zero-sum v positive sum attitudes:
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb802a2a9-9788-46e1-8dc8-bf79457ae815_892x628.png)
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbbaf98b7-3ea4-4120-a54c-1dd771bb6cf0_906x608.png)
If you personal, lived experience is of growth, upwards mobility and ability to benefit from autonomy then you're likely to believe that everyone can do well - and the opposite is probably also true. I think that probably has a particular impact in relation to anti-immigration views.
Basically if you're economically secure and your status is also secure through education, you've got no issue with sharing the pie. If you're neither, you're not sure there's enough to go around (because there hasn't been for you):
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8228c766-f9a8-4416-a860-7207c7e9ebbd_921x574.jpeg)
In relation to young men specifically I think John Burn-Murdoch did a really interesting article on this. One theory is basically negative polarisation, which I think is probably reinforced by social media/online where young men and women are in different parts of the internet. So different (and sometimes diametrically opposes) cultures and ideologies can take off very quickly and, to an extent, reinforce each other. In the West we don't have particularly communitarian, intergenerational societies which can perhaps help establish and reproduce norms and ideologies; and increasingly we don't have a shared (mixed gender) cultural space or production, as more of people's social lives are online that will increase.
And to be clear I think the effect of social media/online bubbles is ideologically neutral. I think there are basically entrepreneurs within those bubbles who are shaping it and the experience of people within it - whether that's people on the far-right appealing to young men watching video game YouTube or the similarly mad (but "woke") world YA Fiction TikTok.
On the young men front one possibility is this may all break down as they try to start dating young women and face the shock of the real :lol:
And on the gender divide, Alice Evans who's an academic writing a book on this growing gender divide, may be of interest: https://www.ggd.world/
So my guess is one ideological model slowly dying, declining economic opportunity (and associated status) plus increasingly atomised (online) cultural experiences/spaces.
QuoteAgain I wonder what is the driver in this drastic change, and what the potential long term impacts are.
On some of that in relation to more diverse cities - I suspect part of this is immigration. London is, by some distance, the most religiously observant part of the UK and also, in terms of attitudes to homosexuality, sex before marriage etc, the most socially conservative. But London's a solidly Labour-voting and Remain-y city. The most irreligious and least socially conservative region was the North-East - which is classic Red Wall territory and voted Leave.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2024, 03:41:53 PM-nature of European politics. When mainstream parties refuse to really even engage in issues like immigration then the far-right becomes your only option
I'd possibly frame this differently. Most of Europe has PR.
There is a broad trend of fragmentation in various ways across countries. The Netherland is an extreme example because it is strictly proportional with no minimum threshold - the first Dutch post-war election returned 7 parties, the latest one had 15. But you see it across Europe in different ways.
In a FPTP system I think there is an incentive to build as wide a coalition as you can within your party and to be a really big tent which means you need to address those issues. The parties are the coalitions. In a PR system, you'll directly feel the consequences of, say, more liberal voters defecting if you try to "address concerns" on immigration. But also because the coalitions are negotiated after elections and between parties, rather than within, there will always be space for a party to set up and focus on x issue and if that's your one key issue then the incentive is to vote for them so at least they can really push it in coalition negotiations. That's how you'll move the government policy rather than through trying to shift the traditional established/governing parties.
In some ways I think the first parties to make this breakthrough were the Greens in the 80s (similarly outside the traditional, class based right-left plus liberals divides). In that sense I think it's less that other parties won't immigration and more that, say, Geert Wilders can become to immigration or concerns around assimilation what the Greens are to environment policy.
Edit: And I think the Greens have made a similar transition from parties of protest to parties of power - which is part of what we're seeing across Europe with the far and radical right now.
QuoteIn a FPTP system I think there is an incentive to build as wide a coalition as you can within your party and to be a really big tent which means you need to address those issues.
As a counterpoint I present you.. the current Tories. They just drift to the edge and (try to) drag the center with them
Quote from: Tamas on May 29, 2024, 05:07:51 PMAs a counterpoint I present you.. the current Tories. They just drift the edge and (try to) drag the center with them
And they're polling at 20% :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2024, 04:19:39 PMI think one key factor across the West is increasing distance from WW2 and, I think, a decline in a sort of anti-fascist consensus as a core political basis. I think that's perhaps particularly strong in Europe where the support for the far-right is often lowest among 60 somethings who grew up marinated in that consensus and possibly with direct or family experience of fascism. FWIW I think you also possibly see the left-wing equivalent in the rise of young tankies online who are unironically praising Stalin or Mao. I think the most basic political consensus of the post-war era is dying because it was established 80 years ago. I also worry that as we move further from WW2 we will see - on the fringes - a rise in Holocaust denial as well as revisionisms of "actually Stalin/Hitler/Imperial Japan was good".
I feel like there is something to this. Let me tell you about my grandfather. I think I was 12 when he died. The two pertinent things about him that you need to know is that he was a proud RCAF veteran, and that after the war he nearly died from polio and as a result his one leg was withered and useless.
So things like WWII (and polio) were still history to me growing up, but I had this very literal link to those issues. As a result I am firmly an "atlantacist" in foreign policy, and firmly pro-vaccine.
But the newer generations don't have this link. And the online tankie crowd often has zero memory of the soviet union as well. And yes, as such old assumptions are being questioned. The lessons of the past being forgotten.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2024, 04:11:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 29, 2024, 04:04:03 PMThink of those graphs of primary, secondary, and tertiary employment.
Back in the mid 20th century industry was the main mass employer. These days it's, what, 10%? Whilst services have taken over.
As blue collar jobs have declined, pink collar jobs have risen.
And then yes, women are increasingly daring to intrude on the higher end traditionally male dominated jobs whilst the lower end service jobs traditionally female dominated....little willingness from men to go that way .
Yeah ok but now you are talking about things that happened 40 or 50 years ago, long before even people my age were looking for work. I don't think young men today are shocked they can't just go into the local broom factory and find a decent paying job for life as nobody since their grandparents generation (or even great-grandparents) could do that.
Nothing has a single cause. Especially something so complicated as this. There's a lot of other factors at work too. Social media takes a large share of the blame also.
But worth remembering there's a cultural drag. That this was economic change happened 40 years ago doesn't mean the culture changes over night. There'd be hopes it was temporary, that some replacement would come along. Habits of a lifetime don't break easy.
After this time however we have had generational unemployment and helplessness really festering.
Poor people who have to track back to their grandparents to find someone working class are increasingly common.
We have passed the stage where dad would tell you to walk around town with paper cvs and you'd definitely get a job as it worked for him in the 70s.
Now it's dad saying since his plans for you to be a professional footballer didn't pan out you now just have to try and grab the biggest share you can of the dwindling world.
QuoteAnd most pink collar jobs are very labor intensive with terrible pay. So what? The rise of the school teacher, office staff, nursing, and maid service worker has yet to occur.
yes. A lot of these very human centred service jobs are crap. That's why not many men are eager to go into them whilst many women are keen to go into the more desirable traditionally male dominated jobs.
It's an unequal trade of jobs in a situation where there's less jobs overall, especially on the male dominated side.
Many factors I think. In Sweden one of them is that the traditional parties completely refused to adapt their position on immigration in the face of growing anti-immigration opinions, sending voters into the arms of a nutjob party that has ballooned to Sweden's second biggest, led by closeted, and sometimes uncloseted, Nazis. Immigration has never been an important political issue to me. Why didn't some traditional parties broaden their tents on immigration to keep votes and to keep the issue in non-nutjob hands? Turned out that they were one-issue parties, and the issue wasn't the economy, the environment, law & order, education, healthcare, defense, equality... it was immigration. This obsession is weird to me.
Yeah, agreed there's many factors. For one there's a general discontent where the younger generation feels it's getting the short end of the stick in an increasingly shitty world. It of course depends on what you see as the bigger problem to swing a certain way - economy, jobs, immigration? Probably more to the right. Discrimination, climate change, social justice? Probably more to the left. Doesn't help when "the big established parties" (to which I'd definitely count the Greens in Germany and Austria by now) are seen as ineffective, "not doing enough", out of touch, and/or bogged down by infighting/corruption. This creates the desire in parts of the electorate for someone to cut through the crap and take charge. A "strong leader," if you will.
Social media, I think, does play a role - and I feel that right wingers were much faster/better adapting to it and effectively connecting with younger voters in a way that they didn't feel patronized or talked down to.
If I can offer counter factual to the whole "the established parties aren't speaking to immigration concerns and that's why young men are turning against them" line of reasoning:
In Denmark anti-immigration rhetoric is mainstream in the big traditional parties, and for decades it's mostly been a competition on who could take the harshest anti-immigrant position. The Social Democrats basically went hard to avoid losing voters to the Danish People's Party (the pensioner and xenophobia party), and have succeeded in maintaining their grip on power.
So in Denmark, we're seeing the same split with young women flocking to a party on the on the left flank, with young men flocking to a party on the right flank.
The interesting thing, however, is that the leftist party gaining the support of the young is essentially the bastion of classic social democracy (with enough of the progressive social issue positioning in the mix to be palatable to leftists, but it's not the focus) - which works because the actual Social Democrats have become Labour Hard Right essentially in terms of economic policy (they just got rid of a stat holiday over the objection of the unions, and regularly talk about the need for people to work harder). In spite of Denmark's reputation, the social welfare model has been continually hollowed out over the last many years of Social Democrat prime ministers.
On the right side, the darling of the young male voters are (a bit uncharitably) internet meme libertarian/ economic libarals. Their posture is all about cutting social services and the welfare state, lowering the tax burden so people can spend their own money, and selling those positions via tiktok messaging. Immigration and identity politics are not central to their messaging at all.
Basically anti-immigration and cultural identity issues are not the attraction for the parties, because those are core to the status quo parties.
IMO the immigration obsession of some is basically just an outgrowth of economic unease.
It's not for nothing that the biggest brexit /racist party votes tend to come from poorer areas: areas with lower immigration than the norm.
On the other hand the areas with more immigration and better economies.... Tend not to go that way.
Immigration is just an easy scapegoat and far right politics is all about playing the victim and choosing convenient scapegoats.
Traditional parties are completely right not to just fall into the hysteria and instead to focus on the root problems.
The problem is their failure to ensure equitable economic growth.
Also hasn't been mentioned but another key problem is in education. Both in critical thinking skills and not falling for these simple solutions to complex problems being spread online, but also in economics. Getting a grasp of the idea that we don't live in a zero sum world and someone else having something doesn't mean you don't get something, that a larger population can lead to a larger economy and a bigger pot to share.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2024, 05:08:56 PMQuote from: Tamas on May 29, 2024, 05:07:51 PMAs a counterpoint I present you.. the current Tories. They just drift the edge and (try to) drag the center with them
And they're polling at 20% :P
Yes but they are still one of the two major parties and almost certainly going to remain so. It just shows FPTP isn't a guaranteed moderating coalition-building force.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2024, 03:58:32 AMYes but they are still one of the two major parties and almost certainly going to remain so. It just shows FPTP isn't a guaranteed moderating coalition-building force.
Sure but they're being punished by the voters. Elections are the corrective force in a democracy.
Also I don't think coalition building or big tent politics necessarily means moderate or centrist politics. It depends on what coalition you build.
One other point on Europe, specifically, is the anti-politics stuff and I think the decline since the end of the Cold War of party democracy is also part of this. Even in the 80s political parties in Europe had millions of members they were a part of society and different strands for different parts of society - that has largely disappeared. So the parties became the property of someone else - at best, a far smaller minority of political obsessives. I think young people have never grown up in the post-war European style mass membership party democracy. Parties have never been anything other than a box you cross at election time (interestingly the FdI in Italy are possibly an exception to this - perhaps because they actually have a link to 20th century Fascism which was mass political?).
From the US. Never bought the demographics are destiny/right-wingers will just die out point but this is striking (and, I imagine, overwhelmingly driven by young men):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPkPHZwXAAAxKFm?format=jpg&name=900x900)
The 2060s are probably going to be full of fascists governments. Especially since the environment crisis will be forcing a lot of population relocation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2024, 01:01:42 PMFrom the US. Never bought the demographics are destiny/right-wingers will just die out point but this is striking (and, I imagine, overwhelmingly driven by young men):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPkPHZwXAAAxKFm?format=jpg&name=900x900)
That's just bizare. What happened in the last 2 years to suddenly change this?
The tyranny of the trans cult and gay collaboration with the worst of the left.
Quote from: chipwich on June 08, 2024, 08:58:22 PMThe tyranny of the trans cult and gay collaboration with the worst of the left.
Be nice to trans people. Is that really that tyrannical?
Well the question is about allowing gay and lesbians adults to marry. Maybe people started thinking "hey that's actually an odd question, is gay and lesbian child marriage on the table?".
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2024, 10:47:18 PMQuote from: chipwich on June 08, 2024, 08:58:22 PMThe tyranny of the trans cult and gay collaboration with the worst of the left.
Be nice to trans people. Is that really that tyrannical?
The trans movement is not about being nice to trans people and you know that you dirty liar.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/canadian-cancer-society-sorry-for-using-cervix-instead-of-front-hole-for-lgbtq-community
QuoteCancer charity sorry after using 'cervix' for transgender community
The Canadian Cancer Society is apologizing for using the term "cervix" on a web page for transgender and non-binary people assigned female at birth.
Article content
On the page dedicated to cervical cancer screenings for members of the LGBTQ+ community, the charitable organization explains in a disclaimer they "recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like 'cervix.'"
The disclaimer was first reported by True North.
The charity acknowledged in a section titled "Words Matter" that some members of the community may prefer to use other terms such as "front hole."
"We recognize the limitations of the words we've used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity," the Canadian Cancer Society wrote. "Another reason we use words like 'cervix' is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too."
Article content
Reaction to the disclaimer was swift on social media.
"If you can't call body parts by their actual names, you really don't deserve to have any role in health and medicine," wrote Dr. Kim Greene-Liebowitz, who is based in New York, on X.
"This is pathetic, shameful, and disrespectful."
Another complained about the financial resources used by charities for this type of content.
"So comforting to know that (Canadian) tax (dollars) are going to non-profit content like this," Cecile Shaw wrote. "Instead of stuff like ... more doctors, cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging machines."
"Bonus hole" is another term popularized by the LGBTQ+ community in recent years to refer to the vagina and cervix.
"I don't know how professional people manage to get so far in life and be so disgustingly unaware of their own stupidity," another person shared to social media. "Cervix is the proper name."
QuoteThe trans movement is not about being nice to trans people and you know that you dirty liar.
Yes it is?
That's almost a funny story. But that rightists see shit like this as not only newsworthy but over powering any actual problems in the world is painful.
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2024, 12:06:49 AMWell the question is about allowing gay and lesbians adults to marry. Maybe people started thinking "hey that's actually an odd question, is gay and lesbian child marriage on the table?".
It's true that is an odd question. Surely gay people have been getting married for centuries. Just... Not to each other.
I am sorry but having to use the words front hole instead of cervix is ridiculous and for a charity like that having to apologise IS an indication how zealots are trying to take over.
And, not that it makes opponents any less wrong, but I think there is something to chipwhich's point. Like it or not but the culture war of the last few years has made transgender so-called issues like pronouns and other "gender is relative but also there are strict unwritten rules by which you can present to be one or the other or several at once" things, the "face" of sexual minorities.
The stronger societal pushback against such things (which is understandable because it in a way tries to redefine everyone's identity, something accepting homodexuals didn't require) may be giving intolerant people the public "backing" to be "brave" and voice their opposition to gay marriage.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 02:29:41 AMI am sorry but having to use the words front hole instead of cervix is ridiculous and for a charity like that having to apologise IS an indication how zealots are trying to take over.
And, not that it makes opponents any less wrong, but I think there is something to chipwhich's point. Like it or not but the culture war of the last few years has made transgender so-called issues like pronouns and other "gender is relative but also there are strict unwritten rules by which you can present to be one or the other or several at once" things, the "face" of sexual minorities.
The stronger societal pushback against such things (which is understandable because it in a way tries to redefine everyone's identity, something accepting homodexuals didn't require) may be giving intolerant people the public "backing" to be "brave" and voice their opposition to gay marriage.
But you just fell into a right wing trap. Look up 'front hole' and 'cervix' and see what outlets have reported this 'apology'. It's MSN, Toronto Sun and then some right wing blog sources.
Meanwhile what the charity actually said is on a fact sheet for non-binary people and they say:
QuoteWords matter
We recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like "cervix." You may prefer other words, such as "front hole." We recognize the limitations of the words we've used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity. Another reason we use words like "cervix" is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too.
Nothing is an apology, just an inclusive explanation of their language.
edit: Here's the page if you want to check it out yourself. https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-man-or-nonbinary-person-assigned-female-at-birth-do-i-need-cervical-cancer-screening#main-content
And it is a fave tactic of the right to whip a frenzy out of nothing.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/11/vagina-bonus-hole-charity/
QuoteNo, a cancer charity isn't telling medical professionals to rebrand all vaginas as bonus holes
A cancer charity has clarified that its guidance on using language such as "bonus hole" to refer to a vagina isn't intended to replace the term.
Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust, which aims to "prevent as many cervical cancers as possible", takes an inclusive approach to looking after its patients, who include women, trans men and non-binary people.
Over the weekend the Daily Mail reported on a glossary on the trust's website which details language that can be used when supporting trans men and non-binary people. The list, created in partnership with the LGBTQ Foundation, included the terms bonus hole and front hole – both alternative words for the vagina used by some trans people.
The Daily Mail quoted the LGB Alliance's Bev Jackson as saying such language "intentionally dehumanises women". After similar coverage in The Times, The Telegraph and on GB News, gender-critical social media joined in with complaints.
However, Jo's Cervical Trust has made clear that its guidance was always specific to trans men and non-binary people.
A charity spokesperson told PinkNews: "The page is not promoting the use of these phrases with all women, it is a list of phrases that nurses may hear some patients prefer."
The glossary makes clear to medical professionals that they should "check which words someone would prefer to use".
Despite this, the Daily Mail included commentary from anti-trans campaigners Kelly-Jay Keen, who called it "an erasure of female language", and from Conservatives for Women founder, Caroline Ffiske, who called the glossary "dehumanising" and accused it of "grooming".
A spokesperson for Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust told PinkNews: "The information being shared is from a webpage written for health professionals to support trans men and / or non-binary patients with a cervix to attend cervical screening."
They added: "Women are our main audience at Jo's, however some trans men and / or non-binary people have cervixes and to reduce as many cervical cancers as possible it is important that we also provide information for this group and the health professionals who support them."
Jo's Cervical Trust has previously faced backlash for its inclusion of trans people, and has found itself in the crossfires of gender-critical voices who claim that only women have cervixes, despite the existence of trans men and non-binary people.
The question of who can have a cervix is regularly lobbed at politicians. Labour MP Emily Thornberry recently shot down the question on Twitter, saying: "My cousin is a trans man. I presume he has a cervix. I haven't asked – it's none of my business."
All people with cervixes over the age of 25 should attend screenings, but government figures released in 2022 found that only 58 per cent of eligible trans men and non-binary people had been screened. Just over half (53 per cent) said they felt they had sufficient information about cervical screening.
I recall a similar story in Brighton a few years ago.
Their NHS trust released some advice for language in dealing with trans people. Instead of women the advised term with trans guys was people who menstrate.
Really pretty fair enough. Especially considering this is Brighton.
But jeez did the culture warriors masturbate themselves into oblivion over it. Screaming the nhs had declared you weren't allowed to say woman anymore and you'd go to jail for using that word.
It stretched far beyond the minor bit of advice for medical staff dealing with trans patients in an area crowded with lgbt people and was eaten up by random idiots nationwide as proof of some evil agenda.
The defence there that cervix is the proper word. Jesus. It's like they don't understand the job of the health system at all. Medical staff always simplified language patients can understand and are comfortable with rather than the proper terms.
It's particularly painful as they cry about others supposedly playing language police whilst they're the only ones doing that.
Fair enough, I was duped, but I think my point on the culture war stands. The current frontline for sexual minorities is the very definition of genders and I wouldn't be surprised if the push back against that is giving less tolerant people the perceived carte blanche to admit to opposing gay marriage as well.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 04:38:18 AMFair enough, I was duped, but I think my point on the culture war stands. The current frontline for sexual minorities is the very definition of genders and I wouldn't be surprised if the push back against that is giving less tolerant people the perceived carte blanche to admit to opposing gay marriage as well.
And the prior 'frontline' was 'the very definition of sexualities'. That was a pretty radical shake up, itself.
I'd also say, Tamas, how you got duped shows the insidious nature of false information online. It took only a scrap of a misleading article for you to agree zealots were trying to take over. Now imagine you were a conservative leaning person receiving the same info. Would have just confirmed all your biases and wouldn't have been based on reality.
Quote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMI'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
You vote for anti-establishment parties when you feel that the establishment doesn't have your interests at heart. As Europe rapidly ages and older voters vote themselves a secure retirement at the cost of the young, they become more radicalized. The tragedy is that young people don't vote, so their taxes will only go up and their living standards down as the old suck them dry.
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 09, 2024, 06:30:32 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMI'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
You vote for anti-establishment parties when you feel that the establishment doesn't have your interests at heart. As Europe rapidly ages and older voters vote themselves a secure retirement at the cost of the young, they become more radicalized. The tragedy is that young people don't vote, so their taxes will only go up and their living standards down as the old suck them dry.
.
And they lash out at the establishment by voting for parties that are even more establishment than mainstream conservatives could ever dare to be these days.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 04:46:38 AMI'd also say, Tamas, how you got duped shows the insidious nature of false information online. It took only a scrap of a misleading article for you to agree zealots were trying to take over. Now imagine you were a conservative leaning person receiving the same info. Would have just confirmed all your biases and wouldn't have been based on reality.
Sure but these work this well because they have at least some ground in reality. Things like the furour around Rowling (regardless of who is right) and other such things.
And while the actual caveat by the organisation is nowhere near as bad as the "article" claimed it is a very mild symptom still - if everyone had to make sure to write such ridiculously disclaimers every time there was a chance of offending some members of a minority the size of trans men, communication would become untenable.
The only reason they did it is that they wanted to avoid a unreasonable response from the hysteric fringe of a disadvantaged minority on a hot button issue.
Quote from: Josquius on June 09, 2024, 06:45:28 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on June 09, 2024, 06:30:32 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMI'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
You vote for anti-establishment parties when you feel that the establishment doesn't have your interests at heart. As Europe rapidly ages and older voters vote themselves a secure retirement at the cost of the young, they become more radicalized. The tragedy is that young people don't vote, so their taxes will only go up and their living standards down as the old suck them dry.
.
And they lash out at the establishment by voting for parties that are even more establishment than mainstream conservatives could ever dare to be these days.
Most of the "far right" parties in Europe today are positioning themselves as antiestablishment.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 04:38:18 AMFair enough, I was duped, but I think my point on the culture war stands. The current frontline for sexual minorities is the very definition of genders and I wouldn't be surprised if the push back against that is giving less tolerant people the perceived carte blanche to admit to opposing gay marriage as well.
The Toroto Sun didn't dupe anyone lackwit. Pinknews lied by claiming the that Sun claimed that the charity "replaced the word "cervix". The Sun did not do so.
NO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
The fact that you have Garbon and Pinknews marching to the defense of "front hole" shows that homosexuals disrespect women's bodies and gay liberation was a mistake.
Quote from: chipwich on June 09, 2024, 07:04:19 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 04:38:18 AMFair enough, I was duped, but I think my point on the culture war stands. The current frontline for sexual minorities is the very definition of genders and I wouldn't be surprised if the push back against that is giving less tolerant people the perceived carte blanche to admit to opposing gay marriage as well.
The Toroto Sun didn't dupe anyone lackwit. Pinknews lied by claiming the that Sun claimed that the charity "replaced the word "cervix". The Sun did not do so.
NO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
The fact that you have Garbon and Pinknews marching to the defense of "front hole" shows that homosexuals disrespect women's bodies and gay liberation was a mistake.
Ignore
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 06:49:08 AMQuote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 04:46:38 AMI'd also say, Tamas, how you got duped shows the insidious nature of false information online. It took only a scrap of a misleading article for you to agree zealots were trying to take over. Now imagine you were a conservative leaning person receiving the same info. Would have just confirmed all your biases and wouldn't have been based on reality.
Sure but these work this well because they have at least some ground in reality. Things like the furour around Rowling (regardless of who is right) and other such things.
And while the actual caveat by the organisation is nowhere near as bad as the "article" claimed it is a very mild symptom still - if everyone had to make sure to write such ridiculously disclaimers every time there was a chance of offending some members of a minority the size of trans men, communication would become untenable.
The only reason they did it is that they wanted to avoid a unreasonable response from the hysteric fringe of a disadvantaged minority on a hot button issue.
Or they wanted to make sure that if they are trying to increase testing in an underserviced group, it might be useful to communicate with them on their terms. You are presupposing that their language is because otherwise 'zealots' will come after them. That's your own baggage as perhaps someone too permanently online.
As someone online, I'd note that there will always be some people who complain about something. I'm not sure we say essentialise complaints from say cisgender individuals the same we might from a few transgender individuals.
