#also debating a bad faith argumenter never works

[kacievvbbbb]

It’s so weird how blocking someone that antagonizes you is seen as a moral failure. You lack conviction your point doesn’t matter because you lost the “debate” by blocking.

What “debate”? Some people just want to exist in the internet without fighting for their right too.

You are not weak for wanting peace of mind

[cerastes]

This is absolutely the Lack Of Reading Comprehension Website, but there's another issue I've noticed that I never see brought up, and it doesn't exist completely excised from lacking reading comprehension, but it's definitely it's own topic.

Tumblr's a Bad Faith Website as well. Like the above, it's not something exclusive to Tumblr, but it definitely defines it in my opinion. A lot of people want to be Right, and disagreements are seen by a bunch of people as something to "win" rather than something to "have". You'll have randos that frame their entire argument against you based on latching onto technicalities to try to prove why you are wrong rather than actually engage with your argument to try and propose something else or turn it around. As someone who was in a debate club during university, I call it "debate-poisoned people" who see arguments and conversations as a sport more than an interaction or, well, an actual conversation to be had, or in other words, that consider every argument as a debate to be had, when a lot of the time, it's not that deep fam, and also the other person never really agreed to play under your rules, because, here's the thing, a debate is a very specific kind of interaction. In a debate, bad faith interaction and trying to erase the very floor the other party is standing on is a valid tactic, it's part of the game. In a conversation or an argument, bad faith interaction and trying to erase the floor the other party is standing on gets you rightfully called a moron who cannot use inference or extrapolation to actually engage with the topic at hand. I had one such weirdo like a week or so ago, even, who used so many words to say absolutely nothing, that I thought I accidentally performed a digital necromantic ritual and had actually found myself face to face with the spirit of Jacques Lacan.

Even in more innocuous, non-hostile scenarios, this still applies: A lot of people are so, so eager to Be Correct On The Internet, that they'll reblog something with a correction or an opinion seemingly so hastily that they did not in fact read the entire post or comprehend it. This feeds into the lack of reading comprehension, but in my opinion, it does also have to do with seeing something that they believe they can correct, and immediately chomping at the bit to correct it without stopping for a second to ask themselves, "Did I read this right? Does this need correction?", and a lot of the time, it turns out, yes, you did not in fact need to correct it, you just had to read it a bit slower without letting your quickdraw hand get the best of you, cowboy. The way I consider this to be Bad Faith, even if it's not really hostile or confrontational, is the long-held belief that The Internet Is Inhabited By People Stupid Enough To Actually Think Or Say Something This Stupid.

I'll be real with you: Yeah, you've seen wild stories on the internet, plenty of them true, about how stupid people can be. No, they do not define the majority of people that aren't you. A wild, flabbergasting story about idiocy gets traction because it's funny and wild. We don't hear stories about how User A made a compelling argument that seemed stupid at first but then turned out that their rationale was incredibly sound as much, because that's not funny and wild and doesn't make us feel good about ourselves, because we'd never make such a stupid mistake. You aren't a sage wearing the floatie of wisdom in an ocean of idiots, no matter what your echo chamber and/or carefully curated internet space makes you think. You are not exempt from having to think about things, and you are not exempt from having to acknowledge people that know things you don't, people wiser than you are out there. This isn't "you are dumb as shit, actually", because I personally believe most people are smart, this is "you are being superficial and too eager to be Correct, which only works to your detriment in the long run and makes you a rather unlikable person".

It's as simple as engaging in good faith, even when you disagree or dislike the other party. Rip apart their arguments properly, instead of trying to disqualify them with cheap gotchas from the get go just because you want to own someone. Yes, sometimes people don't make sense, period, but that's absolutely not as common as people like to claim it happens. Inevitably, you'll run into someone that will actually call out your bullshit and there goes your entire argument. And in less intense settings, really, no one likes a pedant who really wants to be Correct on fucking Tumblr of all places.

[mychemicalraymance]

You guys CANNOT seriously keep making this argument. "What if the jokes were about people of color or lesbians" THEY ARE! THEY ARE! You can't throw a stone in any direction and not hit someone joking about gay and trans people, calling us groomers!

Stop moving the fucking goalpost for these people, stop doing the legwork of advocating for the most protected class of people who EVERYDAY treat us like shit in OUR REAL, MATERIAL LIVES. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO BAT FOR CISHET MEN? WHY DO YOU THINK WOMEN WHO HOLD DISDAIN FOR MEN DESERVE TO BE SHAMED FOR WHAT MEN DID TO THEM AND HOW THEY MADE HER FEEL? WHY DO YOU USE THE MOST BAD FAITH, FAR OUT EXAMPLES TO TRY AND ARGUE AGAINST WOMEN?

The argument that "well if you changed the circumstances, it would be different and you wouldn't like it" is HIGH KEY akin to the reverse sexism/racism fallacy and comes straight from the mind of an arrogant high school sophomore who thinks they got the whole "social justice" racket worked out and is very pleased to leave smug comments in their wake about it.

You cannot make this argument and hold genuine feminist beliefs, imo. It's ASININE.

Men are human beings who, in my life, have been very important companions and friends. I would also always hold room for conversations about the fact that the category of men as a whole includes men of color, who have historically been oppressed and categorized out of their fair claim to manhood. It includes gay men, who are my brothers and sisters, it includes trans men, who have been some of my closest friends, it includes men who are denied housing and other human rights, workers, artists, activists. But I would never hold that room to DENY other women the right to hold ANGER for the very LARGE CONTINGENCY OF MEN WHO USE THEIR GENDER TO ABUSE US. As human beings, men hold and exercise an immense capacity for doing harmful, evil shit, and they have, they are, and they will.

