The Latin word for God is "Deus" - or as the Romans would have written it, "DEVS". The people who create programs, games, and simulated worlds are also called "devs". As time goes on, the two meanings will grow closer and closer.— Scott Alexander (@slatestarcodex) October 7, 2021
Anything that people say about the god complexes of :reddit-logo: moderators/admins has nothing on capital-R "Rationalists."
Woody Allen had some bits that were actually funny and "What's Up, Tiger Lily" was a problematic favorite of mine, but that didn't make him any less of a creep in the grand scheme of things.
The Scott you mention has said, and believes, some fascist-adjacent horrible stuff that I've posted on The_Dunk_Tank quite a bit before.
I lean towards death of the author as my philosophy of engaging with media. I don’t really believe that entertainment media is a particularly powerful force for shaping people’s views, except maybe as teenagers, and that the emphasis on purity of consumption is in itself, a trap that distracts from actual political and social issues. With the caveat that financially supporting chuds should be avoided, I think people should consume whatever media they enjoy. All that’s to say, yeah Scott’s a weird dude put on pedestal by a larger collection of internet weirdos, but idc if someone enjoys his fiction, or Yud’wow’sky’s, or Woody Allen’s for that matter. Just understand that the creators can be awful people and still create something enjoyable for some, and that their other views aren’t going to transfer through like media osmosis or something.
The "Methods of Rationality" fandom alone is now several dubious institutions (MIRI, LessWrong, SlateStarCodex) funded by millions of billionaire dollars, influencing the beliefs and the lives of thousands of adherents. Brushing it all off with a "to each their own" just sounds somewhere between lazy and dangerous.
Either way I got to go for now. I agree to disagree with you.
Sounds like the problem is with the billionaires wielding undue power.
I think it’s intellectually lazy on the part of the left to knee-jerk media as the defining character of groups they don’t like. Libs as HP/west wing/marvel idiots, is just reductionism of extremely complex social, political, and economic forces down to easy to analyze and critique media. We do it because it’s easier and it’s fun, but it’s also a poor facsimile of actual understanding of these issues.
The Hpmor thing certainly is an interesting example of a piece of fiction wielding undue influence... until you think about the actual power players in what you described: the billionaires. I’m just highly skeptical of any claims that the world would be significantly different if Hpmor didn’t exist. Techbros would somehow be magically better people if a particular juvenile fantasy novel didn’t exist? Or is their arrogance, tech-Utopianism, and body odor a set of pre-existing conditions.
The problem is also that HPMOR, its writer, and the cult following that writer are not only fine with billionaires wielding undue power but want billionaires to have more power on top of that.
"My entertainment has absolutely no effect on me" is an extremely common take on :reddit-logo: and it is attempting the nearly-impossible task of proving a negative. If entertainment has no effect on people, why does advertising have an effect on people (if it didn't, a massive trillion dollar industry would be entirely a waste of money and people's choices of products should have zero correlation between what is advertised to them and what they purchase)? If advertising has an effect on people, how can you claim that there's some sort of boundary, like a magic barrier, that surely prevents entertainment of similar media having a similar effect?
I'm not calling for a cessation of literature treats or shows or movies for that matter. I have problematic favorites of my own (Dune is my favorite book of all time and the gender politics alone are really, really dated), and I think there's no need to put up all this unnecessary defense for bad people that use their fiction to further their bad agendas. Do you want to go to bat for Triumph of the Will next? Birth of a Nation? Mein Kampf?
The problem is also that HPMOR, its writer, and the cult following that writer are not only fine with billionaires wielding undue power but want billionaires to have more power on top of that.
Yeah, and if it wasn't Yud'wow'sky it would be another dipshit. Hell, there's still think tanks that give out university scholarships for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essays. The wealthy class rewards lapdogs that gratify their sense of self-importance.
“My entertainment has absolutely no effect on me” is an extremely common take on and it is attempting the nearly-impossible task of proving a negative
It's not near impossible, it is impossible. But besides, the actual claim that would fit here is 'X work had Y effect on Z group/individual', which is a falsifiable statement, but also pretty difficult to actually prove. But it's also not the argument I'm making. I never actually made the claim that media doesn't affect people? I have two central claims:
Authors views don't automatically transfer via their works.
The political beliefs of people cannot be solely attributed to the fiction that they consume.
If you want to talk about those claims, then let's have at it, but I'm not going bother with the bait and switch that advertising, a medium with an entirely different end and model, is somehow equivalent to fiction consumption.
Do you want to go to bat for Triumph of the Will next? Birth of a Nation? Mein Kampf?
Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you.
"Someone else would have done that exact same thing and got the exact same kickbacks from billionaires and start the exact same institutions of MIRI, LessWrong, and SlateStarCodex with that billionaire's windfall money" is what you are claiming. That's, again, very presumptive and seems excessively defensive for something I'm not really threatening and have no power to remove from existence even if I wanted to.