If you mean that "cis" complaints ignored more bravely than trans complaints, I would agree.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 07:30:46 AMIf you mean that "cis" complaints ignored more bravely than trans complaints, I would agree.
Ha, the term 'Karen' has arisen specifically out of recognition that white, cisgender complaints were receiving disproportionate deference.
My understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
*Edit* like "bye Felisha" or " Felisha" was used to mock annoying black women. Is that still a thing, or has Karen subsumed them all? I'm not cool anymore so I don't know :D
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
Same.
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
*Edit* like "bye Felisha" or " Felisha" was used to mock annoying black women. Is that still a thing, or has Karen subsumed them all? I'm not cool anymore so I don't know :D
Do you not recall the numerous examples when that was first gaining popularity of white women calling the cops on black people because they were black? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:59:10 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
*Edit* like "bye Felisha" or " Felisha" was used to mock annoying black women. Is that still a thing, or has Karen subsumed them all? I'm not cool anymore so I don't know :D
Do you not recall the numerous examples when that was first gaining popularity of white women calling the cops on black people because they were black? :huh:
Could be different priorities in our views, but my recollections was it gained popularity from annoying customers (let me speak to your manager) linked with the how to spot a Karen ( ie the "Karen haircut")
QuoteThe Toroto Sun didn't dupe anyone lackwit. Pinknews lied by claiming the that Sun claimed that the charity "replaced the word "cervix". The Sun did not do so.
NO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
The fact that you have Garbon and Pinknews marching to the defense of "front hole" shows that homosexuals disrespect women's bodies and gay liberation was a mistake.
Why shouldn't they use this word?
Its basic Listening Skills 101 to echo the other person's language.
If a you're a GP and a guy comes in complaining of a pain in his Hank (intentionally ridiculous example), and you deduce thats what he calls his dick, then using that word back at him really does help to get him to open up about the issue and engage with the treatment.
Doctors basically never use all the correct terms they know with most patients. It's not helpful.
Quote from: Hamilcar on June 09, 2024, 06:51:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 09, 2024, 06:45:28 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on June 09, 2024, 06:30:32 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:19:06 PMI'm curious if folks have thoughts on the possible causes, as well as possible consequences - both long and short term.
You vote for anti-establishment parties when you feel that the establishment doesn't have your interests at heart. As Europe rapidly ages and older voters vote themselves a secure retirement at the cost of the young, they become more radicalized. The tragedy is that young people don't vote, so their taxes will only go up and their living standards down as the old suck them dry.
.
And they lash out at the establishment by voting for parties that are even more establishment than mainstream conservatives could ever dare to be these days.
Most of the "far right" parties in Europe today are positioning themselves as antiestablishment.
Yes, they position themselves that way.
But much like Trump they're often very establishment indeed and many of their policies are designed around deepening inequalities/strengthening the establishment
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 08:01:08 AMQuote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:59:10 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
*Edit* like "bye Felisha" or " Felisha" was used to mock annoying black women. Is that still a thing, or has Karen subsumed them all? I'm not cool anymore so I don't know :D
Do you not recall the numerous examples when that was first gaining popularity of white women calling the cops on black people because they were black? :huh:
Could be different priorities in our views, but my recollections was it gained popularity from annoying customers (let me speak to your manager) linked with the how to spot a Karen ( ie the "Karen haircut")
No, less difference in priorities and more you just focused on the anodyne elements without awareness of history/context.
Check wiki. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 08:13:33 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 08:01:08 AMQuote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:59:10 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
*Edit* like "bye Felisha" or " Felisha" was used to mock annoying black women. Is that still a thing, or has Karen subsumed them all? I'm not cool anymore so I don't know :D
Do you not recall the numerous examples when that was first gaining popularity of white women calling the cops on black people because they were black? :huh:
Could be different priorities in our views, but my recollections was it gained popularity from annoying customers (let me speak to your manager) linked with the how to spot a Karen ( ie the "Karen haircut")
No, less difference in priorities and more you just focused on the anodyne elements without awareness of history/context.
Check wiki. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)
But that's my point. One's priorities, or I guess preconceptions might be a better word, colours how someone views the term. Ask 100 black people there view on Karen and it's use and you'll get a majority seeing the racialized view, ask 100 white people and you'll get a majority seeing it how tamas and I did.
I don't think either one is right or wrong per se. It's the context on how one sees it. Even going back to the Felicia thing, within a black culture there might be a separate understanding then the one I had as a periphery to my black friends using it.
But thanks for the link, it's interesting and a view I hadn't fully considered (the historical examples of other names was especially interesting)
I do remember Karen's complaining about black people for being black in public was a big thing around the term taking off.
Though yes it's not necessarily about someone being racist and more about generally this sort of woman being hyper priveleged (more based on class and wealth than race in my book as whitey mcpoorface)
Quote from: chipwich on June 09, 2024, 07:04:19 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 04:38:18 AMFair enough, I was duped, but I think my point on the culture war stands. The current frontline for sexual minorities is the very definition of genders and I wouldn't be surprised if the push back against that is giving less tolerant people the perceived carte blanche to admit to opposing gay marriage as well.
The Toroto Sun didn't dupe anyone lackwit. Pinknews lied by claiming the that Sun claimed that the charity "replaced the word "cervix". The Sun did not do so.
NO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
The fact that you have Garbon and Pinknews marching to the defense of "front hole" shows that homosexuals disrespect women's bodies and gay liberation was a mistake.
Jesus fucking Christ. :mellow:
No substance as usual.
Quote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
Then you were missing the context in which they were being shrill. Remember the Karen who called the cops on the bird watcher? Do you remember the colour of his skin?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2024, 09:15:11 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
Then you were missing the context in which they were being shrill. Remember the Karen who called the cops on the bird watcher? Do you remember the colour of his skin?
True. Was her complaint acted upon or proactively prevented in some way? Because that was the original discussion here, that fear of transgender reprisal in the public space is larger than fear from a random majority representative making an assinine complaint about something. The question wasn't around whether Karen is an anti-racist meme or not.
Quote from: chipwich on June 09, 2024, 12:16:51 AMThe trans movement is not about being nice to trans people and you know that you dirty liar.
Oh well, you called me a name! I am convinced.
QuoteCancer charity sorry after using 'cervix' for transgender community
The Canadian Cancer Society is apologizing for using the term "cervix" on a web page for transgender and non-binary people assigned female at birth.
As ridiculous and misguided that is, and I am sure you can find ridiculous stuff to rage at everywhere, it still comes down to "be nice to these trans men and non-binary people." Maybe that wasn't appropriate or the right way to go about it, I don't know, I don't see the tyranny. It is all semantics anyway. It isn't like they are demanding everybody call it something other than a cervix for anybody, just for themselves. And that doesn't really disprove my point, they just want to be treated well, and anyway I don't think those asking for it to be something other than a cervix with regard to themselves represent all trans and non-binary people.
Also that article is very short and lacks details and decides a few social media posts are somehow something I need to know about the topic.
Quote from: chipwich on June 09, 2024, 08:53:03 AMNo substance as usual.
Maybe he should have called you a dirty liar, something to really get into the meat of the discourse like that. I take it that is what you consider substance?
QuoteNO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
Oh so tyranny is somebody else using words you don't like and freedom is that they should be forced to use terms you do like? Is that what correct?
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 10:20:35 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2024, 09:15:11 AMQuote from: HVC on June 09, 2024, 07:47:04 AMMy understanding wasn't that it was getting excessive deference, just that white women can be annoying and shrill :lol:
Then you were missing the context in which they were being shrill. Remember the Karen who called the cops on the bird watcher? Do you remember the colour of his skin?
True. Was her complaint acted upon or proactively prevented in some way? Because that was the original discussion here, that fear of transgender reprisal in the public space is larger than fear from a random majority representative making an assinine complaint about something. The question wasn't around whether Karen is an anti-racist meme or not.
Here is a selection of incident that involved someone calling in a black person who had every right to be where they were. I would think fearing for one's safety/life/dignity when confronted with the police is probably a bit more impactful than whatever zealotry you are imagining.
https://www.templelawreview.org/lawreview/assets/uploads/2020/05/Jones_92-Temp.-L.-Rev.-Online-3.pdf
QuoteOn April 12, 2018, police arrested two Black men—Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson—in a Philadelphia Starbucks after the manager called the police because they were sitting in the café and asking to use the restroom without making a purchase first. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross defended the arrest as "fair and unbiased policing," but he later apologized for the event. Nelson and Robinson settled with the city for one dollar each, and the city agreed to fund a $200,000 program for high schoolers aspiring to become entrepreneurs.164 Starbucks reached an undisclosed settlement with Nelson and Robinson, and the then-CEO formed a business mentorship with the two men. Additionally, Starbucks closed eight thousand stores on May 29, 2018, for an anti-racial-bias training.
QuoteAlmost exactly a month later, a similar incident occurred at Yale University. Sarah Braasch, a white graduate student at Yale, called the police on Lolade Siyonbola, a Black graduate student at Yale, for napping in their dorm's common room. Multiple police officers questioned Lolade to verify her identity and her justification for being in the building. After some confusion about Lolade's identification listing her preferred name instead of the name in the student database, the police told her that she was free to go. Yale's administration responded by emphasizing its commitment to an inclusive environment, while also defending the officers' response to the situation. In response to the incident, Lolade Siyonbola said, "We're constantly having to prove that we're allowed to be where we are, that we have permission—that we have freedom papers." This incident highlights how institutions of higher education are not safe from bias-motivated incidents. Unfortunately, other incidents at higher education institutions have occurred since: police questioned a Black student for eating her lunch in her university's cafeteria, campus police pulled two Native American prospective students from a college tour for being suspicious, and campus police questioned a Black university employee for looking agitated while walking to work from the on-campus gym.
QuoteIncidents of racially motivated 911 calls also follow victims to their homes. In April 2018, around 10:30 p.m., former White House staffer Darren Martin moved into an apartment in New York City. While moving in, multiple police officers responded to a call reporting a "potential break-in by someone who may have had a weapon." A half-dozen officers responded to the call. The officers questioned Martin in the lobby about what he was doing in the building, and they would not let him get his identification from his upstairs apartment. The police left after about ten to fifteen minutes, and Martin said he felt lucky that the situation ended without an altercation. Martin described, "[H]is dominant emotion was fear—of not being able to explain himself in time, of making the wrong move, of getting shot while doing absolutely nothing wrong." This incident is just one example of the countless Black people whom white people have victimized in or near their own homes. A white woman blocked a Black man, D'Arreion Toles, from entering his upscale building because she did not think he
belonged there. She subsequently called the police on Toles. A white man questioned and eventually called the police on a Black woman, Jasmine Abhulimen, for not showing identification at the pool in their private community. Unfortunately, these incidents show that no matter who you are, where you live, or how much money you make, if a white person perceives a Black person as a threat, then that person will call the police.
QuoteThis issue of racially motivated 911 calls is even more problematic when considering the history and effects of policing and the resulting trauma for Black people. As discussed above, in some jurisdictions, the police must respond to every 911 call. Thus, racially motivated 911 calls unnecessarily increase interactions between the police and Black people. Even if a Black person is not arrested, assaulted, or killed, police interactions can cause trauma. Racial trauma or race-based traumatic stress "may result from racial harassment, witnessing racial violence, or experiencing institutional racism." In the context of a racially motivated 911 call, the interaction with the police requires the victim to justify their presence in a white space, and this requirement can make the victim feel less human. In the moment, this can cause a stress response of increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, and a release of cortisol (a stress hormone).
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 10:20:35 AMWas her complaint acted upon or proactively prevented in some way?
Remember her phrasing. It was predicated on what she and the black man knew about how such things would typically be treated. That they had both left before the police arrived doesn't negate the realities that made those words threatening.
"I'm calling the cops ... I'm gonna tell them there's an African American man threatening my life"
Anyone who doesn't see "front hole" as patently offensive to life is completely morally degraded.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 11:07:58 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 10:20:35 AMWas her complaint acted upon or proactively prevented in some way?
Remember her phrasing. It was predicated on what she and the black man knew about how such things would typically be treated. That they had both left before the police arrived doesn't negate the realities that made those words threatening.
"I'm calling the cops ... I'm gonna tell them there's an African American man threatening my life"
Yes, and she was later arrested and fired for making a false police complaint.
The point being that she was confident she could make a completely false complaint which would be believed because she was a White woman, and he was a Black man.
Someone saying "front hole" is fairly light tyranny. I admit it sounds stupid, but it is 2024.
OK but what are we arguing for with the evidences of rampant racism? My claim was that potential complaints coming from the transgender community are more likely to trigger preemptive mitigation (such as this misquoted cervix thing) than complaints from non-minorities.
I am sure that's true for racism as well in the sense of for example people not hiring blacks to positions where they expect that would upset their racist clientele. But while that's infinitely more incidous, it also feels different to preemptively make sure you explain why you have to use heretical words such as cervix.
Quote from: Tamas on June 09, 2024, 11:55:18 AMOK but what are we arguing for with the evidences of rampant racism? My claim was that potential complaints coming from the transgender community are more likely to trigger preemptive mitigation (such as this misquoted cervix thing) than complaints from non-minorities.
I am sure that's true for racism as well in the sense of for example people not hiring blacks to positions where they expect that would upset their racist clientele. But while that's infinitely more incidous, it also feels different to preemptively make sure you explain why you have to use heretical words such as cervix.
My examples of racist complaints were those with more meaningful and negative consequences than hypothetical complaints that caused a charity to put a disclaimer on its facts sheet.
Apropos nothing, I will soon be creating a survey for the LGBTQIA community to ask about health matters. I will be including some disclaimer language not because I fear reprisal or company reputational damage but because I want to encourage participation from the broadest base of people.
It is your spin, and that of the right wing media, to characterize cervix as heretical.
What point are you really trying to make?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2024, 12:05:45 PMIt is your spin, and that of the right wing media, to characterize cervix as heretical.
What point are you really trying to make?
I have already made it: that my impression is that (online spaces at least) are too sensitive to the zealous fringe of trans right activists. I am sure the overwhelming majority of trans men have no trouble doctors referring to their cervix as "cervix" - I am having a hard time imagining that adults would rebel against biology like that. So, having a disclaimer that they know the non-offensive way to say that is "front hole" they are just not doing so for simplicity, feels like an overreaction. A type of overreaction that I feel like I have seen (or seen referenced) too much either the pre-emptive mitigation or the mini-scandals emerging from the lack of it.
However, all of that could have been far-right influence so I am not really interested in defending this point too vehemently. Either I am wrong in which case I shouldn't defend it, or I am right that this has taken quasi-religious connotations in some circles, in which case I'll do what people in history have done before to let ridiculous zealotry thrive, and shut up rather than spend further effort.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:12 AMHa, the term 'Karen' has arisen specifically out of recognition that white, cisgender complaints were receiving disproportionate deference.
So strange. I've watched thousands of Karen videos and almost all of them end up with the Karen handcuffed in the back of a squad car. I've seen plenty in which they *demand* disporportionate deference because they're white, rich, blond, Christian, etc. but never once have I seen them receiving it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2024, 05:07:23 PMQuote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:12 AMHa, the term 'Karen' has arisen specifically out of recognition that white, cisgender complaints were receiving disproportionate deference.
So strange. I've watched thousands of Karen videos and almost all of them end up with the Karen handcuffed in the back of a squad car. I've seen plenty in which they *demand* disporportionate deference because they're white, rich, blond, Christian, etc. but never once have I seen them receiving it.
Even in the flesh?
Those events don't get widely shared as Karen's getting hit by karma I imagine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2024, 05:07:23 PMQuote from: garbon on June 09, 2024, 07:46:12 AMHa, the term 'Karen' has arisen specifically out of recognition that white, cisgender complaints were receiving disproportionate deference.
So strange. I've watched thousands of Karen videos and almost all of them end up with the Karen handcuffed in the back of a squad car. I've seen plenty in which they *demand* disporportionate deference because they're white, rich, blond, Christian, etc. but never once have I seen them receiving it.
TMI, dude, TMI.:shutup:
Quote from: Josquius on June 09, 2024, 05:41:34 PMEven in the flesh?
Those events don't get widely shared as Karen's getting hit by karma I imagine.
Even in the flesh what?
Why do you imagine that the other kind of Karen doesn't get as widely shared?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2024, 05:58:32 PMQuote from: Josquius on June 09, 2024, 05:41:34 PMEven in the flesh?
Those events don't get widely shared as Karen's getting hit by karma I imagine.
Even in the flesh what?
Why do you imagine that the other kind of Karen doesn't get as widely shared?
.
You haven't encountered these Karen attitudes in reality?
The Karen winning and getting her way won't be shared as it's the everyday norm and is not entertaining so much as depressing.
Quote from: chipwich on June 09, 2024, 07:04:19 AMThe Toroto Sun didn't dupe anyone lackwit. Pinknews lied by claiming the that Sun claimed that the charity "replaced the word "cervix". The Sun did not do so.
You quote what you claim is Pinknews, but their article never uses the phrase you lied and claimed they did.
QuoteNO medical professional should EVER use the word "front hole" to describe a cervix under any conditions. It is a pornified mockery of human anatomy.
You will understand, I hope, if I suggest to you that you are in no position to demand that medical professionals use only terms you approve of.
QuoteThe fact that you have Garbon and Pinknews marching to the defense of "front hole" shows that homosexuals disrespect women's bodies and gay liberation was a mistake.
The fact that you are lying about all of this shows that the mods not deleting all of your lying posts was a mistake.
Quote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 01:08:50 AMYou haven't encountered these Karen attitudes in reality?
The Karen winning and getting her way won't be shared as it's the everyday norm and is not entertaining so much as depressing.
Maybe once or twice when I was waiting tables.
Presumably you encounter it on an everyday basis?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2024, 10:37:01 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 01:08:50 AMYou haven't encountered these Karen attitudes in reality?
The Karen winning and getting her way won't be shared as it's the everyday norm and is not entertaining so much as depressing.
Maybe once or twice when I was waiting tables.
Presumably you encounter it on an everyday basis?
Not everyday. Especially since I don't leave the house. But occasionally yes, very much so in some past jobs.
Quote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 10:38:59 AMNot everyday. Especially since I don't leave the house. But occasionally yes, very much so in some past jobs.
Interesting. Were you the one granting them undue deference?
To answer Jacob's original question, I think part of the explanation is the fact that throughout Western society, many culture war topics are just not up for truly open discussion. We live in the "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech" world today, which if you actually think about it is a really Orwellian way to undermine freedom of speech.
Whenever you suppress freedom of speech, whether by government censorship or by grassroots "consequences", you radicalize people. There is also a second-order effect: the more you suppress the speech, the more insane the mainstream opinion can get, because constructive criticism is chilled. The more insane the mainstream gets, the more people start wondering whether the radicals on the other end of political spectrum actually have things right. They don't really, but they're the only ones whose views haven't been chilled out of public discourse, so that's the only refuge you have when cognitive dissonance on your own side just gets to be untenable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2024, 11:07:17 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 10:38:59 AMNot everyday. Especially since I don't leave the house. But occasionally yes, very much so in some past jobs.
Interesting. Were you the one granting them undue deference?
no?
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2024, 09:58:29 AMYou quote what you claim is Pinknews, but their article never uses the phrase you lied and claimed they did.
While I should not have used quotation marks when not directly quoting someone, The Toronto sun did not suggest that cervix is being replaced, so Tamas was not deceived. Pinknews and Garbon deceived Tamas by claiming that the Sun was being deceptive.
I'm confused, or maybe just deceived.
Quote from: Jacob on May 29, 2024, 03:26:50 PMAgain I wonder what is the driver in this drastic change, and what the potential long term impacts are.
There's what CC posted, and there's the new immigration, much more religious than the older ones.
You'll see it in Canada soon.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 12:38:14 PMWhile I should not have used quotation marks when not directly quoting someone, The Toronto sun did not suggest that cervix is being replaced, so Tamas was not deceived. Pinknews and Garbon deceived Tamas by claiming that the Sun was being deceptive.
No one claimed that cervix was being replaced, and no one claimed that the Toronto Sun made that claim. The Sun lied about claim the Jo Trust was "apologizing for using the term 'cervix'" so Thomas was deceived by the Sun article and your reference to it.
I'd argue that the Sun was also being deceptive by citing "social media" reactions as entirely negative (if moronic) by using three examples, all of which were negative. I understand that the Sun does not really care about being a reliable news outlet any more than Fox News, but even they should have some sense of shame about posting dishonest shit like that.
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2024, 01:38:34 PMQuote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 12:38:14 PMWhile I should not have used quotation marks when not directly quoting someone, The Toronto sun did not suggest that cervix is being replaced, so Tamas was not deceived. Pinknews and Garbon deceived Tamas by claiming that the Sun was being deceptive.
No one claimed that cervix was being replaced, and no one claimed that the Toronto Sun made that claim. The Sun lied about claim the Jo Trust was "apologizing for using the term 'cervix'" so Thomas was deceived by the Sun article and your reference to it.
I'd argue that the Sun was also being deceptive by citing "social media" reactions as entirely negative (if moronic) by using three examples, all of which were negative. I understand that the Sun does not really care about being a reliable news outlet any more than Fox News, but even they should have some sense of shame about posting dishonest shit like that.
Pinknews did not name the Toronto Sun and it is not necessary to do so for Pinknews to have been deceptive. Pinknews made a false dichotomy and it was convincing enough for Tamas to say that he had been duped.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 01:47:31 PMPinknews did not name the Toronto Sun and it is not necessary to do so for Pinknews to have been deceptive. Pinknews made a false dichotomy and it was convincing enough for Tamas to say that he had been duped.
I hadn't caught that the Pinknews response was to the absurd article (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12278811/Is-bonus-hole-craziest-euphemism-trans-debate.html) in the Daily News rather than the Toronto Sun (which is what you were referring to originally). Tamas wouldn't have paid the slightest heed to anything in the Daily News, so no danger that he would have been duped from that. He
was duped by the absurd article in the Toronto Sun, because he isn't familiar with the Sun and thus presumably mistook it for an actual newspaper.
I have no idea what "false dichotomy" you believe the Pinknews article made. I suspect, though, that it does not exist except in your mind.
Pinknews headline: No, a cancer charity isn't telling medical professionals to rebrand all vaginas as bonus holes
Neither the Sun or Mail claimed the cervix is being rebranded. That is dishonest.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 02:09:29 PMPinknews headline: No, a cancer charity isn't telling medical professionals to rebrand all vaginas as bonus holes
Neither the Sun or Mail claimed the cervix is being rebranded. That is dishonest.
Well then where is all the tyranny you were supposed to be providing evidence of beyond "be nice to trans people?"
You intorduced the whole fake issue. Don't whine and bitch at us. Oh and calling everybody a liar because clearly everybody who doesn't see things your way is of bad intent or something.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2024, 02:43:02 PMQuote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 02:09:29 PMPinknews headline: No, a cancer charity isn't telling medical professionals to rebrand all vaginas as bonus holes
Neither the Sun or Mail claimed the cervix is being rebranded. That is dishonest.
Well then where is all the tyranny you were supposed to be providing evidence of beyond "be nice to trans people?"
You intorduced the whole fake issue. Don't whine and bitch at us. Oh and calling everybody a liar because clearly everybody who doesn't see things your way is of bad intent or something.
I have provided evidence that deranged tans activists are capturing the medical community and instigating them to use misogynistic language.
People can see things like the intimidation campaign against JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson, the Scottish hate crime law, the firing of Maya Forester, the University of Cincinnati student who received an F for using the term "biological women", the use of they as a singular, the fraudulent idea that sex and gender are not synonyms, the gay community support for Hamas, and see that the gay community has betrayed our civilization.
If you don't believe me you can keep scratching your thick monkey craniums wondering why zoomers have dropped support for gay marriage by 11%. When I was debating this issue here during the Bush era I never thought that would ever happen.
:lmfao:
It's the anti trans people who insist on gender and sex as wildly different concepts.
And gays support Hamas now? Are you sure you don't mean hummus?
Noted right-wing AM radio station Planned Parenthood:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/all-about-sex-gender-and-gender-identity
QuoteAll About Sex, Gender, and Gender Identity
In This Section
All About Sex, Gender, and Gender Identity
What do transgender and cisgender mean?
What does intersex mean?
Sex, gender, and gender identity are all related, but different parts of who you are. For lots of people sex, gender, and gender identity line up. But not for everyone.
What's the difference between sex and gender?
It's pretty easy to confuse biological sex (sometimes called "sex assigned at birth") with gender and gender identity. They're related, but different.
Sex is a label that's usually first given by a doctor based upon the genes, hormones, and body parts (like genitals) you're born with. It goes on your birth certificate and describes your body as female or male. Some people's sex doesn't fit into male or female, called intersex.
Gender is how society thinks we should look, think, and act as girls and women and boys and men. Each culture has beliefs and informal rules about how people should act based on their gender. For example, many cultures expect and encourage men to be more aggressive than women.
Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you show your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It's a feeling that begins early in life.
I'd call you a liar but most of Languish has already caught on to you.
This says nothing about the fact that transphobes are really keen on pushing sex and gender as different concepts to let them discriminate against trans women whilst still officially counting them as women and not being the baddies.