Women are oppressed by men and a patriarchal society, and you guys have GOT to stop devil's advocating away all the room that notion needs to hold. It's complex, but things like highly pervasive sexual violence CANNOT BE WAVED AWAY. we're not having a debate in the cafeteria of your high school anymore. Have some fucking perspective.

[project-sekai-facts]

Hey I'm the anon from this ask (https://www.tumblr.com/project-sekai-facts/764142926583431168/im-curious-why-you-feel-confident-in-saying-that?source=share) just wanted to say thank you so much for the response!! After reading that and more carefully rereading the stuff in the original mizuki trans post I agree with what you're saying about it being pretty much explicitly confirmed in-game Because of the many bad faith interpretations of my ask I wanted to explain where it came from a bit. I had just come out of listening to another friend doompost/get annoyed about the "vagueness" of the event story and how it wasn't settling the trans vs crossdresser "debate" (heavy quotes there) when I saw the new reblog you made to the mizuki trans post with the line of her being explicitly transgender.

I wanted to hear where you got that from because it was also the impression that I got after reading the story but I was struggling with putting it into words when talking with said friend - honestly i probably could have phrased the ask better but oh well that's tumblr for you.

I've always read her as trans but I've weird feelings about what "being canon" means for a long time hence my fears about jumping the gun - I tended to see it as "you need to have complete 100% proof that it's true that can rebuke all bad faith arguments, and if it doesn't you can accept it as a popular headcanon with some canon support but don't go implying that it's canon" but putting it into words like that makes me realize that that's not a good approach. And just seeing you repeatedly say things like mizuki being in-text confirmed to be trans for 4 years has helped me feel more confident in that and reassess my relationship with canonity in general so genuinely, thank you so much for that.

P.S. damn that ended up being much longer than i thought this was going to be lol. if you don't want to post this for whatever reason that's understandable, don't feel obligated to

No problem! And I'm really sorry for the flack people were giving you in the tags you literally said you wanted Mizuki to be trans in your ask. It's probably because of my response being pretty general and not necessarily directed at you for the most part; i had gotten like 4 other asks about "what are the chances mizuki is a crossdresser" so I just picked one to answer.

I mean yeah technically for it to be 100% canon it should be explicitly stated, but I tend to go off the rules that so long as there's enough sub/textual evidence and very little room for doubt, it's good as canon. Like when I said before that An and Kohane have canon romantic feelings - it's never been said outright but the evidence to prove it with little doubt is there. Technically the term canon refers to a series of works that take place in the same universe, but in fandom the term is often used to describe if character traits or ships are official or not. So Mizuki technically isn't officially a trans girl until they change the gender marker on her bio, but this event removed what little room there was for doubt, so I at the very least would consider it to be canon.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT! What are your thoughts on the house elf discourse? Do you think Hermione is entirely correct in her opinions?

Canonically, I think the books are working really hard to make the reader believe that Hermione is at least partially wrong about house-elves, because JKR did a whoospie and accidentally introduced chattel slavery in her children's book. That's the Doylist perspective. To that extent, Hermione's stance is demonstrably flawed in the text; the house-elves are offended by Hermione trying to "free" them, and Ron scolds her for not taking their wishes into account. This is all tonally jarring and completely at odds with the series's ostensible line on equality, which is that sentient beings are equal, and the people arguing for some natural hierarchy of sentient beings are usually, in fact, the bad guys.

Taking a slightly more good-faith reading, you can also see this as an exploration of parts of Hermione's character. Hermione does have a patronizing and imperious streak, and it is in character for her to ignore the house-elves' desires because she thinks she knows what's best for them. And there is a pretty compelling argument for Hermione as the type of activist who doesn't listen to the victims she's fighting for, because she assumes she always knows best. I see that in her character. I think the way she goes about the house-elf debate, canonically speaking, reveals those faults. But does any of that mean she's wrong about the house-elves? Like, are we really supposed to trust that these creatures, who have been enslaved for generations by a class of powerful magic-users, are honest when they say they're happy? Why should we take that at face value? Whether or not the house-elves "like" doing their work does not end the debate. Oppression is way more complicated than that. Hermione has fairly good reasons to doubt that the house-elves might "want" to be enslaved. She doesn't articulate those reasons terribly well; but she's fourteen, so I don't hold it against her that she hasn't self-engineered the concept of false consciousness. But I do kind of hold it against the books that the debate never progresses beyond that point. I especially hold it against the books that the debate doesn't continue when Harry literally comes into possession of a house-elf, and becomes a "master," which would in another universe be a rich opportunity to revisit the subject in a more mature way.

[flower-boi16]

Debunking Critisicms of Deku's decision to give up being a hero and become a teacher.

Ah yes chapter 430. The "controversial" OG final chapter of MHA that garnered many negative reactions across the internet due to how to ultimately ended off Deku as a character and cemented him to many as a joke of a protagonist.

It also the most overhated piece of fiction I think I've read. These takes have bothered me for a long while , so, I'm just gonna go through the arguments against Chapter 430, specifically about Deku's character here, because, hooo boy, there are a lot of bad faith takes to cover.

"Deku not choosing to continue being a hero after loosing his quirk makes him look like he has little confidence in himself without it/he never changed since the first chapter"

I literally never got this argument. First off this argument willfully ignores the fact that the series itself has consistantly established and hammered in the fact that you can't be a hero without a quirk, that is a rule that MHA sets up and other characters have followed it, Deku is just doing the same and yet people shit on him for it?

