nooph's recent activity
-
Comment on UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pitches mandatory national service at eighteen in ~society
-
Comment on ‘Red One’ down: How Dwayne Johnson’s tardiness led to a $250 million runaway production in ~movies
nooph Link ParentIt's funny, I have almost the opposite reaction. Whenever another Dwayne Johnson film comes out I'm automatically disinterested. It's a bit like, seen one, seen them all. He plays the same...It's funny, I have almost the opposite reaction. Whenever another Dwayne Johnson film comes out I'm automatically disinterested. It's a bit like, seen one, seen them all. He plays the same character in every movie he's in whether or not it's a good fit.
On the other hand, BBC productions are often very good despite their lack of A-tier actors. Sure, maybe they don't have the raw charisma that Dwayne has, but to me that often makes for a more grounded and relatable show that isn't afraid to experiment with weird topics that Dwayne wouldn't touch with a 10 foot stick. Maybe as a result, in the last few years I've seen several BBC productions and basically no Dwayne movies.
I'm probably in the minority here if I had to guess, judging by the perceived success of his films.
-
Comment on “Both-sides” and when is nuance acceptable discourse? in ~talk
nooph Link ParentIt's certainly not exclusive to progressive causes. I'm just relating it to my own experiences and that simply happens to be the political circles I inhabit. More to the point, I don't really...It's certainly not exclusive to progressive causes. I'm just relating it to my own experiences and that simply happens to be the political circles I inhabit.
More to the point, I don't really think the subjunctive is at fault so much as the other person's willingness to engage. For example, in response to "all cities should be walkable", I might say, "well I generally agree, what are the practical problems preventing us from achieving this?" This could lead to an interesting conversation. If I disagree with their opinion, then I wouldn't automatically disagree, I would just ask why they think the way they do, which invites them to interrogate their own beliefs (and my own). I, too, shouldn't automatically assume my opinions are automatically correct.
And yes sure, I've also experienced what you describe of being vilified for not hewing closely enough to a given position. Progressives do this all the time as a sort of litmus test. But at the same time, I do think with age it becomes all too easy to dismiss aspirational opinions as pure naivete. "Oh, these people don't understand the realities of the situation, they should grow up and accept that the world can't be like that."
But when I see people who are absolutist in a given belief (especially my friends, who I tend to believe are quite smart and thoughtful people), I tend to think it's not because they haven't considered the alternative, but because they feel like the subject carries strong moral implications that they feel like they can't budge on. Like, EVs and walkable cities, yes sure, being too staunch about that is a bit silly. But there are also human rights abuses that feel less debatable (that are still somehow up for debate). And even there I've had nuanced discussions, but ultimately it comes to differences in values, and if you disagree there it's unlikely that you'll change their mind (or they yours).
-
Comment on “Both-sides” and when is nuance acceptable discourse? in ~talk
nooph Link ParentThe "should" one is interesting, because in my mind the use of the word "should" is central to many progressive causes and invites us to imagine the direction in which we would like to...The "should" one is interesting, because in my mind the use of the word "should" is central to many progressive causes and invites us to imagine the direction in which we would like to collectively travel. As in, I observe that the world is X, but I think the world ought to be more like Y; how can we get there?
I agree that it's pointless to further the conversation if all they're doing is looking for validation. Conversely, disagreements about what ought to be done seem like disagreements around values, and that's unlikely to shift.
However, if you happen to agree with their position, I still think there is value in talking about how one might go about getting to that imagined better world, and signaling your virtue seems like the necessary first step to having that more fruitful conversation. Because as a self-professed progressive, I find that's it's often much harder to agree on how to implement our shared goals than what the goals themselves are.
For example, we can both agree that climate change is real, and we should reduce carbon in the atmosphere. But where should we focus our energy and resources, towards building up renewables or towards carbon capture? Should we use public funds to incentivize/subsidize electric cars or invest in public transit?
I also think a national civil service program here in the US would be pretty great. Something like constructing civil infrastructure or helping elderly. Young people would get to travel all over the country and meet other young people and realize that we aren't so different after all despite our geographic and cultural diversity. And I think there's something to be said for knowing that you built a part of this country with your own two hands.
I wouldn't want it to be mandatory though; that starts to resemble fascism a bit too much for my liking. But if you were paid well and there was a whole culture around it I don't see why it wouldn't be popular.