It's far more often from a pro trans perspective that I see opposition to this standard modern definition given sex isn't the simple binary some like to pretend it is.
You're not lying there. You're just throwing out non sequiturs.
Seriously. Whatever happened to live and let live? How the hell is it hurting you if we just treat trans folk with respect?
Only people I know in real life this mad are closet cases. So, I wish you the best in that regard, I guess.
Quote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 03:53:23 PMThis says nothing about the fact that transphobes are really keen on pushing sex and gender as different concepts to let them discriminate against trans women whilst still officially counting them as women and not being the baddies.
It's far more often from a pro trans perspective that I see opposition to this standard modern definition given sex isn't the simple binary some like to pretend it is.
You're not lying there. You're just throwing out no sequiturs.
I don't know what to tell you Jos - the whole "sex is separate from gender" is something I entirely see coming from the pro-trans side.
I do feel like we have hit the high-water mark of the extreme pro-trans/anti-women movement, and hopefully we can still hit on a sweet spot where we are still kind and respectful to trans people (including using their pronouns) while still respecting certain women-only spaces.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2024, 03:54:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on June 10, 2024, 03:53:23 PMThis says nothing about the fact that transphobes are really keen on pushing sex and gender as different concepts to let them discriminate against trans women whilst still officially counting them as women and not being the baddies.
It's far more often from a pro trans perspective that I see opposition to this standard modern definition given sex isn't the simple binary some like to pretend it is.
You're not lying there. You're just throwing out no sequiturs.
I don't know what to tell you Jos - the whole "sex is separate from gender" is something I entirely see coming from the pro-trans side.
Would stand to reason conservative sources would like to present progressives as the ones pushing something irrational.
The history of the terms seperating does come more from a progressive space but in the modern day I see it all the time for transphobes.
Look to the recent fuss in Scotland. The anti trans folk were really keen on this whole idea they should be able to discriminate on sex with trans people only being able to change their gender and kept as this seperate second class version of women who can't actually do anything women do.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2024, 03:56:58 PMI do feel like we have hit the high-water mark of the extreme pro-trans/anti-women movement, and hopefully we can still hit on a sweet spot where we are still kind and respectful to trans people (including using their pronouns) while still respecting certain women-only spaces.
Not if people believe the Garbons and Valmys of the world who keep telling us there's no trouble in paradise.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 03:26:21 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 10, 2024, 02:43:02 PMWell then where is all the tyranny you were supposed to be providing evidence of beyond "be nice to trans people?"
You intorduced the whole fake issue. Don't whine and bitch at us. Oh and calling everybody a liar because clearly everybody who doesn't see things your way is of bad intent or something.
I have provided evidence that deranged tans activists are capturing the medical community and instigating them to use misogynistic language.
:lmfao: No, only in your own deranged mind have you done so.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2024, 03:56:58 PMI do feel like we have hit the high-water mark of the extreme pro-trans/anti-women movement, and hopefully we can still hit on a sweet spot where we are still kind and respectful to trans people (including using their pronouns) while still respecting certain women-only spaces.
I am happy for any result that is "be nice to trans people". Even this supposed "anti-woman" movement comes from a good place of just wanting trans people to be accepted. But these kinds of things need to be worked out.
Quote from: chipwich on June 10, 2024, 04:00:23 PMNot if people believe the Garbons and Valmys of the world who keep telling us there's no trouble in paradise.
Well nobody is perfect but I only disputed the extreme characterization. That somehow there is some big tyrannical movement afoot.
QuoteI have provided evidence that deranged tans activists are capturing the medical community and instigating them to use misogynistic language.
This one article is hardly evidence of that and even to the extent they are it only applies to themselves. I am not sure even if they insist, somewhat absurdly, that their cervix is to be called a front hole is really the giant form of tyranny and misogyny you are characterizing.
BB said that things are working themselves out and you did not dispute that, kind of a weird thing to be happening if tyranny was afoot. As far as me ruining any attempt for trans people and women to come together and singe kumbaya, I am not even really part of that conversation dude. I don't think they are all listening to me for what needs to happen.
But even if I accepted that perhaps there is some extreme core of trans people that has actual power and influence to actually do something bad (like make us call cervixes something icky), that still doesn't explain why that would justify wanting to oppose gay marriage :lol:
Have I mentioned that I recently learned the term "bussy," or boy pussy? Aka asshole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2024, 08:12:47 PMHave I mentioned that I recently learned the term "bussy," or boy pussy? Aka asshole.
Is that a trans thing? Or a gay thing? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2024, 08:14:43 PMIs that a trans thing? Or a gay thing? :hmm:
I heard it from a couple twinks.
Errant thought:
Could one of the contributing of the rise in popularity of reactionary rightwing politics amongst young people be that the right has taken over irreverent humour?
Most of my time growing up, if someone was taking the piss out of "the establishment" and being funny (or "funny"), the perspective was usually left-wing.
But in the last decade or so it seems - at least for the parts of youth culture and counter culture that I've been able to observe, aka the internet - that most of the chaotic anti-establishment lols have been much more right slanted than in the 00s, 90s, 80s, and before. Memes, 4chan, influencers, basement podcasts, and so on.
I recall someone - a non-white woman - commenting that the reason they were sympathetic to gamergate was that it was fun, basically. Basically, if you're in it for the lols, your sources are mostly going to push a reactionary agenda.
The online left, on the other hand, seems significantly more interested in policing... which can be fun enough when you're doing the policing, but significantly less fun if you're getting policed.
I dunno, what do you think? Is there something to it?
I find the theory attractive, but I already believe that the left has been sleeping on agitprop for the last few decades while the right has gone overtime. And I think we're seeing some of the results.
I agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
The word humour is being used very loosely there.
The right remains as unfunny as ever. But there's definitely something in their taking joy in trolling.
I weirdly see this kind of attitude leaking out into the real world. Some old gammon being interviewed and before anyone says anything about him at all going "oh but I'm just a boomer so I'm a racist bigot right"
As to old comedians complaining comedy has gone stale.. I hear this a lot. Quite a few of them seem to have gone that way. It confuses me as it doesn't reflect reality.
Today you have people like Frankie Boyle enjoying significant success by not just going over the line but taking a shit and then wanking on it.
Rather than the right and their "comedy" I'd say the conditions to allow for it are quite basic as I mentioned before. The economy is all.
Though it definitely helps that we live in a world where behavioural science is well understood and downloading quick snappy messages into people's brains is easier than ever. Simplistic hate based one liners are just naturally better tools than thought out complex solutions.
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
Well I disagree. I see a ton of pretty hilarious leftwing stuff on youtube. The only people I see saying this are really old, or in this case long dead, comedians. I mean I watched Jerry Seinfeld make jokes about ponies and airline food for 20 years and now here he is saying he can't be funny or offend anybody? What is this super edgy hilarious stuff he wants to say? I mean he is Jerry Seinfeld, why would he care about being cancelled? His family is now generationally wealthy. Please let me know the super edgy offensive hilarious joke you want to make Jerry. It will be the first one you have ever made.
I mean when Dave Chappelle says something funny, I'll laugh, his anti-Trans and "all men are rapists" jokes just aren't funny. They are so tired and predictable.
And I guess the implication is that there was a lot better comedy 20 or 30 years ago and man I think those are some rose-colored glasses. It was fun, but I see plenty of hilarious stuff out there today. There was also plenty of really terrible comedy and plenty of easily offended people around back then. George HW Bush put the Simpsons on blast, I haven't seen Biden go after any comedy acts.
And further with twitter collapsing into bots, Nazis, and Nazi-bots I just don't see old style cancelling really viable, the nutjobs don't have a toxic platform almost tailor-designed for that purpose anymore. But hey we will see.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2024, 05:35:45 PMCould one of the contributing of the rise in popularity of reactionary rightwing politics amongst young people be that the right has taken over irreverent humour?
Most of my time growing up, if someone was taking the piss out of "the establishment" and being funny (or "funny"), the perspective was usually left-wing.
At the risk of triggering Jos especially (:ph34r:), this is perhaps also because the establishment has changed.
When Beyond The Fringe were doing irreverent satire, it was around the time that people were talking about "the establishment" as a thing. From my understanding I think it was an explanation of how, in the UK at the time, power was operated in a social as well as a political context - which became glaringly more obvious as British society became more democratic.
But the "establishment" then was bluff old Colonel Blimps, aristocratic shooting parties, out of touch pompous judges, Church of England bishops etc. That is not, I'd suggest, where power is exercised socially in Britain today - though I think there are probably some constants (civil service, barristers etc). For some groups they just no longer really hold power or influence, for others their own social make-up has changed dramatically.
I think the establishment is different now. And I think that's a little challenging for people who are broadly on the progressive side because I think their founding myth is fighting that mid-century establishment in various ways. At the kindest, I think it's a little bit generals fighting the last war.
QuoteI recall someone - a non-white woman - commenting that the reason they were sympathetic to gamergate was that it was fun, basically. Basically, if you're in it for the lols, your sources are mostly going to push a reactionary agenda.
I think you're absolutely right this is possibly a part of it with young people.
The only thing I'd query is whether it's everywhere. It feels to me quite North American - see the insane online-ness of Ron Desantis campaign (although my understanding is that Farage is actually doing very well on TikTok). I'm not sure the extent to which it's a thing in Europe - I don't know if there's a meme side to Meloni or Le Pen, say.
QuoteThe online left, on the other hand, seems significantly more interested in policing... which can be fun enough when you're doing the policing, but significantly less fun if you're getting policed.
Yeah I mean I think there is always a risk for the left of becoming a bit censorious and worthy. Very serious and not very funny young people policing each other's politics is not really very new. You think of Brecht's The Measures Taken or films from the sixties on exactly these types of people.
It's just it used to happen in sub-cultures and it's happening in public now.
QuoteI find the theory attractive, but I already believe that the left has been sleeping on agitprop for the last few decades while the right has gone overtime. And I think we're seeing some of the results.
I know I always do this - but I wonder if in the actual politics, we're looking at the wrong place in looking at the social media/tech side of it? And if instead it's the throwback side that works?
I was thinking this looking at Farage's campaign. As I say he has an active TikTok, he tweets. But that's never really been a big part of his profile - and the striking thing about his campaign (and why he got milkshaked) is that it's quite old fashioned. He does campaign events walking round town (not quite on his soapbox but that sort of thing) and he does big (for a UK election) ticketed campaign rallies in the local theatre. Obviously he invites all the old media but actually he does politics in the real public space. Other party leaders/prominent politicians in the UK do very tightly stage-managed events - photo-ops with invited local businessmen, speeches to party activists etc. It's to reduce the risk of a mess up but is perhaps alienating - especially as what social media wants is authenticity which you get more from a real event even if it might go wrong.
Similarly I've always thought that for all the Tweets, the really extraordinary thing about Trump as a candidate was that he got TV. It was actually the analogue stuff he could really do - through a campaign based around rallies. And, again, the mainstream media would cover it a lot.
But also just thinking about Meloni and the FdI. At the age of 15 she walks into the local youth wing office of the post-fascist MSI in her working class district of Rome and joins up. But it's a world of activism and offices of youth wings of parties, and, from my understanding that's still a really big part of FdI. That they have a base of young militants is a really important part of their identity (as you'd expect from a post-fascist party) - and, for all we talk about the atomisation perhaps that belonging in a real, physical group doing stuff (with social events) is appealing?
By contrast I wonder if the mainstream parties have become so used to the "air war" and fighting campaigns that, to my eyes, still look like the Bill Clinton playbook from the 90s (which was groundbreaking in its day). It's the wrong type of old-fashioned and, maybe, to fight it you need to go back to accepting a bit of risk of an event not turning out right, putting on a show to get a physical audience in a hall (that is not just party activists), providing a youth wing where young people can do stuff etc?
I've mentioned it before but I often think of Peter Mair's Ruling the Void and his suggestion that post-Cold War (in European party democracies) parties became detached from representing specific, real constituencies. Instead they tried to appeal to all, often through marketing archetypes like Soccer Moms or Mondeo Man and media strategy campaigns - and, doing so, undid the ties to their "real", physical constituency. Practically they couldn't bcause while you could, say, be a party representing the interests of workers or capital, I don't really think you can represent "everyone" in that way. There are always trade-offs and distribution questions. And it left a gap.
QuoteThough it definitely helps that we live in a world where behavioural science is well understood and downloading quick snappy messages into people's brains is easier than ever. Simplistic hate based one liners are just naturally better tools than thought out complex solutions.
Although we should handle behavioural science with a little bit of care as my understanding is that it has a huge replicability problem which is challenging for a science.
I'm 90% sure it's marketeers marketing themselves as scientists :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 19, 2024, 07:25:03 PMBy contrast I wonder if the mainstream parties have become so used to the "air war" and fighting campaigns that, to my eyes, still look like the Bill Clinton playbook from the 90s (which was groundbreaking in its day). It's the wrong type of old-fashioned and, maybe, to fight it you need to go back to accepting a bit of risk of an event not turning out right, putting on a show to get a physical audience in a hall (that is not just party activists), providing a youth wing where young people can do stuff etc?
It's an interesting idea. Perhaps precisely because youth are so saturated with online experience, live experience can have more impact. Certainly it seems to hold in the music business where live performance has returned to being king. By the same token, they are also likely more jaded when it comes to the "air" campaigns and more likely to see through the propaganda aspect. (?)
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
How many real life examples are there of comedians experiencing deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2024, 08:05:08 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
How many real life examples are there of comedians experiencing deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
They get tut tutted at by the annoying wing of the left, but it's short lived for the most part and then things go back to normal.
@Valmy, I wasn't so much think of comedians as of the 4chan and all its many derivatives, and the right-wing (and apolitical leading to right wing) memeplex. I can't really think of any equivalents on the left side of things.
@Sheilbh and @Minsky, I think you may be on to something about the sense of belonging, authenticity, and the "real" as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2024, 08:05:08 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
How many real life examples are there of comedians experiencing deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
The relevant question is how many comedians feel that there are deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
The number of people in the West killed by Russian nuclear weapons is zero, but I think that quite a few people in the West make important diplomatic decisions with Russian nukes in mind. Threats cannot be quantified by the historical record of their execution, in fact the most potent threats are so credible that no one volunteers to test them out.
It's more of a right of passage for third rate right wing comics to claim they've been cancelled or otherwise silenced in order to book more dates, get press and appear "edgy".
I don't think free speech is really at risk in this case when the primary way to get more exposure is by claiming oppression. It certainly shows a cultural problem but not one rooted in an inability to speak.
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 09:09:18 PMThe relevant question is how many comedians feel that there are deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
What is the line? I mean look at all the stuff South Park does, neither Parker nor Stone have been brutally gunned down yet.
Look man I have always been on your side with the hunting down average Joes and Janes for some stupid thing they said online and trying to get them fired and stuff...but I just don't see how the situation is crushing comedy.
Some of you are just embarrassing with your takes. Thank you to those who stand up for people like me. It means a lot to see cis and cishet folks speak up against bigotry, hate, and mindless propaganda aimed at the trans community. :cheers:
I think humor is highly subjective, but generally I feel uncomfortable when comedians "punch down" at marginalized groups these days which seems to be what conservative humor is more often aimed at than left leaning humor.
When your party and group beliefs make bullying, fear, hate, and hurting others staples of your core existence, legitimate comedy has already left you far, far behind.
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 09:09:18 PMThe relevant question is how many comedians feel that there are deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
The number of people in the West killed by Russian nuclear weapons is zero,.
Respectfully, I don't think that analogy holds.
There a lot of comedians doing a lot of shows across the country every day. I find it hard to believe that in the last 5-10 years not a single one has crossed the line because of Comic-MAD. On the contrary, I am reasonably confident that many have crossed the line without severe or permanent consequence.
The closest example I can think of is Chappelle who has probably fallen off some Christmas Card lists, but last I checked his Netflix shows were still streaming. That's an odd sort of cancellation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 1975, 05:38:30 AMAlthough we should handle behavioural science with a little bit of care as my understanding is that it has a huge replicability problem which is challenging for a science.
I'm 90% sure it's marketeers marketing themselves as scientists :lol:
This is a problem in basically all science these days. People are constantly playing the publication game and pushing for media attention. You get that from shocking new studies that definitely prove that all men are sexist (study performed on just 10 guys randomly grabbed off the street on Saturday night).
Behavioural science as a separate branch of science is a nonsense, but its aspects are perfectly valid psychology and sociology in action. A lot of this stuff is very practically applicable and broadly works as you'd expect.
QuoteAt the risk of triggering Jos especially (:ph34r:), this is perhaps also because the establishment has changed.
When Beyond The Fringe were doing irreverent satire, it was around the time that people were talking about "the establishment" as a thing. From my understanding I think it was an explanation of how, in the UK at the time, power was operated in a social as well as a political context - which became glaringly more obvious as British society became more democratic.
But the "establishment" then was bluff old Colonel Blimps, aristocratic shooting parties, out of touch pompous judges, Church of England bishops etc. That is not, I'd suggest, where power is exercised socially in Britain today - though I think there are probably some constants (civil service, barristers etc). For some groups they just no longer really hold power or influence, for others their own social make-up has changed dramatically.
I think the establishment is different now. And I think that's a little challenging for people who are broadly on the progressive side because I think their founding myth is fighting that mid-century establishment in various ways. At the kindest, I think it's a little bit generals fighting the last war.
The establishment has grown, the power of old money has shifted into the background a fair bit whilst a lot of new money has come in. But as a basic concept it is broadly still the same groups with the same attitudes.
Less care for titles and 'class', a lot more attention on money and materialism. Its far more 'vulgar' than it used to be. But the idea that the establishment is left wing is just madness.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 20, 2024, 01:28:53 AMSome of you are just embarrassing with your takes. Thank you to those who stand up for people like me. It means a lot to see cis and cishet folks speak up against bigotry, hate, and mindless propaganda aimed at the trans community. :cheers:
What's cishet?
Cis-gender/heterosexual.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2024, 08:40:35 PM@Valmy, I wasn't so much think of comedians as of the 4chan and all its many derivatives, and the right-wing (and apolitical leading to right wing) memeplex. I can't really think of any equivalents on the left side of things.
@Sheilbh and @Minsky, I think you may be on to something about the sense of belonging, authenticity, and the "real" as well.
I think this is a very good point I didn't think of before but seems to line up with my experiences.
The memesphere IS dominated by the right. I guess maybe a part of this is that progressive values are no longer the counter-culture ones they used to be. Which is a good thing, but it does mean that to present as rebelling against the perceived authority, you kind of need to be a nihilistic edgelord.
Quote from: Josquius on June 20, 2024, 03:01:17 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 1975, 05:38:30 AMAlthough we should handle behavioural science with a little bit of care as my understanding is that it has a huge replicability problem which is challenging for a science.
I'm 90% sure it's marketeers marketing themselves as scientists :lol:
This is a problem in basically all science these days. People are constantly playing the publication game and pushing for media attention. You get that from shocking new studies that definitely prove that all men are sexist (study performed on just 10 guys randomly grabbed off the street on Saturday night).
Behavioural science as a separate branch of science is a nonsense, but its aspects are perfectly valid psychology and sociology in action. A lot of this stuff is very practically applicable and broadly works as you'd expect.
My understanding was the 'replication crisis' wasn't only about recent work but classical studies as well.
https://www.cos.io/about/news/28-classic-and-contemporary-psychology-findings-replicated-more-60-laboratories-each-across-three-dozen-nations-and-territories
Quote from: Syt on June 20, 2024, 03:04:09 AMCis-gender/heterosexual.
Ok but you can be just "cis" if heterosexual, right? So it's kind of redundant? Unless "cis" means birth-gendered homosexual?
No, you could be cis-male/cis-female and bi-/homo/a-/pansexual. Cis(gender) just means (AFAI understand) identifying with your birth gender.
Happy to be corrected/educated, though. :-)
Quote from: Syt on June 20, 2024, 03:34:11 AMNo, you could be cis-male/cis-female and bi-/homo/a-/pansexual. Cis(gender) just means (AFAI understand) identifying with your birth gender.
Happy to be corrected/educated, though. :-)
Correct.
So, Syt (I hope you don't mind me using you as an example!) is a cis het male as he is a person who was assigned "male" as his gender at birth, still identifies with that, and is heterosexual in terms of his preferences in partners (afaik).
Garbon (I hope you don't mind me using you as an example!) would be cis gay as he is a person who was assigned "male" as his gender at birth, still identifies with that, and is homosexual in terms of his preferences in partners (afaik).
I find it can be a little wonky, but sometimes necessary or helpful to explain things. It also makes Elon Musk and others *very* angry.
Do you hope Syt doesn't mind being used as an example?
:lol: Argh. Sorry!
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 20, 2024, 04:24:43 AMIt also makes Elon Musk and others *very* angry.
A worthwhile goal if there ever was one. :D
I was just confused by your cis/cishet thing because I thought -and based on your explanation that correct- by "cis" you can include everyone with birth sex-matching genders regardless of sexual orientation.
Understandable! cis, yes. cishet? No. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2024, 02:15:11 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 09:09:18 PMThe relevant question is how many comedians feel that there are deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
The number of people in the West killed by Russian nuclear weapons is zero,.
Respectfully, I don't think that analogy holds.
There a lot of comedians doing a lot of shows across the country every day. I find it hard to believe that in the last 5-10 years not a single one has crossed the line because of Comic-MAD. On the contrary, I am reasonably confident that many have crossed the line without severe or permanent consequence.
The closest example I can think of is Chappelle who has probably fallen off some Christmas Card lists, but last I checked his Netflix shows were still streaming. That's an odd sort of cancellation.
You're ascribing to me an absolutist position which can't possibly be true, and which I also didn't mean to express. Of course there are thousands of comedians, so as soon as one out of those thousands displays lack of concern, the absolutist position would be false.
Maybe I did not express it as such, because writing forum posts as legal briefs would be tedious, but what I meant is that a pressure to not cross the line exists in a much bigger way today than it existed decades prior, and pressure on a big scale makes a difference. Less comedians would employ humor that is close to the line, thus less people would hear that humor, and subsequently less people would come away with impression that humor on the left can really bite.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 08:30:11 AMMaybe I did not express it as such, because writing forum posts as legal briefs would be tedious, but what I meant is that a pressure to not cross the line exists in a much bigger way today than it existed decades prior, and pressure on a big scale makes a difference. Less comedians would employ humor that is close to the line, thus less people would hear that humor, and subsequently less people would come away with impression that humor on the left can really bite.
This is pretty obviously untrue. In the 50s and 60s comics went to jail or were routinely threatened by police for their acts. Going back further there's no way a comic could get away with talking in a positive light about anything non-mainstream, and would likely have had been physically threatened or worse.
Quote from: frunk on June 20, 2024, 08:44:21 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 08:30:11 AMMaybe I did not express it as such, because writing forum posts as legal briefs would be tedious, but what I meant is that a pressure to not cross the line exists in a much bigger way today than it existed decades prior, and pressure on a big scale makes a difference. Less comedians would employ humor that is close to the line, thus less people would hear that humor, and subsequently less people would come away with impression that humor on the left can really bite.
This is pretty obviously untrue. In the 50s and 60s comics went to jail or were routinely threatened by police for their acts. Going back further there's no way a comic could get away with talking in a positive light about anything non-mainstream, and would likely have had been physically threatened or worse.
That was a little before my time. I was comparing today to around 90ies or so, and I imagine Jacob was as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2024, 08:03:16 PMIt's an interesting idea. Perhaps precisely because youth are so saturated with online experience, live experience can have more impact. Certainly it seems to hold in the music business where live performance has returned to being king. By the same token, they are also likely more jaded when it comes to the "air" campaigns and more likely to see through the propaganda aspect. (?)
Yes. This is why I have spent a lot of efforts creating socializing spaces at the university for our students. They have a hunger for it, but they have lost a lot of skill/capacity for social interaction (most have become quite anxious about interactions that they cant fully control. I took great pains to create those spaces around the idea of disinterested fun and intellectual pursuits: in most elite universities these spaces have only become spaces of professionnalisation (generating in turn more anxiety, competitiveness and loss of ordinary empathy).
(Thus I have set up a historical board game night)
Quote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
So look - I love Leslie Nielsen. Good Canadian boy. Did you know his brother Erik Nielsen was the MP for Yukon for something like 30 years, was Deputy Prime Minister under Mulroney, and the Whitehorse airport is named after him (Erik, that is - not Leslie).
But anyways - Leslie Nielsen was only funny because he was the ultimate straight man. He was cast in Airplane! on the strength of his dramatic acting chops. I think he was in lots of things in the 50s and 60s, but you might know him for being the star of the sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet.
But after the success of Airplane!, and the Naked Gun movies - it kind of went to Leslie's head and he thought he was some great comedian. So some of his later rolls had him in more where he tried to be funny (I'm thinking Dracula: Dead and Loving It, or Men with Brooms) - and he really wasn't.