Yes, I know Knuckledaster exists but he's in a spin-off series completely seperate from the main series, and he is seemingly never mentioned once within the main series leading me to believe that none of the main characters really seem to know about his existance, so Deku still has no real reason to believe that he can be a hero without a quirk. Deku also coulden't have gotten the suit earlier either since technology wasn't at a point yet where more suits like this could be developed, and thanks to technology advancing it allows the creation of a far stronger suit that has a higher amount of durability to be able to greater withstand quirks since Iron Might, the first time we were ever shown this technology, was still shown to be fairly fragile and broke down. (Whether that makes sense or not you can debate all you want, but that would end up being more of a world-building issue than a character issue since characters are supposed to work with whatever worldbuilding the series has no matter how broken it may be)

Sure he could've gotten a prototype but we don't really know if it would have been strong enough for basic hero work. But even if Deku could've become a hero without his quirk all this time...the argument that him choosing not to continue living out his dreams of being a hero after loosing his quirk falls flat because he does EXACTLY THAT AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER!!!

All Might gives Deku an Iron Might suit and, without question, he immediantly takes it, choosing to continue living out his dreams of becoming a hero. If Deku not choosing to become a hero after loosing his quirk supposedly meant he had "not confidence in himself" without his quirk, than he woulden't have taken this option. But he does, meaning that he can have confidence in his abilities without his quirk.

(also the fact that this decison does not at all nulify any of Deku's past growth arcs throughout the series lmao)

"Deku becoming a teacher is underwhelming/not set up properly"

A lot of people see Deku becoming a teacher as underwhelming, but, personally, I don't really see it that way. Deku says that he wants to help guide and inspire others, being a teacher allows him to do exactly that, hell it even parralels All Might's mentor dynamic with him.

He's mentoring young students helping them become heroes just like his own mentor did, it fits his character quite well. There's also the fact that, again, Deku is given a suit from All Might, allowing him to continue living out his dreams. People act as if 430 was just "Deku becomes a teacher, the end lol" when he literally was given the option to continue living out his dream with his friends at the end of the chapter.

"Deku was forgotten by his friends and, by extension, the world"

He was not. It was explicitly stated within the chapter 430 that after they became adults it was getting harder for them to get the same day offs to meet up most likely due to having seperate jobs (Deku is a teacher, the others are all heroes) meaning that they do still commuinicate from time to time.

Class A didn't just forget about Deku, they just coulden't hang out with him anymore due to having seperate jobs. The plate kid (I forget his name lmao) also clearly reconizes Deku immediantly from seeing him, implying he's become fairly well known after, ya know, saving the world. I think it's pretty clear at that point that Deku wasn't forgotten by anyone.

"dEKu PeAKeD iN hiGhSChOoL11!"

Holy shit this one annoys me SO much. I don't really know what to say to this one other than that it's just...disengeniouse? Like, he literally saved the entire world on a live stream, was able to live out his dream that he was ridiculed for having for YEARS and then was given the option to continue to able to live out that dream. He became the world's greatest hero or at least a very well known hero, and he was able to achieve all of that at the age of 16.

That's a level of popularity I'm pretty sure most heroes would only achieve in their adult years, and Deku achieved that when he was still in highschool. That's actually something quite impressive his age and him becoming a teacher doesn't invalidate that at all. And, again, he's literally able to indulging his dream by the end of the series, why does everyone ignore that?

Look I'm not gonna say that this ending was perfect or anything, looking back I don't think it's as awful as some people make it out to be but there are a lot of things about The Final Act Saga I would critique, but, of all the critiques the throw towards Final Act, this is just not one of them.

[dotthings]

So interesting how some Dean fans always forget Jack was soulless and try to twist things so they can lay as much blame on Cas as they possible can, on top of the considerable amount that Cas definitely did make bad choices--keeping things from Sam and Dean being the thing that bothers Dean the most, and what that decision led to. Mary didn't have to die. I'm not denying Cas's culpability, even if his motives were good--it's somewhat parallel to S6, Cas paralleling himself. Never ever does it work out well for him to hide things from Dean or run from Dean.

So there's a tendency to paint soulless Jack as if he is the same as regular Jack and as if regular Jack is bad. It seems like people do this to pave the way to further justify how done they are with Cas.

It's funny people try to use this argument when soulless Sam is right there as a parallel.

We saw actual Jack growing and learning and developing empathy. And after Jack got his soul back, he broke down, shattered with regret at the callousness of soulless Jack and what soulless Jack did, which is another parallel for S6, between Sam and Jack.

That's canon. I'm not saying people have to love Jack.

What I'm saying is that there are biases at work and they seem designed to make Cas look worse.

Listen, the hatred that was flung toward Cas from some Dean stans on twitter during those seasons was off the charts, and there was no room for good faith debate about it. If you had any empathy for Cas, you were Dean hating scum, end of subject. I'm still raw from it.

But I'm seeing some of those biases on tumblr too. And canon just...seems to be this thing that isn't relevant while people pile on against Cas.

I also don't know why people would still ship Destiel if this is how they feel about Cas but I suppose that's none of my business.

[flyin-shark]

thoughts on antitheism?

tldr: I agree with antitheism but I’m not very vocal about it since I don’t think that’s the best way to change minds.

I ended up writing a whole essay on this so prepare yourselves.

I think everyone should believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible. For that we need a reliable way or method of determining what’s true and what isn’t true. We should also not accept something as true or not true without first applying some methodology to it. Faith is not a reliable source of truth since you can believe in anything (including false things) using faith.

