Gaywallet's recent activity

  1. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    This is so incredibly passive aggressive and reminiscent of twitter subtweeting that it makes it practically impossible to engage with the rest of your post I get that you're frustrated with the...

    It's a reactionary piece that doesn't manage to first understand what the speakers are saying before responding.

    It's playing to the audience here at Tildes who like to imagine they're so educated but simultaneously intentionally choosing to not read.

    This is so incredibly passive aggressive and reminiscent of twitter subtweeting that it makes it practically impossible to engage with the rest of your post

    I get that you're frustrated with the way conversation has happened but if you're going to accuse others of not leaving their emotions at the door the least you can do is lay out the behavior you wish to see

    Anyhow to address what you did bring up in this reply

    Some of the actions taken in the last decade were performative, not effective at bringing about progressive change, and became mainstream which drove a counter-culture. None of that should be controversial

    It seems to me that what you're missing is that basically no one is arguing against this? We're talking about something that is broadly categorized as 'politics'. Politics is like 90% performance. Pretty much everyone who came in here who took issue with the very premise were explicitly pointing out that this very article is performance and choosing to engage with it is yet another act of performance.

    You can't simultaneously act like there's a serious issue to discuss here while also engaging with an act of performance - those two are at odds with each other.

    7 votes

  2. Comment on Why so many people are going "no contact" with their parents in ~life

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    I literally never said any of those things Really not an apples to apples here. Do you think his statement was an attack on the commenter? Did you read the context that he gave? Maybe it'll help...

    Sharing feelings is not inherently noble; it is not inherently reasonable; it is not inherently fair.

    I literally never said any of those things

    "I'm sure you're a nice person but that label makes me feel like it's a glowing endorsement of racism."

    Really not an apples to apples here. Do you think his statement was an attack on the commenter? Did you read the context that he gave? Maybe it'll help for me to explain how I interpreted what he said, since you were unwilling to share with me your thoughts or interpretation of his words:

    • The general context comes from a previous comment where he talked about how upsetting and difficult it was to remove himself from a genuinely toxic situation with his parents
    • He lamented how this context isn't addressed and how it pains him to see it swept under the rug
    • He shared how difficult it was, again and even used formatting to try and convey the emotional severity of it all
    • He stated that the exemplary label made him upset (I suspect because it just makes the sweeping under the rug feel that much more forceful)
    • He recognized that stating such would imply that he was saying this person was being a bad parent, and spent time and effort to directly address that. He put himself in this parent's shoes and recognized that he would be fearful of a child doing the same, and recognized that this deserved recognition.
    • He then once again drew attention back to the label, and why the label and not the person nor the argument they were making was what was upsetting to him. He was careful to use the word "reads to me" to center that it was his own emotional experience of the situation

    To me it sounded more like he was recognizing his emotional position, offering up vulnerability to help explain exactly why it hurt him so much as a means to try and recenter the conversation on what he felt was missing or not addressed appropriately by the author (the premise of his original reply). While it is not directly stated, my interpretation of the words is that he was sharing how the exemplary comment made him feel, with an explicit recognition that at least some part of the judgement isn't fair or at least the recognition and attempt to split the direct subject in this context (the parent who addressed him) from the broader concept or the indirect subject (a parent). He did all this to try and make sure others understood it wasn't an attack on parents or parenting, but an attack at the explicit cutting out of a narrative which is both important to the conversation and deeply personal.

    How did you interpret his words?

    11 votes

  3. Comment on Why so many people are going "no contact" with their parents in ~life

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    What exactly is unreasonable about someone sharing their emotions? How is it not fair? Perhaps you should take a step back and re-read the words he put forward; I think your own emotions are...

    this is not a reasonable or fair reaction.

    What exactly is unreasonable about someone sharing their emotions? How is it not fair? Perhaps you should take a step back and re-read the words he put forward; I think your own emotions are clouding your ability to interpret them.

    12 votes

  4. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    While you're right to point out that communication is more difficult in a less rich medium (such as text only), I've seen many successful smaller communities and like the blog post I linked the...

    It’s not really a matter of “letting” it happen, it’s structural. A lot of social cues don’t exist online.

