#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.

[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.

[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

[iris-polaris]

So, you like astrology. Maybe you're an astrologer yourself. You don't push it on anyone (hopefully!) but it's certainly a major interest of yours.

!! AND YET !!

You know there's some arguments "against" astrology, and you're never sure how to respond...or even how to conceptualize why you feel differently.

As a starting point to develop your own opinions, here's food for thought on a common misconception: that all horoscopes and zodiac signs are too "general" or "the same."

!! DISCLAIMER !! This is more for you. While it's healthy to have some disagreements with the humans closest to you, remember that it's never worth your time and energy to "debate" anyone coming at you in bad faith. Ever. If they're not trying to learn about astrology and just want to feel superior to you because they buy Reddit merch or something, go ahead and ignore them. Do your Duolingo instead. Way more productive.

Now then...

Your hopefully well-meaning friend says that all the astrology stuff she's read sounds alike, so it could apply to anyone! It's so vague! Of course everyone believes they're real: each horoscope and zodiac sign is built to be relatable to every reader, so it feels true.

Two things are happening here, though.

🔮 The first is that English is a weird language, so it often fails at describing anything sophisticated.

What's this got to do with astrology? Well: English is hard to master, and even when you do master it, it's still difficult to find the exact words you need...if they exist at all.

Furthermore, humans don't critically read anything anymore. (Sigh.)

We astrology folks know that an Aries sun's drive and a Sagittarius sun's drive are not the same. One's more ambitious, the other adventurous. Succinctly writing this out in a way that makes it perfectly clear, with zero debate, that these are two very different energies? In English? Not easy.

You might say: "But, Bear, you did just succinctly write it."

Thing is...

That still doesn't arrive, fully, at the intricacies of Aries suns vs Sag suns...

And most people aren't coming from the same astrological place as you, in terms of knowledge. When you're too succinct with a layperson, they'll sometimes conflate "ambitious" and "adventurous" to mean the same thing. (Just for instance.)

As someone with two poetry degrees, this hurts me deeply, but there it is.

Additionally...

If you yourself aren't great at finding the exact words you need in any astrological content? Any layperson won't fully know what you mean, nor will they care.

So of course...

All signs and horoscopes seem the same to outsiders if written without crystal clarity. Many of us lack that crystal clarity. No judgement. It's just how English is, and how communication fails inherently sometimes.

This phenomenon is made worse because of...

🔮 The second issue: pop astrology generally needs to be short and succinct.

As I said, the whole clarity thing is...not good when you need entire essays, sometimes, to talk to others about an Aries vs. Sag drive, for example.

That doesn't fit in a newspaper column or easily-scanned blog post. Nor do 99% of the other things we astrologers want to tell everyone and want to talk about. Unfortunately, we only have a limited amount of physical (and mental!) space. So do the humans around us.

This also sucks because a lot of humans only know of astrology from their 20-word local newspaper horoscopes.

And so...

We have to use short-hand. We have to be vague much of the time. We may not know the words we want to use in our horoscopes and descriptions at all, in fact, because English is our second language or we were never great at communicating in the first place.

We often have to point towards meaning in astrology, which isn't at all actually talking about the thing in question. When you're clear, people can't misconstrue you unless they're working in bad faith. (Then you can ignore 'em.) However, when you have to lead people to your astrological conclusions in a roundabout way, using imprecise words, they can wander astray.

It sucks that we're often forced to abandon preciseness for conciseness. But trust me when I say that an Aries having "ambitious drive" and Sagittarius having "adventurous drive" are very much not the same thing.

🔮 In conclusion...

The reason some horoscopes and descriptions of sun signs might seem "vague" or "applicable to anyone" is because of:

the limitations of the English language/communication in general,

and the limitations of digital and physical mediums.

I should have probably led with the disclaimer that this is mostly opinion with no cited sources, but it may help you humans figure things out for yourselves re: this common misconception.

Blessings, cubs!

(Typed up by my wife Mate-chan. Thank you, baby.)

[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.

[rosiewitchescottage]

fuckyeah-nerdery:

Saw this on Fark and it made my day: 15 reasons Mr. Rogers was the best neighbor ever. Some of these are just amazing.

2. He made thieves think twice. According to a TV Guide piece on him, Fred Rogers drove a plain old Impala for years. One day, however, the car was stolen from the street near the TV station. When Rogers filed a police report, the story was picked up by every newspaper, radio and media outlet around town.

