lejos's recent activity
-
Comment on What have we liberals done to the US west coast? in ~misc
-
Comment on Spotify lowers artist royalties despite subscription price hike in ~music
lejos Link ParentThe amount spent on the Rogan deal is certainly less than payouts to all musicians, but he might be paid more than even the highest paid musicians on the platform. Taylor Swift currently tops that...The amount spent on the Rogan deal is certainly less than payouts to all musicians, but he might be paid more than even the highest paid musicians on the platform. Taylor Swift currently tops that list and is estimated to have earned just over $300M, which could be ultimately less than Rogan's deals.
The amount spent directly on Rogan doesn't capture the overall effect, though. Money spent on Rogan is basically marketing money to promote podcasts on Spotify, and the overall strategy for Spotify with podcasts is to increase subscribers with the Rogan exclusive, increase ad revenue on the platform from podcasts as well as pay out less to music artists by getting users to listen to podcasts instead of music. How good of a decision it is financially for Spotify depends on all of those things.
-
Comment on NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism in ~news
lejos LinkI can't be the first one to speculate that Uri Berliner was recruited for this. He's a radio guy and he's now primed to start his own podcast. At least so far, he's following the right-wing...- Exemplary
I can't be the first one to speculate that Uri Berliner was recruited for this. He's a radio guy and he's now primed to start his own podcast. At least so far, he's following the right-wing podcast origin story template of Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, and Bari Weiss (who published the NPR piece) where you manufacture some kind of "cancellation" stunt, and then get rich by joining the ranks of "anti-woke" podcasts, substacks, and the like.
He'll also no doubt make the rounds as a guest on Joe Rogan and various other podcasts in the same sphere of grifters that repeat ad nauseam right-wing talking points like Hunter Biden's laptop, the COVID lab leak, DEI / "wokeness" concerns.
Aside from the above speculation, the substance of his claims about NPR were stretched pretty thin to tailor it to a pretty specific audience. The facts were secondary to confirming the biases of the readers. This includes bias about bias in journalism itself, and the weakness of the evidence seems to get lost among various assumptions about what bias is present in journalism, what "diversity" of views is supposed to be included, etc.
If you do a google search with "site:npr.org", you can confirm that NPR did in fact have coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop and the COVID lab leak. Every place they discussed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, they used "so-called" or attributed the slogan to people opposed, in line with pretty typical journalistic standards. Even if you follow the links included in the story, it's hand-waving in the direction of "this is generally 'woke' so it must be bad", not examples of journalistic malfeasance.
In general, sweeping generalizations about "the (mainstream) media" or even the coverage of specific organizations should be treated with skepticism regardless of where it's coming from, because it's often someone looking to capture your attention for their own benefit.
-
Comment on NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism in ~news
lejos Link ParentI mean I literally italicized the counterexample to your logically false argument. I offered a clear, realistic, and non-violent alternative that has worked before, both in terms of fascists...I mean I literally italicized the counterexample to your logically false argument. I offered a clear, realistic, and non-violent alternative that has worked before, both in terms of fascists previously losing elections and in terms of fascists previously existing on the fringe of even right-wing politics. The suggestion that violence is a necessity is quite simply against the facts.
You seem to just really want to depict people opposed to fascists as being violent. On top of that you seem also imply with the "self fulfilling prophecy" idea that if you "incorrectly" say someone is a fascist, they're then justified to use violence against you, which is similarly absurd.
For the record, I don't even think 40% of the population are fascist, just that 40% might vote for fascists, in part because of absurd arguments, such as the above, which distract and discourage people from addressing the fascist problem in the country. And again, I'm talking about voting, not violence.
If you intend to do anything but provide cover for fascists like Trump, I leave that for your own self-evaluation.
-
Comment on NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism in ~news
lejos Link ParentI'm sorry, but it simply doesn't logically follow that if you call a fascist a fascist, or if you call a racist a racist, you must therefore be willing to kill them. That's just absurd. Obviously...I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't logically follow that if you call a fascist a fascist, or if you call a racist a racist, you must therefore be willing to kill them. That's just absurd.
