the_funky_buddha's recent activity
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
the_funky_buddha Link ParentI don't mind this, really. I'm in my element when I'm discussing online. As with work, it's labor but sometimes rewarding. But you mention the outrage of the other side, what you call extremists....you're not happy
I don't mind this, really. I'm in my element when I'm discussing online. As with work, it's labor but sometimes rewarding. But you mention the outrage of the other side, what you call extremists. Are you sure you're not just outraged and not looking into the reasonable aspects of their views? After looking into it myself, it's not as black and white (extremist vs non-extremist) as it seems you think; there are some reasonable opposing views out there.
were you actually defending cancel culture
What I was defending is that it is embedded in human nature and you can take almost any group of people and tribalism will form and manifest that the group may shun outsiders, this is "cancel culture". Gods, I cringe when I have to say it as it's something very old only with a new fad-ish name. Shunning happens everywhere in instances where someone speaks against the tribe, be it on twitter, reddit, youtube, here, etc. People just want a convenient name so they can lash out at something. You'd feel stupid if you lashed out at 'people shunning and boycotting people and things they don't like' but it's of course more fashionable if it's got a short catchy name and it wouldn't distinguish your group as much also so you couldn't feel as vindicated and angry if you realized your group and yourself also does it.
decided to ask "is every criticism extremism?"
You mentioned extremism. I took it that you saw her criticism as extremism and the hosts of criticism as "boogeymen", not having any real validity.
I don't understand how the same person who made that first comment has written any of these responses.
Because I like to ask questions, sometimes seemingly contrary to my views to gain more knowledge. I think it works better if one wants to be fair and objective, ie, gain rounded knowledge. And sometimes if you want objective knowledge you have to accept contrary ideas, that opposing groups can have real valid complaints about the other, even if it means you lose social validation, friends IRL, get downvoted online, whatever. To me, objectivity is greater than social acceptance from tribes.
you've flattened out the morality and severity of the actions on "both sides", as it were. You act as if a sucker punch that leaves someone brain damaged is not an extreme response to a cutting remark about one's boots.
Which one happens to do when they want a more rational and objective view divorced from the drama. To me, your view is less rational and almost as "extreme" as you say of her critics. You want me to say her critics are trash? I'd love to and it's what I often think. I'm a fan of hers but the compounded tribalism and toxicity in this thread really makes me want to jump off the bandwagon here and look at it from a more rational and objective perspective. Gods forbid we do that here and go against the hive mind. Ironically this is, I'm sure, the toxicity she speaks about wherein you even give a faux hint that you might be on the other side or dare criticize all sides, you get downvoted and criticized into oblivion or "cancelled" to use the fashionable word.
Every place I go on the internet, it's full of 'look at this person and this group, let's gang up against them because they hurt my feelings or the feelings of someone in my tribe but let's not look into their legitimate points, let's just rage', etc. I can be guilty myself but I try to catch myself and try to be more understanding and less emotional. I'd like to think that Tildes is better than this, isn't it?
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
the_funky_buddha Link ParentLet me put this succinctly, you are a polity. You aren't divorced from politics, neither is this situation. I was asking are you being fair to others who criticize her by calling them hostile,...but I think framing this through political lenses isn't the right approach.
Let me put this succinctly, you are a polity. You aren't divorced from politics, neither is this situation. I was asking are you being fair to others who criticize her by calling them hostile, raging extremists when they say mean things or joke about her when she says mean things and jokes about others. Are you sure you're not being biased? I know it's hard to break away from the tribe and your own ego to examine it truthfully, especially break away from the hive mind that plagues "(anti)social" communities but I'm truly asking are we being intellectually honest here or because we're fans, ie, she gives us our bread and circus so she gets free passes at being dismissive to others or a pass against criticism?
