Agreed. I was just imagining people posting publicly on social media, but good to say that situational context/audience also matters a ton when understanding a given statement. There is often much unspoken nuance/implications.
161 karma · joined July 29, 2021
> The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does.
I would offer the analogy of a broken (analog) clock. If a broken clock says the time is ten o’clock, and the time actually is ten o’clock, it is more important to note that the clock is broken than that the clock is correct. Similarly, if someone says something that is technically true, but they are a person who often lies or has goals that harm others, then it is more important to note that they should not be trusted than that they are correct.
Critics of 'intolerance'/'cancel culture'/'heresy' often invoke truth in their arguments. They miss that the phenomenon has nothing to do with the truth of an out-of-context statement, rather it is about whether a person should be trusted.
I think what you're saying is that you should be careful telling someone that they 'are a baby' or 'are dumb', because they might believe you.
I would also be careful of telling someone they are 'acting like a baby' or 'acting dumb', because most people won't appreciate the semantic difference.
In the context of this article, though, I'm not too bothered since the article is about how one can change their baby-like habits. But it is always a good reminder.
Is this just another way of saying, "accept the world as it is and as it happens and be content for it is kismet"?
I guess it is polite discourse these days to distance a person's actions from some intangible person-ness, but it feels very mushy.
Always good to treasure the time we are given.
(not to say this sort of behavior is exclusive to corporate PR. as the best and smartest person ever, I would never need to exaggerate my achievements on a job application, but others may)
I think the blogger's missing forest is that it is nigh impossible to have an 'us vs the problem' debate unless 'you and me' both agree on the assumptions that frame the problem. If we do not first root out and address incongruous assumptions, we will forever talk past each other, no matter how many brass tacks we jump on, even if it seems to bystanders that we both speak the same language.
As an aside, I believe that a person's assumptions/beliefs are inseparable from who that person is (you are what you eat). For me, it is silly to critique an idea without much consideration about what person/people communicated that idea and why they believe it (assuming they do). I often find that the truth is not as cut and dry as I assumed. If your goal is 'internet glory', then sure, that is a waste of time. You are better off gaming engagement algorithms. But, if I may ride a high horse, mutual understanding is a sweeter nectar.
We're free to blame Democrats or Republicans or Russians or whoever, but 'cancel culture' is a natural response to a system that viralizes outrage. Completely banning the speech on the specific topic that causes the outrage will always be a losing battle because the system will always find some new dumbness to amplify. If you really want change then you gotta change the system, dude.
From my perspective, the dominant corp-gov-media narrative is that the economy (as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and/or GDP) must always become bigger, faster, and anyone who suggests actions that run contrary to this goal are not taken seriously by the corp-gov-media monolith, including those concerned about climate change.
So, I would be very wary of taking out-of-context 50-year-old quotes as evidence that the warnings from the scientists of today amount to mere 'climate alarmism'.
Some background on those old predictions:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-firs...
A small quote: "But this is not a story of fate – of children’s long-term success being determined by their self-control as four-year-olds. It is a story about how children can change: those who are “low delayers” can in fact learn to be “high delayers,” and gain the life benefits that self-control imparts."
So this is more olds than news, but perhaps it is good to be reminded that we all have room to grow (or shrink) from who we were at age 4. I personally would bet high-delayers can also learn to become low-delayers, and I also would bet there are times in life when you would be better off eating the marshmallow now instead of investing it for another 30 years at 5% because the man in the suit told you to.
I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view).
I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.
Is the answer to not allow any sort of background checks? I would say no, but it also seems like there is a lot of room to improve our current system and find it in our societal heart to not perpetually punish a person for a past minor offense.
Seeger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Zt0O2lyhk
Cash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppa__7ZLAU8
When a woman or other media-favored-identity (which can include gender, race, religion, different-abledness, or an intersection of several, changing day-to-day and year-to-year, and media source to media source) achieves great things, their status as a woman or favored-minority is highlighted alongside their achievements (I would say this is not a bad thing as maybe people sharing that identity will believe in themselves a bit more and be inspired to do great things).
But when a man achieves success, their manness is certainly not highlighted. If the man is also a member of a media-favored-identity, then that will be highlighted. When was the last time you saw a headline: ‘First Man to [do thing]’? Instead, it would be ‘First Person to [do thing]’, or if someone else had already done that cool thing then it wouldn’t be a headline (unless it was like ‘first man to give birth to octuplets’, I can see that making the front page of the NYTimes).
Also, as a society we celebrate woman-dominated professions such as teachers and nurses (very deserved imo, except for my 6th grade teacher), but, at least in the ‘liberal’ mainstream, there is no similar celebration of male-dominated professions (except when a media-favored-identity finds success at that profession and the media is like ‘breaking news! single-mother black woman Polly-Ann drives steel like a man’ [too much?]). Is it any surprise that those who identify as men are more likely to also identify with the political and intellectual movements that still glorify the man-identity (I would say the liberal mainstream also forgets about rural folks, with the same effect)? Example: many Republican-leaning outlets will celebrate those who work in our military, regardless of the soldier’s identity (well, maybe not regardless, but at least so long as they are a meat-and-potatoes sort of man).
Maybe the answer is that we all ought to think of ourselves as people above all else. Maybe an achievement should be celebrated and highlighted equally no matter what sort of person you are, because it is no surprise that one sort of person is just as capable as a Man sort of person. I do not know the answer, but I would also say this: Did man-people have tens or hundreds or thousands of years of society saying that only man-people are capable of great achievements? Should we spend some time saying loud and clear that ‘yo, we got it wrong. not-man-people are also capable of great achievements’? But should we also hope towards a time where person-achievements are celebrated regardless of identity? Do we still have work to do before we get there? I would say yes.
Looking forward, the media says automation will eat our jobs, from truck drivers (self-driving cars) to soldiers (self-shooting-missile-drones) to programmers (self-programming-program).
If you listen close you can hear the clanging.
The steam drill is a’coming for ya.
But, man, watch Polly-Ann swing that hammer.