I think believing in a god is bad because you’re believing in something without sufficient evidence (unless you have sufficient evidence for god in which case a lot of people would love to see it including me).

But that’s more about why I’m an atheist than an antitheist. I think believing in a very basic god or a deistic god that just started the universe and did nothing else isn’t too problematic besides the fact that we don’t have enough evidence to accept that as true. Most theists however believe in some kind of god that has certain rules for everyone to follow. Often sending people to a certain afterlife depending on whether they met certain conditions or not. This can cause many problems.

I’m speaking from a Christian-centric standpoint so forgive me for not talking about other gods and religions. I think the concept of hell is abhorrent. Especially if you’re going to claim that your god is all-loving or omni-benevolent. No one should be tortured for eternity. Period. People grow up believing hell is real and often have nightmares about going there and being tortured just for having doubts, not forgiving someone, being lgbtq, or otherwise doing something ‘sinful’ that is actually just a normal human experience.

I’d argue that heaven isn’t good either. Imagine having to sing someone’s praises for all of eternity. Imagine supposedly existing in a state of pure bliss and happiness while knowing that billions of people are burning for eternity. Most of them being in hell simply for not believing the same god as you or any god at all. Feeling pure happiness while being aware of that fact is a contradiction to me.

I think a lot of things within Christianity that are taught as good things are actually not as good as they seem. Forgiveness seems like a good thing on the surface but consider that you don’t actually need to forgive anyone. Forgiving someone is what you do when you’re ready to put something behind you and move on. If someone harms you in a way that you can never trust them again then you aren’t obligated to forgive them. Forgiveness is for the victim to give at their discretion not anyone else. You shouldn’t feel ashamed for not being able to forgive someone. Also it’s strange to me that the person causing harm can ask god for forgiveness and be forgiven. God wasn’t involved. God wasn’t the victim. He has no standing to forgive anyone at all.

As I said at the beginning I agree with antitheism and I accept the label but I don’t usually use it. If you’re trying to change minds then I think there’s a few effective ways of doing that. Simply being a good person and an atheist can shake some people’s convictions since a lot of them are told that atheists can’t be good people. Another way is to focus on asking questions and “planting seeds” if you will. Asking what they think about hell, slavery, or specific contradictions in the Bible won’t make them stop believing immediately but it might make them start asking questions. Look into street epistemology.

Starting arguments with theists and immediately bringing up all of these points isn’t an effective strategy to me. It’s better to get to know the person and what they as an individual believe. You should find common ground and work from there. I should specify I’m just talking about talking to theists on an individual level. This isn’t a “debate in the marketplace of ideas” take.

In short, God is not love. God is a monster and it is morally virtuous to rebel against him. Good thing there’s no good reason to think he exists.

There’s a lot I probably forgot to mention here but anyway. I’m curious what everyone else thinks about the subject.

[outoftheforestshow]

OVERMODERATION and BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS ONLINE!

I was just in Reddit jail for three days because I commented on a Tesla post about dealerships and Cybertrucks being vandalized by fire.

I actually criticized this type of protest—I do NOT think setting vehicles on fire or burning down dealerships is the answer! First, it just releases toxic pollution into the environment.

However, my comment was something along the lines of: "Setting Cybertrucks on fire is just polluting—they should stick to bricks." And voilà… a three-day Reddit ban.

Folks, Reddit is one of the most heavily moderated social media platforms. I’ve spoken about this before—people really need to get their act together and learn the skills of healthy debate and conversation. Yes, things are VERY, VERY intense online right now. We are in officially dangerous territory.

I commented on this during the pandemic, and my fellow leftists didn’t get the message:

We must do better at engagement and learn how to handle these conversations. Sometimes, it’s best to just scroll on by—you might be engaging with a bot. But we also need to work on understanding nuanced conversation.

Yes, the “enemy” may not get it, but placing a well-reasoned, logical, and nuanced argument on social media might actually reach someone—just one person—who stops and thinks, “Hmm… interesting point, I hadn’t considered that.”

That being said.. these are some suggestions if you manage a social media group.

Over-moderation on social media is a growing issue, especially when it disproportionately targets humor, sarcasm, and valid critique while allowing actual harmful content to slip through. Here are some recommendations for striking a better balance:

1. Prioritize Context Over Keywords

Moderation systems should analyze intent and context, not just flag specific words.

AI tools should be trained to detect sarcasm, humor, and critique rather than assuming all flagged words indicate harm.

2. Implement Tiered Moderation Instead of Blanket Bans

Warnings before bans – Users should receive explanations and opportunities to appeal before being banned.

Graduated penalties – Instead of automatic long bans, have a system where users can clarify their intent before harsher actions.

3. Improve Appeal Processes

Allow users to directly explain their comments to a human moderator, not just an algorithm.

Appeals should be quick and not take days or weeks.

4. Differentiate Between Harassment and Disagreement

Just because a post is controversial or critical does not mean it’s harassment.

Focus on actual threats, doxxing, and incitement of violence rather than censoring political discourse or satire.

5. Protect Humor and Satire

Humor is a valid form of critique and should be recognized as such.

Platforms could have "satire" or "context" tags for posts to reduce misunderstanding.

6. Use Human Moderators for Complex Cases

AI can assist but shouldn’t make final decisions on bans or content removal.

Controversial posts should go through human review, especially if reported multiple times.

7. Transparency in Moderation Policies

Users should know why their content was flagged and what specific rule they allegedly violated.

Clearer guidelines for what constitutes hate speech vs. strong critique would help reduce unfair bans.

8. Stop Penalizing Discussion of Sensitive Topics

Just because a user mentions a controversial subject does not mean they support it.