Amazingly, within 48 hours the car was left in the exact spot where it was taken from, with an apology on the dashboard. It read, “If we’d known it was yours, we never would have taken it.”

Seriously, even criminals loved Mr. Roger.

4. He saved both public television and the VCR. Strange but true. When the government wanted to cut public television funds in 1969, the relatively unknown Mister Rogers went to Washington.

Almost straight out of a Frank Capra film, his 5-6 minute testimony on how TV had the potential to give kids hope and create more productive citizens was so simple but passionate that even the most gruff politicians were charmed. While the budget should have been cut, the funding instead jumped from $9 to $22 million.

Rogers also spoke to Congress, and swayed senators into voting to allow VCR’s to record television shows from the home. It was a cantankerous debate at the time, but his argument was that recording a program like his allowed working parents to sit down with their children and watch shows as a family.

Too bad he isn’t here now, because public broadcasting could use him again. :|

5. He might have been the most tolerant American ever. Mister Rogers seems to have been almost exactly the same off-screen as he was onscreen. As an ordained Presbyterian minister, and a man of tremendous faith, Mister Rogers preached tolerance first.

Whenever he was asked to castigate non-Christians or gays for their differing beliefs, he would instead face them and say, with sincerity, “God loves you just the way you are.” Often this provoked ire from fundamentalists.

This made me smile. He didn’t judge people on irrelevancies like their sexual orientation or religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

6. He was genuinely curious about others. Mister Rogers was known as one of the toughest interviews because he’d often befriend reporters, asking them tons of questions, taking pictures of them, compiling an album for them at the end of their time together, and calling them after to check in on them and hear about their families. He wasn’t concerned with himself, and genuinely loved hearing the life stories of others.

And it wasn’t just with reporters. Once, on a fancy trip up to a PBS exec’s house, he heard the limo driver was going to wait outside for 2 hours, so he insisted the driver come in and join them (which flustered the host).

On the way back, Rogers sat up front, and when he learned that they were passing the driver’s home on the way, he asked if they could stop in to meet his family. According to the driver, it was one of the best nights of his life the house supposedly lit up when Rogers arrived, and he played jazz piano and bantered with them late into the night. Further, like with the reporters, Rogers sent him notes and kept in touch with the driver for the rest of his life.

Mr. Rogers played jazz!

8. He could make a subway car full of strangers sing. Once while rushing to a New York meeting, there were no cabs available, so Rogers and one of his colleagues hopped on the subway. Esquire reported that the car was filled with people, and they assumed they wouldn’t be noticed.

But when the crowd spotted Rogers, they all simultaneously burst into song, chanting “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood.” The result made Rogers smile wide.

I would do the same thing if he was still alive and I saw him.

Oh and all the sweaters he wore were hand-knitted by his mom.

This guy was just amazing, I loved watching his show when I was growing up. The world lost a great man when he died. :(

[seahgreenhorn]

'Falsely Called Knowledge'?

Our world ironically spins harried children, women, and men as hurricane winds of aspiring minds and fluctuating trends bend to breaking point honest hearts weakened, yet hoping and praying for communities to mend morally/or not by radically defending 'personal' 'righteous/unrighteous' 'laws/principles': But, "why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says Jehovah, ‘to me every knee will bend, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.’” So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. "So, then, let us pursue the things making for peace and the things that build one another up." "The faith that you have, keep it to yourself before God. Happy is the man who does not judge himself by what he approves." "Indeed, everything that is not based on faith is sin." Rom. 14:19, 22, 23. For, "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Heb. 11:1. So: "Let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works". Heb. 10:24. "Whatever you are doing, work at it whole-souled as for Jehovah, and not for men". Col. 3:23. "Be rich in fine works," "be generous, ready to share". "Arguments and debates about words"? These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth". "Guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 1 Tim. 6:4, 5, 20. For "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 1 Cor. 3:19. Therefore: "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ". "Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge. I am saying this so that no one may delude you with persuasive arguments." Col. 2:8, 3, 4.

"Poor quality information will lead to poor decisions. Never underestimate the powerful effect that misleading information can have on your mind and heart. Consider what happened in Moses’ time when 10 of the 12 spies who were sent to explore the Promised Land brought back a bad report. (Num. 13:25-33) Their exaggerated and outrageous account completely disheartened Jehovah’s people. (Num. 14:1-4, 6-10) Instead of getting the facts and showing confidence in Jehovah, they chose to believe the bad report."