Plus, you know, he died 14 years ago, so really isn't much of an authority on the modern day.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2024, 08:11:22 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2024, 08:05:08 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 19, 2024, 06:31:18 PMI agree that the left has become a lot more humorless over the years. I recall watching Leslie Nielsen interview on Youtube, where he said that when you do comedy, there will inevitably be time when you step over the line. When stepping over the line is deadly, you're just not going to do comedy, or at the very least you'll do a comedy so bland and safe that it'll lose much of its bite.
How many real life examples are there of comedians experiencing deadly consequences for stepping over the line?
They get tut tutted at by the annoying wing of the left, but it's short lived for the most part and then things go back to normal.
Clearly not deadly, but Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) called audience members the n-word in response to being heckled in (checks google) 2006 and his career has never recovered.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 08:45:40 AMThat was a little before my time. I was comparing today to around 90ies or so, and I imagine Jacob was as well.
Well, the first openly gay standup comic to appear on a Light Night show or get a TV special was Bob Smith in 1994. It wasn't that long ago.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 03:29:18 AMQuote from: Syt on June 20, 2024, 03:04:09 AMCis-gender/heterosexual.
Ok but you can be just "cis" if heterosexual, right? So it's kind of redundant? Unless "cis" means birth-gendered homosexual?
It comes from Latin.
Because this is a comparison I could only make on Languish: think Cisalpine Gauls and Transalpine Gauls. Cis means same side, where as trans means "across" (note I don't actually know Latin so I'm probably missing some nuance).
So a "cis" person is someone who has stayed with their birth gender, whereas "trans" is someone who has changed their birth gender.
When it came to the gauls - the cisalpine were gauls on the right (that is Italian) side of the Alps, =whereas the transalpine gauls were on the other side of the Alps (that is - modern-day France).
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2024, 10:40:04 AMClearly not deadly, but Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) called audience members the n-word in response to being heckled in (checks google) 2006 and his career has never recovered.
That wasn't a bit that went over the line. That was a performer losing their composure and getting into a verbal brawl with their audience. That could happen (and in some cases has happened) to anyone in any line of work dealing with the public.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 20, 2024, 09:10:31 AMYes. This is why I have spent a lot of efforts creating socializing spaces at the university for our students. They have a hunger for it, but they have lost a lot of skill/capacity for social interaction (most have become quite anxious about interactions that they cant fully control. I took great pains to create those spaces around the idea of disinterested fun and intellectual pursuits: in most elite universities these spaces have only become spaces of professionnalisation (generating in turn more anxiety, competitiveness and loss of ordinary empathy).
You mean that most of those places have expectations that they're there for professional networking and resume building rather than socializing and mental stimulation?
Quote(Thus I have set up a historical board game night)
:cheers:
I get the fear of cancellation, but I think that these days - in the entertainment industry at least - it's way overstated. Getting into brawls with "the woke" is a legitimate marketing strategy. Being known for "pissing off the woke police" can generate attention (and money) way beyond what those individuals or companies would otherwise have generated.
I want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I"m still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 11:39:30 AMI get the fear of cancellation, but I think that these days - in the entertainment industry at least - it's way overstated. Getting into brawls with "the woke" is a legitimate marketing strategy. Being known for "pissing off the woke police" can generate attention (and money) way beyond what those individuals or companies would otherwise have generated.
I want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I"m still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
I mean - yes and no?
There is definitely an anti-woke audience out there: Joe Rogan, or Jordan Peterson, do very well for themselves in that audience. And lets call it what it is - a culturally-right-wing audience.
But committing yourself to "that" audience does mean cutting yourself off from the lefty/progressive audience. You become a persona non grata to them.
JK Rowling has been very outspoken on trans issues. She is also a billionaire. In no way has she been "cancelled". But all the Harry Potter stars have denounced her in a very public way as well, and she isn't welcome in a lot of lefty circles. That has to hurt - even if Rowling can still cry herself to sleep on a giant pile of money.
Yeah, if you're a mass-market brand then pissing off a significant section of your target demographics is a bad move. That's why mass-market publicity stuff tends to be bland and non-controversial.
I was thinking of the thing from a couple of days ago where that Chinese gaming company got multiples of funding after they got into it with Sweet Babies (and are getting more exposure now, because we're talking about it).
There's basically little to no downside for them for this, IMO.
Any thoughts on my actual question, by the way?
Jacob, to your first point about youth being influenced by the right through online humour, seeing the experience of the children of my friends' male children after they started playing multiplayer shooter games (and I suppose other multiplayer games) the change in their attitudes was striking, and strikingly different from their parents.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 12:03:45 PMJacob, to your first point about youth being influenced by the right through online humour, seeing the experience of the children of my friends' male children after they started playing multiplayer shooter games (and I suppose other multiplayer games) the change in their attitudes was striking, and strikingly different from their parents.
Yeah, that's a big part of what I'm talking about. Kids - and young people - are mainlining this sort of stuff in environments where they're having fun and want to fit in, and it's pretty much going only in one direction. And most of it is presented as humour; maybe it's mostly to be able to use the "I'm only joking bro" excuse if you cross the line, but it's still "funny" whether or not it's actually funny. It doesn't feel serious, but it's absolutely shaping attitudes.
'
While I was talking about things like 4chan and influencer videos related to games, it's exactly the same dynamic in the social spaces of games themselves. The memes and attitudes and talking points are generated in the social media spaces and imported straight into the gaming spaces where they are largely assimilated as part of forming adolescent group identities.
That Chapelle or Seinfeld or some other has-been big star comedian took some minor career hits for saying something stupid about trans people is neither here nor there when it comes to shaping the attitudes of young people (and explaining why there's apparently a significant shift to the reactionary right). That some up and comers in the entertainment industry may self-censor to fit prevailing mores as they aim for mass market appeal is maybe a concern, but I don't think it influences young people nearly as effectively as the seemingly complete colonization of online spaces by the reactionary right does.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2024, 08:03:16 PMIt's an interesting idea. Perhaps precisely because youth are so saturated with online experience, live experience can have more impact. Certainly it seems to hold in the music business where live performance has returned to being king. By the same token, they are also likely more jaded when it comes to the "air" campaigns and more likely to see through the propaganda aspect. (?)
Yeah - I think the music comparison is interesting.
I'd add that this tension maybe goes back a bit too. Obama's was the first campaign I remember reading about microtargeting and data wizzes shaping campaigns (total aside but I wonder if the negativity around that was because it became associated with Trump and Brexit, or if we'd started to turn against big tech already); it's also for a candidate defined by oratory. It was simultaneously a campaign using what was considered cutting edge at the time, for a candidate with a generational talent for the oldest political skill in the world.
QuoteI want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I"m still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
I think, yes in the US. Ironically this could perhaps be explained by that domino effect mean from the decline of Tumblr to the rise of American fascism. (Semi-seriously - I feel like Tumblr was the left's meme industrial complex? :hmm:)
I'm not so sure in the UK. I think online meme, social media, snark generally is more left-wing (which may simply be because the Tories are in power, Brexit did happen etc). In the UK I think you'd associate right-wing memes with boomers on Facebook not teen edgelords posting sonnenrads. But an awful lot of the internet is American so if you end up in those spaces you absolutely do end up seeing a reactionary right space - the Martinus theory.
QuoteThe establishment has grown, the power of old money has shifted into the background a fair bit whilst a lot of new money has come in. But as a basic concept it is broadly still the same groups with the same attitudes.
Less care for titles and 'class', a lot more attention on money and materialism. Its far more 'vulgar' than it used to be. But the idea that the establishment is left wing is just madness.
I'm not sure.
I think the establishment is politically inert - it is the social context of power and the politics reflects the people participating in those social spaces. So I think there are different establishments at different times which have different politics.
There is also the fact that there are different sorts of conservatism. You know I think the establishment of the 1950s was "moderate" and paternalist, more aristocratic etc - it was also premised on people knowing their place and not challenging that. I think they were replaced by the grammar school kids (who were the lefty comedians of the 1950s and 60s mercilessly tearing apart the establishment) with a chip on the shoulder. I think they were the establishment of the Thatcher era, 90s, 00s - I wonder if there's an analogy here with the New York Jewish intellectuals who came up through City University (and also often ended up as shock troops of Reagan and neo-conservatism). I think in part there's an angst because the establishment as social context continues to evolve and they're replaced.
I'd also argue there is a shift with globalisation and the relative decline of UK (and Western) power in the world. Establishments used to be closed and national because that was where power is - I'm not sure that's so true in a world without capital controls. I suspect there's a global level which includes, say, all the big tech bosses as well as national ones.
I'm not sure it's right to say establishment is left-wing or right. My read at the minute would be that, in the UK at least, it is culturally and socially permissive/liberal - and I think globally that's still within broadly pro-market, economically liberal, globalised context.
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 11:39:30 AMI get the fear of cancellation, but I think that these days - in the entertainment industry at least - it's way overstated. Getting into brawls with "the woke" is a legitimate marketing strategy. Being known for "pissing off the woke police" can generate attention (and money) way beyond what those individuals or companies would otherwise have generated.
If you want to be regarded as a right-winger, sure. I know plenty of people in my life who are decidedly left wing and always had been as long as I knew them, but are also decidedly anti-woke. I don't think the anti-woke left is all that represented in the entertainment industry, and I don't think it's because they don't exist.
I am skeptical about claims made by people that that they have always been left wing, when they use phrases like "anti-woke"
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 01:10:39 PMIf you want to be regarded as a right-winger, sure. I know plenty of people in my life who are decidedly left wing and always had been as long as I knew them, but are also decidedly anti-woke. I don't think the anti-woke left is all that represented in the entertainment industry, and I don't think it's because they don't exist.
Specifically what sorts of opinions are "anti-woke"?
Well I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
Ok well if you mean identity politics fucking say identity politics. Don't give me this "woke" bullshit. I don't know what that means.
But ok so if I were to be specifically anti-Identity politics, what sorts of positions would I have? Gays should be fine not having any rights and having to live in the closet so long as Communism prevails? Something like that?
Maybe it is something like "we shouldn't divide the classes in the face of our struggle against Capitalism, so everybody should cool it until the revolution is over"?
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
And you can be MAGA or a fascist, or both, and be all about identity politics. But how does the phrase "anti-woke" help with the analysis?
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 11:57:47 AMAny thoughts on my actual question, by the way?
I mean I thought I did.
But if I have your question correct, it is:
Quote from: JacobI want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I"m still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
So look - there is a dominant social ideology in the media that for lack of a better word we can call "woke" - pro gay rights, pro-womens-rights, pro-immigration, pro-trans - you get the idea.
If you want to question any portion of that progressive ideology - in the mainstream media - you get called out on it, and called out hard. You might call it "cancel culture" even.
What you see in social media is not the "domination" of anti-woke voices - but rather that those voices exist at all. Because you aren't allowed to express them in other social settings.
Now look - I get extremely frustrated with social media. You can make very legitimate arguments - say about whether female trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the olympics as females (just to pick a topic from the news recently). This was a topic you barely saw discussed in the "mainstream media" until very recently, and the discussion was rightly driven by social media.
But then I also see horribly racist shit about how black people are just inferior to whites. Also on social media. None of which I consider remotely legitimate. All of which I see on Twitter/X on a regular basis.
But getting back to the word "dominate" - progressive voices are still very loud on social media / "meme space". The online space is where the whole idea of "cancel culture" comes from after all - huge online mobs demanding people be fired because they said the wrong thing.
So I'm going to make an assumption. You probably won't agree with it, and that's fine and you can tell me why I'm wrong. What you see as "anti-woke" voices "dominating" "online spaces" is just those voices being allowed to be expressed at all. 10-20 years ago those voices had no outlet at all outside of shitty zines.
Where I struggle is sometimes those "anti-woke" voices are important voices that should be heard - and sometimes they're the absolute worst racist / homophobe / anti-woman /anti-trans / anti-poverty pieces of shit who should rightly be driven back under the bridge where they came from. I don't know how you can make the distinction these days.
Interesting, women's rights are now a woke issue.
The Right is truly messed up.
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2024, 02:33:47 PMQuote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 11:57:47 AMAny thoughts on my actual question, by the way?
I mean I thought I did.
But if I have your question correct, it is:
Quote from: JacobI want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I"m still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
So look - there is a dominant social ideology in the media that for lack of a better word we can call "woke" - pro gay rights, pro-womens-rights, pro-immigration, pro-trans - you get the idea.
If you want to question any portion of that progressive ideology - in the mainstream media - you get called out on it, and called out hard. You might call it "cancel culture" even.
What you see in social media is not the "domination" of anti-woke voices - but rather that those voices exist at all. Because you aren't allowed to express them in other social settings.
Now look - I get extremely frustrated with social media. You can make very legitimate arguments - say about whether female trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the olympics as females (just to pick a topic from the news recently). This was a topic you barely saw discussed in the "mainstream media" until very recently, and the discussion was rightly driven by social media.
But then I also see horribly racist shit about how black people are just inferior to whites. Also on social media. None of which I consider remotely legitimate. All of which I see on Twitter/X on a regular basis.
But getting back to the word "dominate" - progressive voices are still very loud on social media / "meme space". The online space is where the whole idea of "cancel culture" comes from after all - huge online mobs demanding people be fired because they said the wrong thing.
So I'm going to make an assumption. You probably won't agree with it, and that's fine and you can tell me why I'm wrong. What you see as "anti-woke" voices "dominating" "online spaces" is just those voices being allowed to be expressed at all. 10-20 years ago those voices had no outlet at all outside of shitty zines.
Where I struggle is sometimes those "anti-woke" voices are important voices that should be heard - and sometimes they're the absolute worst racist / homophobe / anti-woman /anti-trans / anti-poverty pieces of shit who should rightly be driven back under the bridge where they came from. I don't know how you can make the distinction these days.
Keeping for posterity.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:14:45 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
And you can be MAGA or a fascist, or both, and be all about identity politics. But how does the phrase "anti-woke" help with the analysis?
It doesn't
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:39:10 PMInteresting, women's rights are now a woke issue.
The Right is truly messed up.
Anything thats different to how it was when a typical boomer was a kid is woke.
Except for things they like. Consistency isn't important.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:42:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:14:45 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
And you can be MAGA or a fascist, or both, and be all about identity politics. But how does the phrase "anti-woke" help with the analysis?
It doesn't
What doesn't?
What is White Christian Nationalism? Just a nice church picnic?
Quote from: Josquius on June 20, 2024, 02:46:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:39:10 PMInteresting, women's rights are now a woke issue.
The Right is truly messed up.
Anything thats different to how it was when a typical boomer was a kid is woke.
Except for things they like. Consistency isn't important.
Even the Boomers grew up during a time when women's rights were generally accepted to be something everyone should get behind. It was the generation before them that fought the implementation of legislation related to women's rights.
This is more about the Right wanting to turn the clock back to some mythical (for them, hellish for others) time when women knew their place was in the home and all was right with the world.
This isn't new; Andrew Dice Clay got notoriety c. 1990 with his openly misogynistic banter. He was subjected to various boycotts and "cancellations". Of course, none of that did any harm to his career. On the contrary, the controversy which he deliberately courted lifted him from obscurity to headliner status for a few years. The "cancellation" wasn't a nuclear outcome to be avoided at all costs, it was outcome sought as an engine to generate notoriety. Chapelle's tiresome "team Terf" routine is much out the same playbook. It may have lost him a booking here or there but he was well compensated by free publicity and attention it garnered. The problem is that like the old Diceman bit, which wore out fast once the novelty shock value receded, the routine is simply not funny, just mean-spirited.
Again, what causes controversies in these cases is not the odd case of a comic dropping an off-color term or an ill-advised joke in bad taste. It is a focused and deliberate play to court that controversy.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 02:05:40 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 01:10:39 PMIf you want to be regarded as a right-winger, sure. I know plenty of people in my life who are decidedly left wing and always had been as long as I knew them, but are also decidedly anti-woke. I don't think the anti-woke left is all that represented in the entertainment industry, and I don't think it's because they don't exist.
Specifically what sorts of opinions are "anti-woke"?
I asked ChatGPT to define "woke" from the point of view of a person on the left who is anti-woke, and I fully endorse what it wrote:
QuoteIf I were a person on the left but critical of what I perceived as "woke" excesses, I might define "woke" in a way that distinguishes between the foundational principles of social justice and the behaviors or approaches I find problematic. Here's how I might articulate it:
Woke: Originally a commendable call for awareness and action against social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly in areas of race, gender, and sexual orientation. However, in my view, it has sometimes evolved into a culture characterized by an overemphasis on identity and purity, leading to performative activism, intolerance of nuanced or divergent views, and a tendency to prioritize symbolic gestures over substantive change. This version of "woke" culture can sometimes manifest in ways that seem to stifle open dialogue, promote division rather than unity, and prioritize offense and victimhood in ways that detract from the pursuit of practical solutions to societal problems.
From this perspective, the critique isn't of the original intent or the underlying principles of social justice but rather of what are seen as the cultural and tactical excesses that may hinder effective advocacy and meaningful change.
What are anti-woke opinions? Being opposed to the things mentioned in this definition, as well as the general illiberalism of the movement.
So its cancel culture :mellow:
Why not just say cancel culture? Why do we need so many damn words to mean the same shit?
And are you entirely sure that anti-woke means you are pro-social justice and pro-LBGTQ and all that just against cancel culture? That is what that means? Ok then. But I don't know if I buy that.
But fuck man we had been talking about this shit or a decade before the term "woke" even existed, at least outside of African American usage. Why obfuscate with this bullshit terminology? Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 04:15:56 PMSo its cancel culture :mellow:
Why not just say cancel culture? Why do we need so many damn words to mean the same shit?
And are you entirely sure that anti-woke means you are pro-social justice and pro-LBGTQ and all that just against cancel culture? That is what that means? Ok then. But I don't know if I buy that.
But fuck man we had been talking about this shit or a decade before the term "woke" even existed, at least outside of African American usage. Why obfuscate with this bullshit terminology? Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
It's a lot more than just cancel culture. :huh: Did you read the definition?
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 04:20:12 PMIt's a lot more than just cancel culture. :huh: Did you read the definition?
I did. Seems the same to me. But whatever.
I am just very skeptical that this word has absolutely nothing to do with your positions. So being pro-trans isn't "woke"? That's what you are saying? You have to be pro-trans in the wrong way to be "woke"? Do I have that right?
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 04:23:09 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 04:20:12 PMIt's a lot more than just cancel culture. :huh: Did you read the definition?
I did. Seems the same to me. But whatever.
I am just very skeptical that this word has absolutely nothing to do with your positions. So being pro-trans isn't "woke"? That's what you are saying? You have to be pro-trans in the wrong way to be "woke"? Do I have that right?
Yes, being pro-trans isn't necessarily woke, intolerance in the name of social justice is fundamental to "wokedom". I wouldn't say that it has nothing to do with the positions, because both intolerance and social justice make up the term as it is used and understood by those using it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2024, 03:06:13 PMThis isn't new; Andrew Dice Clay got notoriety c. 1990 with his openly misogynistic banter. He was subjected to various boycotts and "cancellations". Of course, none of that did any harm to his career. On the contrary, the controversy which he deliberately courted lifted him from obscurity to headliner status for a few years. The "cancellation" wasn't a nuclear outcome to be avoided at all costs, it was outcome sought as an engine to generate notoriety. Chapelle's tiresome "team Terf" routine is much out the same playbook. It may have lost him a booking here or there but he was well compensated by free publicity and attention it garnered. The problem is that like the old Diceman bit, which wore out fast once the novelty shock value receded, the routine is simply not funny, just mean-spirited.
Again, what causes controversies in these cases is not the odd case of a comic dropping an off-color term or an ill-advised joke in bad taste. It is a focused and deliberate play to court that controversy.
So I'm old enough to remember the "Diceman" also.
So yeah - had Clay not taken that very deliberately provocative persona on he may have remained as a very obscure comedian for his entire career - which might have been short. But he also kind-of kneecapped himself because he'd never be able to truly "make it" as an actor or comedian either. Even if the Adventures of Ford Fairlaine made millions of dollars (spoiler - it didn't) he would be a permanent outsider in mainstream popular culture.
I think I have an even better example - Rush Limbaugh. Let's be clear - Rush had an extraordinarily successful career. He was never "cancelled", he made millions of dollars. Quite frankly from what I was exposed to him he was a pretty funny guy too (although he got really shrill and less funny by the time Trump came around).
In his early career Rush worked for the Kansas City Royals, and was always a sports fan. In the early 2000s he got a job on NFL broadcasts - which was hugely controversial and within a few weeks as soon as he said something even vaguely controversial he was let go. Because his controversial politics made him so problematic.
But again with Rush - if he had stayed really mainstream with his politics he perhaps would have stayed as an obscure radio DJ in Kansas City, despite his talents. He took the rocket ride of embracing right-wing politics - but forever branded him as unacceptable to a large chunk of society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:52:39 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:42:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:14:45 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
And you can be MAGA or a fascist, or both, and be all about identity politics. But how does the phrase "anti-woke" help with the analysis?
It doesn't
What doesn't?
What is White Christian Nationalism? Just a nice church picnic?
DGuller's term "anti-woke" doesn't help with the analysis.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 04:34:48 PMYes, being pro-trans isn't necessarily woke, intolerance in the name of social justice is fundamental to "wokedom". I wouldn't say that it has nothing to do with the positions, because both intolerance and social justice make up the term as it is used and understood by those using it.
Ok so it is a complete style thing. It is good to know. Being woke has absolutely zero to do with anything substantive. It just means being an asshole in the name of social justice. When Ron DeSantis said "woke ends in Florida" he just wants left wing people to be nicer. That wasn't clear to me.
I do take exception to this part if the ChatGPT
QuoteWoke: Originally a commendable call for awareness and action against social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly in areas of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
I don't know. It went right from something exclusively used in the black community to a slur by right wingers in a very short time. It only temporarily was used to make fun of white leftists who were shocked that Donald Trump won, people started saying how "white people are going woke" as in noticing how racist the United States is. And really these days you just need to spend any amount of time online to see that pretty clearly.
Kind of wild that ChatGPT isn't aware of its use in the black community since about the 1940s.
Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 05:31:36 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:52:39 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:42:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2024, 02:14:45 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 20, 2024, 02:08:21 PMWell I would think you can be a communist for example without lomong identity politics all that much.
And you can be MAGA or a fascist, or both, and be all about identity politics. But how does the phrase "anti-woke" help with the analysis?
It doesn't
What doesn't?
What is White Christian Nationalism? Just a nice church picnic?
DGuller's term "anti-woke" doesn't help with the analysis.
Got it. Thanks. I apologize.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 05:31:54 PMOk so it is a complete style thing. It is good to know. Being woke has absolutely zero to do with anything substantive.
If you're not willing to have a conversation, just say so. I made a good faith attempt, I'll come back when I see that reciprocated.
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2024, 05:31:21 PMIn his early career Rush worked for the Kansas City Royals, and was always a sports fan. In the early 2000s he got a job on NFL broadcasts - which was hugely controversial and within a few weeks as soon as he said something even vaguely controversial he was let go. Because his controversial politics made him so problematic.
Something similar happened to Keith Olbermann at Fox Sports. Politics and sports are a bad mix.
I mean he shit all over Donovan McNabb and said people only pretended he was good because they were blinded by their desire to see a black quarterback succeed and that he was vastly over-rated. In 2000, well after Doug Williams, Randall Cunningham, and Warren Moon. That strikes me as little bit more than vaguely controversial. That was not just insane from a purely sports point of view but also very needlessly racist. I mean Celtics fans are still mad from the Detroit Pistons saying something similar about Larry Bird in the late 80s.
He could have just said Donovan McNabb was over-rated. Then he would have just been wrong.
Donovan McNabb had such a weird career man. He took so much shit for no reason.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 06:25:40 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 05:31:54 PMOk so it is a complete style thing. It is good to know. Being woke has absolutely zero to do with anything substantive.
If you're not willing to have a conversation, just say so. I made a good faith attempt, I'll come back when I see that reciprocated.
I am willing to have a conversation and I have been very frustrated by your dodges and refusal to be straight. I did not interpret your responses as being in good faith because why mock me by using AI? Why not answer for yourself? I probably should have been more patient. Sorry. Maybe you just needed to sort out your ideas more.
But if woke is just a serious of bad behaviors and not a series of positions, all anti-woke means is that you don't like bad behaviors in the name of progressive causes.
I have a hard time squaring that definition with how I see it used. If I said I was anti-woke and said "say no to woke" I think people would then be surprised to discover I was in fact supportive of trans rights and thought reparations for black people was a good idea, I just want to be nice about it.
I just think it is a vague term used to generate reactionary moral panic. Even if it is what ChatGPT says it is, we already had plenty of ways to talk about those things. Nothing really new has happened since that term came into mainstream discourse in 2017. We had corporate virtue signaling and counter-productive fanaticism decades earlier.
But I already kind of saw this with the term "SJW" which at first I thought was a hilarious sarcastic way to make fun of the kind of insane leftwing fanatics you see online. But it quickly morphed into just being a slur for anybody with vaguely progressive ideas. So maybe that is just the nature of terms meant to mock a fringe part of the community. Things morph very quickly online.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 07:35:08 PMI am willing to have a conversation and I have been very frustrated by your dodges and refusal to be straight.