    While you're right to point out that communication is more difficult in a less rich medium (such as text only), I've seen many successful smaller communities and like the blog post I linked the common thread has always been heavier moderation. Monolithic platforms like meta or x simply don't step in when people are being jerks (and often incentivize it because the algorithm optimizes this content). Combine that with the lack of an actual human in front of you, let alone someone you share a community with (being on the same platform is somewhat meaningless when you consider the scale) and people are just so distant from the person on the other side of the screen that they probably hardly even exist in their mind. It's easier to be mean to something you can't connect with.

    but also I don't exactly want to be having a pedantic debate about the exact calculus of what makes someone an asshole online, I think we're generally on the same page here.

    That’s their main viewport into what the world looks like outside their personal experience.

    Right and I guess I've been online for so long that it's hard for me to see how that affects the average person. Upon reflection it's pretty obvious that most people are tilting at windmills, and it might be another 20 years before that starts to normalize because folks are only just learning to start de-internalizing these values they're seeing because they recognize how internet driven they are (funhouse levels of distorted).

    I find it very surprising that you wouldn’t encounter the struggle session logic because having massive schisms over pretty minor disagreements is a common enough experience to be a meme that predates the internet.

    To be clear I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I've self-selected out of spaces where this kind of thing happens. Over the last 5 years or so I've been putting more and more effort into finding curated spaces because I've been increasingly annoyed at the toxicity of social media (specifically the unmoderated gigantic platforms and the problems we've been discussing here).

    I know more folks are going out and touching grass as a reaction to 24/7 disinfo and toxic platforms but I suppose I don't have a good grasp of quite how many are doing this. Is it 5% of the population or 50%? I really have no clue but assume its somewhere between those two numbers.

    10 votes

  5. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    I completely understand where you are coming with this, but I think the blame is placed on the wrong group. The issue isn't 'discussing politics' so much as it is that we tolerate jerks and jerk...

    as soon as you get people who enjoy discussing politics into the space reaching a certain critical mass the entire vibe goes to shit.

    I completely understand where you are coming with this, but I think the blame is placed on the wrong group. The issue isn't 'discussing politics' so much as it is that we tolerate jerks and jerk behavior online. This blog post is an excellent summary of the issue - jerks push out nice people, and all that's left is jerks. You avoid charged topics both because it brings the jerk out in some people, but because it attracts jerks as well.

    I find it's very much an artifact of the online space as well. Ironically the very push-back which is supposedly making people 'more right' (calling people out on their speech or treating them as hostile when they are saying hateful things) is exactly the kind of feedback present in the actual world. Think about the last time you had a political discussion among friends, or talked about an issue you disagreed with others on. It's really common for small community groups to self-regulate this with what is effectively moderation - people stepping in and saying "stop being an asshole" or pulling someone aside and talking to them or directly addressing that what they are saying is fucked up because it's attacking some person in the group. I mean hell, people self-censor a lot more in these spaces too so they're less likely to say something as inflammatory as they would online because it's a lot harder to say something mean when the person you'll affect is right in front of you and a part of a group you both are a part of.

    the struggle-session vibe of forcing people who do not care to sit through diversity seminars being put on by preachy White women

    You know, I find it fascinating that people feel this is the case. It's almost like people don't recognize that the internet is a huge space. They don't fully internalize the 90/9/1 rule. They make these vast assumptions about entire groups of people based on a few vocal folks. Or they let these vocal folks take up all of their attention. As someone who is in a ton of left-wing spaces, I don't ever see these so called 'diversity seminars'. Well, I mean I see them occasionally happen in toxic social media spaces where unmoderated discussion among literal millions of people happen, but I also recognize that it's chronically online people having that discussion. Do most people not recognize that this is a huge reality distortion? Like it makes me think back to the child kidnapping paranoia of the 90s and early 00s driven by media coverage, when it was exceedingly rare for it to happen in the first place. These voices are getting amplified by algorithms, but they are extremely rare.

    I mean, you touch on this when you say it's a distorted funhouse, but maybe the issue is that most people still haven't de-internalized what they learned from this funhouse. Despite the beginnings of recognizing the echo chambers folks end up in and the effect of these algorithms they're still tilting at windmills because they haven't recognized they've still got their algorithm goggles on.

    I think it did have the end-result of making society go right

    You know I hear this a lot but I don't think the political science of it quite tracks. I think people went more right on specific social issues, namely the ones that were attacked or turned into boogeymen, but my understanding of the science is that as a whole society is more progressive than it ever has been. Then again, we live in the age of disinformation so it's really hard to make definitive statements anymore without a lot of time and effort spent on tearing apart sources and incentives - political science is often rife with bias.