Frequently Asked Questions

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/

Photo credit: Image by

51581

from

Pixabay

[sleepymarmot]

TÁR (2022)

[Watched on February 18th. Beware, this post is 4k words long.]

Glad I was watching this at home and alone. I don’t think I’ve ever done so much googling during a movie. The experience felt like reading a heavy novel that needed footnotes but lacked them. A note taken during the first half hour: “Was the script written by musicians? I feel like I’m watching a documentary”. Wikipedia says that the writer/director has a background in music, and a conductor served as a consultant; the work really shows — I don’t have the expertise to tell if it’s realistic or not, but at least the illusion of realism is strong.

The interview and the master class felt painfully immersive. I was genuinely intimidated by Lydia’s presence as the teacher from hell. That poor kid was just waiting for this to be over and then leave and never return… I was surprised to see him (them?) snap and actually walk out, good for them! Also was surprised that Lydia didn’t make the obvious comeback about the student’s antifeminist usage of the word “bitch”. And to address the actual content of the debate: I think Lydia’s argument about reducing people to their demographic was backwards. Marginalized people already get judged in this way; giving the straight white men who formed the canon the same treatment instead of accepting them as the default is an intentional reversal. Sure, the student fails to present their opinion in a rhetorically strong way, because they didn’t come here for a political dispute and because they’re currently being bullied by an extremely powerful person, but said powerful person then presents an even weaker point as a counterargument!

“Finally, a film with the appropriate amount of Discourse,” I thought during this scene! And it’s not the only one where Lydia’s opinions on these matters are contrasted with others’ — notably, with the younger and more progressive Francesca and Olga. Relatedly, the fact that Lydia doesn’t recognize the date of the International Women’s Day was hilarious to me both as a feminist and as a Russian (it’s a public holiday over here, even if completely depoliticized in quite a misogynistic way). Overall the film felt like a very honest and good-faith look at a person who rejects solidarity/class consciousness (as opposed to a certain Best Picture winner, I have to add). I wonder, to what extent did Lydia think she was behaving in a normal and okay way, until the consequences caught up with her? The film maintains a balance between artful ambiguity of the protagonist’s intentions and commitment to following her around and showing her subjective world. I thought it was even more successful in creating another balance: neither whitewashing Lydia’s behavior nor making her overly hate-inducing in a satirical way, but letting the viewers see her up close, in different contexts, both as how she chooses to present herself for the public and how she acts in private, and leaving the viewer the space to empathize with her or judge her as they see fit.

Even if the pacing was noticeably slow for my awful attention span, and the combination of that pacing with the difficult content led to many breaks in the viewing, in a lot of ways the film was more aligned with my taste than much of what I’ve seen recently. I mean, even the density of the script isn’t exactly a downside; I enjoy looking things up while reading, so doing the same while watching a movie isn’t inherently bad, just unusual. I liked the realistic, psychological style of writing, directing, and acting. Making almost all music diegetic worked well. The sets and costumes were beautiful and expressed the setting’s aesthetic and personality of the characters inhabiting them just as well as they should. I wasn’t as in love with the cinematography as some seem to be, but there’s a lot to praise there too.

I was slightly unprepared for the secondhand embarrassment. The Elgar concerto announcement was excruciating to watch, I had to take a break. Same with the big recording at the end, to a lesser extent. I’d seen a gif of Lydia attacking someone on stage and I was worried she’d have a breakdown while performing; thankfully, what actually happened was less embarrassing.

Somewhere near the middle of the movie I wrote down “So far this film’s only flaw is how much effort it takes to watch it”. Further into the second half, I did find something to be dissatisfied with. I was confused by the hauntings; at first I assumed Lydia was just hallucinating, but as they became more and more real I couldn’t understand whether Lydia was getting worse or the film genuinely took a supernatural turn. Krista’s ghost sitting in the background when Lydia wakes up at night was a “when you see it you’ll shit bricks” moment. I understand that making the viewer question reality is the intention of these scenes, but that didn’t seem to have a proper resolution. Same with Olga disappearing into the mysterious building; I almost wondered if she was a ghost too. Was she conspiring with Francesca the entire time in order to take Lydia down? Was that supposed to be ambiguous or am I just stupid?