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
the_funky_buddha Link ParentAre you sure you're not defending her because you're in her tribe and just not giving others that disagree with her a fair and reasonable view? After reading a bit more about this on twitter,...Are you sure you're not defending her because you're in her tribe and just not giving others that disagree with her a fair and reasonable view? After reading a bit more about this on twitter, ashamedly (and ironically because my tribe here has disdain for it as a debate medium), I'm willing to forgo my bias for her and question my view. And are you sure you're not giving into populism and identity politics (again, a term conservatives love to use but just as guilty as they often vote with whom they shallowly identify), defending her because you might be a fan or identify with her on a more shallow level? Perhaps they may view your view as the extremist one. I'm not sure where I stand until I have more information about it and chances are, I won't because I have little interest in it all other than commenting on the more meta aspects of it.
but I think framing this through political lenses isn't the right approach
These are the people that right wing people always talk about when they vaguely and blithely refer to "leftist boogeymen" of some kindThat's hard to do, as you yourself seem to fall prey to, when this is all about polities and their compositions from the start. I like to do this exercise when I have criticisms and for every point I may have on one side, try to find at least another point for the other side; a technique for the strongman argument. Now that doesn't totally divorce me, my self and ego, from the argument but I'd like to think makes me a more reasonable person. Do Ellis' opponents not have validity or have you sought out exactly what their criticisms are about her? I'll be honest and say I'll probably wind up biased towards her but I'm not going to call her opponents extremists. raging, boogeymen or whatever. There might be a few but there's always a few in every group.
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
the_funky_buddha Link ParentI don't doubt the discrimination at all. As a social experiment, I've made a few reddit accounts with names more associated with femininity. The amount of criticism per post I got on those...I don't doubt the discrimination at all. As a social experiment, I've made a few reddit accounts with names more associated with femininity. The amount of criticism per post I got on those accounts was much more than my usual non-gender or more masculine-sounding usernames. I think the worst I got, besides the political, was when I defended a cat. I guess I couldn't take a joke in that moment and I forgot details, I think one of those cutesy videos that's funny to us but not the cat, but reddit's not as cat-friendly as it appears. Of course the response you get is also how you phrase it, and my phrasing there was admittedly brash. Reddit, just like society, wants to domesticate you into being the common denominator, to fit in. If you're too far out one way or another, society sicks its dogs on you.
I've gotten enough hate for being an outsider and posing ideas that aren't politically correct within those groups that I've grown to hate tribalism. But of course we are powers which are drawn to and speak to other powers, there is less power in being an individualistic node and as they say, 'weakness is provocative' to bullies so you as a loner are a target in a less civilized world. And while the west is somewhat civilized in action, we are less so in word.
-
Comment on Walking away from Omelas - Lindsay Ellis says goodbye in ~life
the_funky_buddha (edited )LinkThat's sad to hear as Ellis seemed to have pretty fair points, I've been a fan even if I'm more right-leaning than she is. Are we sure this isn't just manufactured drama, false flag, crisis...That's sad to hear as Ellis seemed to have pretty fair points, I've been a fan even if I'm more right-leaning than she is. Are we sure this isn't just manufactured drama, false flag, crisis victim, etc? Because this would seem ridiculous even to the more left-leaning people I know. Those are words that conservatives like to use but they do it themselves, more on this tactic below.
People act like "cancel culture" is something new in human behavior. It's basically boycotting and shunning, something much much older and largely committed by the establishment, (edit: meaning has more power to execute effectively) which has historically had a conservative lean and why minorities have had a hard time getting a voice. What conservatives did with it is try to give it some catchy name to distinguish their use of that tactic from the way lefties use it. They did this with terms like "politically correct" when many times in history you'd get 'cancelled' or lashed out at if you said something against the often conservative-leaning status quo. There's also "virtue signalling", something conservatives have long done when trying to signal how moral they are (religious right especially), signalling their allegiance to a domain, signalling how rich they are, or signalling how special (snowflakes) they are in some way or another, which brings me to that term, snowflake. You know and I know that they think they're special snowflakes if not in demographic but in belief and usually think they're being persecuted because of their own special beliefs, special situations, etc. There's more of these terms but I've forgotten some.
But the point is, in political warfare, it's very hard to label one party as having one distinguishable human trait but if you can give it some catchy name that can distinguish your party from the other, you can use it as ideological warfare, despite the similarities. 'See, look at those people, they're not like us, they do this thing that we just made up that we don't do'. It's basically a form of advertising, give two identical jeans a different label, one with a more ambiguous and longer name, one with a catchier more fashionable name and see which one takes off; usually in this time and place, it's the shorter and catchier ones, just like image memes spread faster than essays. I don't know why liberals don't call them out on the hypocrisy. Needless to say both parties do these things yet you just validate their weapons when you use them, those terms, without calling the other party out.
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentInteresting read. Thanks. I think I'd generally agree with it.Interesting read. Thanks. I think I'd generally agree with it.