    13 votes

  6. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    I asked why it was being discussed. I then made a general statement about "free speech folks". Please, help me understand how this is "personal"? Inflammatory is something designed to incite...

    Your comment is needlessly personal, inflammatory, accusatory and paranoid.

    I asked why it was being discussed. I then made a general statement about "free speech folks". Please, help me understand how this is "personal"?

    Inflammatory is something designed to incite anger... unless you find yourself aligned with one of the groups I mentioned and reading into my comment and abstracting that I'm attacking you specifically, I don't see it. But maybe I'm blind to my own biases - help me understand?

    Accusatory? Absolutely, towards the specific bad behavior I'm calling out (people being a jerk and facing consequences for it).

    Paranoia? Who or what am I being paranoid about? Paranoia means distrusting someone without reason. I specifically called out a group of people exhibiting bad behavior and said I wasn't feeling sorry for them. I didn't exactly state they were distrustful but I suppose you could interpret that from my language. I'm certainly not exactly feeling anxious or fearful towards towards jerks who get what's coming to them. So help me understand where the paranoia is either.

    Try to relax a bit with the implications. Not everyone is trying to get you.

    I find it interesting that you assume I'm implicating... well, really anyone besides explicitly 'free speech folks' who are whining about speech being used freely or jerks facing the consequences of their actions. I don't think anyone is 'trying to get me'.

    Why do you think I posted what I did? Help me understand how you read this comment, because I really have no idea where you're going with this. I'm genuinely flabbergasted as to how you're perceiving me and would love to understand it.

    6 votes

  7. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    Because the starting point was this article, which I believe to be engagement bait. It's not treating the topic seriously. They don't and it's possible to have a good faith discussion about...

    How is it different than if someone asked the question in ~talk and people on Tildes had a discussion about it.

    Because the starting point was this article, which I believe to be engagement bait. It's not treating the topic seriously.

    Why does someone need to be a PhD to have a valid opinion. And why does there has to be numbers?

    They don't and it's possible to have a good faith discussion about something without it, but this is published article with supposed "experts". If we're operating from that start point, we need to assess whether that's true. It's my opinion that these are not experts, at all, and the 'discussion' is just smoke and mirrors. They don't care about having anything resembling an actual discussion because their goal is simply to bring in revenue via clicks. The content is functionally irrelevant to them.

    I agree the discourse has already been hashed out, but only among people who are really into politics.

    In my case it's more that I'm exhausted about having bad faith discussions about it. But I guess that's always going to be true for someone who belongs to a group which is the target of weaponizing discussions like this.

    12 votes

  8. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    This argument holds a lot more water when the discussion is of any substance. I see none. As I already stated, no facts, no figures, no definitions, no studies, no scientists mentioned- it's all...

    Holding such a lofty post at a national newspaper are definitely bonafide credentials to discuss a topic, regardless of anyone's personal feelings towards that publication's supposed stance on the issue.

    This argument holds a lot more water when the discussion is of any substance. I see none. As I already stated, no facts, no figures, no definitions, no studies, no scientists mentioned- it's all just hand-waving and engagement bait. Hell, the very least they could do is at least point out arguments the other side might have and attempt to address them (basic debate principles) but they don't even do that, do they?

    May I, respectfully, point out to you that you posed questions first to me

    Yes, I asked why I should treat this with good faith. You can't then put the good faith burden back onto me because I don't want to engage with something that is bad faith in the first place. I've pointed out incentives present in online platforms and present in opinion pieces, I've pointed out explicit use of engagement language. I'm actively trying to engage with this in good faith, but without these issues being addressed I see no way in which I can engage with this in good faith.

    If you want to have a discussion grounded in good faith then you need to present a source grounded in good faith in the first place. Or, if you'd prefer to start the discussion here, you need to address the potential sources of bad faith to show that you are actively engaged in the first place.

    8 votes

  9. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    This topic doesn't warrant engagement precisely because the source material isn't critically engaging with it. This is a discussion between "a Times Opinion culture editor", a "writer and culture...

    This topic doesn't warrant engagement precisely because the source material isn't critically engaging with it. This is a discussion between "a Times Opinion culture editor", a "writer and culture critic" and "the New York magazine writer". Explain to me how any of these folks can be considered experts on culture? Linguistics? Politics? They're writers and editors, not scientists. I don't see a single figure in their discussions, nor really any important nods to notable people studying culture or politics. I think it's equally noteworthy that this is an opinion piece, published in the NYT in their online platform that's heavily framed as clickbait for the reasons I already mentioned.