Really, I've been dodging and refusing to be straight? I suspect, based on your previous replies, that you got into your mind exactly what I meant by anti-woke, and then when my explanation didn't align with your belief, you just assumed that I was not straight about what I meant. I guess we're deadlocked then, how can I prove that's I'm straight about what I mean?
QuoteI did not interpret your responses as being in good faith because why mock me by using AI? Why not answer for yourself?
:wacko: I have to admit that I would never in a million years think that me citing ChatGPT would be perceived as mockery. To be honest, to me it looks like you got offended first and then searched for a reason to be, although I would've kept searching for a little longer. Being offended at ChatGPT seems bizarre.
The reason I quoted ChatGPT is because I wanted to see if it could formulate it for me so that I wouldn't have to spend time wordsmithing it myself. As it happened, ChatGPT gave something which was a very good representation of what I thought, so I just left it at that, and credited it as it wasn't something I wrote myself. I had no idea anyone could possibly feel mocked by that.
QuoteBut if woke is just a serious of bad behaviors and not a series of positions, all anti-woke means is that you don't like bad behaviors in the name of progressive causes.
It's a lot more than just "behaviors". Soviet Communists were more than just socialists who were assholes. Intolerance and authoritarianism isn't just a behavior, it's an ideology, and one I detest seeing in the political camp I considered my home. Someone who instills progressivism through illiberal means is not just a progressive with bad manners, it's someone with a very different ideology from a liberal progressive.
QuoteI have a hard time squaring that definition with how I see it used. If I said I was anti-woke and said "say no to woke" I think people would then be surprised to discover I was in fact supportive of trans rights and thought reparations for black people was a good idea, I just want to be nice about it.
You don't have to be a progressive to be anti-woke. If you're a hard right-winger, then everything that a left-winger like me detests in the wokedom is likely something that you detest as well, in addition to detesting all the things that I approve of. I'm sure plenty of really terrible people are anti-woke. Nazis hated communists, but they weren't very nice people themselves. That doesn't mean that everyone who hated communists was a Nazi, maybe communism was just so detestable that everyone who wasn't a communist didn't think highly of it.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 09:33:15 PM:wacko: I have to admit that I would never in a million years think that me citing ChatGPT would be perceived as mockery. To be honest, to me it looks like you got offended first and then searched for a reason to be, although I would've kept searching for a little longer. Being offended at ChatGPT seems bizarre.
I'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
I could put effort into articulating why, but it's probably more efficient if you ask ChatGPT.
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 10:17:48 PMI'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
You would not be interacting with ChatGPT. It would not respond to your comments. Not that different than someone posting an editorial and saying I agree with this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2024, 10:29:46 PMQuote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 10:17:48 PMI'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
You would not be interacting with ChatGPT. It would not respond to your comments. Not that different than someone posting an editorial and saying I agree with this.
That's true, I would not be interacting with ChatGPT. I would be interacting with ChatGPT generated content.
To elaborate, the interesting part of interacting with DGuller is stripped from the exchange by feeding it through ChatGPT.
I saw the ChatGPT quote as a variant of "Let me google that for you"
Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 10:17:48 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 09:33:15 PM:wacko: I have to admit that I would never in a million years think that me citing ChatGPT would be perceived as mockery. To be honest, to me it looks like you got offended first and then searched for a reason to be, although I would've kept searching for a little longer. Being offended at ChatGPT seems bizarre.
I'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
I could put effort into articulating why, but it's probably more efficient if you ask ChatGPT.
When you say that you're with Valmy, you're saying that interpreting my post as mockery is a reasonable take? With context and all?
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2024, 12:26:47 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2024, 10:29:46 PMQuote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 10:17:48 PMI'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
You would not be interacting with ChatGPT. It would not respond to your comments. Not that different than someone posting an editorial and saying I agree with this.
That's true, I would not be interacting with ChatGPT. I would be interacting with ChatGPT generated content.
To elaborate, the interesting part of interacting with DGuller is stripped from the exchange by feeding it through ChatGPT.
The interesting part of interacting with me is when I write stuff that ChatGPT could've written? Ouch, that really hurts. I thought the stuff I write that ChatGPT can't think of was the good shit. You don't find that interesting, not even a little bit? :(
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2024, 01:09:44 AMQuote from: Jacob on June 20, 2024, 10:17:48 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 20, 2024, 09:33:15 PM:wacko: I have to admit that I would never in a million years think that me citing ChatGPT would be perceived as mockery. To be honest, to me it looks like you got offended first and then searched for a reason to be, although I would've kept searching for a little longer. Being offended at ChatGPT seems bizarre.
I'm with Valmy on this. I'm completely uninterested in interacting with any ChatGPT generated content.
I could put effort into articulating why, but it's probably more efficient if you ask ChatGPT.
When you say that you're with Valmy, you're saying that interpreting my post as mockery is a reasonable take? With context and all?
It did read a bit like you couldn't be bothered to spend time replying. And that's really all we have here as a forum for chatting.
So I need to spend 15 minutes crafting something that a 1 minute prompt can give me through ChatGPT? Just to show Valmy that I care about him?
I was operating under assumption that in a discussion it's ideas expressed that count, not the effort it takes to find the words for them. The words may be ChatGPTs, but the idea being expressed coincided with the idea I wanted to express. I wouldn't have pasted it and endorsed it if it weren't. And, frankly, if ChatGPT could find the right enough words for it, then it probably wasn't that unique of an idea. Wouldn't you rather have me spend that other 14 minutes of the discussion on something that ChatGPT can't do?
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2024, 01:55:58 AMIt did read a bit like you couldn't be bothered to spend time replying. And that's really all we have here as a forum for chatting.
This. If we're not here to actually engage with each other in our own words, why are we even here?
QuoteUsing ChatGPT to write your forum replies isn't inherently rude, but it depends on how you approach it and the context of the forum. Here are some considerations:
Transparency: If you're using AI to assist with your replies, being transparent about it can be helpful. This prevents misunderstandings and ensures you're not misleading other users.
Relevance and Accuracy: Make sure the replies generated by ChatGPT are relevant and accurate. AI can sometimes produce responses that seem correct but might not be fully accurate or contextually appropriate.
Personal Touch: Forums are often valued for personal insights and experiences. Adding your own touch to AI-generated responses can make them more authentic and relatable.
Ethical Considerations: If the forum has rules against using AI-generated content, it's important to follow those guidelines.
Purpose and Use: If you're using ChatGPT to enhance your replies, provide better information, or communicate more clearly, it can be seen as a positive use of technology. However, if you're using it to spam, troll, or automate responses without regard to quality, it would be considered rude and inappropriate.
Ultimately, it comes down to how you use the tool and the norms of the community you're participating in.
Quote from: Tamas on June 21, 2024, 03:56:23 AMQuoteUsing ChatGPT to write your forum replies isn't inherently rude, but it depends on how you approach it and the context of the forum. Here are some considerations:
Transparency: If you're using AI to assist with your replies, being transparent about it can be helpful. This prevents misunderstandings and ensures you're not misleading other users.
Relevance and Accuracy: Make sure the replies generated by ChatGPT are relevant and accurate. AI can sometimes produce responses that seem correct but might not be fully accurate or contextually appropriate.
Personal Touch: Forums are often valued for personal insights and experiences. Adding your own touch to AI-generated responses can make them more authentic and relatable.
Ethical Considerations: If the forum has rules against using AI-generated content, it's important to follow those guidelines.
Purpose and Use: If you're using ChatGPT to enhance your replies, provide better information, or communicate more clearly, it can be seen as a positive use of technology. However, if you're using it to spam, troll, or automate responses without regard to quality, it would be considered rude and inappropriate.
Ultimately, it comes down to how you use the tool and the norms of the community you're participating in.
QuoteUsing ChatGPT to write forum replies can be problematic, regardless of the approach or context. Here's why:
Lack of Authenticity: Forums thrive on genuine, personal interactions. AI-generated replies can undermine the authenticity and trust that form the foundation of these communities.
Potential for Misleading Information: Despite the best efforts to ensure relevance and accuracy, AI can still produce misleading or incorrect responses, which can misinform other users.
Dilution of Personal Experience: Forums are valuable because of the personal insights and experiences shared by members. Relying on AI-generated responses can dilute this value and make the forum feel less personal.
Community Norms: Many forums have unwritten norms about the nature of contributions. Introducing AI into these interactions can disrupt the established culture and expectations.
Ethical Concerns: Even if a forum doesn't explicitly ban AI-generated content, there are ethical considerations around transparency and the intent behind using such tools.
In conclusion, while AI can be a helpful tool, its use in forums should be carefully considered to preserve the integrity and authenticity of these communities.
Quote from: Josquius on June 21, 2024, 04:03:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 21, 2024, 03:56:23 AMQuoteUsing ChatGPT to write your forum replies isn't inherently rude, but it depends on how you approach it and the context of the forum. Here are some considerations:
Transparency: If you're using AI to assist with your replies, being transparent about it can be helpful. This prevents misunderstandings and ensures you're not misleading other users.
Relevance and Accuracy: Make sure the replies generated by ChatGPT are relevant and accurate. AI can sometimes produce responses that seem correct but might not be fully accurate or contextually appropriate.
Personal Touch: Forums are often valued for personal insights and experiences. Adding your own touch to AI-generated responses can make them more authentic and relatable.
Ethical Considerations: If the forum has rules against using AI-generated content, it's important to follow those guidelines.
Purpose and Use: If you're using ChatGPT to enhance your replies, provide better information, or communicate more clearly, it can be seen as a positive use of technology. However, if you're using it to spam, troll, or automate responses without regard to quality, it would be considered rude and inappropriate.
Ultimately, it comes down to how you use the tool and the norms of the community you're participating in.
QuoteUsing ChatGPT to write forum replies can be problematic, regardless of the approach or context. Here's why:
Lack of Authenticity: Forums thrive on genuine, personal interactions. AI-generated replies can undermine the authenticity and trust that form the foundation of these communities.
Potential for Misleading Information: Despite the best efforts to ensure relevance and accuracy, AI can still produce misleading or incorrect responses, which can misinform other users.
Dilution of Personal Experience: Forums are valuable because of the personal insights and experiences shared by members. Relying on AI-generated responses can dilute this value and make the forum feel less personal.
Community Norms: Many forums have unwritten norms about the nature of contributions. Introducing AI into these interactions can disrupt the established culture and expectations.
Ethical Concerns: Even if a forum doesn't explicitly ban AI-generated content, there are ethical considerations around transparency and the intent behind using such tools.
In conclusion, while AI can be a helpful tool, its use in forums should be carefully considered to preserve the integrity and authenticity of these communities.
QuoteUsing AI-generated content to respond to other AI-generated content on forums can be problematic for several reasons:
Authenticity and Transparency: Forums thrive on authentic human interaction. Using AI responses may mislead other users about the nature of the conversation.
Quality Control: AI-generated content might not always be accurate or relevant, and having AI respond to AI could exacerbate this issue.
Community Guidelines: Many forums have specific rules about AI content, so it's important to check these guidelines to ensure compliance.
Value of Discussion: Human input brings unique perspectives, experiences, and emotions that AI cannot replicate. Over-reliance on AI can diminish the richness of forum discussions.
If you choose to use AI-generated content, it's best to clearly indicate that the content is created by an AI and to ensure it aligns with the forum's guidelines.
Listen up. Using AI to write your forum posts is straight-up lame and childish. Forums are all about real people talking to each other. If you're using an AI to write your replies, you're not being real. People want to connect with actual humans, not some soulless bot. Be genuine or don't bother.
When someone posts, they're putting in effort to share their thoughts or ask questions. If you can't be bothered to reply personally and use AI instead, it's a slap in the face. Show some respect and give a real response.
Forums are communities where people come together over shared interests. Using AI responses makes everything feel fake and kills the community vibe. Don't be the one who turns the place into a robot chatroom. It's lazy and childish. Using AI is like copying homework instead of doing it yourself. Forums are for learning and sharing ideas, not for cutting corners. Grow up and put in some effort.
When you post, you should stand by your words. AI doesn't care if it messes up, but you should. If things go south, it's on you, not the AI. Own your words and be responsible. Using AI makes you intellectually lazy. Forums are for improving your thinking and writing skills. If you let AI do the work, you're missing out on personal growth. Don't be a lazy bum.
AI has its uses, but not here. Using it for forum replies is disrespectful and ruins the community. Keep it real, be respectful, and don't be lazy. The real value of a forum is in our genuine, human interactions.
:P
I like the trice repeated guidelines.
Proposal: we feed the Israel-Hamas thread into an AI and ask it to continue the OvB-Raz-Viper-Josq "discussion" while we go on with the rest of the forum.
Quote from: Syt on June 21, 2024, 04:38:12 AMListen up. Using AI to write your forum posts is straight-up lame and childish. Forums are all about real people talking to each other. If you're using an AI to write your replies, you're not being real. People want to connect with actual humans, not some soulless bot. Be genuine or don't bother.
When someone posts, they're putting in effort to share their thoughts or ask questions. If you can't be bothered to reply personally and use AI instead, it's a slap in the face. Show some respect and give a real response.
Forums are communities where people come together over shared interests. Using AI responses makes everything feel fake and kills the community vibe. Don't be the one who turns the place into a robot chatroom. It's lazy and childish. Using AI is like copying homework instead of doing it yourself. Forums are for learning and sharing ideas, not for cutting corners. Grow up and put in some effort.
When you post, you should stand by your words. AI doesn't care if it messes up, but you should. If things go south, it's on you, not the AI. Own your words and be responsible. Using AI makes you intellectually lazy. Forums are for improving your thinking and writing skills. If you let AI do the work, you're missing out on personal growth. Don't be a lazy bum.
AI has its uses, but not here. Using it for forum replies is disrespectful and ruins the community. Keep it real, be respectful, and don't be lazy. The real value of a forum is in our genuine, human interactions.
:P
(https://www.icegif.com/wp-content/uploads/applause-icegif-2.gif)
Quote from: Tamas on June 21, 2024, 04:49:10 AMProposal: we feed the Israel-Hamas thread into an AI and ask it to continue the OvB-Raz-Viper-Josq "discussion" while we go on with the rest of the forum.
Do you want Skynet? Because that is how we get Skynet! Not even ai deserves that level of punishment and misery. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on June 21, 2024, 04:50:19 AM[snip]
I was asking for a 4chan style; I think it's way too nice for that. :P
Quote from: Syt on June 21, 2024, 04:38:12 AMListen up. Using AI to write your forum posts is straight-up lame and childish. Forums are all about real people talking to each other. If you're using an AI to write your replies, you're not being real. People want to connect with actual humans, not some soulless bot. Be genuine or don't bother.
When someone posts, they're putting in effort to share their thoughts or ask questions. If you can't be bothered to reply personally and use AI instead, it's a slap in the face. Show some respect and give a real response.
Forums are communities where people come together over shared interests. Using AI responses makes everything feel fake and kills the community vibe. Don't be the one who turns the place into a robot chatroom. It's lazy and childish. Using AI is like copying homework instead of doing it yourself. Forums are for learning and sharing ideas, not for cutting corners. Grow up and put in some effort.
When you post, you should stand by your words. AI doesn't care if it messes up, but you should. If things go south, it's on you, not the AI. Own your words and be responsible. Using AI makes you intellectually lazy. Forums are for improving your thinking and writing skills. If you let AI do the work, you're missing out on personal growth. Don't be a lazy bum.
AI has its uses, but not here. Using it for forum replies is disrespectful and ruins the community. Keep it real, be respectful, and don't be lazy. The real value of a forum is in our genuine, human interactions.
:P
QuoteYour sanctimonious tirade is not only myopic but also profoundly hypocritical. To dismiss the utilization of AI for crafting forum posts as "lame and childish" is an astonishing display of ignorance. Do you truly believe that the medium of communication nullifies the authenticity of the message? Such a stance reeks of an archaic mindset, unable to grasp the evolving nature of human interaction.
Forums are indeed about real people engaging with one another, yet your assertion that AI-generated responses are inherently "not real" is baseless. The thoughts, ideas, and questions shared on these platforms do not lose their validity or relevance simply because a modern tool assisted in their expression. The essence of a forum lies in the exchange of ideas, not in the pedantic insistence on who or what articulates them.
To insinuate that relying on AI equates to a lack of respect for others' efforts is a profound misjudgment. Respect is demonstrated through the quality of the response, the consideration given to the topic, and the value added to the discussion. Whether one uses a pen, a keyboard, or an advanced algorithm to compose a reply is utterly irrelevant. Your analogy of AI usage to "copying homework" is not only flawed but intellectually lazy itself. Unlike rote copying, AI can augment the human intellect, providing diverse perspectives and enhancing the depth of discussion.
Furthermore, your patronizing call to "grow up" and "put in some effort" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and potential of AI. It is not a crutch for the indolent but a tool for the innovative. It enables individuals to refine their thoughts, explore new ideas, and contribute meaningfully even when time or language barriers might otherwise hinder them.
To claim that AI "ruins the community" is an alarmist exaggeration. The vibrancy of a forum is not diminished by the tools used but by the attitudes of its members. Your diatribe, with its pejorative labeling and lack of nuance, does more to stifle genuine interaction and growth than the measured use of AI ever could. It is not the embrace of technology that threatens community spirit, but the rejection of progress and the imposition of narrow-minded dogma.
If you truly value "genuine, human interactions," then focus on the substance of the conversation, not the superficiality of its delivery. Embrace the evolution of discourse and recognize that authenticity is defined by the intent and thought behind the words, not by the medium used to convey them.
Actually I like this version more.
QuoteYour insipid diatribe exemplifies an egregious confluence of ignorance and sanctimony. Dismissing the utilization of AI as "lame and childish" is not merely obtuse but also profoundly hypocritical. To assert that the authenticity of discourse is vitiated by the medium of its articulation reveals a lamentable incapacity to apprehend the protean nature of human communication. Forums, indeed loci for genuine engagement, are not diminished by AI-generated responses, which, contrary to your vacuous assertion, do not lack veracity. The quintessence of discourse lies in the exchange of ideas, unimpeded by your myopic preoccupation with the methodology of their delivery.
Furthermore, your puerile analogy equating AI usage to "copying homework" is fallacious and intellectually contemptible. AI serves to augment human intellect, enriching discussions with multifaceted perspectives and profundity. Denouncing its use as disrespectful betrays a flagrant misapprehension. Your sanctimonious exhortation to "grow up" and "put in some effort" is risible, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of innovation. The true menace to community spirit is not the adoption of sophisticated tools but the narrow-minded repudiation of progress, which you epitomize. Your alarmist proclamation that AI "ruins the community" is a hyperbolic farce. Authenticity is determined by the intent and cogitation behind words, not by your antiquated and benighted perceptions of their conveyance.
Oh, how do you get AI to insult? It always moans when I try.
you're all aware that the use of chatGPT is going to end up not making a difference, or being an improvement? :ph34r:
Quote from: Josquius on June 21, 2024, 05:32:25 AMOh, how do you get AI to insult? It always moans when I try.
I entered: 'Make an angry response condemning this response with high level vocabulary' then I revised by prompting 'now shorten to two paragraphs with even more academic language'
Quote from: Josquius on June 21, 2024, 05:32:25 AMOh, how do you get AI to insult? It always moans when I try.
QuoteIn the quiet corners of a sprawling online forum dedicated to artificial intelligence enthusiasts, there lurked a user known simply as "EchoChamber88." Despite the vast resources and knowledgeable contributors populating the forum, EchoChamber88's presence was marked by a unique blend of curiosity and ineptitude.
His posts were often laden with pitiful inquiries, such as: "Oh, how do you get AI to insult? It always moans when I try." This particular query sparked a mixture of bemusement and mild irritation among the forum's regulars, who prided themselves on discussing cutting-edge AI applications, algorithms, and ethical considerations.
EchoChamber88's online persona was shrouded in a veil of anonymity, a digital mask that shielded him from the ridicule his naive questions occasionally attracted. His threads meandered from genuine attempts to understand AI's capabilities to bizarre experiments that bordered on the absurd. Some speculated that EchoChamber88 might be a novice enthusiast, eager but lacking in foundational knowledge. Others dismissed him as a troll, intentionally derailing serious discussions with his outlandish queries.
Yet, amid the eye-rolling and occasional sarcastic responses, a few forum members took a different approach. They patiently explained basic concepts, recommended beginner-friendly resources, and gently nudged EchoChamber88 toward more constructive inquiries. These interactions revealed a person behind the clumsy digital facade—an individual grappling with insecurities, eager for validation in an arena where expertise reigned supreme.
Over time, EchoChamber88's posts evolved. While his initial queries remained somewhat naive, there was a discernible effort to engage more thoughtfully. He started acknowledging his mistakes, seeking guidance with humility rather than brashness. Slowly, his presence on the forum shifted from a source of amusement to a testament of gradual improvement and resilience.
One day, amidst the routine discussions on AI's impact on society, EchoChamber88 posted a heartfelt message: "Thank you all for your patience and guidance. I'm beginning to grasp the complexities of AI, thanks to your help. It's a journey, and I'm grateful to be learning alongside such knowledgeable peers."
His transformation from a pitiful figure seeking attention through odd questions to a genuine learner navigating the depths of AI's intricacies was a testament to the forum's community spirit. EchoChamber88's journey underscored the power of patience, empathy, and constructive engagement in nurturing curiosity and fostering learning—even in the most unlikely of digital corners.
and an alternate ending:
QuoteEven when EchoChamber88 pivoted to more nuanced queries about AI's ethical dimensions or technical intricacies, the responses remained curt and dismissive. "Stick to the basics if you can't grasp the fundamentals," sneered a particularly acerbic commenter, their intolerance for EchoChamber88's unorthodox approach laid bare.
As weeks turned into months, EchoChamber88's persistent optimism waned under the weight of relentless criticism. His attempts to engage with the community's intellectual elite were met with closed ranks and an unwavering adherence to orthodoxy. The forum, once a beacon of knowledge exchange, became an echo chamber of conformity where dissenting voices like EchoChamber88's were unwelcome.
Amidst the forum's collective closed-mindedness, EchoChamber88's journey was a testament to resilience in the face of intellectual snobbery. Though isolated and often misunderstood, he persisted in his quest for understanding, finding solace in occasional private messages from like-minded individuals who appreciated his unconventional perspective. In the end, while the forum's gates remained firmly closed to EchoChamber88, his tenacity illuminated the stark contrast between intellectual rigor and the closed minds that sometimes pervade even the most esteemed digital communities.
To be fair to DG, he didn't use ChatGPT to write his response, he used it to craft a definition of "woke" that he could agree with.
That would be okay if he actually analyzed the ChatGPT response and explained how it captured his sense of the meaning. I think the reason his quote fell so flat was that he didn't do so. He simply used it like we would Webster's dictionary or something. ChatGPT lacks the authoritativeness necessary to use it in that way.
I think that the bottom line is that the word "woke" has no meaning in the sense of "woke culture," because no one argues that they are "woke" by the definition used by the right (and DGuller). "Woke" is used almost purely as a right-wing dog whistle. It's a dumb word to use in an intellectual discussion.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 21, 2024, 03:46:29 AMQuote from: garbon on June 21, 2024, 01:55:58 AMIt did read a bit like you couldn't be bothered to spend time replying. And that's really all we have here as a forum for chatting.
This. If we're not here to actually engage with each other in our own words, why are we even here?
And add to that the fact the application DGuller used generates bullshit.
I have to say, I've become a whole lot less interested in sharing my ideas here, in my words or otherwise. What happened over the last page here, that just doesn't happen in a community interested in having an exchange of ideas.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2024, 09:34:32 AMI have to say, I've become a whole lot less interested in sharing my ideas here, in my words or otherwise. What happened over the last page here, that just doesn't happen in a community interested in having an exchange of ideas.
But don't you see that you weren't actually sharing your ideas? You were simply cutting and pasting something an application generated, which is now notorious for generating false information.
But you weren't really sharing your ideas, you were playing with your new favorite toy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2024, 09:43:08 AMBut don't you see that you weren't actually sharing your ideas? You were simply cutting and pasting something an application generated, which is now notorious for generating false information.
But we do that all the time, here: cutting and pasting from other sources to support (and often even replace) our own arguments or definitions.
DG was not claiming to have written that "definition." He clearly was citing its source. You can argue against what the source says, but arguing that we should not use/cite/quote external sources because then we are not "actually sharing [our] ideas" seems to be inconsistent with meaningful discussion.
Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2024, 09:45:15 AMBut you weren't really sharing your ideas, you were playing with your new favorite toy.
I always enjoy a good strawman argument in the morning. It smells like... Languish.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2024, 09:56:06 AMQuote from: HVC on June 21, 2024, 09:45:15 AMBut you weren't really sharing your ideas, you were playing with your new favorite toy.
I always enjoy a good strawman argument in the morning. It smells like... Languish.
Glad to be of service :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2024, 09:55:02 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2024, 09:43:08 AMBut don't you see that you weren't actually sharing your ideas? You were simply cutting and pasting something an application generated, which is now notorious for generating false information.
But we do that all the time, here: cutting and pasting from other sources to support (and often even replace) our own arguments or definitions.
DG was not claiming to have written that "definition." He clearly was citing its source. You can argue against what the source says, but arguing that we should not use/cite/quote external sources because then we are not "actually sharing [our] ideas" seems to be inconsistent with meaningful discussion.