Discussions around power structures, sexism, racism, or corporate influence should not be auto-flagged as "hate speech" or "misinformation" without careful review.

9. Avoid Bias in Moderation Decisions

Social media should equally apply rules across all political and social spectrums.

Some groups are disproportionately targeted while others seem to get a free pass—this needs to stop.

10. Encourage Free Speech While Maintaining Safety

Hate speech and direct threats should never be tolerated, but differing opinions, sarcasm, and satire should not be treated as threats.

The goal should be to foster conversation, not shut it down.

see and challenging harmful narratives directly is important—it’s how change happens. Retreating into echo chambers, while comfortable, doesn’t push the conversation forward.

[leviathan-supersystem]

It's so fun how every argument you have about whether abled people should be required to work is someone saying "I think everything will just work out" and then you say "there is no guarantee of that, we should have a system" and then they immediately assume you mean the current system and read everything else you say in the most bad faith way possible. As a follower it's like watching a train crash identical to the last 15 car crashes. I can't look away and already know exactly what will happen.

gonna object to your wording of "required to work", both because I know the antiworksters will have a field day if I don't object to it, and also because it doesn't really describe my position. I think abled people should provide labor for their community, I think they're being a dick if they don't, and I think there should be social incentives relating to that (paying people who work, etc) but "required' is much more strongly worded than I'd agree with.

and yeah this whole debate has gotten extremely repetitive, next time it happens I'm gonna mix it up a bit by asking them how their "it's fundamentally impossible to distinguish abled people from disabled people, even in the abstract" principle applies to, say, handicapped parking spaces. if it's wrong to say "abled people should provide labor for their community" is it also wrong to say "abled people shouldn't use the handicapped parking space"? inquiring minds want to know.

also I'm gonna just pre-empt the response they'll likely give, which is to accuse me of wanting to harass people who have a handicapped placard who don't "look disabled". that's not what I'm saying, obviously, but that never stopped them before.

[notthesacrifice]

A YouTube Comment I left on the Old Wound music video. I doubt anyone's gonna see it there so I thought I'd share it here. If anyone has anything to correct me on pls lmk.

To the fans: It’s understandable that this upsets most of you, a fan-base of artists, or contrarians, or supporters -- not only are you not the demographic for this video, but you see the harm it causes. My concerns, then, are not to you. Nor are they to the A.I. advocates (this is a debate I considered dead and buried). My concerns are with the minority of loud opportunists: the same people who might continue to harass Bob Bryar on Twitter. I considered this behaviour dead and buried also. But it’s back, disgusting as it is, and doing nothing of use. The small minority must know that to rip and tear as they do only harms the points they wish to defend, but especially the band. (In particular, so I’ve seen, Frank. If there’s one demand I’d make: give Frank some fucking room. Your beloved anti-fascist lyricist of Leathermouth and anti-corporate singer of Death Spells is NOT transforming into an antisemitic, conservative libertarian. Goddam!) The arguments that are common sense to you (in defence of or attacking A.I.) are absolutely not so to others. You must talk to the others as though they are children. Not patronisingly, but as though they are naive. Disregard and do not respond to anything bad faith. All the “comment section grammar correction bile” hurts the band. So if not for each other, be civil for the band.

To the band: The video is out now. It doesn’t matter. From the moment the teaser was posted it didn’t matter if the full video was released or not — it existed, it was paid for, the fuse was lit. The upset and anger are not at the form or the content, it’s at the thought (or thoughtlessness) that preceded it. Its status as art is contentious, yes, but ultimately irrelevant to the core issue. We do not live in a world where safety nets exist for artists in any form, let alone when their existence (i.e. their careers and livelihoods) are threatened by automation. This is good technology. Undoubtedly the beginning of another technological revolution. But our objective conditions do not make it safe to use when it’s application necessitates a team of artists goes unpaid in favour of one individual.

Most importantly I would say: We don’t need to consider this moralistically. If A.I. art is truly art or not, if it’s stolen or not, if it’s tied to the NFT and crypto demographic or not, is all secondary. It doesn’t matter. Materially, this application is poor now. In a decade? Maybe not. But now, there is no protection or assurance for human artists. The tale of this field’s automation is the same as any other — it will be rejected en masse and held as immoral for as long as the material conditions leave the Replaced unprotected. Art is especially tricky in this sense, as for other occupations workers may only need to be financially compensated and assigned a new line of work, but artists do what they do out of love. It is not just work, it is a pastime. So not only do the artists need the financial compensation, but they CANNOT be relocated, and they need assurance they will never be made redundant in a world that demands money be made.

I don’t like this video. If it were a decade later, or another time when artists are protected, when A.I. is assuredly a tool and not a threat or talking point, I might enjoy it more. But for now, A.I. is unfortunately objectively bad for art. And that’s something we can only change by listening to the artists

[wonderhello]

I usually don't do this kind of thing but this reblog bugs to hell out of me (as someone who's known I have OCD for about 6 years just to be spared that argument lol) because it is the worst possible faith you could've taken this.

First of all, that reblog wasn't even talking about OCD anymore, it was talking about people who put perfect moral purity above actually doing the right thing. So that's a moot point and we can move onto OP now.

OP is ABSOLUTELY correct that all of these behaviors can come from a place of OCD. They are not ALWAYS OCD for sure, and some can sometimes be normal or even good, but there are circumstances where they're worth looking into. And even if it's not OCD, it's still good to talk to someone about it.