    If you really want to have an engagement in good faith, I need to see good faith before I bother to take on any educational burden. Rather than asking me leading questions like "what biases and incentives do you see the NYT as having", show me that you're engaged by pointing out what biases the NYT has (a quick google search can reveal that to you), what biases an opinion piece by writers might have, and how those aren't of concern or might be addressed before asking for my thoughts - that would show me that you've actually done some research on the topic or actively engaged with it rather than hoping for others to educate you. In addition you talk about the "major premise" and yet it's just three writers and editors having a very non-scientific discussion. Is "woke speech" on the decline in progressive circles? I hardly see an academic definition on what wokeness might entail, let alone any papers studying linguistic drift, culture, or politics. I don't feel particularly interested in engaging with a hypothesis that doesn't come from a place of good faith in the first place. Who are these editors and writers and why should I care what they think when the incentives of this article are so clearly aligned on clickbait and emotional engagement?

    11 votes

  10. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    I disagree that asking "for what purpose are we engaging with this", "why give this clicks", and "why share this article" are trying to shut down discussion. I'm explicitly inviting a discussion...

    I disagree that asking "for what purpose are we engaging with this", "why give this clicks", and "why share this article" are trying to shut down discussion. I'm explicitly inviting a discussion about why this is something we are focusing time and effort on. I think there's also a lot of merit in discussing why articles like this get created in the first place, considering who's pitching the discussion (I don't exactly see the NYT as unbiased on this issue for a dozen different reasons) and their biases/incentives, and ultimately whether this is even worth discussing given these contexts. For example, I agree that examining cultural movements is important, but I heavily disagree that this article is even attempting to do so in any critical manner. It's an opinion article in NYT seemingly designed to generate clicks and engagement- I mean hell, the very first quote literally starts with "Did woke go too far?"

    I appreciate you sharing that this is something you haven't seen come up much on tildes. I've been here a long time and seen a lot of these kinds of articles, which is part of the reason I posed the question.

    12 votes

  11. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    For what it's worth as someone else who is non-binary, even a quick check in with them (text message, 1:1, whatever) just stating this goes a long way. They almost certainly notice the effort, but...

    For what it's worth as someone else who is non-binary, even a quick check in with them (text message, 1:1, whatever) just stating this goes a long way. They almost certainly notice the effort, but it never hurts to hear direct support.

    8 votes

  12. Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link
    No offense but why even share this article? Why give it clicks? Why even discuss it? This topic is so incredibly played out and boring. Free speech folks whine about speech being used freely....

    No offense but why even share this article? Why give it clicks? Why even discuss it? This topic is so incredibly played out and boring. Free speech folks whine about speech being used freely. "Woke" people ruined my life for spreading hate- no, you are just finally facing consequences for being a jerk.

    Legitimately, for what purpose are we engaging with this?

    20 votes

  13. Comment on What I learned about billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s private retreat in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    I absolutely loathe this narrative. You absolutely can end up broke, none of them want to. They want too much control over it. Spend a bunch of energy and effort hiring people you trust to create...

    The point of the article is that you cannot end up broke, and that seems to be true.

    I absolutely loathe this narrative. You absolutely can end up broke, none of them want to. They want too much control over it.

    Spend a bunch of energy and effort hiring people you trust to create a company to do x, and give them a budget. Rinse and repeat.

    None of them have to be perfect. Hell, even if some of them end up corrupt, if the amount which is not corrupt that goes towards tangible good is more than the amount they are currently spending, then you are closer to your objective.

    Everyone brings up Bill Gates because the numbers he gives is bigger than anyone else, but put it into perspective. Compare how much he has donated to his total wealth. Then multiply it by your total wealth. You give more of your wealth by leaving change behind as a tip. We need to stop celebrating these people - they care so much more about the number in their bank account than anything else, full stop.

    4 votes

  14. Comment on Do I need dating apps? (same-sex, a bit of ace) in ~life

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    If you're near San Francisco, feel free to reach out if you need some help connecting with community.

    a decently sized city in what I assume is the holy land of blue amongst US states

    If you're near San Francisco, feel free to reach out if you need some help connecting with community.

    3 votes

  15. Comment on Donald Trump posted on Truth Social this morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" as his threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure loom ahead of deadline in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    National and military intelligence another 110B, DHS (ICE, CBP, secret service, etc.) and DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshalls) 150B, state and local police 180B. The list goes on and on. We have a...