Obviously someone could say that fascists should be called fascists, racists should be called racists, and homophobes should be called homophobes, so they can be beaten at the ballot box and pushed to the fringes of society where they don't get to trample the rights of others by gaining power.
Pretending that fascists are not fascists only helps fascists, though.
-
Comment on An honest assessment of American rural white resentment is long overdue in ~misc
lejos Link ParentThere's a place for forgiveness and changing minds, sure. And simply calling people homophobes to their face is probably ineffective, but no one here is arguing that. You really seem to want to...There's a place for forgiveness and changing minds, sure. And simply calling people homophobes to their face is probably ineffective, but no one here is arguing that.
You really seem to want to rewrite the story of the LGBT rights movement with homophobes as the main character, like it's all some kind of redemption story for homophobic people who saw the error of their ways and then gave gay people their rights out of the goodness of their heart because gay people really went out of their way to not offend their homophobic sensibilities. That's just not the way things happened, and it really diminishes the efforts and bravery of LGBT people in the movement.
It's great to think that some of them can change, but it's not a prerequisite. Step one isn't get all the homophobes to see the light and accept gay people. You can't fight homophobia by pretending homophobes don't exist, or fight racism pretending that racists don't exist, and then euphemistically downplaying homophobia and racism when the evidence is clear.
Many rural folk love their neighbor José and even enjoy the local taqueria and Chinese restaurant.
What does it really count for if they vote to deport José? Does it matter that they have a gay "friend" if they vote for keeping gay people from getting married? What's it count for if, while being "nice" to gay or black or trans or immigrant people to their face, among different company, they perpetuate all of the racist bias that puts all of those groups in danger?
-
Comment on An honest assessment of American rural white resentment is long overdue in ~misc
lejos Link ParentIt's certainly an interesting comparison to bring up when gay rights advanced by framing the movement as Love vs Hate. I'd say it's pretty hard to characterize the gay rights movement as shying...It's certainly an interesting comparison to bring up when gay rights advanced by framing the movement as Love vs Hate. I'd say it's pretty hard to characterize the gay rights movement as shying away from calling their opponents hateful.
Gay rights have seen success because gay people didn't stay in the closet for fear that they might alienate homophobic family, friends or neighbors. Sure gay rights weren't won by calling people homophobes and calling it a day, but the LGBT movement also didn't wait around to bring homophobes into the fold. And many of those homophobes never came into the fold. It's not the fault of the gay rights movement that gay children don't talk their homophobic parents anymore.
Over the last several years, LGBT rights have lost ground to right-wingers who have found inroads via "centrists" who frequently and obsessively worry that the "woke" trans people have gone too far. And then gay teachers get fired, books get banned, trans teenagers get what little support they had taken away. Of course these so-called centrists say they disagree with all of that authoritarian conservative stuff like book bans, and then go right back to commiserating with homophobes about how too far the woke have gone.
-
Comment on An honest assessment of American rural white resentment is long overdue in ~misc
lejos Link ParentI have no reason to believe that you intend to rationalize racism and I likewise didn't and don't intend to make that point. Hope that makes that clear. I read what you wrote and also this...I have no reason to believe that you intend to rationalize racism and I likewise didn't and don't intend to make that point. Hope that makes that clear.
I read what you wrote and also this comment. I am more under the impression that you missed a key argument the authors of White Rural Rage, which I more or less reiterated.
-
Comment on An honest assessment of American rural white resentment is long overdue in ~misc
lejos Link ParentThis article is the authors of White Rural Rage responding to accusations that they misrepresented research by saying essentially that they misrepresented nothing; they just didn't tiptoe around...This article is the authors of White Rural Rage responding to accusations that they misrepresented research by saying essentially that they misrepresented nothing; they just didn't tiptoe around the fact that the research itself clearly illustrated racism among white rural people. I referred to that. I also quoted what the kinds of solutions they hint at.