Finally, the ending just lost me (with the exception of the “massage parlor” scene, which was great). Throughout the film I kept wanting for Lydia’s downfall to begin already, but when it did, it felt rushed. I didn’t like or understand the thinking behind the montage of Lydia in Asia. There’s some commentary to be made about how intensely European most of the film is, and the jarring orientalism of the final ten minutes. A film so meticulous about referencing various names and trivia of Western high culture doesn’t bother to even name the entire Asian country where its ending takes place, and I’ve seen viewers argue whether it’s Thailand or the Philippines because of contradictory evidence.

I can see many people praise the closing scene, but I don’t understand the intent behind it. Is Lydia miserable, confined by the material and setting that are unworthy of her talent, with the predetermined tempo dictated to her through the headphones, seething with resentment for the vulgar music as someone conservative and elitist enough to bash even Cage and Þorvaldsdóttir? Or is she relearning to enjoy the essence of her job without the trappings of wealth and high status — “good music (…) bare as a potting shed”, as she said at the beginning of the film — and treating a video game soundtrack and a kid orchestra as seriously as she did Mahler and the most prestigious orchestra in the world? Blanchett says “those readings coexist”, but in my opinion these meanings are mutually exclusive, and neither was communicated clearly.

More about the master class

There was something about the way camera moved and refocused in the master class scene that I took note of, but I didn’t realize that was all filmed in one shot until someone pointed it out. Rewatched, and was amazed. Very clever to present that as raw unedited material that will later be cut and edited in bad faith. (Not my observation, but I can’t remember where I saw it.)

Context for Max’s words, from the Bach page on Wikipedia: “Later the same year, their first child, Catharina Dorothea, was born, and Maria Barbara's elder, unmarried sister joined them. (…) Three sons were also born in Weimar (…). Johann Sebastian and Maria Barbara had three more children, who however did not live to their first birthday, including twins born in 1713. (…) On 7 July 1720, while Bach was away in Carlsbad with Prince Leopold, Bach's wife suddenly died. The following year, he met Anna Magdalena Wilcke, a young, highly gifted soprano 16 years his junior, who performed at the court in Köthen; they married on 3 December 1721. Together they had 13 children, six of whom survived into adulthood”.

A celebrated genius in a relationship with a much younger female musician — sounds familiar? Is it any surprise that Lydia is so determined to separate the art from the artist in this case? Max didn’t even say that they’d never played Bach (they’re a violinist…), that they refuse to study Bach or that Bach should not be admired, simply that they personally prefer to focus on other composers — but a rejection even on that small of a scale was enough to set Lydia off. See which of them is easily offended and insecure in this scene? Not the nervous Twitter generation kid! Whether she is aware of it or not, what Lydia hears is “Lydia Tár’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take her music seriously,” and she wants to prevent this phrase from ever being heard outside of her repressed guilty conscience.

It’s also remarkable how much more personally Lydia takes an accusation of misogyny directed at Bach than a misogynistic slur directed at herself. She relates to a man who can be seen as exploitative towards women more than she identifies as a woman. Being accused of misogyny hits closer to home than being the target of it.

Also note how Max’s initial point was “I don’t like this composer because of what he did”, and Lydia’s Intellectual Comeback was “Aha! But you like another composer despite what he said! I am very smart”. Because making a single racist statement is toootally the same as having your wife give birth every year 13 times in a row…

By the way, the number of people online who are like “wait, what does fathering 20 children have to do with structural oppression of women?” is staggering. Hey, quick question, where do you think children come from??

Following up on the previous point: it’s interesting that the writer built the argument around Bach and a very specific feminist criticism against him that apparently sounds absurd to a significant portion of the audience, instead of picking a widely controversial composer like Wagner.

For context, I’m saying all this as someone who enjoyed playing Bach as a teen on an amateur level, enjoys listening to Bach occasionally now, and has not heard of this detail of his biography until today. As you might guess, I find Max’s position very relatable — because even though I’ve never had or encountered this conversation about Bach, I sure did about Tolstoy! Except this specific Bach debate manages to be more absurd than the usual squabbles on the topic of problematic classics. It’s like a literature professor saying “Why did you choose this contemporary female poet as the subject of your essay/thesis? I think her work sucks. Why didn’t you pick Tolstoy instead? Oh you think he was a huge misogynist, and prefer to focus on the work of many other writers who aren’t? Well you’re a woke SJW snowflake!!!”