-
Comment on Prey (2017) is currently free on the Epic Games Store in ~games
the_funky_buddha Link ParentMe too, the original was a good game. I heard rumors at the time of a sequel and was hoping Bethesda may be doing it so it all made me feel mislead. I hate it when companies re-use game/movie titlesMe too, the original was a good game. I heard rumors at the time of a sequel and was hoping Bethesda may be doing it so it all made me feel mislead. I hate it when companies re-use game/movie titles
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentAh, so you side with subjectivity? (kidding) Of course, none of this we have to do as it's a 'philosophical' discussion. Or is it your philosophy that you'd just rather throw aside the...It’s often a good idea to avoid making universal statements when you don’t have to.
Ah, so you side with subjectivity? (kidding) Of course, none of this we have to do as it's a 'philosophical' discussion. Or is it your philosophy that you'd just rather throw aside the philosophical discussion and look at what's more practical and imminent to everyday life? I agree, it's my whole pet peeve with philosophy. That and a philosopher stole my cat, aptly named Schrodinger (Shrody). I've had a suspicious view of them ever since.
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentYes, as you say, how useful something is, it just seems a more natural definition. Philosophically, it's a really muddied term where predictability means nothing. Predictable by whom? By the...“logical” as a value judgement,
Yes, as you say, how useful something is, it just seems a more natural definition. Philosophically, it's a really muddied term where predictability means nothing. Predictable by whom? By the subject or by a more objective great entity? By such an omniscient entity it could be seen as chaos to us. Is predictability a virtue? By whom and by what measure? Philosophy's just my pet peeve, it seems all rules go out the window and you can justify anything if you're pretentious enough whether it's useful for survival or not.
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link Parenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science I was being generous calling it a soft science. It usually leads to a contentious debate that often centers around falsifiability. But your...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
I was being generous calling it a soft science. It usually leads to a contentious debate that often centers around falsifiability. But your definition is probably as good as mine. We can get philosophical about it if you want but I digress, for now. I'm going to try to get some sleep so maybe I can wake up to snow outside and hopefully a big Red Ryder BB gun under the tree. Maybe I won't shoot my eye out. Felicitous holidays!
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentI don't exactly mean that though. It's just the softer sciences make it so hard to find any real logic at all that stands up to scrutiny sometimes that it's frustrating discussing it. But I...I don't exactly mean that though. It's just the softer sciences make it so hard to find any real logic at all that stands up to scrutiny sometimes that it's frustrating discussing it. But I realize it's a tool for discovering the world, can be used in a good or bad way. Good, as we may colloquially mean, in that it nurtures survival or as some may mean, makes them feel good.
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentBut it wouldn't tackle the question.... is it logical? It just ignores the entire philosophical discussion of whether survival is logical. You missed the point about my point. You could swathe an...I think it would better get across what you mean.
But it wouldn't tackle the question.... is it logical? It just ignores the entire philosophical discussion of whether survival is logical. You missed the point about my point. You could swathe an entire philosophical layer over any subject. There's a philosophy of science, philosophy of math, etc. Logic, especially at the fuzzier levels of philosophy, isn't always so logical.
Do you even care about logic
I'm not sure, give me a philosophical stance that'll make me care about it and one that won't, if we want to be intellectually fair. Western philosophy seems intent on it but even Godel, a master of it, proved the self-defeating limits of it. But I think my whole reply above shows I care enough to discuss and show that I think it's used way too broadly sometimes, same with philosophy.
-
Comment on What have you been listening to this week? in ~music
the_funky_buddha LinkWhitewoods - Misery Loves (Vaporwave) (2011). I wasn't into New Wave in the 80s, really hated it as a kid as it was everywhere and just seemed old by the time I got into music but I've softened up...Whitewoods - Misery Loves (Vaporwave) (2011). I wasn't into New Wave in the 80s, really hated it as a kid as it was everywhere and just seemed old by the time I got into music but I've softened up on it over the years. As some of you may know, this is Wave-ish yet cranks the dreamy vibe up while usually, not always as in the link, tempo may be slower and tone may be lower. Oh, and aesthetic. Watch enough vaporwave and you'll know what I mean.
Also bonus, Ra Ra Riot - Beta Love. I have a few friends who love it and one (ex)friend who just hates it.
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha Link ParentYou got me, as I was gotten last discussion. You can't really argue against philosophy without using a philosophical argument. It's one of many paradoxes in which what we want to rid we can't rid...I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does <-- that sounds like philosophy!