I have to say it a lot more than I wish I had to, but I'll say it again: it's possible to enjoy entertainment while accepting the existence of criticism of that same entertainment.
"Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you."
After that, yeah, I'm going to continue to disagree with you and know that arguing with you further won't go anywhere good.
Woody Allen had some bits that were actually funny and "What's Up, Tiger Lily" was a problematic favorite of mine, but that didn't make him any less of a creep in the grand scheme of things.
The Scott you mention has said, and believes, some fascist-adjacent horrible stuff that I've posted on The_Dunk_Tank quite a bit before.
I lean towards death of the author as my philosophy of engaging with media. I don’t really believe that entertainment media is a particularly powerful force for shaping people’s views, except maybe as teenagers, and that the emphasis on purity of consumption is in itself, a trap that distracts from actual political and social issues. With the caveat that financially supporting chuds should be avoided, I think people should consume whatever media they enjoy. All that’s to say, yeah Scott’s a weird dude put on pedestal by a larger collection of internet weirdos, but idc if someone enjoys his fiction, or Yud’wow’sky’s, or Woody Allen’s for that matter. Just understand that the creators can be awful people and still create something enjoyable for some, and that their other views aren’t going to transfer through like media osmosis or something.
The "Methods of Rationality" fandom alone is now several dubious institutions (MIRI, LessWrong, SlateStarCodex) funded by millions of billionaire dollars, influencing the beliefs and the lives of thousands of adherents. Brushing it all off with a "to each their own" just sounds somewhere between lazy and dangerous.
Either way I got to go for now. I agree to disagree with you.
Sounds like the problem is with the billionaires wielding undue power.
I think it’s intellectually lazy on the part of the left to knee-jerk media as the defining character of groups they don’t like. Libs as HP/west wing/marvel idiots, is just reductionism of extremely complex social, political, and economic forces down to easy to analyze and critique media. We do it because it’s easier and it’s fun, but it’s also a poor facsimile of actual understanding of these issues.
The Hpmor thing certainly is an interesting example of a piece of fiction wielding undue influence... until you think about the actual power players in what you described: the billionaires. I’m just highly skeptical of any claims that the world would be significantly different if Hpmor didn’t exist. Techbros would somehow be magically better people if a particular juvenile fantasy novel didn’t exist? Or is their arrogance, tech-Utopianism, and body odor a set of pre-existing conditions.
The problem is also that HPMOR, its writer, and the cult following that writer are not only fine with billionaires wielding undue power but want billionaires to have more power on top of that.
"My entertainment has absolutely no effect on me" is an extremely common take on :reddit-logo: and it is attempting the nearly-impossible task of proving a negative. If entertainment has no effect on people, why does advertising have an effect on people (if it didn't, a massive trillion dollar industry would be entirely a waste of money and people's choices of products should have zero correlation between what is advertised to them and what they purchase)? If advertising has an effect on people, how can you claim that there's some sort of boundary, like a magic barrier, that surely prevents entertainment of similar media having a similar effect?
I'm not calling for a cessation of literature treats or shows or movies for that matter. I have problematic favorites of my own (Dune is my favorite book of all time and the gender politics alone are really, really dated), and I think there's no need to put up all this unnecessary defense for bad people that use their fiction to further their bad agendas. Do you want to go to bat for Triumph of the Will next? Birth of a Nation? Mein Kampf?
Yeah, and if it wasn't Yud'wow'sky it would be another dipshit. Hell, there's still think tanks that give out university scholarships for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essays. The wealthy class rewards lapdogs that gratify their sense of self-importance.
It's not near impossible, it is impossible. But besides, the actual claim that would fit here is 'X work had Y effect on Z group/individual', which is a falsifiable statement, but also pretty difficult to actually prove. But it's also not the argument I'm making. I never actually made the claim that media doesn't affect people? I have two central claims:
If you want to talk about those claims, then let's have at it, but I'm not going bother with the bait and switch that advertising, a medium with an entirely different end and model, is somehow equivalent to fiction consumption.
Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you.
"Someone else would have done that exact same thing and got the exact same kickbacks from billionaires and start the exact same institutions of MIRI, LessWrong, and SlateStarCodex with that billionaire's windfall money" is what you are claiming. That's, again, very presumptive and seems excessively defensive for something I'm not really threatening and have no power to remove from existence even if I wanted to.
I have to say it a lot more than I wish I had to, but I'll say it again: it's possible to enjoy entertainment while accepting the existence of criticism of that same entertainment.
"Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you."
After that, yeah, I'm going to continue to disagree with you and know that arguing with you further won't go anywhere good.
Also w/ the caveat that something written expressly as a propaganda piece for a certain philosophy should be given a bit more strenuous criticism.