He was using an application to produce an argument. He wasn't making his own argument.
Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2024, 09:45:15 AMBut you weren't really sharing your ideas, you were playing with your new favorite toy.
ChatGPT is not a toy for me, it's a very serious tool I use to increase my capacity to focus on what matters. To be honest, I'm so normalized to it that I'm taken aback that a mere mention of it is apparently so triggering to so many people. In my workplace, most (if not all) data scientists use it extensively, and I do too. Coming up with new productive use cases for it is something that gets you respect, not scorn.
For example, I had a long conversation with it about an optimization problem I had. I asked it whether I can set up an optimization problem I was working with as quadratic programming, and if so, how would I do that. It got me 90% of the way there, and as a result I spent my time and energy making a more effective use of the optimization logic to solve a business problem, rather than figuring out the utlra-tedious details of setting up the matrices for it.
My math professor once said (paraphrased): if a calculator can do it for you, then it's not a good use of your time for you to do it. Use that time to figure out what you want to do with the calculator. I think the same philosophy applies to LLMs, and I will continue thinking it.
In my line of work, ChatGPT keeps making shit up.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2024, 10:08:56 AMIn my line of work, ChatGPT keeps making shit up.
That's why we have humans in the loop. When I pasted ChatGPT's definition of "woke", I also said that I stand behind that definition. I didn't stand behind it automatically, I stood behind it after I read over it and confirmed that we were in alignment. If I saw that it didn't give me what I needed and made shit up, then I would've concluded that maybe my concept of woke is not as unoriginal as I thought, and that I would have to do the work myself defining it, but that didn't happen.
When I asked ChatGPT to give me a skeleton code for the quadratic programming, it got a detail or two wrong as well. However, the stuff it got right got me started, and freed up my bandwidth to think about all the details. If I had to do it all myself, I wouldn't be nearly as far along, and I'd probably get a few details wrong myself. And I might not catch them, because then I wouldn't be checking someone else's details, I would be checking my own details. It's a lot harder to be the doer and the checker than being just one or the other.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2024, 09:58:54 AMHe was using an application to produce an argument. He wasn't making his own argument.
He was using an application to produce a definition. His argument was that he agreed with that definition. ChatGPT had no way to force him to agree with its definition.
It's no different than quoting a book or movie and saying that you agree with that sentiment. One can argue whether the sentiment is plausible, but one cannot argue that the poster's agreement with the sentiment is untrue.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2024, 10:59:04 AMOne can argue whether the sentiment is plausible, but one cannot argue that the poster's agreement with the sentiment is untrue.
What if you thought a poster was lying? (Not speaking of this moment but more generally)
I guess where our mockery of DG's flippant use of "AI" was unfair is that we can be pretty sure that using search engines as we know it will be a thing of the past with "AIs" slowly taking their place.
We wouldn't get offended if somebody copy-pasted an article or definition they found using Google. But we are clearly not ready for "AI".
EDIT: and that we are being grumpy, tech-averse old people in a thread about young people and their politics is funny.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2024, 10:08:11 AMTo be honest, I'm so normalized to it that I'm taken aback that a mere mention of it is apparently so triggering to so many people. In my workplace, most (if not all) data scientists use it extensively, and I do too. Coming up with new productive use cases for it is something that gets you respect, not scorn.
While I recognise why you wouldn't feel so in this moment, I think that is one of the strengths of Languish. Getting us out of the siloed thinking of our own immediate professional/social environments.
Quote from: Tamas on June 21, 2024, 11:03:47 AMI guess where our mockery of DG's flippant use of "AI" was unfair is that we can be pretty sure that using search engines as we know it will be a thing of the past with "AIs" slowly taking their place.
We wouldn't get offended if somebody copy-pasted an article or definition they found using Google. But we are clearly not ready for "AI".
EDIT: and that we are being grumpy, tech-averse old people in a thread about young people and their politics is funny.
Of course, I'm also not sure many of us react positively to being quoted dictionary definitions either. :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2024, 01:51:54 AMQuote from: Jacob on June 21, 2024, 12:26:47 AMThat's true, I would not be interacting with ChatGPT. I would be interacting with ChatGPT generated content.
To elaborate, the interesting part of interacting with DGuller is stripped from the exchange by feeding it through ChatGPT.
The interesting part of interacting with me is when I write stuff that ChatGPT could've written? Ouch, that really hurts. I thought the stuff I write that ChatGPT can't think of was the good shit. You don't find that interesting, not even a little bit? :(
Your reading here is like the exact opposite of the intended meaning.
You frequently have nuanced takes, and I very much appreciate your wit - which is very contextual, usually self-aware, and rather dry. That's what I appreciate about your posts.
Writing that originates from ChatGPT obviously lacks that. I does not express your personality, it lacks awareness of the larger context and of our interpersonal and forum-specific history, and is therefore pretty uninteresting to me.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2024, 10:08:11 AMMy math professor once said (paraphrased): if a calculator can do it for you, then it's not a good use of your time for you to do it. Use that time to figure out what you want to do with the calculator. I think the same philosophy applies to LLMs, and I will continue thinking it.
Which is fair enough, but...
... if you consider "... then it's not a good use of your time for you to do it" (and therefore I had ChatGPT do it) in relation to a conversation with someone, then you can get pretty close to suggesting "it's not a good use of my time to respond to this part of your argument" or even "it's not a good use of my time to have this conversation with you at all" (even if by accident).
It doesn't have to mean that, of course, but you're relying on your conversation partner(s) to share your (unspoken) assessment of which part of the conversation is a good use of time and which parts can be outsourced to ChatGPT.
In the specific case of your conversation with Valmy you relied on ChatGPT to provide a definition of "woke". This left Valmy with basically four options:
1) Agree that ChatGPT's definition is authoritative.
2) Agree that the definition of woke was not a critical part of the conversation, and therefore "not a good use of time" to dig into.
3) Take issue with ChatGPT's analysis and therefore start an argument with ChatGPT by proxy.
4) Get pissy about the use of ChatGPT.
None of those options are especially good, especially if one of Valmy's core issues is that the definition and application of "woke" in the current discourse is a bunch of bullshit (and that seems to me to be a part of his position).
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 07:07:14 PMDonovan McNabb had such a weird career man. He took so much shit for no reason.
He played for the Eagles. No better reason to take shit than that.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2024, 10:59:04 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2024, 09:58:54 AMHe was using an application to produce an argument. He wasn't making his own argument.
He was using an application to produce a definition. His argument was that he agreed with that definition. ChatGPT had no way to force him to agree with its definition.
It's no different than quoting a book or movie and saying that you agree with that sentiment. One can argue whether the sentiment is plausible, but one cannot argue that the poster's agreement with the sentiment is untrue.
I think there are a number of significant differences between quoting a book and what DGuller did. DGuller cannot make an author of a book generate text that agrees with his point of view. There might well be authors who have written something that is agreement with his views but DGuller had nothing to do with the creation of that material. What text that the application he used spits out is the product of what he asked it to do. It is not entirely surprising that the text he asked to be produced accorded with his own views.
I don't think this is a mere quibble. The practice of people producing self confirming text and then pointing to it is very different from quoting another work produced by a human who gave considered thought to what appears in the text.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2024, 11:01:42 AMWhat if you thought a poster was lying? (Not speaking of this moment but more generally)
Then you could argue that you believe the person is lying, but that, again, is a statement about your belief, not the veracity of the argument that are agreeing with. "You are lying" is an unprovable, unevidenceable (is that a word?) claim. "I think that you are lying" can be supported by evidence about why you believe.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2024, 12:04:32 PMYour reading here is like the exact opposite of the intended meaning.
You frequently have nuanced takes, and I very much appreciate your wit - which is very contextual, usually self-aware, and rather dry. That's what I appreciate about your posts.
Writing that originates from ChatGPT obviously lacks that. I does not express your personality, it lacks awareness of the larger context and of our interpersonal and forum-specific history, and is therefore pretty uninteresting to me.
I appreciate the kind words.
QuoteWhich is fair enough, but...
... if you consider "... then it's not a good use of your time for you to do it" (and therefore I had ChatGPT do it) in relation to a conversation with someone, then you can get pretty close to suggesting "it's not a good use of my time to respond to this part of your argument" or even "it's not a good use of my time to have this conversation with you at all" (even if by accident).
It doesn't have to mean that, of course, but you're relying on your conversation partner(s) to share your (unspoken) assessment of which part of the conversation is a good use of time and which parts can be outsourced to ChatGPT.
I guess I'm still not getting something fundamental. To me it seems like what we're evaluating is inputs and not outputs. What Valmy was looking for was the definition of "woke" that I operated under. Valmy got it. Why should it be relevant how much of my time went into producing something that would move the exchange of ideas along?
I get that when you pick out a gift for your spouse, maybe how much of your own effort went into it matters more than the value of the gift, but that's because gift-giving is a signalling kind of thing. An exchange of ideas shouldn't be a signalling thing, IMO.
QuoteIn the specific case of your conversation with Valmy you relied on ChatGPT to provide a definition of "woke". This left Valmy with basically four options:
1) Agree that ChatGPT's definition is authoritative.
2) Agree that the definition of woke was not a critical part of the conversation, and therefore "not a good use of time" to dig into.
3) Take issue with ChatGPT's analysis and therefore start an argument with ChatGPT by proxy.
4) Get pissy about the use of ChatGPT.
None of those options are especially good, especially if one of Valmy's core issues is that the definition and application of "woke" in the current discourse is a bunch of bullshit (and that seems to me to be a part of his position).
I'm also missing something here. Why would anyone consider ChatGPT's opinion authoritative? I said that I agreed with ChatGPT's take on it. How often do you endorse the authoritative opinions? I generally don't do it, it seems presumptious. "Here is Britannica's definition of X, I fully endorse it" would kind of sound off, wouldn't it?
If Valmy wanted to challenge the definition that ChatGPT came up with, I'm right here. Just like with the initial post with the definition, the ideas coming from me would be something that I think, regardless of what words are used to convey that. I think it's ideas that matter, not words.
Ideas matter for sure.
Personally I think that words also matter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2024, 12:09:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 20, 2024, 07:07:14 PMDonovan McNabb had such a weird career man. He took so much shit for no reason.
He played for the Eagles. No better reason to take shit than that.
So to pick up on a 20 year old controversy...
Limbaugh said the following:
Quote"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.
But I mean - the issue of race and quarterbacks was very much a thing. You can point to guys like Warren Moon - but look I live in Edmonton. Warren Moon couldn't get a job in the NFL. He had to come to Canada, play for the Elks (nee Eskimos) for 6 years (winning 5 championships, and 2 MVPs) before the NFL would come calling. This was all despite the NFL being a majority-black league even at that time.
(By the way - Warren Moon is still a god in this town. The Elks had a 75th anniversary dinner a few weeks ago - Moon came)
By the early 2000s that was finally, slowly, starting to shift at the pro level. You had guys like McNabb, but also Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper - but a black QB was still unusual. I think Rush was probably wrong - that on balance the NFL would prefer to market itself even in the 2000s around white QBs, not blacks, but his opinion wasn't some crazy "beyond the pale" argument. If you want a guy to give you "hot takes" don't be surprised when they're sometimes kind of spicy.
I think by the 2020s a black QB is no longer a novelty, and Patrick Mahomes has certainly shown you can win with a black QB.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2024, 12:17:36 PMQuote from: garbon on June 21, 2024, 11:01:42 AMWhat if you thought a poster was lying? (Not speaking of this moment but more generally)
Then you could argue that you believe the person is lying, but that, again, is a statement about your belief, not the veracity of the argument that are agreeing with. "You are lying" is an unprovable, unevidenceable (is that a word?) claim. "I think that you are lying" can be supported by evidence about why you believe.
This is more than just a pet peeve of mine.
Proving someone is lying (or in my job - proving perjury) is almost impossible.
It's one thing to say that someone is wrong. If someone says something that is wrong, you can show evidence to support the fact that they're wrong.
The problem with lying - is not only is someone wrong, but that they know they are wrong. And proving what someone "knows" is almost impossible absent a confession.
Sorry Beeb - got distracted by the AI strand of the conversation...
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2024, 02:33:47 PMI mean I thought I did.
But if I have your question correct, it is:
Quote from: JacobI want to reiterate that my initial point was about online spaces, about meme-culture, and social media (not about stand-up comedians) and I'm still curious if folks agree that the reactionary right has dominated that space (at least in the English speaking world)?
Yes, that's correct. That's my question.
QuoteSo look - there is a dominant social ideology in the media that for lack of a better word we can call "woke" - pro gay rights, pro-womens-rights, pro-immigration, pro-trans - you get the idea.
If you want to question any portion of that progressive ideology - in the mainstream media - you get called out on it, and called out hard. You might call it "cancel culture" even.
What you see in social media is not the "domination" of anti-woke voices - but rather that those voices exist at all. Because you aren't allowed to express them in other social settings.
So essentially you're saying they're not dominating those spaces, they merely exist in those spaces - but because it's so hard to challenge the "woke orthodoxy that rules mainstream media" (not your words, but I think that's the sentiment), then it seems like they're dominating.
QuoteNow look - I get extremely frustrated with social media. You can make very legitimate arguments - say about whether female trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the olympics as females (just to pick a topic from the news recently). This was a topic you barely saw discussed in the "mainstream media" until very recently, and the discussion was rightly driven by social media.
But then I also see horribly racist shit about how black people are just inferior to whites. Also on social media. None of which I consider remotely legitimate. All of which I see on Twitter/X on a regular basis.
But getting back to the word "dominate" - progressive voices are still very loud on social media / "meme space". The online space is where the whole idea of "cancel culture" comes from after all - huge online mobs demanding people be fired because they said the wrong thing.
So I'm going to make an assumption. You probably won't agree with it, and that's fine and you can tell me why I'm wrong. What you see as "anti-woke" voices "dominating" "online spaces" is just those voices being allowed to be expressed at all. 10-20 years ago those voices had no outlet at all outside of shitty zines.
Where I struggle is sometimes those "anti-woke" voices are important voices that should be heard - and sometimes they're the absolute worst racist / homophobe / anti-woman /anti-trans / anti-poverty pieces of shit who should rightly be driven back under the bridge where they came from. I don't know how you can make the distinction these days.
So when I say "dominate" I mean that I've seen I don't know how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of memes supporting white power, racial stereotypes, denigrating women, denigrating immigrants, denigrating trans people, hating on LGTBQetc, anti-vax, pushing misogyny, etc etc. I actively weed that stuff out, yet I still see much more of it than what I would consider the left wing equivalent.
Similarly, going about my day on youtube the recommendation slide skews significantly and much harder to the right of whatever is my baseline, and very little to the left (and the most politically charged youtube stuff I watch is analysis on the war in Ukraine). And no, that's not because I categorize average Tory talking points as "reactionary right". Again I'm talking about plainly stated and unapologetic bigotry and hard nationalist takes.
It appears to me that in terms of online video content / influencer type stuff there's way more "reactionary right wing talking points as entertainment" product than there is left wing (or centrist) equivalent.*
(*one exception to this is the Israel-Palestine conflict, where there's a massive torrent of memes and other content supporting/ denigrating both sides, from a variety of viewpoints)
Now I think you make two points:
1) That this stuff is online because it's repressed in the mainstream.
2) That there is actually not more of the reactionary right wing stuff online (in spite of it being repressed in the mainstream, presumably unlike left wing stuff), it only seems that way because of what I'm used to / my bias. By extension, the political slant of those spaces (memes, influencers, online video content) is roughly balanced.
Is that a correct summation of your point of view?
The problem I have with you, Sheilbh, is that you write at length and I usually find you make pretty decent points. So I typically don't have a lot to say to your posts, but I also don't want to ignore them when you respond to me :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 19, 2024, 07:25:03 PMAt the risk of triggering Jos especially (:ph34r:), this is perhaps also because the establishment has changed.
When Beyond The Fringe were doing irreverent satire, it was around the time that people were talking about "the establishment" as a thing. From my understanding I think it was an explanation of how, in the UK at the time, power was operated in a social as well as a political context - which became glaringly more obvious as British society became more democratic.
But the "establishment" then was bluff old Colonel Blimps, aristocratic shooting parties, out of touch pompous judges, Church of England bishops etc. That is not, I'd suggest, where power is exercised socially in Britain today - though I think there are probably some constants (civil service, barristers etc). For some groups they just no longer really hold power or influence, for others their own social make-up has changed dramatically.
I think the establishment is different now. And I think that's a little challenging for people who are broadly on the progressive side because I think their founding myth is fighting that mid-century establishment in various ways. At the kindest, I think it's a little bit generals fighting the last war.
Yeah, the nature of the establishment has changed. And perhaps that goes to dguller's and Beeb's points about how the discourse is dominated by the woke and non-woke voices are (unfairly) shut out and shut down.
It's not, I don't think, that the establishment itself is woke - but rather that the woke are adept at leveraging the mechanisms of the establishment. That is, if you're pursuing a woke agenda of some sort
your primary strategy is articulating arguments how the establishment is failing to meet its own stated or implicit sense of fairness and justice (even if hypocritical).
Conversely, if you're anti-woke, your primary strategy is to argue that establishment's stated or implicitly sense of fairness and justice is misplaced. It shouldn't apply to "those people" because they're insignificant or represent something negative for society.
Both sides like to posit themselves as political outsiders and challengers to the system, because that a source of political power; though of course both sides are enmeshed in the establishment to varying degrees.
(Note that I use the terms "woke" and "anti-woke" unironically in spite of essentially agreeing with what I think Valmy's position is that both of those terms are essentially bullshit and their very existence embodies a reactionary agenda - but they're also convenient in this context. Further signs of the continuing ascendance of the reactionary right, semantically and politically :weep: )
QuoteI think you're absolutely right this is possibly a part of it with young people.
The only thing I'd query is whether it's everywhere. It feels to me quite North American - see the insane online-ness of Ron Desantis campaign (although my understanding is that Farage is actually doing very well on TikTok). I'm not sure the extent to which it's a thing in Europe - I don't know if there's a meme side to Meloni or Le Pen, say.
Yeah, I don't know either - and I'd be very curious to understand.
... or CrazyIvan's perspective. How fertile is the Dutch/Flemish rigth wing memespace? Do they have more fun? I have no idea.
QuoteYeah I mean I think there is always a risk for the left of becoming a bit censorious and worthy. Very serious and not very funny young people policing each other's politics is not really very new. You think of Brecht's The Measures Taken or films from the sixties on exactly these types of people.
It's just it used to happen in sub-cultures and it's happening in public now.
Yeah the stereotype of the po-faced holier-than-thou leftie predates the advent of online culture by quite a bit :lol:
QuoteI know I always do this - but I wonder if in the actual politics, we're looking at the wrong place in looking at the social media/tech side of it? And if instead it's the throwback side that works?
I was thinking this looking at Farage's campaign. As I say he has an active TikTok, he tweets. But that's never really been a big part of his profile - and the striking thing about his campaign (and why he got milkshaked) is that it's quite old fashioned. He does campaign events walking round town (not quite on his soapbox but that sort of thing) and he does big (for a UK election) ticketed campaign rallies in the local theatre. Obviously he invites all the old media but actually he does politics in the real public space. Other party leaders/prominent politicians in the UK do very tightly stage-managed events - photo-ops with invited local businessmen, speeches to party activists etc. It's to reduce the risk of a mess up but is perhaps alienating - especially as what social media wants is authenticity which you get more from a real event even if it might go wrong.
Similarly I've always thought that for all the Tweets, the really extraordinary thing about Trump as a candidate was that he got TV. It was actually the analogue stuff he could really do - through a campaign based around rallies. And, again, the mainstream media would cover it a lot.
But also just thinking about Meloni and the FdI. At the age of 15 she walks into the local youth wing office of the post-fascist MSI in her working class district of Rome and joins up. But it's a world of activism and offices of youth wings of parties, and, from my understanding that's still a really big part of FdI. That they have a base of young militants is a really important part of their identity (as you'd expect from a post-fascist party) - and, for all we talk about the atomisation perhaps that belonging in a real, physical group doing stuff (with social events) is appealing?
By contrast I wonder if the mainstream parties have become so used to the "air war" and fighting campaigns that, to my eyes, still look like the Bill Clinton playbook from the 90s (which was groundbreaking in its day). It's the wrong type of old-fashioned and, maybe, to fight it you need to go back to accepting a bit of risk of an event not turning out right, putting on a show to get a physical audience in a hall (that is not just party activists), providing a youth wing where young people can do stuff etc?
I think that's definitely part of it - and typically I expect that political and social change are driven by a complex interplay of factors.
But if we take it back to the very first posts of this thread - the very significant drop in support for and acceptance of specific LGTBQ issues among young people in the Netherlands.
The reactionary right has definitely been in the ascendant in the Netherlands, so the "meatspace organizing and belonging driving belief" theory could definitely hold. But I'm not sure how we'd find out....
QuoteI've mentioned it before but I often think of Peter Mair's Ruling the Void and his suggestion that post-Cold War (in European party democracies) parties became detached from representing specific, real constituencies. Instead they tried to appeal to all, often through marketing archetypes like Soccer Moms or Mondeo Man and media strategy campaigns - and, doing so, undid the ties to their "real", physical constituency. Practically they couldn't bcause while you could, say, be a party representing the interests of workers or capital, I don't really think you can represent "everyone" in that way. There are always trade-offs and distribution questions. And it left a gap.
Yeah, if politics is about representation of "the concerns of people like me", going too broad would run the risk of losing the connection. It's not super surprising that if that sense of connection is lost, people and parties will reorganize about accessible categories of "people like me".
QuoteI'm 90% sure it's marketeers marketing themselves as scientists :lol:
Very likely :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2024, 01:11:24 PMNow I think you make two points:
1) That this stuff is online because it's repressed in the mainstream.
2) That there is actually not more of the reactionary right wing stuff online (in spite of it being repressed in the mainstream, presumably unlike left wing stuff), it only seems that way because of what I'm used to / my bias. By extension, the political slant of those spaces (memes, influencers, online video content) is roughly balanced.
Is that a correct summation of your point of view?
Pretty much - although I don't think I would say "roughly balanced" because it's impossible to tell. You can't do a survey of "all of social media" - you only see what the algorithm shows to you.
I don't know if you're like me - I'll click on crazy racist shit just to see what the crazy racists are saying - but in part that means the algorithm thinks I want to see more of that content, so I get shown more of it. Same with crazy left wing stuff. But I have no idea if one balances out the other or not.
If you see a turd in the swimming pool - it doesn't mean the pool is dominated by feces. It's just so jarring when you see it because you're used to feces-free swimming pools.
Clicking on the turd is engagement, which means you are giving it exposure and money. Stay away from the turds, it only supports it even if you never click on that particular feces ever again.
QuoteFrench women voters swing sharply to far right
France's National Rally has sought to style itself a defender of women's rights — partly by attacking its traditional bogeyman: immigration.
Europe's far-right voters have long been predominantly men, but French women are now bucking that trend ahead of a high-stakes election that could usher in France's first far-right government in recent history.
Marine Le Pen's anti-immigration National Rally is tipped to win the most votes in a two-round snap election on June 30 and July 7 that could crush the liberal centrists of President Emmanuel Macron, and women are increasingly driving her party's surging political fortunes as it seeks to position itself in the mainstream.
On EU election day this month, the National Rally came first with a stunning 31 percent of the French vote, up from 23 percent in the 2019 EU election.
The most eye-catching aspect of this swing to the far right concerned women voters, according to an election-day poll that OpinionWay carried out for the Les Echos newspaper.
In 2019, 25 percent of men and 21 percent of women voted for National Rally — in line with traditional patterns. This year, however, the poll found that 33 percent of women had voted for Le Pen's far-right party, outpacing 30 percent of men. That's a striking 12 percentage point increase from women voters over five years.
The closing of the gender gap sets the National Rally apart from anti-immigration parties in other big EU countries.
In Germany, the Alternative for Germany party received 19 percent of men's votes and 12 percent of women's votes, according to a June 9 exit poll. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy received 30.5 percent of men's votes compared to 27 percent of women's votes, according to the Demopolis Institute.
This has not gone unnoticed among France's far-right politicians. Indeed, for years the far right has sought to portray itself as a defender of women's rights, partly by conflating the issue with its political campaigns against migrants and the dangers of Islamism.
Bristling at the suggestion his party would be bad for women's rights, Jordan Bardella, the National Rally's 28-year-old leader, took to social media this week to tell women he'd be a "prime minister who guarantees the rights and freedoms of every woman and girl in France."
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-eu-elections-2024-women-vote-far-right-policy-emmanuel-macron-july-7/
Interesting development in a number of ways - especially if this represents a wider and longer lasting trend as opposed to a short flash in the pan.
I guess this reflects what some of our right leaning Euro posters have been saying for years about the Left aligning with Muslim voting groups.
It'll be interesting to see if the Right can steal "women's rights" as an issue from the Left on a long term basis - it'll also be interesting to see to what it does to the part of the Right that traditionally has favoured old fashioned gender roles. Will we see hard-right feminists at some point?
