TreeFiddyFiddy's recent activity

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I just want you to know that that second comment wasn’t directed to you personally! I just wanted to clarify for anyone else who came by in the thread and maybe got confused. Sorry if I came off...

    I just want you to know that that second comment wasn’t directed to you personally! I just wanted to clarify for anyone else who came by in the thread and maybe got confused. Sorry if I came off as lecturing you or anything, not my intent. Thanks for being so understanding!

    1 vote

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Just to clarify, if I’m correct by two pieces you’re referencing the New York Times article about „wokeness.“ The NYT is considered Center-left politically but their opinion pieces do tend to skew...
    • Exemplary

    Just to clarify, if I’m correct by two pieces you’re referencing the New York Times article about „wokeness.“ The NYT is considered Center-left politically but their opinion pieces do tend to skew right.

    I know all these New York XX publications can be quite confusing to keep track of who is who!

    Edit: Important to note as well that American politics tend to be more right-centered when compared to places like Europe, for example. The American mainstream Left would be considered center-right in many countries (although I think we’re seeing big political alignment changes in the US right now). That and American culture is informed by early puritan and Protestant settlers and is by default a more socially conservative culture (just for perspective)

    4 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    Are you getting The New Yorker confused with another outlet? The New Yorker is considered a solidly liberal magazine in the US and usually considered to have very high quality reporting (although...

    Are you getting The New Yorker confused with another outlet? The New Yorker is considered a solidly liberal magazine in the US and usually considered to have very high quality reporting (although I don’t think this particular piece quite reaches that last standard)

    You later reference „NYP.“ Perhaps that’s the New York Post? The Post is a conservative publication in the US but isn’t the same as The New Yorker and is not a publication I read

    11 votes

  4. Comment on How computationally expensive is filtering and ignoring? in ~tildes

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link
    You can donate directly to Tildes to help keep the platform running. Notice that there isn't any advertisement here. I give a small amount each month. The link to the Tildes donation page is here

    You can donate directly to Tildes to help keep the platform running. Notice that there isn't any advertisement here. I give a small amount each month.

    The link to the Tildes donation page is here

    8 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    Can you please quote that part? I think I may have missed where they make that comparison. I didn't feel that they were trying to make that case. Betteridge's Law and all, the answer to the...

    I think that comparing the usage of "Folx" (which I've never seen, but may exist) to the usage of various slurs is pretty wild.

    Can you please quote that part? I think I may have missed where they make that comparison.

    In that case, I don't think that anything is "worse off", and I don't think they make a case for it.

    I didn't feel that they were trying to make that case. Betteridge's Law and all, the answer to the headline question seemed to be a "no" to me. They definitely point out some excesses of the movement, and what social movement doesn't have its excesses, but I didn't walk away from the discussion feeling like they were trying prove the title. The title was probably chosen by an editor anyway.

    They don't ever really define "wokeism" in the transcription, to the best of my knowledge.

    I think you're right but I found the "definition," to use that term loosely, in the entire context of the conversation.

    I think it's worth pointing out that both "woke" and "politically correct" are right-wing-slanted terms.

    The term may have been coopted by right-wing groups but I think it definitely originated in progressive circles in the wake of George Floyd's murder, if I'm remembering correctly.

    It's a difficult thing to discuss in a productive way.

    Agree and disagree. I think I've seen some productive discussions in the comment section already and even if it is difficult I don't think we shouldn't at least try.

    2 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I'm going to ask you not to engage with me further in this comment section. You have insinuated both that I am attempting to spread hateful ideology and questioned whether I have an agenda because...

    I'm going to ask you not to engage with me further in this comment section. You have insinuated both that I am attempting to spread hateful ideology and questioned whether I have an agenda because of a quotation mark. Your behavior towards me is making me feel angry and I don't want that.

    As I've stated to you before in another comment. I am referencing the discussion that is linked to, where they discuss "wokeness." It is never my word, I have never here discussed any of my views on it, if you want to understand how it is defined or what I'm referring to then I urge you to confront the source material.

    Have a good day and please don't engage with me again in this topic.

    7 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I'm not going to ask if you read the article but you may have overlooked something. That doesn't come up in the discussion linked to, in fact it gets pretty nuanced at times about what worked in...

    I'm not going to ask if you read the article but you may have overlooked something.

    when you have people taking a broad “this movement is good / this movement is bad”

    That doesn't come up in the discussion linked to, in fact it gets pretty nuanced at times about what worked in the "woke" movement and what didn't. What was a stretch and what is just human decency.

    Remember that the comment you're defending was posted without having read or watched the linked discussion and a complete unwillingness to engage with it.

    2 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    It's not my definition, it's the participants' in the discussion I've linked to. I'll defer to the article instead of potentially mangling something I didn't even write.

    It's not my definition, it's the participants' in the discussion I've linked to. I'll defer to the article instead of potentially mangling something I didn't even write.

    3 votes

  11. Comment on Forget the AI apocalypse. Memes have already nuked our culture. (gifted link) in ~tech

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I get what you’re saying and agree. Thanks for following up, I think I wasn’t grasping what you were trying to say in the first comment

    I get what you’re saying and agree. Thanks for following up, I think I wasn’t grasping what you were trying to say in the first comment

    10 votes

  12. Comment on Forget the AI apocalypse. Memes have already nuked our culture. (gifted link) in ~tech

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    That's an interesting take. To me it was just a rhetorical device. The author really only devotes one or two lines in the article to AI and really not in relation to any idea that AI will not be...

    That's an interesting take. To me it was just a rhetorical device. The author really only devotes one or two lines in the article to AI and really not in relation to any idea that AI will not be consequential but rather as a comparison to what he already sees happening in mainstream culture.