I think the best example of one is having political debates in your head. That can be normal—in fact, it can even be good! It's true! It ensures that you understand where you're at in terms of your knowledge and opinions. However, if you're doing it constantly to the point where it's taking up a lot of your thinking space constantly but you Have to do it or else you're going to Hell or people are going to die every time you don't do it so you have to do it Now or you're Bad and you're tainted with Bad forever...that's 100% for sure something to look into.

Being able to explain yourself when necessary—also a good thing! Again, it's good to ensure that you're solid in your opinions and you have a fully understanding of them. But feeling the need to justify yourself all the time because if you don't then everyone will think you're Bad and Evil and you will Never be clean and you need to explain until you are "pure" again...is also something to look into.

Making sure you're being a good enough ally for marginalized people—doing research, talking to us, donating if possible, etc.? Good! Doing that to the point that you can and still needing to constantly seek reassurance because if you don't you're SURE you're a bigot you're being a bigot right now by existing you're not doing the work you're evil right you're evil for sure you need to do more to ease this feeling of being evil? Something to look into.

The way some people talk about these things isn't just "I'm doing what I can to make sure that I don't get wrapped up in a hivemind and can draw my own conclusions"; it's "If I don't do this, I'm Evil and I'm Bad REGARDLESS of what my true beliefs are and REGARDLESS of if I'm solid in them and have been shown to be in the past". I'm not trying to armchair diagnose anyone, and neither is OP! It's a suggestion because these are common patterns seen in moral scrupulosity OCD and they don't look like what's traditionally thought of when OCD is discussed.

But honestly, like I said above, even if it isn't OCD and it's "just" overthinking—which is for sure a possibility—it's still worth seeking someone to talk to about it to me. Because living like that is exhausting, and you're not even going to be able to do what little you can do if you're constantly bombarded with the things you feel you're not doing enough but literally can't do. It's a horrible, terrifying world out there and there capital w Will be a lot of pain in trying to do what we can, but all we can do is what we can. It's about balancing the awareness of what's going on with not feeling morally reprehensible for not being able to singlehandedly fix it or do every single possible thing to fix it. Just do what you can. Even if it's something as little as doing your one click or a reblog.

Anyway, sorry for the long ramble. 👍🏾 I dunno if I explained myself well here. It's just my opinion + ngl the whole "omg EVERYTHING is OCD" thing bothers me because it's pretty much the opposite from my experience. If anything OCD is minimized to the point where things like this are beyond its scope to most people, lol.

TL;DR, "There is no version of trying to improve yourself or being a moral human being that is OCD" is…not correct. This isn't like some Tumblr woo-woo shit lol morality can ABSOLUTELY become OCD and that's becoming more known even within the medical community.

I DESPERATELY needed someone to tell me this as I grew up in leftist online spaces. So now I am going to tell YOU:

If you

Check what you sent over and over to make sure you didn’t say a slur instead of “hello how are you”

Fear that someone will find you thinking not-leftist-enough thoughts and will call you out and ruin you

Feel you have to make your intentions clear and over-explain your actions

Find yourself consistently resisting the urge to engage in reassurance-seeking WRT being a good enough ally to marginalized people

Stay up late endlessly debating political ethics in your head

Have a set of actions that you take after discovering you made a morally wrong decision so that you can atone, which you rely on for reassurance that you are not a bad person

Would rather not make a decision at all than make a decision that is the lesser of two evils, but is not morally pure

then I am gently, but firmly, requesting that you look into moral scrupulosity OCD.

[theangryman]

math is great, because basically the arguments are as pure as it gets and no one’s identity or life is really on the line, except like in super high up levels but at that point it’s yer job

like there are always attempts to be like “there’s DEI in textbooks because this word problem has a name we associate with African American communities!” or the weird foaming at the mouth reactionary response to common core which made all conversation about it impossible

and at the most, in a shit posty way you could be like “well i define an algebra without commutativity so your explanation is wrong” but that would be stupid and shitposty, not really something that even works as a bad faith argument

the 0.9 repeating equaling one thing is funny. like, there’s a bajillion different ways to prove it, and so it’s less an exercise in frustration and more like “which one would be the most fun to use rn”

math does have “truths” - we all must enter the arena with an understanding of the rules, or we are handily discarded

chemistry likewise has methods of weeding out the week (physics tortures you into thinking you are a genius who knows how everything works)

I think many people have a confusion of “materialism” with this idea that the universe can be described with a series of mathematical truths

this boils down to the way we classify, the way we approach our world

male/female

think about career/profession as a categorizer of people

certain hobbies or subcultures

black/white/asian/pacific islander/native american//////////

(heck - even the way we debate the terms for those categories)

there’s a difficulty in recognizing the dynamic aspects of all human beings and the diverse ways we approach life because our bodies are all different and our minds are all different. we can never experience the fullness of another person - except maybe through a long life of partnership and intimacy

we have to consider the purpose of any category we are using for a person. why are we using that category - what purpose does it serve?

the justification for these categories can also be complex. i was listening to a video on the mysterious founder of the Nation of Islam, Wallace Fard Muhammad, and he effectively “changed” race at multiple points in his life. he was certainly a conman and wore many different names and identities through his life - but so had many other people

we can acknowledge that race *is* a flexible category. that there a complex elements of culture backed into what it means to be perceived as a certain race.

but ultimately - other than as an indicator of ethnicity, what purpose should race serve?