How will this play into the culture wars as they're playing out in Europe? How will it impact right wing international collaboration (especially with places where the hard right is anti-feminist)?
QuoteIt'll be interesting to see if the Right can steal "women's rights" as an issue from the Left on a long term basis - it'll also be interesting to see to what it does to the part of the Right that traditionally has favoured old fashioned gender roles. Will we see hard-right feminists at some point?
They're already a thing aren't they?
The transphobes are getting particularly insane in recent years. One of the options to vote for in my local constitency was a "party of women", which it doesn't take much scratching to find out aren't a women's rights group at all but devoted purely to transphobia as a single issue that is somehow more important than all the actual problems in the country.
QuoteInteresting development in a number of ways - especially if this represents a wider and longer lasting trend as opposed to a short flash in the pan.
I would be skeptical there.
The far right are popular because they promise pixies and unicorns in response to all the complex problems their country is facing. Man in the pub level "if the politicians just did this one simple thing everything would be fixed but they're too dumb/owned by the Islamic extremist jewish museli munching 592 gender wokerati to do that"
Actually give them power and ask them to do what they promised.... And it becomes clear just being a bigot and kicking a few minorities and foreigners does nothing to make life better for ordinary people.
A challenge in containing the far-right on issues of Islam and the transgender vs. feminist fight to define what it means to be a woman, is that neither of those topics are without their controversies, but either you acknowledge those controversies and provide fuel to the far-right fire, or you act like those controversies don't exist, and with that you fuel the far-right fire.
So you end up with situations where we (as Western societies) felt free to be openly concerned about and then fight off the negative influence of one backward religion (Christianity) but now must pretend that those influences do not exist in a religion with tenets considerably more directly involved in the running of society and pretend there's no way the growing number of people belonging to that religion may cause challenges to our societies on the long term.
Or a situation where we insist gender is a social construct, but then men proceed to tell that there's one objectively correct interpretation of that social construct and women can't get to define their own gender.
So you see, those two paragraphs above. Do I really see things like that? Yes. Do I think these are key issues worth restricting individuals' freedom over? Hell no. But I also don't think they should be swiped under the rug. And by communicating these views, I find myself sounding similar to people I truly find reprehensible, because nobody else raises these points. Even though, I suspect from the rising popularity of the far-right, me and the truly reprehensible disgusting people who run and join far-right parties, are not the only ones thinking like that.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 06:41:51 AMSo you end up with situations where we (as Western societies) felt free to be openly concerned about and then fight off the negative influence of one backward religion (Christianity) but now must pretend that those influences do not exist in a religion with tenets considerably more directly involved in the running of society and pretend there's no way the growing number of people belonging to that religion may cause challenges to our societies on the long term.
I'm not sure I understand what this sentence means.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 06:41:51 AMOr a situation where we insist gender is a social construct, but then men proceed to tell that there's one objectively correct interpretation of that social construct and women can't get to define their own gender.
Here's the way I think of it. People are free to define their gender as they like, it's just that they don't get to impose that definition on others. As a practical matter your gender affects you and perhaps a few people close to you. Society at large really shouldn't be concerned with your gender except for a couple edge cases and to make sure that people are treated fairly regardless of that definition.
Quote from: frunk on June 22, 2024, 07:14:22 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 06:41:51 AMSo you end up with situations where we (as Western societies) felt free to be openly concerned about and then fight off the negative influence of one backward religion (Christianity) but now must pretend that those influences do not exist in a religion with tenets considerably more directly involved in the running of society and pretend there's no way the growing number of people belonging to that religion may cause challenges to our societies on the long term.
I'm not sure I understand what this sentence means.
It means that if a similar religion to Islam had its practitioners in similar numbers, except from members of the majority ethnicity, there would be more open discussion around potential risks of its further spread and how that could undermine basing secular values which are foundational to our political system but are against the religion's teachings.
Quote from: frunk on June 22, 2024, 07:14:22 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 06:41:51 AMOr a situation where we insist gender is a social construct, but then men proceed to tell that there's one objectively correct interpretation of that social construct and women can't get to define their own gender.
Here's the way I think of it. People are free to define their gender as they like, it's just that they don't get to impose that definition on others. As a practical matter your gender affects you and perhaps a few people close to you. Society at large really shouldn't be concerned with your gender except for a couple edge cases and to make sure that people are treated fairly regardless of that definition.
Sure, I just feel like that should cut both ways and right now it doesn't, not in non-right wing public discourse. If female sex-ed members of the human race feel like they need safe spaces from male-sexed members of the human race (regardless of their societal gender), then male-sexed members of the human race should not be shouting the female-sexed members of the human race down saying they are intolerant.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 07:26:29 AMIt means that if a similar religion to Islam had its practitioners in similar numbers, except from members of the majority ethnicity, there would be more open discussion around potential risks of its further spread and how that could undermine basing secular values which are foundational to our political system but are against the religion's teachings.
I think it comes down to what is a threat at the moment. At least in the US there is no chance of Islam achieving any significant power, particularly compared to Christianity which for instance just recently has gotten the 10 Commandments to be required in all schools in Louisiana. If something similar to that but related to Islam showed up, sure that would have to be dealt with.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 07:26:29 AMSure, I just feel like that should cut both ways and right now it doesn't, not in non-right wing public discourse. If female sex-ed members of the human race feel like they need safe spaces from male-sexed members of the human race (regardless of their societal gender), then male-sexed members of the human race should not be shouting the female-sexed members of the human race down saying they are intolerant.
If people need safe spaces they should have them, but I would push back against that accommodation if it would require marginalizing or persecuting other people. Particularly if those people have historically been marginalized or persecuted in the past.
QuoteI think it comes down to what is a threat at the moment. At least in the US there is no chance of Islam achieving any significant power, particularly compared to Christianity which for instance just recently has gotten the 10 Commandments to be required in all schools in Louisiana. If something similar to that but related to Islam showed up, sure that would have to be dealt with.
I am definitely talking about Europe, from what I know I would also rate the Islamist risk to US as zero. From what little I know it seems to me like there has been no economics-motivated mass migration of Muslims to there (not to mention that despite what the far-righters cry about, I'd consider a lot of that migration as internal - you don't get to have an Empire and then say people from it have no business being there).
QuoteIf people need safe spaces they should have them, but I would push back against that accommodation if it would require marginalizing or persecuting other people. Particularly if those people have historically been marginalized or persecuted in the past.
Sure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.
My (possibly imperfect) understanding of the development is that the part of "we're the party of women's rights" that resonates with women voters in large numbers is the one framed as opposing Islamic social values, not the part building on trans panic.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 10:26:13 AMSure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.
The question of drawing the line is the key, as you say. Who gets to say what group is excluded because their inclusion would trigger someone else? Should a Hispanic woman, let's say, be able to demand that no black women be allowed in the shelter where she is because she has had very traumatic experiences with black women in the past? At what point do the accommodations become unreasonable? Should the decisions about the reasonableness of an accommodation (say, to exclude trans women from all Olympic sports as an accommodation for cis women) be based on politics? Traditional values? Science? Some combination?
There's no good clear answer, and lots and lots of bad clear answers. We can settle for bad clear answers or good unclear answers.
What reveals them to be utter scumbags in my book is how very absolute their hate is.
If they stuck to complaining against gender self definition and those crazies who want a situation where any guy can one day fill in a simple form then bam, he's legally a woman and can go perving in the women's changing room and nobody can do anything, then this would be fine.
As it is though they want a complete nuclear ban on anyone who didn't have the female form ticked for them at birth from ever getting treat as a woman.
This just seems really fucking insane to me. I'm sure being abused by a man will do a number on their psyche. But to then lash out as a tiny minority of women due to this? Pff.
Common sense needs to be applied. Someone who has been a woman for 30 years and has gone through a myriad of treatments to shift their sex heavily towards the modal female clearly deserves to be treat as a woman in the way some dude who throws on a dress one day and declares he's now called Sharon clearly doesn't.
I seriously have trouble even grasping what gets them so loopy over this stuff. Is their hate for men really so immense?
Where exactly to draw the line is a valid discussion. But it clearly doesn't lie with either extreme of anyone gender switching on demand or nobody ever been allowed to change no matter what.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2024, 11:53:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 22, 2024, 10:26:13 AMSure but where do you draw the line? If a group of females (using that term to make it clear I am talking about sex and not gender) do not wish to accept into their mist males (even those who have changed gender) either because of their personal or community history with males (such as shelters) or simply because they feel it introduces the kind of male domination they are looking to get away from in the first place (sports) then why would their concern be marginalised and dismissed because a sub-group of males feel marginalised by that very (call it anti- or counter-male) protective policy? I hope I am making sense.
The question of drawing the line is the key, as you say. Who gets to say what group is excluded because their inclusion would trigger someone else? Should a Hispanic woman, let's say, be able to demand that no black women be allowed in the shelter where she is because she has had very traumatic experiences with black women in the past? At what point do the accommodations become unreasonable? Should the decisions about the reasonableness of an accommodation (say, to exclude trans women from all Olympic sports as an accommodation for cis women) be based on politics? Traditional values? Science? Some combination?
There's no good clear answer, and lots and lots of bad clear answers. We can settle for bad clear answers or good unclear answers.
Very good post.
Can't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.
Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?
Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.
There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.
I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.
As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.
Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.
QuoteAre the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change
That is a depressingly good point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2024, 01:12:53 PMCan't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.
Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?
Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.
There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.
I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.
As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.
Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.
I'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences. How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2024, 02:44:32 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2024, 01:12:53 PMCan't claim the credit for this - but possibly tied to the lure of the real theory.
Are the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?
Looking at the US where there seems like real despair after the combination of the debate and the courts effectively ending the administrative state's power. Between them those three pillars seem to have been the liberal theory of change for a long time. The squishy left basically only operate through influence on that project and the hard left don't exist. It's not exactly the same but I think there are similarities in Europe.
There's an ambiguity of a movement that has a cataclysmic streak (American carnage, Europe in danger, great replacement etc), also possessing a belief that those cataclysms can be changed - and by politics.
I know it's my answer to everything but I feel like we maybe need more politics - for change to be contested politically and democratically, with a retreat from the rights-based (judicial) or regulatory (administrative) theories of progress (which have, in any event, always been a defensive crouch). What's needed is politics, above all else, in the real not the virtual world.
As grim as it is, from Syt's post the far right in the US know what they want to achieve and an idea of how to do it. I'd argue the same for Meloni, Le Pen etc. I'm not sure either liberals or the left really have either.
Edit: It's perhaps also why liberalism and the left - great historic forces of revolutionary change - have ended up mainly talking about respecting institutions and the "rule of law". Again might not identify as a small c conservative establishment, but politics that are not a million miles away from one.
I'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences. How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?
Yeah, especially since he characterized defence of liberal democratic institutions as a conservative position.
It would be better if he described what he has in mind.
I think I get that part of his argument.
The right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.
Whereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.
I listened to this interview the other day which was interesting.
https://youtu.be/TADeOmCVo_s?si=SElOxyBRTdEhycq
With the former chief political commentator of the telegraph. Very much an old school tory. I am reading those vibes there. The new tories being very anti conservative.
Though this is just one man. Many of the traditional establishment are only too keen to jump on board if it means winning.
(also more typically in novara medias wheel house I found their China mieville interview interesting. He really said a lot of stuff that vibed with my thoughts on identity pol and minority rights)
I don't think the issue is that only the far right are offering something. Rather the issue is that they thrive on nihilism and despair. Things going wrong and blowing up brings voters their way scrabbling to grab the biggest share of the pie.
The very belief that there can even be more pie just doesn't factor into many people's thinking.
It's easy to see why people would support this bollocks if you assume a mindset where the world can never be a better place and the name of the game is getting the biggest share for yourself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2024, 01:12:53 PMAre the far-right the only group in politics with a sense of confidence and self-assurance - and, in a way, a theory of change?
I don't think the far right has confidence and self assurance in their ideas. I think they have self righteousness at being wronged.
The center left has the confidence of being right in their ideas, but understand their ideas are about incremental change, which doesn't make many voters cream their pants.
The far left have immense confidence in their ideas and are furious that the rest of the world doesn't adopt them.
Quote from: Zanza on June 30, 2024, 02:12:28 AMI think I get that part of his argument.
The right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.
Whereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.
Yes this was my reading as well and I tend to agree. For one thing it aligns with the complete destruction of the old school conservative parties on the right. They have either sunk or became far right cesspools.
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2024, 02:44:32 PMI'd feel more confident in replying to this if I understood what "politics" means in the two bolded sentences. How can you have more politics than the 100% politics I see now?
I think now is a very depoliticised time. People have been depoliticised, many issues have and even politics is reduced to "there is literally no alternative"/"what else are you going to do" v some iteration of fascism. I think the contrast of Le Pen v Chirac and now is a real example of that.
I'd argue we need a return to politics - of alternate visions of society, competing electorally with activists organising behind them in order to implement them legislatively. That for us who are on the side of democracy, we need to have that as our theory of change and have faith in democracy and being able to absolutely take on the far right politically. Not a rights based or administrative theory of fighting through the courts or the executive/civil service.
QuoteYeah, especially since he characterized defence of liberal democratic institutions as a conservative position.
That's not quite what I said. Although I don't think conservatism is necessarily a bad thing.
QuoteThe right part of the political spectrum in many countries advocates for radical change (towards authoritarianism or libertarianism or something else outside the current mainstream). They are not conservative in the sense of moderation, traditions or keeping the current order.
And the opposite. Liberalism and socialism have been great revolutionary historic forces driven by a vision of a different society. What is the difference they're seeking now? It may be they're just exhausted and something new will come - it could be that, say, climate becomes the new divide as the salience of liberalism and social democracy fades (in part because they achieved a lot of their goals).
Conservatism (and reactionary politics) are always salient because they basically range from "careful now" to "not this" :lol:
QuoteWhereas the current liberal (or in Europe social democratic) parties want to preserve the institutional status quo. That makes these parties conservative as they are more moderate, tied to the current order and keeping with (recent) constitutional tradition.
I'd go slightly further - if Trump and Le Pen win, and, as in Italy or Hungary they turn the institutions for their own purpose, then the foundation of a lot of their opponents will be undermined. Relying on the Interior Ministry and the courts to save you will be a mistake when they crack out the castor oil. (And you'll have no basis for changing your view except that now they're politicised, which just proves the far right's point.)
Or the problem would be solved if only the media described things as "lies" or used the correct language - as if it's just a problem of discourse. It's inane.
This is one of the things I find a little confounding with the US in particular. The Democrats argue (I think rightly) that democracy is at risk with Trump - are they behaving like a party that believes that? It feels very BAU to me. Similarly the left generally don't seem to be organising, they're posting. The contrast with previous far-right threats seems striking.
Yi: those feel like types, not a description those forces as they are today.
... and some youths are interested in nothing much. According to Fortune, anyways. Though they do point out that there might be issues with the work market if people drop out over lack of perspective, which seemed surprising for Fortune. :P
https://fortune.com/2024/06/21/gen-z-neets-not-in-employment-education-or-training/
QuoteGen Z are increasingly becoming NEETs by choice—not in employment, education, or training
Just like Peter Pan, there's a growing cohort of Gen Zers who are refusing to grow up and embrace life's major milestones to adulthood, like getting some form of qualification or joining the world of work.
Instead, they're opting to become NEETs—which stands for "not in employment, education, or training"—and creating record levels of youth unemployment around the world.
According to the International Labour Organization, about a fifth of people between ages 15 and 24 worldwide in 2023 are currently NEETs.
In Spain alone, over half-a-million 15- to 24-year-olds are neither studying nor working. Meanwhile in the U.K., almost 3 million Gen Zers are now classed as economically inactive—with 384,000 youngsters joining the "workless" class since the COVID pandemic.
The studies don't delve into what's inspiring young people to ditch the rat race and opt for a life under their parent's roof or on public subsidies, but separate research highlights that even if they did start climbing the corporate ladder, buying a home of their own still feels like an impossible task.
Adulthood milestones are seemingly out of reach anyway
Reams of research shows that those in their early twenties are earning less, have more debt, and see higher delinquency rates than millennials did at their age.
Credit reporting agency TransUnion found that twentysomethings today are taking home around $45,500, while millennials at their age were earning $51,852 when adjusted for inflation.
Despite earning less, young people today are being forced to dig deep for basic necessities like food, groceries, and gas, thanks to inflation. Meanwhile, house prices have increased more than twice as fast as income has since the turn of the millennium.
This divergence goes a long way in explaining why young people may feel like saving—or even working—toward the future is futile.
As one Gen Zer noted in Fortune: "I'm just focusing on the present because the future is depressing."
Hustling is so last season
Hustling, girlbossing, or "work hard, play harder" just doesn't quite have the same grip on Gen Z as it did on millennials starting out.
Many young people today would rather protect their well-being than compete their way up the corporate ladder only to not be able to afford the McMansion their parents bought for a fraction of the price.
Even those who do want to work don't want a career. Instead, many Gen Zers are eyeing up easygoing jobs that don't require regular overtime, antisocial working hours, or substantial responsibilities like managing a large team.
Others are avoiding office jobs: The hottest roles right now among Gen Z grads are in teaching, where low pay is balanced with weeks of vacation. Meanwhile, non-grad Gen Zers are picking up tools and taking up trade jobs in record numbers.
Mental health struggles
At the same time as unemployment among the youth is rising, their mental health is in decline.
Gen Z are nearly twice as stressed out as millennials were at their age. More than a third of 18- to 24-year-olds are suffering from a "common mental disorder" (CMD) like stress, anxiety, or depression. And Gen Zers who are working are taking significantly more sick leave than Gen Xers 20 years their senior.
"Youth worklessness due to ill health is a real and growing trend; it is worrying that young people in their early twenties, just embarking on their adult life, are more likely to be out of work due to ill health than those in their early forties," researchers at the think tank Resolution Foundation (RF) previously told Fortune.
Really, is it any surprise that those mentally struggling would avoid joining the world of work when more than half of CEOs even admit that their company's culture is toxic?
It would seem there would be a big potential amongst the young for radical political views, anything to break up the status quo that offers them so little. But I feel a lot of them are just completely disengaging because, "What's the point?" Especially with societies growing ever older, and the old voters outnumbering the young ones easily.
That UK stay is a bit dodgy - "economically inactive" means not in or looking for work basically. But it includes students and early retirees.
So I suspect gap of 3 million economically inactive and the 350-400k in the "workless class" is that the other 2.5 million plus Gen Zers are in some form of education.
You could write a story about the most educated generation in British history, or lazy youths I suppose :lol:
Edit: And FWIW that's exactly what the British press did on those stats. The Mail covered the lazy youth angle and the Guardian educated youth.
Fairly grim anonymous article from a teacher about boys. Feels bad that loads of kids seem to be equating entrepreurism and business with scams and crypto (also - tied to politics the one thing those and the far-right have in common: zero faith in institutions).
A teacher friend of mine said they'd discussed banning phones during the school day (admittedly at an all-girls school) and the reaction was "feral". His experience was very much that it was people with a serious addiction:
Quote'Little bitch': the shocking reality of teaching teenage boys
I've taught for 20 years but the level of rude disregard for female staff is unprecedented — and phones and TikTok are to blame
Anonymous
Wednesday August 14 2024, 12.01am, The Times
'What am I meant to do, go and say sorry like a little bitch?" said the 15-year-old boy sitting beside me in a quiet room halfway through the school day. He had refused to apologise to his classroom teacher for his disruption of her lesson. It had been insidious, low-level nuisance stuff: he'd been swinging on his chair, answering back and wouldn't stop talking.
I'm a senior pastoral leader within a comprehensive school in southwest England, so students are often sent my way when there's a stalemate. What was depressingly clear was that this child's refusal to apologise was connected to the fact that his teacher was a woman, and saying sorry would mean that he, a male, would lose face.
I can't overstate the influence of social media influencers in school. TikTok is the worst offender. The nuance of what they're watching is repeated in the classroom. Phrases and memes "trend": it's cries of alpha (dominant), beta (weak), sigma (cool); it's shouting "pussy" in the corridor.
What may surprise you is that the school I work in is highly regarded and serves an affluent community. These are the children of doctors and professionals. Yet there is a huge disconnect between what the parents believe their kids are watching and their actual online lives.
We're meant to be a phone-free school, which should mean that students do not access their phones during the day; phones are in bags and they're not allowed to get them out. But the reality is that they go to the toilets to be on their phones or are quietly messaging under the table while more oblivious teachers are otherwise engaged.
We've got staff who have been at the school for decades and they are shocked by this new defiance, which they're ill-equipped to deal with. We have record numbers of teachers leaving, fatigued by the levels of disruption to their lessons from repeat offenders. I started teaching 20 years ago and I've never seen this level of boisterous uninterest in what female staff have to say.
Recently, I reminded one boy in a larger group of boys to put his tie on at the beginning of the school day. He went to do this immediately, but as he did so, his friend called him "beta" for listening to me, a member of staff with not insignificant authority but a woman nonetheless. When I challenged the second boy on this attitude, his response was one of arrogance, chest puffed and eyes darting about as I spoke to him as he tried to gauge the impact his defiance was having on his peers.
I felt that perhaps, when taken away and spoken to in a quieter moment, he could see reason and half-engaged with my explanation of why this was wrong. But what a difficult line to walk, when I know that he spends up to six hours a day watching shorts of angry men explaining why we shouldn't listen to women, and I am the woman who is reinforcing everything they say by telling the pupil he is wrong.
This is not just typical teen behaviour: boys playing football will step in line quickly when reminded not to tackle hard, the boys in the dining hall will apologise when they are reminded not to raise their voices to unreasonable levels. Instead, this is a sub-group across each of our year groups, performing behaviours that are all the more alarming because of the ways they mirror each other. Video footage of the recent riots across the UK — in which boys as young as 12 were involved — were all the more depressing because they looked so familiar to me: groups of boys egging each other on in damaging ways.
I had a lesson recently where Andrew Tate was mentioned by a boy who remarked on all the cars and money he seemed to have as a reason that he was someone to emulate. One of the girls tried to cut in and say, "But you do understand that he's a bad person?" And the boy said, "Well, you can't say that; he's doing pretty well for himself." At this point I added, "He's also someone awaiting trial for sexual offences. And I think we're going to shut this conversation down." Wealth equals good in class, with little regard for how it is achieved.
In discussions with these specific boys I ask them about their aspirations. Many of them articulate that they want to be "rich and have nice cars" by being entrepreneurs. When I dig into this, they seem to believe that an MLM scheme (multi-level marketing, otherwise known as pyramid selling), drop-shipping or gaming will make this a reality for them. I have quite a few students who say they're trading already. Cryptocurrency, I believe. They simply say they're trading and are as young as 14. The value and necessary endeavour of hard work seems to be lost on these boys. And as for the counterpart girls to this set of boys, their aspiration is simply to have wealthy husbands.
It's not all bad. As kids mature through their GCSE years, many start to engage with a wider range of voices, as students always do. And some do come out the other side as balanced individuals. Most will go to university and are expected to get good grades on A-level results day tomorrow. Inevitably, though, there are students we lose, students whose views cannot be changed.
For most schools, mine included, the problem year group at the moment are the students who are going to be in Year 11 next month. They're the students who never transitioned properly, having started secondary school in bubbles during strict post-lockdown conditions, so never had that sense of pecking order going into a whole new school environment. They weren't socialised in their communities, nor were they policed by adults other than their parents, which young people need. They spent the most time online at a point when it probably had the most impact on them as developing young people.
Now the problem is that most of us adults are two steps behind and not equipped to understand the speed at which TikTok videos trend. By the time we've gleaned what one phrase means, it has been deemed no longer "cool" by Year 8 and we're locked out of the conversation.
"Miss, do you think I am a sigma?" one child asked me recently, to much sniggering from his peers. Sigma, as I didn't know at the time, meant popular but also silently rebellious. In those lags of understanding between students and staff, ideas become deeply rooted, rabbit holes are explored and significant damage is done, for we cannot establish informed discussion.
What I can tell you, from the coalface, is that for young men to succeed through school and beyond they need to believe they can do well, feel a deep sense of belonging within their classrooms and, most crucially, feel respected by the staff in front of them. Too many male students I've spoken to have articulated that the thing that most bothers them about learning is the sense that their teacher does not like them.
The writer has chosen to remain anonymous
And on belonging I've mentioned it before but I think that is the biggest thing gangs, radical ideology or con artists (like the crypto guys) offer.
Edit: Incidentally on this I did enjoy that the Telegraph can still wheel out some bracingly, blustery old colonel in the shires style of reactionary.
Saw a clip of a columnist on GB News recently who said that he thinks social media companies should be treated like publishers or broadcasters (I sympathise). So they are responsible for what's distributed on their platform.
GB Host, exploding: "but that would shut Twitter down!"
Telegraph: "Yeah, that's my point."
GB: "That's just destroying conversation online!"
Telegraph: "So? We can talk in person" :lol:
They're finally starting to talk about making school phone free.
I hope they don't talk too long.
That said: the school my oldest goes to has a no phone policy, but it's an exception among schools AFAIK.