    I'm saying this not to attack you at all directly but rather a really pervasive approach to content these days that I see repeated often: What's genuinely exhausting to me is seeing people reacting so strongly to headlines but not actually dealing with the content of the articles. We live in a click baity world and even before things got so extreme publications have used headlines to editorialize and drive views for at least a century. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. Why bother becoming so worked up by a headline? (Rhetorical question) Engage with the actual content or move on, or at least that's what my philosophy is.

    9 votes

  13. Comment on What does Tucker Carlson really believe? I went to Maine to find out. (gifted link) in ~society

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    That's actually what brought me to read the interview in the first place. I had skipped over the headline a few days in a row but then I saw a clip of him basically insinuating that Trump may be...

    That's actually what brought me to read the interview in the first place. I had skipped over the headline a few days in a row but then I saw a clip of him basically insinuating that Trump may be using magic spells on those around him, that's when I was like, "hold up, I need to actually see what's going on with this guy."

    If I'm being honest with myself and my engagement with the content: I find it awfully convenient how often he's been wrong about something and then changes his stance to somehow come out on the "right" side of things. He comes off as a survivor to me who is keenly aware of where cultural and political moments are heading and that's what made me want to post the article. I think that he's on the vanguard of a generational change we're seeing within the party and all his looniness aside, he does make a few coherent and poignant points.

    7 votes

  15. Comment on How Donald Trump took the US to war with Iran (gifted link) in ~society

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link
    Submission statement: The chronicles of the events within the White House that lead to the current war with Iran. I think it's telling and really surprising who within the White House was pushing...

    Submission statement: The chronicles of the events within the White House that lead to the current war with Iran. I think it's telling and really surprising who within the White House was pushing for the war, or rather - who wasn't.

    1 vote

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I didn't ask them to read the article. I was responding helping to clarify the comment made by someone who did and whose comment was, completely out of context, portrayed as saying that there's a...

    I didn't ask them to read the article. I was responding helping to clarify the comment made by someone who did and whose comment was, completely out of context, portrayed as saying that there's a problem with pronouns when nobody in that thread or in the article itself ever said that. The same person then attacked me directly by insinuating I'm a bad person for things I never even said and based on their assumptions on an article they never even read. I'm getting heavy book buring vibes in here where people are reacting to a headline and completely dismissing what may be reasonable content within.

    Some discussions are not worth having.

    So then don't or at least explain in detail for those who may not be aware why that may be. The same commentor later goes on to say that they foresee this thread getting locked down or deleted but it certainly won't be because of the content of the piece, there's nothing hateful in it. These discussions get restricted because people start getting vitriolic in the comments section and so far the only people I've seen coming up to or crossing the line are the ones who haven't actually read the thing and are making huge assumptions and judgement calls based on a six word title alone.

    Nobody deserves to be attacked or have their comment very uncharitably read because someone is not engaging in good faith. Myself and the other person read the article and are approaching the discussion based on that, someone else is acting with possible malice without even understanding what we're talking about.

    12 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I was never actively engaged, you engaged me which brought me here. I posted a piece that inspired thought and self-reflection in myself. That does not always need to be backed up by facts,...

    I was never actively engaged, you engaged me which brought me here. I posted a piece that inspired thought and self-reflection in myself. That does not always need to be backed up by facts, figures, and definitions, we do it all the time with art and writing and we can certainly find thoughtfulness by watching people having discussions and then talking about what they discussed. You directed questions to me and I addressed them, I don't think it's out of order for me to do the same. Again, you engaged me and not the other way around - I responded in good faith to that initial engagement and am now disengaging from it.

    9 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    I think this is spot on and an insight woefully missed by many LGBT+ advocates. The gay rights movement took decades after stonewall to win pluralistic acceptance, I saw many progressives take...

    You have to meet your opponents where they are. Like it or not, the US as a whole was not ready for non-binary people. Talking LGBT+ rights, it has for decades been warming up to, and increasingly accepting, gay people. Maybe transgender people. But non-binary people for some reason was too much and so the opponent lashed out and dragged the rope way to the other end into regressive politics. Society and politics will always be a back and forth between the wings, sometimes towards the center and unfortunately now going to the extremes.

    I think this is spot on and an insight woefully missed by many LGBT+ advocates. The gay rights movement took decades after stonewall to win pluralistic acceptance, I saw many progressives take that win and run with it hoping to win equal acceptance for Trans and non-binary folks right after. Commendable, for the record I do support acceptance of those people, but they were blinded by their victory and (sometimes smugly) pushed too far on a topic that America just wasn't there on yet. Not to excuse inhumane treatment of minority groups in any way - we don't need to accept or condone their mistreatment - but it would have behooved advocates to recognize that gay rights took decades and that it would also take time to bring the same level of understanding to a largely naive and therefore resistant audience. It is sad but, as you said, it's realpolitik.

    4 votes

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

    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link Parent
    It's literally a culture editor, culture critic, and writer for a cultural magazine. Even though they aren't academics or researchers, surely they are heavily exposed in their work, knowledge, and...

    Explain to me how any of these folks can be considered experts on culture?

    It's literally a culture editor, culture critic, and writer for a cultural magazine. Even though they aren't academics or researchers, surely they are heavily exposed in their work, knowledge, and probably education to have informed discussions. 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.

    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

    May I, respectfully, point out to you that you posed questions first to me. You have shown no good faith by your standards by giving salient examples and have instead posed leading questions to me. Why should I make effort to actually engage with those questions and your post when no effort or good faith was given to me in the first place?

    10 votes