I think what many people miss about this scene, and other scenes in fiction that portray verbalized ideological disagreements, is that in many cases, the arguments are not presented in pure platonic form, but are voiced by characters who have their own personal reasons to think and talk like they do. Max’s argument is reductive not because their position is inherently shallow, but because of the situation in which they are forced to make it. Lydia’s argument is not what the viewer is supposed to agree with, or what the writer thinks, or even what the character thinks; she is confident and eloquent not because she is right, but because of who she is and what the power dynamic in the room is.

So much of what Lydia says during the scene is deeply hypocritical. “They will also have been handled rating sheets, the purpose of which is to rate you. Now, what kind of criteria would you hope that they would use to do this?” — yeah, what kind of criteria do we see Lydia use to select her performers? “You gotta sublimate yourself, your ego and, yes, your identity” — we know the enormity of her ego, and how carefully constructed her identity is. The scene is brilliant, but it also loses most of its meaning without the context of the entire film. I’ve seen a few posts with isolated screenshots of Lydia’s punchy quotes from this scene, and it feels like witnessing the birth of a new cinephile red flag.

There’s also a very different, Doylist aspect to this debate. Lydia starts praising Bach as a positive example after bashing not a musical strawman, not a fragment written for this movie to represent “bad music” — but a real work of another real composer, Anna Þorvaldsdóttir, a 2013 piece that was presumably used with the composer’s blessing. The composer chosen for the film’s score, Hildur Guðnadóttir, is also a young woman from Iceland, and the styles of these two composers are closer to each other than to the classics Lydia promotes; this alone should be evidence enough that the director isn’t trying to disparage Þorvaldsdóttir’s work. An interview with Guðnadóttir provides a comfortingly decisive Word of God: “It has to be absolutely clear that none of us—myself, Todd, Cate—agree with Lydia’s opinion!” In her interpretation, the scene “represents Lydia trying to fight the side of her that she wants to be more connected to”.

Lydia’s own composition work is much more modern than her conservative rhetoric would make you expect. The same interview explains that the dissonance was intentional: “One of the main points that Todd and I discussed is that there’s a real disconnect between the music she is writing and what she conducts. We see in the beginning that she had previously explored music from other cultures. We felt [earlier in her life, before the film takes place] she was much more curious and adventurous than the roles she ends up taking, and then she starts manipulating and fooling herself, and other people. She creates this fake persona to become this magnificent conductor, and she’s very strong and powerful, but we felt like that was not who she really was, in her heart of hearts. One of the main problems for her is this disconnect, and that’s where she starts being more aggressive and disconnected from basic humanity.” The final line of the interview, where Guðnadóttir rejects the hierarchy of music that puts video game soundtracks on the bottom, is also relevant to the ending’s interpretation.

Short notes, mostly about specific scenes

The first time I heard of this movie’s existence, I saw a picture of Cate Blanchett and thought “women must go wild for her in this role”. It was only much later that I learned that the character actually was a lesbian. Is Blanchett starting to get typecast now? I’m all for it…

Took me like a week to find a moment when I had enough free hours in a row to dedicate to this and also felt relatively confident to bet on staying sharp and awake enough during them to appreciate it. (For context, after viewing I couldn’t stop thinking about the film for approximately 24 hours straight, not counting sleep.) I’m glad I did, watching this when sleepy and unable to fully pay attention would be a nightmare. It might have been an easier experience if it were split into multiple episodes, but the structure and everything else are entirely cinematic and not at all TV-like.

I’m glad other viewers are addressing the fan and her handbag, I thought I was missing something because this one night stand was never brought up again. Also relieved to see other people confirm that I understood Lydia’s line about Sebastian living on the same floor as another man correctly; that line also seemed to hang in the air.

Appreciate the ability to pause and read Lydia’s Wikipedia article. Nitpick: the film names are not italicized and none of the links have been visited :p

From the script: “Tár’s eyes, satisfied with her mimicry, suddenly fill with concern. She turns and looks back into the suite, as if sensing someone or something. But there’s nothing there.” I completely misunderstood this scene then, I thought it was about the bouquet having been quietly delivered (presumably from Krista) and Lydia being startled by its sudden appearance. But turns out it’s the first of the eerie unreality scenes.

Another confirmation from the script: “There is an underlying tension between [Lydia and Francesca]. The tension of people who have at times slept together, but no longer do.”

Having watched Phantom Thread only three weeks ago, I took note of the discourse about the famous artist and his wife Alma. Was Mahler the reference all along? I’d only seen Hitchcock mentioned…

I totally missed that Lydia stole Sharon’s medication. Took me a while to find the line that confirmed it.