(Dolezal is srsly mentally ill and cringe, no one anywhere takes her seriously and people hated her/suspected before btw)

there are heritage aspects, there are recognition of cultural pains and history. what it means to be black in America is an entirely arbitrary construct

historically, the idea of race itself came up as a *way to justify chattel slavery*

it’s a mid to late 1600’s idea that justified the transition from white indentured servants to primarily black slaves. it’s cheaper to enslave the children of your slaves rather than import them, and you’ve already got a subjugate population with a visually distinctive characteristic

the appeal of the colonies as a place where a certain kind of man could live a certain kind of life style too - as long as he kept a specific kind of other down

(think about shit like the one drop rule, Sally Hemings was very likely jefferson’s wife’s sister, those kids were 1/4 “black.”)

the founders abolished the importation of slaves after a period of time in the constitution, but King Cotton could be appeased by the sacrifice by children that came about from the slave owners and overseers raping of their women

but in short, American conceptions of race and racism are not ancient. (and American categorizations color a lot of international shit too probably, I can’t speak to those aspects as much)

whereas sex does have some kind of meaningful “reality” that can’t be conveyed with mostly aesthetic traits

at least a “body type a” archetype and a “body type b” archetype. the differences are more pronounced

and then at the same time we layer the history on it, the layer of the millennia of understanding that one body produces the baby. that one body receives, bleeds, provides the earliest source of food for all (until the 20th century essentially)

in many many many early societies, it’s easy how this would naturally lead to patriarchy. if people become resources, women are especially resources. if women revolt and try to kill you, killing them will cost you your legacy (much later ofc, think of how the Russian Revolution was won in part by women demanding bread for their children - the importance of proto-soviet temperance movements to early feminist organizing)

there’s a fundamental aspect of the *biology* that does lead to the oppression. it’s baked in before all other things. it often *overwhelms* other things

in math we can have absolute answers. i can tell you that x^2+x+1=0 has no *real* solutions. it has imaginary solutions but not any real ones

but when it comes to humans interacting through biological/psychological/sociological/cultural/historical layers, you can’t do that shit. it just doesn’t work like that

unlike math, there are no ways to guarantee answers. but like chemistry, there are often consequences

[artemisiafem]

every so often i try to consume content by trans activists (usually TIMs, because they’re the ones i always hear about from my irl friends), because while i consumed a lot of it when i was younger, i didn’t have the experiences/knowledge then that i do now so it’s interesting to look back with a more critical eye. i also think it’s healthy to consume content by people with different views than you both so you actually know what the other side is talking about, and also because who knows, maybe your mind would be changed.

(as a side note, my life would be so much easier if i could go back to agreeing with TRAs, in that i wouldn’t be feeling like i was risking social ostracisation for my views. but i wouldn’t trade the feelings i have about uplifting women and improving our situation as a class for any kind of material ease in my life, to be honest.)

but anyway. having watched a few videos now… it’s so telling that they never really engage with radical feminist or gender critical analysis. they just present the worst possible misinterpretations of it. i saw one video where the creator implied that terfs disliking people being referred to by their reproductive organs (ie, “people with uteruses”) rather than as women was because… we don’t think women are people? it’s so ridiculously bad faith. maybe if you have to entirely misrepresent someone’s argument to get people to disagree with it, their argument might actually be more persuasive than you want to believe - but i’m yet to see a TRA actually provide any thorough rebuttal of radical feminism, it’s all just strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks.

and like, it doesn’t even work on a rhetorical level, in high school debate we were always told to engage with the best possible version of our opponent’s argument rather than the worst possible version because that’s how you strengthen your own position. i bring this up just to highlight how basic it is lol

also, it’s very telling as well that so many of their “jokes” are just about being more sexually appealing than the women they’re trying (and failing) to critique. but sure, they don’t objectify women at all.

[gamingavickreyauction]

The one meritorious argument I've heard against playing devil's advocate is that possible beliefs about the world underspecify the data, so it's always going to be possible to come up with weird beliefs that are nonetheless internally consistent, that can't be disproven and can't be proven highly unlikely.

This is particularly bad with ethical beliefs, where there is no data to go off. I'm thinking about that ethical system someone made a joke about that's relativity-adjusted hedonic utilitarianism, so you should try to go as fast as possible to reduce suffering by time dilation. It's simultaneously obviously absurd and impossible to devise a watertight argument against, because most ethical systems are impossible to devise a watertight argument against.

This is also very easy to do with factual claim about poorly understood things, like maybe all non-human animals are conscious except for dogs, specifically. Sounds stupid, but perhaps there is a natural selective pressure for consciousness, and humans unwittingly selected against consciousness by trying to breed more docile pets and dogs, being the most intensively domesticated animals, are the only ones to lose consciousness as a result of this effect. All these claims are highly dubious and have no evidence against them but none, so far as I'm aware, can be proven wrong. And if even deliberately silly sounding ideas like this can be defensible, think what you could do when you try to devise defensible ideas instead of silly ones.

The upshot of this is that it's not feasible to engage with every defensible idea, and only engaging with ideas that serious people actually hold is a good filter for what it's worth spending your finite time on earth on. You can't afford to get bogged down engaging with endless possible perspectives when you have an actual decision to make. Whilst in principle engaging with them could help you toss out bad ideas and make a better decision, in practice many ideas will be defensible, and you won't be able to toss many out, and you'll just lose confidence that you really know anything about what you're dealing with. Maybe radical uncertainty is actually the most correct position, but it's not a luxury you have when faced with a practical problem, even if the problem is something like 'what avenue should I pursue in my research'. Pure reason will never take you as far as you like, and at the end you have no choice but to make a leap of faith. If there are people you're working with who legitimately hold opposing beliefs, you have no choice but to engage with them, because you need to be able to agree on a course of action. But if an idea has no supporters that's probably as good a reason as you'll ever practically have to disregard it.