All I’m saying is you have to believe that there is some other answer then “they are just racist and angry simple as that and it can’t be changed” because then you will be left with only one way to solve the problem and I really want you to think about what that way is and decide if you are comfortable with that.
I think you've created your own bleak, false dichotomy here. In which we either roll over and accept that they must have some rational reason for their racism or ... what? It seems like you're making some vague reference to violence as if it's an inevitability, but I think the way forward has more possibilities that you imagine.
There's a difference between say, recognizing economic and social challenges faced by rural Americans and understanding the reasons why they are racist or xenophobic. Addressing the economic and social challenges facing rural Americans is solvable and you can do that without caring whatsoever about why they're racist because economic challenges are not reasons for their racism.
Like the White Rage the passage I quoted, you can certainly offer rural voters more than the politicians who take advantage of their racism. Republicans aren't keeping rural hospitals open and affordable, they're not creating economic opportunity for rural Americans. Deporting dreamers doesn't help rural people, anti-trans legislation doesn't help them. The list goes on.
We don't have to change them. We don't have to understand their racism as if their racism is something reasonable. We don't have to cater to their racist concerns. That's not the same as taking no action at all, and there's not "only one way left to solve the problem" as you claim.
-
Comment on An honest assessment of American rural white resentment is long overdue in ~misc
lejos Link ParentI agree that doomerism isn't constructive, but is there any way to confront racism expecting no effort on the part of racists? Who benefits from tiptoeing around calling racism what it is? When...I agree that doomerism isn't constructive, but is there any way to confront racism expecting no effort on the part of racists? Who benefits from tiptoeing around calling racism what it is? When 'understanding' or 'contextualizing' racism does in fact justify that racism, who does it help?
It's equally un-constructive to ignore the problem by validating racism whatsoever or "understand" them on any level that lends credibility to it; you're not going to beat the right wing at their own game.
The comments on tildes are less optimistic than the White Rage authors:
Unfortunately, in our critics’ zeal to insist that we are the problem, they can’t stop themselves from reading into our book things we never wrote. “It is baffling why these new, self-proclaimed saviors of rural America cannot see that their gross mischaracterization of rural life feeds into the resentments driving” the increasingly right-wing tilt of rural areas, Jacobs writes. We never proclaimed ourselves anything, let alone the saviors of rural America. In another article attacking us, he writes, “Schaller and Waldman simply want us to write off rural America as the land of radical extremism,” when nothing could be further from the truth; we call rural whites “the essential minority” because of their central political role, and the last thing we want anyone to do is “write off rural America.” We argue that the return of political competition to rural areas is vital, but that will take not only Democrats making more of an effort but rural people demanding more from the Republicans who take their votes and give so little in return.
Since our book came out, we’ve had many conversations with rural Americans—journalists, activists, and ordinary people—who have told us that it accurately reflects what they see in their communities. Christopher Gibbs is a case in point. A Maplewood, Ohio, farmer who raises corn, soybeans, and alfalfa hay and supervises an 85-head cow/calf operation, Gibbs is the board president of Rural Voices USA. A former Shelby County Republican Party chair who, remarkably, is now the county’s Democratic Party chair, Gibbs interviewed us for his podcast. He doesn’t agree with everything we write, but he told us that he “lives this book every day” in his rural county. He concluded our interview by saying our book may not provide an easy foldout “road map” to revive rural America, but “it’s chock full of clues” for those interested in “helping rural folks get what they deserve in policy.”
-
Comment on Texas is replacing thousands of human exam graders with AI in ~tech
lejos Link ParentOn the contrary, the only thing the Texas governor cares about right now is funneling money away from public schools via vouchers. I wouldn't be surprised if the same out-of-state billionaire...Is Texas going to raise wages for teachers with this money? Are they going to invest more into schools?
On the contrary, the only thing the Texas governor cares about right now is funneling money away from public schools via vouchers. I wouldn't be surprised if the same out-of-state billionaire donor behind the voucher push also has a stake in an AI-test-grading startup though.