“I’m Petra’s father”… How dare she be this hot while threatening a small child lmao

On a more serious note, as someone pointed out, “If you tell any grown-up what I just said, they won’t believe you” is likely something Lydia also said to Krista (and possibly others). Ouch.

At one point I realized that Blanchett was playing the piano by herself, and went to google if she learned it for the film. In the very next scene, I went to google the same thing about her the first violin’s actress, but for the opposite reason. I know little about the piano so Blanchett’s work seemed impressively natural to me, but wasn’t the violinist gripping the bow a bit too tensely for a pro?

I know they had to make the contrast between the two cellists during the audition obvious, but how does the first one even have a job at such a prestigious orchestra? That was terrible lmao

How ironic that after everything Lydia did to deserve and set up her own downfall, it happened in no small part due to a total fabrication that misrepresented her to the world.

Lydia’s intense expression and disheveled hair in the scene where he attacks the replacement conductor reminded me of Beethoven’s famous portrait. I wonder if that was the intent, especially considering her mention of “old Ludwig” in the master class scene.

How many mirror reflection shots are in this movie? Grateful for the opportunity to see Blanchett’s acting from two angles at once.

I’ve seen one or two people compare the film to Tell-Tale Heart. This film really does have gothic horror elements! The word “haunted” even appears on screen during the opening shot.

The neighbor subplot is such an artistic combination of everything Lydia fears and wants to avoid. She’s glamorous, she’s tidy, she’s germophobic, she’s hyper-intellectual, she’s afraid of being left behind, she’s afraid of death, she’s drawn to young and vibrant people. And the life that is the opposite of what she wants has been next door all along, becoming more and more visible to her, like an omen of the impending destruction of her lifestyle.

There’s a similar clash between Lydia’s intellectual, refined façade and the crude exploitation mirroring the side she refuses to acknowledge in herself in the “massage parlor” scene, and this one is not a continuous haunting but a singular shock strong enough to get through her wall of denial. I have to give credit to the discussion post on Reddit (there are several subthreads, this one is probably the cleanest) for breaking it down: there’s so much symbolism packed into a single shot there I didn’t pick up on all of it by myself from one viewing. To sum up: Lydia is shot with her back to the camera from the same angle as she was at work, standing with a hand raised like a conductor over a group of women seated like an orchestra, and the woman who looks up at Lydia is sitting in Olga’s place and bearing the same number as the symphony that Lydia was conducting throughout the film. It’s obvious in retrospect if you look at the shots side by side, but I found the scene striking even before noticing the woman’s position or number.

The list of music in the closing titles includes Partita for 8 Voices, one of the few pieces of contemporary music that I actually happen to have listened to, but I don’t remember it in the film. Seems like it was only used for promotion?

About backstory and identity

- Todd Field revealed in an interview that Lydia never even met Bernstein. That’s wild. How did she successfully fake being his student throughout her entire career?! It also changes her character in a huge way: either she is aware the entire time that her career is based on a lie, or she’s far more disconnected from reality than it seemed.

- In retrospect, it’s also strange that a celebrity accused of sexual misconduct would be invited to lead a youth orchestra. This characterizes her Asian employers as either ignorant or negligent — and I don’t know which option is worse, that it was one of the many ways in which the film decides to present the country as inferior, or that the writer wasn’t thinking about the motivations behind this plot point at all.

- There’s a blink-and-you-miss-it detail on the Wikipedia page we see on screen that is very relevant to the conception of Lydia’s stage name. We know she renamed herself from Linda Tarr to Lydia Tár; I’ve seen many people point out that the last name isn’t real and she added the accent mark to make herself seem fancier and European. But the Wikipedia page shows the name and background of her father: “Zoltán Tarr, an Hungarian immigrant to the US”. It’s a detail that the perfectionist Lydia leaves in on purpose. So it seems that the accent mark is a tribute to her late father and their family’s European roots. Lydia constructs a new European identity, just like she creates a new benchmark for what a person of her demographics can achieve. At the same time, that identity bears the mark of her European heritage, which she reclaims by basically re-immigrating into Europe; she claims it as her birthright, which seems relevant to her conservative, assimilationist worldview.

It also seems important that her original last name, Tarr, is on Wikipedia, but the original first name, Linda, isn’t. The inconsistency breaks immersion a bit, like the Bernstein lie, but also adds something to Lydia’s characterization. She doesn’t mind the name of her late Hungarian father being known to the public; in fact, it’s important to her image. Zoltán Tarr was European, presumably forced to flee his country — a dramatic, romantic backstory; Linda was an ordinary American girl, which is something she’d rather forget.