To be clear, this isn't just about time-sensitive decisions. Even given years of scholarly debate there will commonly be many possible ideas that fit the available data, and even after years of study there will still be work to do to better understand the perspectives of actual people who disagree with you, without worrying about ideas no one actually holds.

I don't attach a huge amount of weight to this idea. Ironically, to a large extent I am playing devil's advocate here.

I find the idea that we can never find our way through to murk of possible world views deeply disturbing, and I like to collect different perspectives on the world, and try to understand them. I think that doing this has been of benefit to me, and whilst it has to a great extent produced the deep uncertainty I have described, I can selectively ignore that to still hold beliefs about the world that I am convinced of, which leaves me no worse off than if I didn't much understand the perspectives of those that disagree with me, and it helps me to understand and communicate with those people. It also sometimes does change my views, in a way that I think is genuine progress rather than a lateral move through impenetrable fog. And I think it is genuinely helpful to have more ways of seeing the world.

So I mostly do not agree with the conclusion of the argument I have outlined, but I think it contains some truths and is a useful idea to keep in the back of my head for when it is enlightening.

[khorneschosen]

Yeah dude most people are cunts about politics. Either you haven't been at this long or you are being purposely dense.

Most people don't even give you the benefit of treating others in good faith after you give them good faith. Frankly I don't have to treat you in good faith at all. And demanding it, is stretching that benevolence.

I gave the right stats, wrong name. I get my latin mixed up from time to time.

Here's the pdf

Enjoy not reading it in any great detail. Also another fun fact, the divide between women and men is the methods of murder used. Men are messy, women however prefer poison, and violence by proxy.

Interestingly, when a woman uses violence by proxy, we don't consider it statistically because technically she didn't kill her husband.

Then there is the sentencing and conviction gap between men and women as shown in the first statistics.

And then on top of that you have the sheer fact that if a woman wants to leave a man destitute, without home, car, money, children and everything else, all she has to do is divorce him and the courts will do that work for her. In short, right now a woman doesn't have to kill a man to take everything from him. Just marry him. Or just live with him for a certain amount of time.

Furthermore, you'll notice an interesting historical trend. When women were killing their husbands in greater numbers was when they had the least amount of protections from abusers and ability to safely leave. Now the situation is reversed where a man due to the Duluth model of domestic violence, a man is left in the spot where if he is abused he will be arrested. If he defends himself or his children he will be arrested, if he locks himself in a room he will be arrested. If his abuser hurts herself in abusing him, he will be arrested.

Don't like it? Start advocating for equal and fair courts that don't take account of gender or atleast stop advocating for the terrible policies you continue to do so.

So in closing why would you expect any other outcome? This btw is another case of pushing for a policy without concern for its outcomes.

Edit now that I have time to reply to you fully: I think I forgot to write a conclusion again so here it is.

The number of wives vs husbands doesn't actually deal with an issue of "validation of murder" as at no point will I say "murder is good" but that "your data is wrong" or that "pointing to the numbers of those murders don't actually address the point of which murder is validated."

To which I would also point out women have been shown statistically to more likely get away with their murder on a claim of self defense. Considering the conviction rate differences mentioned earlier, whether this claim was truthful or ad hoc after the act, remains a question, but does not change the overall fact that the system is more likely to convict a female murderer over a male one.

So your argument is untruthful, incorrectly applied, and wrong. Either way you look at it this was a bad move.

Also, an argument isn't valid or invalid by whether its made in good faith. What matters in debate is how convincing it is, in philosophy whether its true. Truth matters in our argument. Not whether I treat my opponent with respect he will not return in kind.

Good faith must be earned. Maybe you are a vaush fan, someone who treats everyone in the worst faith possible and then complains that they don't treat him in good faith, a good faith he has never close to earning.

Our system's issue isn't and hasn't been the for profit nature of it, but the government regulations. Because previously to the regulations it ran much more efficiently and effectively. But it was purposely mangled by people who vote like you. Because if you mangle a system to the point it doesn't function, then you can advocate for greater control and regulation. Succeed or fail you get what you want.

No its bait. It had nothing to do with the conversation. You could have picked self defense which has a better basis but you chose this.

Also whether you picked it knowingly you have more to say about feminism than about the healthcare debate. Whats more your arguments on healthcare are begging where as you speak authoritatively about feminism. Its clumsy and very transparent.

But I will play ball because Id rather deal with your strongholds and crush them rather lance some pointless boil.

Why destroy that which you don't hold strongly enough to defend?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-metaphysics/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

Feel free to not read it aswell but frankly see the work it's based on is in the form of kant's critique of pure reason. All post modern philosophy requires the irrational base kant provides for their theories. From modern Christianity, to socialism, to feminism. All of them cite his discrediting of reason in the formation of their philosophy.

Did you not know? Rationality is a tool of male oppression according to feminism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227633936_Gendered_Rationality_A_Genealogical_Exploration_of_the_Philosophical_and_Sociological_Conceptions_of_Rationality_Masculinity_and_Organization

I would prefer primary citations but Im on mobile and the primary works are harder to find as I dont typically read them.

A discussion about the conflict in our ideas. Should we let our abstractions fight in an attempt to gain supremacy over each other while we are just indifferent observers? The standards of knowing whether you are right or wrong are deeply important. How do you know if you are wrong? I have my standard it's philosophical and its existence exists. Disprove that and everything else follows.

Can data be manipulated?

Also till this exact second I thought I was debating a rather effeminate man. Your race didn't come up in how you write.

And how many children are without a parent because of denied medical care, homelessness, police brutality, etc.

If you're going to use "but they have children", be consistent.