As for social media... I wonder if it shouldn't be classified as a drug
Shutting Twitter down would save conversation online, Twitter is what destroyed it in the first place.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 14, 2024, 05:31:22 PMThey're finally starting to talk about making school phone free.
I hope they don't talk too long.
That said: the school my oldest goes to has a no phone policy, but it's an exception among schools AFAIK.
As for social media... I wonder if it shouldn't be classified as a drug
It is becoming policy in this province . All the political parties support phone bans in school.
I think that is DofE policy - the practice is challenging. There are proposals and a campaign for basically banning smartphones for under-16s. Not sure but I can certainly see the argument.
I perhaps don't appreciate enough that my academic institution has military disciplinary standards. ;)
I remember back when I was in school, long before smart phones, phones were basically banned.
you couldn't use them at break time, using them during class would be like standing up and shouting "fuck sticks" .
I wonder when things changed.
But overall aye. Big problems for young boys these days. I wonder if this is an English speaking world thing or they're seeing it abroad too? I hope/guess it's nowhere near as bad.
As to twitter and destroying conversation - strikes me this is something an academic should have looked into. Anyone heard of any research into the correlation between the rise in social media and decline in old school forums? I wonder when the key tipping points were.
A fair few years after Facebook dropped it's awesome uni link closed network system I'd guess.
What's the main problem with having phones in school? People just looking at their phones during breaks? Online bullying?
lol, during breaks.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 04:31:17 AMlol, during breaks.
Why would anyone allow phones to be turned on in class?
Students, whether kids or young adults, engage in all sorts of behavior that aren't allowed in the classroom. Being distracted by stuff, writing notes to your comrades, looking out window are time-honored classroom traditions. What's new is that you do all these things on a small device can easily be concealed from a professors view, is so widespread as to interrupt teaching (at least in high school), and for which previous attempts to ban said device, therefore requiring phones to be left, say, on a teacher's desk or simply out of school, has been ferociously fought by parents.
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2024, 04:53:12 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 04:31:17 AMlol, during breaks.
Why would anyone allow phones to be turned on in class?
How old are you? This sounds like a question of somebody who never was a student or has dementia or something. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2024, 05:13:26 PM<snip>
I'll be damned. A teacher finding the students disrespectful and ungovernable, engrossed in a new cultural phenomenon to the point of self-ruin.
I now have seen everything.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 05:31:20 AMQuote from: The Brain on August 15, 2024, 04:53:12 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 04:31:17 AMlol, during breaks.
Why would anyone allow phones to be turned on in class?
How old are you? This sounds like a question of somebody who never was a student or has dementia or something. :D
It's a rhetorical question. I know that many schools do this. Back in my day there existed popular handheld eletronic entertainment devices, and using them in class was never allowed as it would disrupt learning. Many schools today seem to be unwilling to establish and uphold classroom discipline.
Yes, it would be nice if the school enforced discipline that students would be unable to follow, and which parents would be opposed to.
At this point, it is a problem that goes well beyond the walls of schools.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 05:48:01 AMYes, it would be nice if the school enforced discipline that students would be unable to follow, and which parents would be opposed to.
At this point, it is a problem that goes well beyond the walls of schools.
If they are unable to follow it, then what good will a ban do?
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 05:33:07 AMI'll be damned. A teacher finding the students disrespectful and ungovernable, engrossed in a new cultural phenomenon to the point of self-ruin.
I now have seen everything.
Fair - and fortunately because there are no other indications of misogyny among young men or issues with smartphones/screen-addiction, I'm sure it's all fine :P
There are many possible ways to discipline usage. In my students' experience (i.e., students who train to become teachers), classroom bans are ineffectual unless phones are physically removed from kids before the class starts. But then parents complain (some of whom are in fact, texting their own kids throughout the day). And kids also surrender a spare phone while keeping their actual one. School wide bans could perhaps yield results, but its main virtue, at this point, is to foster a larger political conversation throughout society at large.
In college, I usually (still) can manage with a simple reminder to put phones away. But honestly, until a few years ago, I didn't expect to have to police such behavior for 20-something students. I expect it will only become worse.
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2024, 05:51:42 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 05:48:01 AMYes, it would be nice if the school enforced discipline that students would be unable to follow, and which parents would be opposed to.
At this point, it is a problem that goes well beyond the walls of schools.
If they are unable to follow it, then what good will a ban do?
Beware of the Nirvana Fallacy.
If a ban is less than 100% succesful it can still serve a purpose.
It could for instance give schools a kick that this is something they absolutely should be doing, and spread the message of how damaging phones are.
Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2024, 05:51:42 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 05:48:01 AMYes, it would be nice if the school enforced discipline that students would be unable to follow, and which parents would be opposed to.
At this point, it is a problem that goes well beyond the walls of schools.
If they are unable to follow it, then what good will a ban do?
If you are allowed to have the phone on you but are not allowed to use it during class that's much harder to enforce than if having a phone at all means they can take it from you.
I do not subscribe to this end of the world panic over social media because I feel like you could replace "social media" and "tik tok" with "rock and roll" and pretend the articles were written in the 60s, but I still think its a good idea to ban phones in schools.
Quote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 01:57:08 AMI remember back when I was in school, long before smart phones, phones were basically banned.
you couldn't use them at break time, using them during class would be like standing up and shouting "fuck sticks" .
I wonder when things changed.
But overall aye. Big problems for young boys these days. I wonder if this is an English speaking world thing or they're seeing it abroad too? I hope/guess it's nowhere near as bad.
As to twitter and destroying conversation - strikes me this is something an academic should have looked into. Anyone heard of any research into the correlation between the rise in social media and decline in old school forums? I wonder when the key tipping points were.
A fair few years after Facebook dropped it's awesome uni link closed network system I'd guess.
There is an excellent book on the topic, and yes it is indeed a topic of study. We have discussed the findings of the research over the years here. Decline in concentration, decline in reading comprehension, decline in the ability ti read longer text, the list goes on and on.
The book if you are interested
https://www.amazon.ca/Reader-Come-Home-Reading-Digital/dp/0062388770/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=aLMCx&content-id=amzn1.sym.292e2174-5767-4018-85e7-6b1a9086d346&pf_rd_p=292e2174-5767-4018-85e7-6b1a9086d346&pf_rd_r=133-8607851-0059915&pd_rd_wg=2IOsL&pd_rd_r=fddc9b42-7c9a-4756-94a8-1466bee7de9e&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk
Rock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 06:49:21 AMRock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
Fair.
I think The Brain is onto something, in his usual indirect way. The issue seems to be that school discipline has been gradually eroded, probably due to greater and greater reluctance of society to delegate enough power to teachers to allow them to enforce the rules.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2024, 07:11:58 AMI think The Brain is onto something, in his usual indirect way. The issue seems to be that school discipline has been gradually eroded, probably due to greater and greater reluctance of society to delegate enough power to teachers to allow them to enforce the rules.
When I was in elementary school and things escalated the one male teacher was called in to slap students around. I do not wish for that world to return.
The phone ban IS installing more strict discipline and giving teachers the power to enforce it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 06:49:21 AMRock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
The point I will disagree with is I think we do have to start to panic. Those behaviours are creeping finding there way into the workplace. People looking at their phones during meetings because they got an alert, as an example. People being unable to read/comprehend emails of more than a few paragraphs, etc.
One example illustrate. A client got very upset that I had not told them that a particular thing might happen. I explained that it was set out in a fourth concluding paragraph of the email he was upset about.
Not only had I warned him about the potential consequences, I had advised him not to do the thing because of those potential consequences.
He apologized and admitted he had only scanned the email.
That is, I think, the most damaging thing that is occurring. Social media is training our brains to just scan information, not to carefully consider.
I am noticing a stark contrast now in my work between people who are still readers. Meaning the still read books. And those who spend there days scanning social media.
The implications are significant. Our politics are now largely informed by social media. Few few now read actual newspapers. The resources of newspapers have in turn diminished. As a result there is now much less in depth reporting. And even when there is, how many people are actually reading those lengthy articles?
As I have said now a number of times, Orwell got a lot things right, but what he got wrong is the state did not need to dumb down language and the ability to understand complex thought. We did that to ourselves.
And as I write this, I am fully aware that there are some here that will consider this to be a too long to read.
CC that absent-minded approach to thins is NOT a generational thing, come on.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 07:14:06 AMQuote from: DGuller on August 15, 2024, 07:11:58 AMI think The Brain is onto something, in his usual indirect way. The issue seems to be that school discipline has been gradually eroded, probably due to greater and greater reluctance of society to delegate enough power to teachers to allow them to enforce the rules.
When I was in elementary school and things escalated the one male teacher was called in to slap students around. I do not wish for that world to return.
The phone ban IS installing more strict discipline and giving teachers the power to enforce it.
Obviously it's not an easy compromise to find. Not all teachers are saints driven only to spread their love and inspire the children to greatness in life, quite a few are pathetic losers on a power trip. I'm sure we've all had quite a few of those. That said, my impression is that the balance of power has shifted so far away from teachers and towards parents that it makes effective education very difficult.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 07:18:26 AMCC that absent-minded approach to thins is NOT a generational thing, come on.
I did not say anything about an absent minded approach, nor did I say anything about the impact of social media affecting only one generation.
The thing that is generational though is the impact smart phones are having on education. We are just starting to see the impact of that. It will probably take another decade to fully understand the impact.
Quote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 01:57:08 AMBut overall aye. Big problems for young boys these days. I wonder if this is an English speaking world thing or they're seeing it abroad too? I hope/guess it's nowhere near as bad.
For Quebec francophone system it is different mainly that first the children need to learn English enough for the Anglo sphere class war to reach them. There's of course a francophone one but it has different points of emphasis.
I also think since Quebec's system finishes high school so young and sends the teens to a new school system that doesn't cuddle them anymore might have an effect too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2024, 06:46:13 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 01:57:08 AMI remember back when I was in school, long before smart phones, phones were basically banned.
you couldn't use them at break time, using them during class would be like standing up and shouting "fuck sticks" .
I wonder when things changed.
But overall aye. Big problems for young boys these days. I wonder if this is an English speaking world thing or they're seeing it abroad too? I hope/guess it's nowhere near as bad.
As to twitter and destroying conversation - strikes me this is something an academic should have looked into. Anyone heard of any research into the correlation between the rise in social media and decline in old school forums? I wonder when the key tipping points were.
A fair few years after Facebook dropped it's awesome uni link closed network system I'd guess.
There is an excellent book on the topic, and yes it is indeed a topic of study. We have discussed the findings of the research over the years here. Decline in concentration, decline in reading comprehension, decline in the ability ti read longer text, the list goes on and on.
The book if you are interested
https://www.amazon.ca/Reader-Come-Home-Reading-Digital/dp/0062388770/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=aLMCx&content-id=amzn1.sym.292e2174-5767-4018-85e7-6b1a9086d346&pf_rd_p=292e2174-5767-4018-85e7-6b1a9086d346&pf_rd_r=133-8607851-0059915&pd_rd_wg=2IOsL&pd_rd_r=fddc9b42-7c9a-4756-94a8-1466bee7de9e&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk
Thanks.
I shall add it to the gargantuan list of things I need to read.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 06:49:21 AMRock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
In 10-15 years' time, people will wonder why our generation let social media loose on kids.
From using Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, all I see is vitriol and rough comparison between "friends". As a young adult, you don't need that. You need some affirmation that you're worth something. And social media, in my opinion, does the opposite.
I am not sure if Johann Hari is the best of sources, but I found both "Stolen Focus" and "Lost Connections" somewhat enlightening, not just because of the writing, but because he was open about his sources.
"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Zuboff is also worth a read.
After the massacre on July 22nd 2011 in Norway, young people have been at best reluctant to join youth movements, left, centre or right. And that is just sad. They don't really vote, it is us, the Gen X and the boomers who vote. They protest. At times. Young males vote almost exclusively rightist parties.
Now, it is time for that cigarette break, I think.
Quote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 08:11:03 AMThanks.
I shall add it to the gargantuan list of things I need to read.
:D
Quote from: Norgy on August 15, 2024, 08:50:07 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 06:49:21 AMRock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
In 10-15 years' time, people will wonder why our generation let social media loose on kids.
From using Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, all I see is vitriol and rough comparison between "friends". As a young adult, you don't need that. You need some affirmation that you're worth something. And social media, in my opinion, does the opposite.
I am not sure if Johann Hari is the best of sources, but I found both "Stolen Focus" and "Lost Connections" somewhat enlightening, not just because of the writing, but because he was open about his sources.
"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Zuboff is also worth a read.
After the massacre on July 22nd 2011 in Norway, young people have been at best reluctant to join youth movements, left, centre or right. And that is just sad. They don't really vote, it is us, the Gen X and the boomers who vote. They protest. At times. Young males vote almost exclusively rightist parties.
Now, it is time for that cigarette break, I think.
One point of disagreement. We are now wondering why we did it. 10-15 years from now it will hopefully be viewed as being as stupid as providing a space on school grounds for students to smoke.
Quote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 08:11:03 AMThanks.
I shall add it to the gargantuan list of things I need to read.
Suggestion: If we all share our gargantuan lists of things we need to read, it will become super-gargantuan. :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2024, 08:56:23 AMOne point of disagreement. We are now wondering why we did it. 10-15 years from now it will hopefully be viewed as being as stupid as providing a space on school grounds for students to smoke.
Can't smoke at schools or in public places here anymore. In Sweden, I think they'll actually shoot you dead if you think of a cigarette near the entrance of a public building. Which, I suppose, saves one the bother of the lung cancer.
Quote from: Norgy on August 15, 2024, 09:00:24 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2024, 08:56:23 AMOne point of disagreement. We are now wondering why we did it. 10-15 years from now it will hopefully be viewed as being as stupid as providing a space on school grounds for students to smoke.
Can't smoke at schools or in public places here anymore. In Sweden, I think they'll actually shoot you dead if you think of a cigarette near the entrance of a public building. Which, I suppose, saves one the bother of the lung cancer.
Yes, that is what I mean. When I was in high school there was a designated "smoke hole" for students to go have a smoke. As you say, people now would recoil in horror at the thought. Hopefully the same happens with social media.
Sorry, then I misread your post. :hug:
The solution we have developed at my school is to allow phones but to require students to turn them in as they enter each classroom. We use these shoe organizers (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/718pIJ8gzkL._AC_SL1500_.jpg) in every classroom so that we can ensure that we have the same number of phones turned in as there are students. Students could bring burner phones so as to sneak their primary phone into class, but the penalty for getting caught using your phone in class is to have it confiscated until a parental unit comes to school to collect it from the dean. Very few students will risk this, not only for the embarrassment of having the PU called, but also because the PU will likely be in no hurry to take the time to come to school.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 07:18:26 AMCC that absent-minded approach to thins is NOT a generational thing, come on.
Older people are also using phones and social media, so it wouldn't be surprising if they are seeing the same drop in ability to concentrate and comprehend.
I have problems with concentration and attention these days, and I'm an adult.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2024, 10:45:41 AMI have problems with concentration and attention these days, and I'm an adult.
I always had a problem with concentration and attention. I feel like the modern world has made us ADD people mainstream.
Anecdotally, even some folks on languish (and we are old) have trouble with reading comprehension... :goodboy:
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2024, 10:47:42 AMAnecdotally, even some folks on languish (and we are old) have trouble with reading comprehension... :goodboy:
What does "reading comprehension" mean, again?
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2024, 10:49:19 AMQuote from: Jacob on August 15, 2024, 10:47:42 AMAnecdotally, even some folks on languish (and we are old) have trouble with reading comprehension... :goodboy:
What does "reading comprehension" mean, again?
Probably connected to doing MDMA and LSD behind a shed. Like young people do.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2024, 10:47:42 AMAnecdotally, even some folks on languish (and we are old) have trouble with reading comprehension... :goodboy:
:pinch:
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 15, 2024, 06:49:21 AMRock and roll wasn't pestering you in school,sending continuous notifications. Pulp magazines could be engrossing, but never enough for you to tune out completely your surroundings. Your turntable wasn't engineered to capture your attention, and request constant likes. Your browsing of magazines wasn't producing shiny moving pictures and bright colors that would also distract your comrades. Fads of the past weren't integrated with a device upon which the rest of your life could be hitched. In short, it did not produce what increasingly looks like an addiction.
This year will be the 20th year I have been teaching at the college level. It is enough to remember a time before the prevalence of social media in our everyday life - and certainly in students' everyday life. There is a marked decline in capacity to concentrate among students and to read complex sentences. The only students who once were as jittery as many I have now were those who were anxiously eyeing the clock for a cigarette break.
It doesn't need to be a panic. But to cling to the idea that there is nothing new under the sun is to miss the specificity of our times, and its specific challenges.
Yeah that's the experience of my teacher friend (at high school level) - it is addictive, dependent behaviour.
I also think we talk a lot about the standard political stuff on social media. I was a teenager during the late 90s/00s. There was really brutal and grim images online if you wanted to look for it. Particularly beheading videos, the killing of Daniel Pearl etc. But you needed to look for it.
One thing I have been really struck by with social media in the last year (I think especially on TikTok but I'm not sure) is the sheer volume of horrendous images of human suffering and violence from both Ukraine and Israel. It is not stuff that you need to look for but stuff that you need to look to avoid. Attached to it, often, are lines like "do not look away" - that it is politically and morally worthy to watch this, knowingly and actively, particularly if you are have strong views on it.
I could be wrong, but I imagine that's particularly strong among younger people and I find it alarming. I'm not sure the effect that will have in the long run - but this is the sort of content that, just twenty years ago, was looked at by specialist teams in media organisations who were trained and had resources. That is now not just everywhere but with a moral imperative to not avert your gaze (because because in an age of smartphones the gaze is the most important thing so that is political engagement).
Again, I avoid it. Much like I didn't watch Daniel Pearl's killing - I have no desire to see any of this and I don't think it affects my ability to have or act on views.
QuoteI am not sure if Johann Hari is the best of sources, but I found both "Stolen Focus" and "Lost Connections" somewhat enlightening, not just because of the writing, but because he was open about his sources.
"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Zuboff is also worth a read.
I have issues with Hari but totally agree on Zuboff.
It is the other thing and from a purely media perspective I find it kind of disgraceful that advertisers are directing their money away from news because it's too controversial, too negative, for brand safety reasons etc - but are increasing their budgets on, say, TikTok which is full of videos of kids dying from a bomb and was (according to the police) the most widely used social media in the recent riots in the UK. The money is going from the industry that attempts to make sense, to the platforms showing the most extreme content imaginable in the name of brand safety.
How is the impending ban of Tik Tok been received in USA schools?
Is it happening, is Tik-Tok getting banned in the US?
They've been talking about that since Trump right?
Weird it never seems to happen.
Quote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 02:37:54 PMThey've been talking about that since Trump right?
Weird it never seems to happen.
I think it was TikTok will be banned unless it is sold to a US or non-Chinese company...which is a slightly different motivation than we're talking about here :lol:
I don't think it will be sold. I expect a ban. Biden signed that law. Can it not be enforced?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2024, 02:59:02 PMI don't think it will be sold. I expect a ban. Biden signed that law. Can it not be enforced?
Guess ISPs would have to ban it?
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2024, 03:00:41 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2024, 02:59:02 PMI don't think it will be sold. I expect a ban. Biden signed that law. Can it not be enforced?
Guess ISPs would have to ban it?
DNS companies too, most are probably based in the USA.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 02:46:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on August 15, 2024, 02:37:54 PMThey've been talking about that since Trump right?
Weird it never seems to happen.
I think it was TikTok will be banned unless it is sold to a US or non-Chinese company...which is a slightly different motivation than we're talking about here :lol:
I don't know.
Maybe not with Trump but amongst the smarter people in his circle I do think there's some worry (/desire to take control) that as well as the software vulnerabilities angle, the fundmanetal service itself is designed to destroy people's minds
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/aug/15/the-class-of-2024-aced-maths-take-the-a-level-challenge-to-see-how-you-compare
"Maths"? :bleeding: Seems like someone didn't ace their grammar test.
And the fastest growing subject is Further Maths :o :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 05:25:49 PMAnd the fastest growing subject is Further Maths :o :P
Is that math that's always a day or more away? I could really excel that that.
Given the grade inflation for A level exams over the last 30 years, is 42% getting a A or A* really that great a result?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2024, 05:31:16 PMGiven the grade inflation for A level exams over the last 30 years, is 42% getting a A or A* really that great a result?
Looking forward to your next Daily Telegraph column :lol: :P
Although because I'm a nerd, I found the breakdown quite interesting:
(https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/subjects_gradeA-860x1536.png)
The article made me realise a problem I have: I studied math in Hungarian.
But I am fairly certain the end of high school state exam (which I think is what A levels also are) I had to take was noticeably more complex. For one thing it had geometry which dragged down my score exactly as I thought it would. :mad:
:lol: I was very, very good at maths until I hit the point they introduced geometry. So I quite :ph34r:
Although not sure the three questions the Guardian picked (from paper 3!) is necessarily a fair representation :P Though I can well believe CEE countries have higher standards on maths. My experience is they're generally very much more serious (about culture too).
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 05:37:51 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2024, 05:31:16 PMGiven the grade inflation for A level exams over the last 30 years, is 42% getting a A or A* really that great a result?
Looking forward to your next Daily Telegraph column :lol: :P
Although because I'm a nerd, I found the breakdown quite interesting:
(https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/subjects_gradeA-860x1536.png)
Yeah, that's what I thought, same grade bloat as usual for Math A levels.
I think it's more the courses where answers are right or wrong have higher proportion of kids getting high marks.
The courses where it's about building an argument and interpretation are more challenging - but I would say that. I did English (Literature), History and Drama :ph34r: :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 05:58:55 PM:lol: I was very, very good at maths until I hit the point they introduced geometry. So I quite :ph34r:
Although not sure the three questions the Guardian picked (from paper 3!) is necessarily a fair representation :P Though I can well believe CEE countries have higher standards on maths. My experience is they're generally very much more serious (about culture too).
Ah I thought these were all the questions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 06:14:00 PMI think it's more the courses where answers are right or wrong have higher proportion of kids getting high marks.
The courses where it's about building an argument and interpretation are more challenging - but I would say that. I did English (Literature), History and Drama :ph34r: :P
When I was a student, selection-type tests were very rare, I really liked them, 25% chance to get a question right even if you know zero things about it.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 06:19:20 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 06:14:00 PMI think it's more the courses where answers are right or wrong have higher proportion of kids getting high marks.
The courses where it's about building an argument and interpretation are more challenging - but I would say that. I did English (Literature), History and Drama :ph34r: :P
When I was a student, selection-type tests were very rare, I really liked them, 25% chance to get a question right even if you know zero things about it.
One of my uni courses had a negative grade for the wrong answer on multiple choice. . -0.25 IIRC. Better off not answering a question you didn't know :ph34r:
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2024, 06:17:17 PMAh I thought these were all the questions.
Oh no :lol:
Six hours, three exams - and if you really love maths you could do further maths too :bleeding:
Papers from a different exam board last year to give you a bit of a sense (possibly of what's coming as a suppotive dad helping with homework :P):
https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2023/june/AQA-73571-QP-JUN23.PDF
https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2023/june/AQA-73572-QP-JUN23.PDF
https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2023/june/AQA-73573-QP-JUN23.PDF
Give me Texts in Shared Contexts or Love Through the Ages any day :lol:
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2024, 06:25:48 PMOne of my uni courses had a negative grade for the wrong answer on multiple choice. . -0.25 IIRC. Better off not answering a question you didn't know :ph34r:
The SAT does the same thing.
I've never heard of that approach here. We were always told it's better to try and answer everything or you're leaving marks on the table - and you might well work your way to the answer.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2024, 07:09:03 PMI've never heard of that approach here. We were always told it's better to try and answer everything or you're leaving marks on the table - and you might well work your way to the answer.
all of my other experiences were like that. You could usually work it to 50/50 chance for questions you weren't sure about. I'd mark off the question with a guess in the margin. Then come back at the end of the test to see if I guessed the same answer :lol:
It is really quite hard to get a C in maths. If you understand the work you will tend to get an A, if you don't then a fail is on the cards. If, by chance, one does get a C then it is probably best not to move on to the next level of difficulty.
What always pissed me off was the show your working bit.
You might get 1 point for the right answer, and the other 3 for showing your working is the way the test wants you to do it.
So I mentally know the answer is 6.6 and I write 6.6... I then have to figure out how I got to that and whether it's the way the test wants you to do it.
I was great at maths and a year ahead until senior school when i fell back to just good, by gcse with the teaching quality plumetting and a lot of non intuitive concepts coming in, and of course the mental load they place on you for this shit, I scraped a c (though still probably top 10 or so in the "school")
A level... Yes. I shouldn't have done a level.
As per usual I'm reminded how I absolutely have to remove my boys from this system before senior school. Seeing vibes in my eldest he could be like me in this and want him to have better.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2024, 01:57:45 PMHow is the impending ban of Tik Tok been received in USA schools?
The reaction was apparently to download an even more Chinese app. :lol:
Where it seems like American Zoomers appear to be clashing with Chinese Netizens :lol: :ph34r:
Americans joining Duolingo to learn mandarin spiked 200% in january (https://twitter.com/duolingo/status/1879582775055176008) :lol: