FlippantGod's recent activity

  1. Comment on Self labeling comments in ~tildes

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Right. Of all the labels, Malice is the one Tildes can't afford to encourage by any measure. I think a similar, less severe principle holds with joke, but as the social stigma for posting a joke...

    Right. Of all the labels, Malice is the one Tildes can't afford to encourage by any measure. I think a similar, less severe principle holds with joke, but as the social stigma for posting a joke is so much lower, I don't know if being able to self label would drive a change in the number of joke posts. It could probably be tested trivially if there was any interest.

    1 vote
  2. Comment on Self labeling comments in ~tildes

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Thanks for doing some due diligence where I should have. Because it didn't come up, is there any reason the capability to self label should be limited to anything other than Exemplary? For...

    Thanks for doing some due diligence where I should have.

    Because it didn't come up, is there any reason the capability to self label should be limited to anything other than Exemplary? For example, if someone was going to post something malicious and was self aware enough and had enough integrity (well...) to self label as malice, is there any reason to stop them?

    I could see it potentially encouraging a**hole behavior as if self labeling was enough to justify it, but IDK. All the other labels are much less extreme but the principle might hold. Thoughts?

    Edit: also, self labeling as malice enables someone who has had a change of heart to rebuke their past self. I don't know if that can be considered healthy, but I guess it's a use case.

    2 votes
  3. Comment on John McWhorter: ‘Woke racism’ has betrayed Black America (ReasonTV interview) in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Okay. I am sorry if you felt like I was justifying his response. In truth, I've only skimmed the discussion and was trying to engage with Gaywallet over post length. If you've felt belittled and...

    I felt that Grungegun's response to my comment was extremely dismissive and disrespectful

    Okay. I am sorry if you felt like I was justifying his response. In truth, I've only skimmed the discussion and was trying to engage with Gaywallet over post length. If you've felt belittled and extremely dismissed and disrespected like this than Gaywallet was obviously justified.

    As I wouldn't know what about the comment read this way, how much did the fact that the user focused on one minor line cause it to read as belittling, extremely dismissive and/or disrespectful, versus other elements, and behaviors they later exhibited?

    For reference, I don't see focusing on one part of a post as a reflection of my regard for the quality of a post or user, and generally not as nitpicking, which can be associated with bullying, rather than practicality online.

    If you are not qualified to respond, then maybe listen to those who are?

    Edit: real quick, everything below this point needs an edit. I was under the impression you were invalidating my opinion, when in reality you were referencing me discussing my qualifications. I don't think this actually changes anything, but I need to check it over and probably adjust some of my language. I will preserve it for posterity's sake.

    Do you truly want to get into a argument about validating opinions with me? Please think very careful about whether or not your pursuit of higher education in a relevant field means I have no room by which to suggest that someone online may not be able to make a verdict as to a superiority of sources provided between two parties without bias.

    As for butting in, I explicitly am not trying to participate in the thread's discussion! I only wanted to talk more with Gaywallet about barriers to entry on posting! Wow! I wanted to see if they were applying a double standard on who has a post that can receive praise or criticism by the criteria they presented.

    If someone's sources were in fact qualitatively worse, this would suggest that Gaywallet was not, in fact, providing a bias on that criteria, and was justified in commenting. Instead, you just butted in and told me that you supposedly have a higher education in exactly this area and I magically should have known not to question Gaywallet's judgment. Does this sound dismissive? It should! You entirely dismissed my opinion on the grounds that you believe I am not qualified enough to speak!

    As for tagging you a bunch of times, sorry! The comment I was responding to tagged a user, so I figured it would be polite to tag users I was mentioning as well. I don't know if tagging someone multiple times makes any difference, or if it is a faux pas, but I only needed to tag once in any case.

    Edit 2: I still feel my point stands, albeit less outraged by the silliness. I didn't say I was unqualified to respond, and am amazed you felt I was. It was entirely in the context of establishing some superiority of sources without bias. And there is still merit in examining whether or not Gaywallet was unconsciously and/or biasedly assuming some superiority of sources. Although I wasn't even trying to establish whether or not there was such a bias (although as stated I had doubts) but that it might play into double standards. Sheesh.

    If you feel frustrated by people without your level of education in the area you have dedicated years of your life to rigorous academic study of, welcome to the club. Also, kindly get over yourself? I can't put this nicely, but you sounded a bit like a prick. Again, to reiterate, I wasn't even providing commentary on the thread's topics.

    2 votes
  4. Comment on John McWhorter: ‘Woke racism’ has betrayed Black America (ReasonTV interview) in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    I did miss that bit of your comment initially, and addressed it somewhat in a belated, tack-on edit. As mentioned, I observe that this was not your standard at our last interaction, and wonder if...

    I did miss that bit of your comment initially, and addressed it somewhat in a belated, tack-on edit. As mentioned, I observe that this was not your standard at our last interaction, and wonder if you genuinely would have accepted it, or if you are shifting the goalposts to suite your argument.

    Edit: again, since I missed it, everything before edit 2 is in the context of our last discussion, where an opening statement finding something generally quite good was insufficient for your purposes.

  5. Comment on John McWhorter: ‘Woke racism’ has betrayed Black America (ReasonTV interview) in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    You don't want @dubteedub feeling that way. But do you want @grungegun feeling like that because in your opinion their post was not lengthy, well-sourced, or awesome? Concerning length, you might...

    You don't want @dubteedub feeling that way.

    But do you want @grungegun feeling like that because in your opinion their post was not lengthy, well-sourced, or awesome?

    Concerning length, you might be using length as a marker for effort and/or quality, which I believe is unfounded and mistaken.

    Concerning well-sourced, @grungegun's comment appears appropriately sourced for its context, and concerns @dubteedub's use of a source/context. While I agree that @dubteedub's comment also appears well sourced, I don't feel that I am qualified to attest to the comparitive quality, and I think you might be biased in this regard.

    As for awesome, this is clearly subjective.

    So you feel that users who meet your criteria for a good post deserve praise, while users who do not meet your criteria for a good post should be called out for their shortcomings.

    Am I mistaken? As for whether or not feelings were hurt, I can't say, and while I find your endeavor to promote a healthy environment admirable, I can't help but feel that pursuing it in this fashion in a public space is not especially beneficial.

    It might be hostile, and at the very least callouse of me to say this, but I personally feel that users should not expect token praise for their effort. Tildes isn't here to be an addictive circlejerk upvote farm (I know this isn't what you want either, but it is what I imagine would happen), it is here for intelligent, polite discourse. I think.

    When you feel inspired or driven to praise a quality comment, that is great, and we also have the exemplary label if you think it is meritious. But in my opinion it isn't fair to hold or coerce other users to your standards or behaviours.

    3 votes
  6. Comment on Self labeling comments in ~tildes

    FlippantGod
    Link
    This feature request was driven by an off-topic comment I felt had merit enough to post.

    This feature request was driven by an off-topic comment I felt had merit enough to post.

    2 votes
  7. Self labeling comments

    Other than Exemplary, it might be useful for the ability to self label a comment. While in some sense it might be desirable for anyone posting a comment that falls under such a category, and is...

    Other than Exemplary, it might be useful for the ability to self label a comment. While in some sense it might be desirable for anyone posting a comment that falls under such a category, and is self aware, to simply refrain from posting, some of the boundaries for labels such as joke and off-topic can be rather fuzzy.

    6 votes
  8. Comment on John McWhorter: ‘Woke racism’ has betrayed Black America (ReasonTV interview) in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Hi, I'm not at all a part of this discussion, but we recently spoke, and I thought I might be in a position to discuss some of your concerns regarding post/reply length and hyper-focus on a single...

    Hi, I'm not at all a part of this discussion, but we recently spoke, and I thought I might be in a position to discuss some of your concerns regarding post/reply length and hyper-focus on a single aspect.

    I believe you mentioned in our previous discussion that short replies to thorough posts - as well as focusing in on one aspect and disregarding the rest - raises some warning flags, which is the situation here.

    I don't know what I can do to help prevent this aside from a little more personal introspection when posting on sensitive subjects. More contentiously, while I imagine promoting a more mindful, thorough level of discourse is aligned with Tildes' goals and probably a net benefit, I also believe it could have severe negative consequences.

    I touched on this previously, but I feel that requiring anyone responding to go through an entire lengthy post and address each topic is a massive barrier to entry. Due to personal reasons, I currently have a larger online presence which I have found drives a higher level of interaction from me, and I am concerned might stifle users who have less time to participate.

    There are other reasons it can be a barrier to entry; other than time commitment, writing meaningfully about each point in a post might be near impossible if someone more or less agrees with everything or has nothing else to add. Even a simple acknowledgement of such might be impossible due to the exact nature of their agreement. Perhaps they have reached similar conclusions for different reasons, or agrees but not strongly, or is neutral on some things and is not interested in getting into the weeds of it.

    I believe that discourse naturally selects for the subset of talking material that has the most to discuss, and requiring everyone to address everything, especially when the site is already selecting for especially lengthy content, it overwhelming. There are side effects beyond barriers to entry as well.

    This comment adresses only a single thing, but includes a hopefully polite and conversational adress, a brief explanation of what I will talk about, and then several statements to explain my position. By the end of it, it is a monstrous comment. In fact, I think anyone attempting to address each of my points would find it difficult and time consuming, due to the nature of online communication if not the strength of my position (which is rather haphazard).

    Furthermore, communication online, in play-by-post fashion, is difficult. Misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misinformation, actually missing parts of a text when reading it, and many other forms of miscommunication abound. Adding words and length and talking points to a comment generally serves to muddy the waters and confuse the audience. In the event that the user in question had explored the potential merits of the rest of the post, beyond just adressing one item, it would have invited engagements and responses to any and all areas of their comment, beyond the area they were interested in pursuing. In fact, by your standards, everyone engaging with their original talking point would also need to address each of their other statements. This balloons in complexity!

    Normally, I would never post something as conversational as this. It is lengthy and unwieldy and imprecise and not at all succinct. By all accounts, this is a bad comment. It is not one I want to see on this site. It only addresses a single one of your talking points and yet derails the conversation from the thread's main subject.

    But I would challenge you to address each and every thing I have written, in a manner that anyone else can in turn engage with each and every one of your points, without being turned away by the demanding nature of the task.

    Edit: I cannot label myself? so someone please label this off-topic.

    Edit 2: You state that even a general agreement with the rest of the comment could have been enough to assuage your concerns, but unless this has changed from our last discussion, I am not sure if that is actually the case. In any event, I think my argument still stands because someone might not generally agree with the rest of the comment. They might be entirely neutral or disagree but not strongly enough to argue the other points. And you might rightfully find such an argument disagreeable to your sensibilities, but that is kind of the point. I don't think not acknowledging the rest of a comment is enough to assume the responder feels a particular way about the unmentioned content, however.

    5 votes
  9. Comment on How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    It doesn't have to presuppose this. Someone can colonize, and then use racism/ethnic superiority in an attempt to rationalize/justify their actions. But the motivation for colonialism and...

    It doesn't have to presuppose this. Someone can colonize, and then use racism/ethnic superiority in an attempt to rationalize/justify their actions. But the motivation for colonialism and oppression can be greed, profit seeking, and so on overcoming morals, or perhaps simply a lack of morals.

    A colonizer doesn't have to presuppose they are superior, or be racist. They could just be a bad person.

    Edit for clarity:

    1. Someone is rational but colonizes (maybe excuses/internal justification like life is a zero-sum game, they're a bad person, maybe a sociopath, but probably just morally bad).
    2. Someone is racist/believes in ethnic superiority, before colonizing as justified by ideology.
    3. Same as 1, and after colonization, forms/uses ideas of racism/ethnic superiority to justify actions.
    4 votes
  10. Comment on How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Alright. I would argue that they are seperable. I would say that someone might be able to find parallels or similarities to colonialism in the Free Town Project, although personally it strikes me...

    Alright. I would argue that they are seperable. I would say that someone might be able to find parallels or similarities to colonialism in the Free Town Project, although personally it strikes me as not so similar.

    And I would say that a lot of the elements of american colonialism were/are driven by white supremacy ideology.

    But I would say that drawing parallels to colonialism doesn't equate drawing a parallel to white supremacy. One would first need to look at the motivations/justifications for the Free Town Project, and see if they are rooted in white supremacy ideology, like american colonialism was/is.

    And I don't believe that is the case here. To my eye, this is clearly driven by political ideology.

    Disclaimer/bias, I guess: I consider myself something of a Georgist/Geoist, but mostly a Libertarian. I don't care for zoning legislation as it happens, but would like for communities to decide for themselves how that all shakes out. Also, I don't really understand how a group of predominantly white people moving to a predominantly white town to implement their own politics would be white supremacist... If anything, I would think that racism led them to select such a white place to live, rather than somewhere more culturally and racially diverse.

    8 votes
  11. Comment on How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Colonialism is not white supremacist (it merely can be), and also slavery is not white supremacist (it merely can be). Their history is tied together in America, but that doesn't mean you can...

    Colonialism is not white supremacist (it merely can be), and also slavery is not white supremacist (it merely can be).

    Their history is tied together in America, but that doesn't mean you can claim colonialism (or even slavery!) is inherently white supremacist. Your logic is faulty.

    Edit: also, you have not been very careful with your language. Your last sentence states "while they're not inherently the same thing" which is a different argument entirely. They are not the same thing. They are not even remotely the same thing! They represent entirely different concepts!

    12 votes
  12. Comment on How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Oh, they absolutely can go hand in hand. Historically, ethnic supremacy was a major justification for colonialism. But there is nothing inherently white supremacist about colonialism. There isn't....

    Oh, they absolutely can go hand in hand. Historically, ethnic supremacy was a major justification for colonialism. But there is nothing inherently white supremacist about colonialism. There isn't. Sorry.

    8 votes
  13. Comment on How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears in ~humanities

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Colonialism isn't a white supremacist thing, it's a colonialism thing... It literally is not inherently white supremacist. Even if they were nazis, colonialism and white supremacy are two separate...

    Colonialism isn't a white supremacist thing, it's a colonialism thing... It literally is not inherently white supremacist. Even if they were nazis, colonialism and white supremacy are two separate things.

    17 votes
  14. Comment on The coming firmware revolution in ~comp

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Definitely true! Super excited for either/both of these languages to thrive in the embedded space, and not micro python or whatever.

    Definitely true! Super excited for either/both of these languages to thrive in the embedded space, and not micro python or whatever.

    2 votes
  15. Comment on The coming firmware revolution in ~comp

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    I honestly don't know if Rust's extra guarantees matter so much in this space. It seems to me that "better than c" and "easy interop" and "small" are IMO altogether sufficient, and Zig can...

    I honestly don't know if Rust's extra guarantees matter so much in this space. It seems to me that "better than c" and "easy interop" and "small" are IMO altogether sufficient, and Zig can deliver.

    Making sure there aren't memory leaks is probably more important than hard guarantees of memory safety, and I'd argue that zig is an easier language to reason about the code than rust, which could lead to swifter adoption. The documentation and breaking changes will prevent it from gaining any real traction though, while rust is ready for production today.

    4 votes
  16. Comment on The coming firmware revolution in ~comp

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Well, it did a lot for modern firmware. Device trees and all sorts of system bringup implementation ideas stem from it.

    Well, it did a lot for modern firmware. Device trees and all sorts of system bringup implementation ideas stem from it.