    National and military intelligence another 110B, DHS (ICE, CBP, secret service, etc.) and DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshalls) 150B, state and local police 180B. The list goes on and on. We have a lot of armed federal and state officials who can be directed by the president or who would forcibly protect him.

    1 vote

  16. Comment on Donald Trump posted on Truth Social this morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" as his threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure loom ahead of deadline in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    Oh no I got that, I'm just pointing it out in clear terms because I've seen it a lot on the internet. Like yes, we're extremely frustrated and disappointed in our government as well, but...

    Oh no I got that, I'm just pointing it out in clear terms because I've seen it a lot on the internet. Like yes, we're extremely frustrated and disappointed in our government as well, but functionally this isn't something that US civilians can do.

    7 votes

  17. Comment on Donald Trump posted on Truth Social this morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" as his threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure loom ahead of deadline in ~society

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    Surely civilians can win against a military with a budget of $850B this year. That's entirely reasonable.

    Short of an actual armed civil uprising

    Surely civilians can win against a military with a budget of $850B this year. That's entirely reasonable.

    11 votes

  18. Comment on Competence is lonely. Nobody talks about why. in ~health.mental

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    Oh certainly! Work can be draining in so many different ways. Long hours are tough, I'd imagine even more so if you find them socially draining. Many coworkers have claimed that they don't really...

    Oh certainly! Work can be draining in so many different ways. Long hours are tough, I'd imagine even more so if you find them socially draining. Many coworkers have claimed that they don't really know me because I don't spend my time socializing at work outside of the minimum necessary niceties. I do respond if folks reach out or ask questions or try to socialize with me, but I'm fairly good at setting boundaries and redirecting when I'm feeling drained more-so than usual. Outside of very few individuals at my job that I actually like (and even then, not a ton), I also find work socialization draining. If I were more sensitive to that or didn't find some of the kinds of socializing I do energizing I could see how it would be hard to find the energy to socialize.

    Either way I don't really see work itself being the problem so much as it is about the appropriate balance of a social life with everything else happening in one's life. Out of curiosity, if people checked in on you at work the way the author is suggesting, would you find it reduced your loneliness or would it just drain you even more?

    1 vote

  19. Comment on Competence is lonely. Nobody talks about why. in ~health.mental

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    This feels like the entire thrust of the article and its kind of frustrating they don't recognize or even address it. I see myself in the article in that at work, I am absolutely the highly...

    it seems to me that highly competent people are also Workaholics and this is what often compromises other areas of life, such as being social and I can see that leading to loneliness.

    This feels like the entire thrust of the article and its kind of frustrating they don't recognize or even address it.

    I see myself in the article in that at work, I am absolutely the highly competent one. It's why I'm in charge of all the things I'm in charge of, and why I'm regularly the first person my director taps whenever we venture into anything new, need new standards, get a new tool, or anything else where that expertise matters. I'm also regularly tapped for firefighting teams, the "oh shit" we need something now to give to senior leadership.

    But I also don't see myself in the article at all because I have such a rich social life. I'm part of an artist collective, I participate in local activism, I'm a leader on two employee resource groups at work, I help run a social media website, I'm poly with multiple partners, I'm a DJ, and I regularly go out dancing. My social calendar is absolutely booked solid, and I have endless people I can socialize with at pretty much any minute. But basically all of that (absent the ERG leadership) is a life outside of work which seems to be entirely absent from what the author is writing about. Of course you would feel socially isolated if you spend all your waking hours at work and don't have a social life? Like that's the definition of social isolation?? If you're going to make work your life, you need to have work friends and you probably need to be going places outside of work with these folks to facilitate genuine social interactions that aren't just about whatever project you're working on.

    7 votes

  20. Comment on So it turns out I was cheated on in ~health.mental

    Gaywallet
    Link Parent
    Just beware that your partner might do the same to your kids. Be vigilant. You're his parent, trust your intuition! I'm sure you'll know how much to share and what is better shared when he is older.

    My dad worked hard to alienate us from my mom and it worked. My sisters haven't spoken to her in decades. I came to my senses; I don't want that kind of experience for my kids.

    Just beware that your partner might do the same to your kids. Be vigilant.

    I want to point out my son is 6. My ex's kids are older, and can handle that; my son cannot. He is not emotionally mature enough for that kind of information.

    You're his parent, trust your intuition! I'm sure you'll know how much to share and what is better shared when he is older.

    3 votes