-
Comment on Aurora – Pink Moon (2023) in ~music
lejos LinkSuch a good song, I’ll have to check out the rest of that cover album. Here’s my favorite cover of it: Valerie June - Pink MoonSuch a good song, I’ll have to check out the rest of that cover album. Here’s my favorite cover of it: Valerie June - Pink Moon
-
Comment on Psychologists at the University of Cambridge developed a Misinformation Susceptibility Tests. What's your MIST score? in ~science
lejos Link20/20, a lot that I flagged as real I had no idea if they were actually true, but were written the way factual journalism would be. I think it was really more about identifying the conspiratorial...20/20, a lot that I flagged as real I had no idea if they were actually true, but were written the way factual journalism would be. I think it was really more about identifying the conspiratorial ones.
-
Comment on The AI art apocalypse in ~arts
lejos Link ParentJust note that you're guilty of your first complaint within a single sentence. You're just automatically assuming that AI is "progress" and anything that holds it back is automatically bad. Seems..."you shouldn't use this tool because I think it's bad". And or "I deserve such a strong claim to copyright that I own the right to control who can learn what from my art", basically summoning a new and self beneficial rule from thin air to prevent this progress.
Just note that you're guilty of your first complaint within a single sentence. You're just automatically assuming that AI is "progress" and anything that holds it back is automatically bad. Seems like there's a lot of assumptions being made about the benefits of AI here without justification.
Your second complaint is pretty hyperbolic. Artists don't need to claim any stronger version of copyright than exists already. Copyright doesn't prevent what anyone learns from looking at art or from reading a book, etc. Exploiting a copy of an artist's work to make derivative works would be where copyright would already come into play. And that's pretty explicitly what training AI models is doing.
They're literally trying to hold back what I am allowed to do so they can make a profit. I'm not going to have much sympathy for anyone taking such a stance.
You're pretty vague here, but I'm not sure anyone should sympathize with a position that you should be able to do whatever you want without regard to the rights, lives, and livelihood of others.
What should you be allowed to do? Make a profit? Make a profit by exploiting the work of artists? Convince artists that to survive as artists they'll need to adopt your proprietary AI tools (which were trained using the artist's work in the first place) for a $19.99/mo subscription?
Artists don't even need to desire profits at all. Licenses like Creative Commons BY-NC exist for artists that want to give away their work, even allow it to be remixed, but not for commercial purposes without permission.
-
Comment on What are some more obscure hobbies you enjoy? in ~hobbies
lejos Link ParentI still have one somewhere, though not sure if it’s still functional after 20 years. Minidisc was really a wild format. All of mine were blanks that I recorded cds to, and then hand wrote the...I still have one somewhere, though not sure if it’s still functional after 20 years. Minidisc was really a wild format. All of mine were blanks that I recorded cds to, and then hand wrote the labels, so even at the time, it felt retro like tapes and floppy discs.
-
Comment on What are some more obscure hobbies you enjoy? in ~hobbies
lejos Link ParentI’m just getting back into this myself. I messed around with all the various environments a few years ago, and just started meeting up with some local people getting into it. Hoping we’ll get some...I’m just getting back into this myself. I messed around with all the various environments a few years ago, and just started meeting up with some local people getting into it. Hoping we’ll get some kind of performances / dance party going eventually.
Definitely agree on the environment setup front. There’s a good neovim plugin for supercollider, but the available tidalcycles plugin I’ve seen needs a little work, so I’ll probably have to fork the one that I found or just write one myself.
-
Comment on What are you reading these days? in ~books
lejos Link ParentI just thought about this book recently when I moved and put it in a box and then back on my bookshelf. I had a pretty similar experience. I realized quickly that it would take a very long time to...I just thought about this book recently when I moved and put it in a box and then back on my bookshelf. I had a pretty similar experience. I realized quickly that it would take a very long time to digest and have found it hard to dedicate that time to it, even if it wasn't over my head.