    1 vote
  17. Comment on Recent wave of transphobic narratives worries trans community in ~lgbt

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Thanks. Yeah, this is probably what the offtopic label is for. Someone earlier said that sometimes even presenting a declaration of allyship can look like maliciousness or someone setting up a...

    Thanks. Yeah, this is probably what the offtopic label is for. Someone earlier said that sometimes even presenting a declaration of allyship can look like maliciousness or someone setting up a straw man argument. Do comments that at first seem positive regularly give you pause and a reason to be concerned about that, or is it relatively a non-issue compared to other difficulties you face online?

    2 votes
  18. Comment on Recent wave of transphobic narratives worries trans community in ~lgbt

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Thanks for responding, this helped me understand your points much more than the others. You have told me now that you have felt these things in this thread, so I won't be an ass and dismiss that....

    Thanks for responding, this helped me understand your points much more than the others. You have told me now that you have felt these things in this thread, so I won't be an ass and dismiss that.

    I understand now that you are trying to help me understand how this all contributes to a gradual shift away from an lgbt space. I am frustrated because, although I understand that you are trying to help me understand (thank you), I still don't. There is nothing here that I will be able to apply to further interactions with this space, beyond a second serving of self doubt, because it seemingly has not clicked for me. I really am trying though.

    :(

    3 votes
  19. Comment on Recent wave of transphobic narratives worries trans community in ~lgbt

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    Cool, but I still would like to better understand how to interact in this space. I suppose this really isn't the thread for that though.

    Cool, but I still would like to better understand how to interact in this space. I suppose this really isn't the thread for that though.

    2 votes
  20. Comment on Recent wave of transphobic narratives worries trans community in ~lgbt

    FlippantGod
    Link Parent
    I'll try to detail my understanding. You are wary of the comment in question because: It could be used by a malicious actor to discredit the article. It could lead someone to form a harmful...

    I'll try to detail my understanding. You are wary of the comment in question because:

    1. It could be used by a malicious actor to discredit the article.

    2. It could lead someone to form a harmful opinion.

    3. Although it calls out the entire article as being quite good and including interesting studies, by raising one issue and not expounding equally on everything that was quite good and the interesting studies, it resembles straw man arguments.

    4. This is an lgbt space and no-one should have to feel uncomfortable or attacked or defensive in one's own space.

    Number 1 is impossible to avoid IMO. You could never raise any doubts or provide any constructive criticism, or any feedback at all. Even only positive feedback can be spun as "an echochamber". There is no easy victory against a malicious actor so I feel that this concern is misplaced.

    Number 2 should consider the venue, as you say. Who here is reading this article and comment? People who use tildes, people who have a reason to discuss lgbt topics online. I think that if the comment in question is enough to set someone onto a TERF mindset, they were long gone. I really don't understand how this one was something you worried over.

    Number 3, I understand where you are coming from, but I think it is unfair to expect someone to have to cover in equal detail things they have acknowledged as good just to raise an issue. You are raising the bar to participate in public discourse, to what end? Would the world be a better place if @skybrian didn't comment?

    Number 4, you're right. But this is a public space also, on a website about discussing current events and other things. If anyone felt uncomfortable because of @skybrian's comment, or any of mine, please message me, label my comments as malice, or otherwise signal to me in a way you are comfortable so that I can take extra care not to do so in the future. But I must admit, it feels like the only way to deliver on this promise is for me to remove myself from the discussions entirely, as I genuinely don't think the comment in question is bad. I don't even see how it would contribute to a gradual shift in atmosphere away from an lgbt space. I mean, people have come here to discuss topics in what I feel is a relatively safe space, and if this discourse can not happen here, where on earth can it happen?

    Lastly, you have not addressed my remark that lurkers may hold a view similar to @skybrian's, and by engaging with his comment the two of you have provided more information that may alter their opinions. I find it unlikely that anyone in such a scenario would ultimately leave with a more harmful mindset as a result. Someone who did not have that mindset and may have formed it after @skybrian's comment still has the benefit of being able to see yours too, and this all seems like a pointless exercise in speculation.

    3 votes