- Lydia is committed to proving that she belongs in the boys’ club and that being a woman shouldn’t stop one from becoming an abusive male genius. It’s easy to imagine a version of this story where young Linda has changed name not to Lydia but to Leo and rejected the identity of a woman altogether.

- I can see the criticism about the “predatory lesbian” stereotype. That could have been addressed on screen, actually, since the film already deals with identity politics. (Though that wouldn’t fix the issue of basing the biography of the main character on a real person and then making her an abuser — that seems irreparably insulting no matter what!)

- So thrilled to live in a time where the epic tales of a hubristic, charismatic genius’s downfall and mental unraveling can be about very well-dressed and attractive women. Have you ever wished for something like Lawrence of Arabia to be about a lesbian musician? I guess many actual lesbian musicians haven’t, considering the criticism that I feel no right to dismiss; but I have no personal stakes here, and I guess I solve this film’s dilemma in favor of the art — my own viewing pleasure over someone else’s representation.

Links

The script, via Variety

Hildur Guðnadóttir on Soundtracking Tàr and Sexism in Classical Music

How Composer Hildur Guðnadóttir’s TÁR Soundtrack Unlocks the Film’s Eerie Mysteries

That Last Scene in ‘Tár’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means — an article by Somtow Sucharitkul, the conductor of the Thai youth orchestra seen in the film

The Lesbian Allure And Colonial Unconscious Of Todd Field’s Tár — an essay in a feminist journal

What “Tár” Knows About the Artist as Abuser — a “cultural comment” in The New Yorker

Un-Tár-nished — a review by conductor and composer Leonard Slatkin

How to Disappear Completely: A Lesbian Musician Watches Tár — a review

[mariacallous]

Editor's Note: The debt limit is once again an issue for political debate about federal spending. In this FixGov blog series, we’ve asked a number of experts to explain, why it’s so hard to cut federal spending?

For the next few months, as we head into the debt ceiling negotiations, we will be thrust into a familiar argument about deficits and government spending. Both parties appear to have taken social security and Medicare off the table. Ditto for defense. So, all there is left to talk about is the discretionary side of the budget — a measly 14% of the total budget in 2019.

Getting significant savings out of this part of the budget will be like getting blood from a stone. Is there some fraud and waste in there? Sure — but, as Donald Kettl has pointed out you need to spend money to find it. Are there things in there that don’t need to be done at the federal level? Sure, but even if you can get past the stubborn status quo, this requires the hard work of restructuring. Can taxes be raised, and tax expenditures be cut? Of course they can, but raising taxes is heresy for the Republican Party and cutting tax expenditures (such as the mortgage interest deduction) is Defcon 4 for the public.

While we don’t know what the Republican counter to Biden’s budget proposal looks like (and it may not be out until June) we do know that it may include a cap on future agency budgets — the equivalent of across-the-board cuts to the non-defense discretionary side of the budget. A little bit of history provides a good lesson in why across the board cuts are perhaps the worst way to cut spending.

The story starts in 2010 when Republicans had just taken control of the House of Representatives and Barack Obama was president. Due to spending as a result of the Great Recession, deficits were high, and Republicans were threatening to increase the debt ceiling unless large cuts in federal spending were made. The Budget Control Act set up a congressional committee — called the “Super Committee” — to come up with a bipartisan package of cuts. To no one’s surprise, it failed and an automatic “sequester” kicked in requiring 2% across the board cuts starting in January 2013.

As agencies began to comply with the sequester everyone — including the Republican Congress — got a hard lesson in why across the board cuts are a bad idea. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) runs the nation’s airports including over 21,000 air traffic controllers.

Their budget is appropriated in accounts, the biggest being “operations” mostly air traffic controllers and other safety related personnel. To implement the law the FAA required air traffic controllers to take unpaid furloughs. To keep everyone safe the FAA also implemented programs that increased aircraft spacing which of course sparked delays and reduced the number of flights that could be handled in any given period. This led to serious disruptions in New York City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Las Vegas, Chicago and Tampa airports, among others. By the fifth day of furloughs 863 flights had been delayed and another 2,132 were expected.