-
Comment on Introductions | June 2023, part 1 in ~talk
lejos Link ParentGuitar family instruments, it's kind of a toss up between guitar and ukulele as what I'd call my primary instrument. I've also learned some Mexican son jarocho music and picked up the jarana...Guitar family instruments, it's kind of a toss up between guitar and ukulele as what I'd call my primary instrument. I've also learned some Mexican son jarocho music and picked up the jarana jarocha and requinto jarocho in the last few years.
No real experience with more eastern instruments, though I've plunked around on an oud before (which is not fretted if I remember right)
-
Comment on Introductions | June 2023, part 1 in ~talk
lejos LinkHello all, I joined after seeing this mentioned with the latest Reddit API news and the effect on 3rd party reader apps. I'm an old millennial that joined Reddit back in 2008, and this kind of...Hello all,
I joined after seeing this mentioned with the latest Reddit API news and the effect on 3rd party reader apps. I'm an old millennial that joined Reddit back in 2008, and this kind of reminds me of Reddit in the earlier years, which looking back is pretty different than it is today.
About me, I've done a few things in life but somehow landed as a software developer for the last 5 or 6 years, mostly front end for web apps. I have a broad range of interests and like learning new things, but I primarily like to make music, usually with fretted, stringed instruments. I also like casual outdoorsy things like hiking, bike rides, and camping.
So much of what you've said here is simply inaccurate.
I lived in Mexico in the early 2010s, and happened to make a few queer friends (who I have never spoken English with at all). I've see them use both -@ and later -x on social media and and as far as I can tell, neither was ever pronounceable, and that was never the point (though the -e suffix is becoming more common with the benefit that it's more pronounceable). When you expect to see an -o/a and you see an -@ or -x instead, it visually communicates exactly what it's doing as far as including both/removing gender respectively.
If you speak Spanish, you should know it's not simply a grammatical gender issue. I can say "soy una persona masculina" and the fact that persona and its accompanying article/adjective are all feminine grammatically have nothing to do with my gender. But you quickly run into the necessity of identifying yourself as one gender or the other to say even the most mundane of things, like "I'm bored".
On the English side of things, I'm also just going to guess that any time a woman identifies herself as Latina, you don't respond with "Well ackshually English doesn't have grammatical gender so Latina is incorrect"; and if you do, please don't, for your own sake. Point being, Latino/a/x are all just words borrowed from Spanish anyway.
For what it's worth, I think it's a drawback of "Latinx" in English that it can be pronounced, because it doesn't confer the meaning that it has in Spanish.
Grammar and pronunciation arguments about it are really just red herrings that fall apart unless you just really don't think queer or non-binary people should exist in any language.
A lot of the backlash against "Latinx" is really no different than any other right-wing anti-queer / anti-"woke" talking points, and calling college-educated Latinos, the majority of whom are the first generation to attend college, "the elite" really makes no sense other than to understand it as simply being conflated with other right-wing talking points.
Sorry, but "the elites" are the people that benefit from you being angry about "Latinx", not the queer or non-binary college kids that use it to describe themselves.
This sentence really struck me as hilarious, given how British it sounds, if "we" is understood to be people in the United States, and that's before considering the next layer of irony that Spanish itself is a colonial language.
On that note, literally the first time I ever saw -x removing gender from words in Spanish it was on Zapatista political artwork in Chiapas, which is an indigenous movement of people for whom Spanish is their second or maybe third or fourth language if they speak it at all. In their case, it's a response to colonialism.
The right wing fuels itself on resentment and hate of queer people, particularly among men, be it trans people using the bathroom or playing sports, or trans kids taking puberty blockers, or queer Latinos using "Latinx" to describe themselves. It's not unique when it comes to Latino men, or any more justified.
I'd argue that even if you're cynical enough to think that anyone using Latinx is simply performative, and not simply, going out of their way to signal that they genuinely want to be inclusive of LGBTQ people, it's worse to be so anti-Latinx that you just propagate right-wing memes and disinformation.