You got me, as I was gotten last discussion. You can't really argue against philosophy without using a philosophical argument. It's one of many paradoxes in which what we want to rid we can't rid without using the thing we want to rid. I digress, or want to anyway. Imma go for a ride on the motorcycle, it's my zen space, and hopefully won't come back and find out just how myopic or idiotic my original post was; I tend to do that sometimes.
while philosophy is particularly suited for answering what should.
My philosophy is that philosophy gets too much merit of what should be sometimes. It's less primitive reasoning than 'it's what I feel should be' which can offer more objectivity, yet it contradicts itself with arguing the validity of subjectivity; logical paradoxes. I think it bodes well for a theory I have I call the Champion's Paradox in that anything that becomes too great a force for its configuration state becomes self-defeating as it either has to change state (shoutout to Ship of Theseus and entry-level thermodynamics) or subdue its power to more manageable levels.
Anyway, I hope I've proved my point enough that I can logically say that philosophy is rubbish. My happiness in this argument and therefore survival may be counting on that statement being true. The argument itself may be illogical and rubbish but it's (supposedly) based on a logical system which evolved a (logical?) system as I am. And if we argue the universe isn't logical then why should I be? Because that's just not fair play!
Oh, I swore I wouldn't try to get involved in philosophical arguments on the internet but here I am. Fooled once again by you meddling kids. :)
-
Comment on The illogic of logical positivism in ~humanities
the_funky_buddha LinkSorry for the rant below, it's only vaguely related to the post. As I discussed before in a related post, is something really illogical if it provides benefits for the survival of its host? And I...Sorry for the rant below, it's only vaguely related to the post.
As I discussed before in a related post, is something really illogical if it provides benefits for the survival of its host? And I suppose then we'd have to get into, as we did before, the big question of the universe being logical; can an illogical system (your thoughts) exist within a logical system? I can state 2+2=3 perhaps in an evil and needless to say, dumb, regime where the number 4 is outlawed and my chances of not dying are much greater than those who tell the truth or those who know basic math. Yes, it wouldn't be validated by more objective mathematical axioms proofed by Principia Mathematica but from a last discussion on this topic, it seems subjectivity is just as valid as objectivity. Philosophy seems such a mess of a subject that any statement can be validated.
I think one of philosophy's problems is that it wants to exist without context of softer sciences, itself being pretty soft as far as the sciences go if you want to even call it that. In this argument, it's a case from anthropology. Frankly, I don't think philosophy dictates truth, I think survival does. I also have a hunch that the etymylogical root of "truth" began with what could be bluntly verified, ie, having survival potential. For example, the saber tooth exists. Verifiable and the potential for getting it wrong could be death. What is the potential consequence of OP getting it wrong? Maybe a little loss of reputation. But then again, it could be like the regime that hates the #4, objectivity doesn't matter, only subjective truth within that circle even if the world outside is composed of objective truths, ie, dirt, water, planets, things that can objectively be verified.
All of that seems inconsistent but it's a lot more consistent if you view it from outside the realm of philosophy, at least established philosophy. If viewed from a sociological or anthropological standpoint, it makes much more sense. Sorry for the rant. It's just the use of the word "logical" that people use way too much as a systemic policing tool and only established philosophers have say in who's valid (logical) and who's not. Also when it's used by others in casual fashion, it's usually people who think of themselves as "smart" and logical but they're often entirely unaware of these kinds of philosophical, if you will, arguments. Some of those same folks also disdain arguments from emotion but ironically don't realize the main default driver in man for millions of years has been 'want', which has survival potential and subsequently you could easily argue logical merit. I'm not one to usually like to defend or give our more primitive instincts their due but in the pretentious world of philosophy, I think it's well over-due. Some things just get me going. Don't even get me started on USB naming conventions.
tldr, philosophy is a sham of the most pretentious kind
-
Comment on DuckDuckGo working on a standalone web browser for Mac & Windows in ~tech
the_funky_buddha Link ParentI was going to mention that but I try to keep software and developer politics separate. That said, he's really self-righteous, inconceding and unprofessional as a CEO. If you dare say something...I was going to mention that but I try to keep software and developer politics separate. That said, he's really self-righteous, inconceding and unprofessional as a CEO. If you dare say something negative about Brave on HN he'll pop into the thread and try to "correct" your opinion with a smug pretentious attitude.