The public was outraged and let legislators, reporters, and their friends and acquaintances know. On April 27, 2013, just days into the furloughs, Congress passed legislation allowing the FAA to transfer money from the airport improvement account into the operations account and the furloughs ended. The bill was named the “Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013,” the air traffic controllers went back to work and received their pay. And the portion of the budget that went to airport improvement grants was moved into a “protected” status so that airports could use them in the later years of their eligibility.

The moral of the story is that there’s a wrong way to cut government spending and a right way that almost is never used. That involves good faith negotiations between political parties, a willingness to compromise on each side’s respective priorities, and serious efforts to locate unworthy expenditures. As Congressman Barney Frank used to say, “a willingness to look for fat in the budget involves the way you look for fat in a nicely marbled piece of steak.” That is taking out a sharp knife and going after clear pockets of pork. It’s no coincidence that the last time the U.S. had a balanced budget was at the beginning of the information technology revolution. The creative use of new technology in this century could also result in savings as could investigating the devolution of some functions from the federal government to state and local governments.

The wrong way is the easy way — simply lop off a certain amount across the board. Hence the wrong way wins. Let’s hope it doesn’t win this time too.

[askshivanulegacy]

None of these stories are anti-Jedi. And I don't deny that Lucas may have had a full story that existed in his head. But it wasn't published. What was published was hundreds of books and comics and rpgs and computer games that he approved/allowed.

And once you have published material, it becomes a resource. It's official in ways that your external comments and views will never be. External interview questions are not part of the world that you've built. They're simply your own views of your own work. If you wanted them in your work and failed to put them in there, they are not a part of it. What's real is now the interaction between the reader and the book or the viewer and the movie. That's the art form. The real message is the message that was received, not what you withheld or failed to deliver, and had to patch with interview questions.

All the published material are the real Star Wars stories. Nothing about them is invalid. They don't say "unofficial Star Wars" on them. Lucas approved what he wanted and they went to publish as real events from that universe. Nobody has any way of knowing what he privately agreed or disagreed with, so those opinions don't matter in a way that informs the universe.

If you want to build your own personal understanding of Star Wars around these external comments (which are not nearly as obvious or accessible as the published stories), then there's nothing wrong with that. You have the freedom to do it.

But what you can't do is insist that it's the "right" view or "only" view, and you can't tell people not to use xyz published material, and you can't tell people that their ideas aren't valid just because they ARE using that published material. You can't even properly claim that your views are "official." Since when are creator opinions of a finished work official? Even that concept is hugely debatable.

All you end up doing is trying to blockade off real, official, published resources so that the only outcome is that your opinion (and it's only an opinion!) is correct. It's disingenuous. It's bad faith.

I think it's a cool and fun take to try to remain close to the creator's opinions. And it's valid to explore inconsistencies to try to navigate to a coherent storyline that makes sense to you. But you have to realize and acknowledge that you are not "right" and nobody else with sourced opinions is "wrong." What you have is a headcanon. It's not even based on published works. Even if we all agree that creator interview answers are "official", they still don't trump published material. At best, they're equal.

You can argue against "Jedi-critical" views too! That's part of a healthy fandom. But you have to have your own sourced arguments to do it. You can't just say "I don't like your published material as sources, so therefore I declare you're wrong as a blanket statement if you use them, so I don't even have to try to have a genuine discussion." That's also bad faith. Your sources are no more right or official than theirs.

I don't care what headcanons y'all have. I think they're all fun. There's enough room in my love of Star Wars to enjoy looking at everyone's views. What I do care about is when people use bad faith tactics to artificially cut the legs out from people they disagree with ... all for mere headcanons. And then to believe that they're right to do that. Weird and uncool!

I really dislike it when anti-Jedi and Jedi-critical crowd uses EU books as a prove for their points. Why they’re all wrong:

a) The books were written by various people who didn’t consult George Lucas about what they’re going to write. Everyone understood SW as they did. When an original author has never claimed such art as canon and actually refused it – this is a definition of fanfiction, isn’t it? Paid, yes, but fanfiction nonetheless.

b) Most of these books were created way before PT. They didn’t know about the Jedi things what we know now. It becomes quite hypocritical – I mean, in the EU the clones were enemies, not allies, but somehow I don’t see any claims ‘but the clones are enemies! The EU says so!’. Even in Karen Traviss books not all the clones have a personality, but we all ignore it now, aren’t we? She wrote her books before the TCW, not knowing how the series would spin the story. So EU retcon works for the clones, but not for the Jedi?