-
Comment on DuckDuckGo working on a standalone web browser for Mac & Windows in ~tech
the_funky_buddha Link ParentI don't use those either but the slowdown is very slight. The occasional crashes don't help either. Meanwhile I've used Firefox since its inception and it's been one of the most stable pieces of...I don't use those either but the slowdown is very slight. The occasional crashes don't help either. Meanwhile I've used Firefox since its inception and it's been one of the most stable pieces of software I've used.
-
Comment on DuckDuckGo working on a standalone web browser for Mac & Windows in ~tech
the_funky_buddha Link ParentThe closest thing to that is Tor browser or Firefox Focus on mobile. For a blink-based browser, on technical terms I can recommend Brave if you ignore their contentious crypto gimmick. I use...The closest thing to that is Tor browser or Firefox Focus on mobile. For a blink-based browser, on technical terms I can recommend Brave if you ignore their contentious crypto gimmick. I use Vivaldi fwiw but I might switch to DDG browser since Vivaldi is getting so feature bloated and slow.
-
Comment on US Army creates single vaccine against all COVID and SARS variants, researchers say in ~health
the_funky_buddha LinkI've read some service people are filing religious exemption or willing to undergo dishonorable discharge to avoid vaccination. Sad how it's all been politicized much more than other vaccines. I...I've read some service people are filing religious exemption or willing to undergo dishonorable discharge to avoid vaccination. Sad how it's all been politicized much more than other vaccines. I don't recall any complaining or conspiracies when we were all just lined up at reception and shot in both arms multiple times with who knows what but we didn't complain and we trusted our government wasn't injecting us with satanic mind control fluids or whatever is the flavor of the week conspiracy among those people. Though there were a few complaints about the butt shot and rightly so, I was limping for days. That really hurt, Charlie.
It sounds to me like you're trying too hard to get me offended at one party or another. You've failed as I'm not offended. What you're trying to fight is a power much larger than you and you're in for a life of offense and feelings being hurt if you're going to ignore why these incidents exist and how to mitigate them. I understand them and do what I can to mitigate them. A lot of times just getting angry and outraged at people instead of trying to understand why they do what they do, either through stubbornness or not having the intellect to understand, will lead you to a bitter life. The universe is logical and there's a logical reason these people do what they do, you just don't like it. There's a logical reason you do what you do also, you just don't explain it logically, especially not in a way that can convince me to be mad at them.
Also the whole 'appeal to emotion' is a fallacy. Anyone who's studied philosophy won't just blow it off because underlying all the logic is motive (emotion), it is our base driver and to deny the validity of emotion is to deny who and what we are as a species. Emotion has driven many great art works, many causes for science and much of the great things about our culture. No computer can compute without energy, it's emotional driver, they are co-dependent. It's such a shallow remark as much as the other fallacious 'fallacies' you mention. I used to use them too but I've since learned their faults.
Really? You replied to me. I didn't ask for you to convince me to be offended or find me a reason to be mad at people. I try to be fair and look at all sides and it just seems you're trying to get me to just see one side and as I just mentioned, you just blow away the emotional side yet your whole appeal seems rooted in emotion because the other side hurt your feelings so it seems.
With such scale to be harassed, she had such scale to harass. With much power to use comes much power to be used against. It's the nature of the world, that's what you should choose to get offended by, not by my words. She just as well used her might to speak detrimentally of others, which you don't mention, as some people do have legitimate complaints. And just because you write those people off as "virtue signalling", on that same token they could also write you off and see your complaints as just manufactured virtue signalling so you can get brownie points on your flavor of the week (anti)social media platform yet you don't and apparently you won't investigate their side, you just want to see your side because sometimes people just love to be angry and outraged, as you claim.
You can argue with me all you want but I can't take you seriously until you look into all sides equally and be fair. Maybe take your own advice about 'emotional fallacy' and ignore your feelings so you can look at it more objectively.
I have almost no interest in this myself but here I am, unfortunately. I'm usually just interested in the more meta of how these powers interact, not who's socially/morally wrong or right. Maybe that's why our arguments seem to be slipping past one another. I don't care who's wrong or right, because objectively you'd have to ultimately know the point of life so it's all just silly. Oh, but you want to get into philosophy and the relevance of subjectivity? Still, changes nothing about how these silly arguments will play out in the meta. In the end you still have to appeal to emotion using that lens but at least studying power interactions you don't wind up in these petty arguments as much and it's why I tend to avoid them.