Interesting Links for 22-10-2021

[andrewducker]

The NFT-based book-writing group aimed at teens that lasted nearly 12 hours before being questioned to death

(tags:writing cryptography wtf epicfail copyright publishing teenagers )

Vienna Tourist Board museums join OnlyFans after explicit artworks censored online

(tags:history art socialnetworking nudity censorship )

This Taiwanese Teacher Who Puts Their Math Lessons on Pornhub

(tags:taiwan teaching porn videos )

The 'Most Controversial Opinion' Hinge Question Is Easier Than You Think

(tags:dating questions )

Tory reforms redistributed schools cash from poor to rich areas

(tags:poverty school inequality UK conservatives )

Government refuses to publish Brexit plan legal text for scrutiny

(tags:UK Europe NorthernIreland )

Comments

[nancylebov]

In re money getting distributed from poor to rich school districts, I remember someone complaining about that in the US in the 70s or 80s. I bet it isn't very rare.

[adrian_turtle]

That article about the Most Controversial Opinion is oddly disturbing. I started out nodding along, because I thought the whole point of a dating site was to help like-minded people to find one another. If there IS a dealbreaker, don't you WANT to find it before investing too much time in the relationship? It's not just that I don't want to date someone who believes that religion is the root of all evil...I would expect such a person would not want to date me, either. (If you're planning to ignore everything outside of bed, I wouldn't expect questions about controversial opinions in the first place.) The question looks like a way to find people who agree with your controversial opinions, the ones you believe despite widespread disapproval. But the article is about how to hide your deeply-held controversial opinions so you can date people who would disapprove of them.

[mountainkiss]

What do you regard your most controversial opinion as being?

[andrewducker]

Hmmm.

Possibly that it's just fine to have any fantasy, or thought, in your head, and that having them doesn't make you a bad person.

(Which doesn't seem like it should be a controversial opinion to me, but apparently is.)

[mountainkiss]

This isn't controversial to me. But I hear you when you say that you have found it so.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, part of the issue is that different opinions would be controversial in different company.

I have friend groups for whom believing in IQ would be controversial, and ones where not believing in it would be controversial. Ones where "economics" clearly has no value and ones where it's clearly of great value (and misrepresented greatly). Ones where any kind of connection between evolution and psychology is clearly just right-wing awfulness and ones where there's obviously a connection.

So my controversy would be fairly localised in any case.

[mountainkiss]

I think another frame on mine might be that in general I think there's something important in both sides of every issue and the problems caused by polarisation tend to be far greater than the problems caused by either one of the two sides. I recognise that there are exceptions to this.

[andrewducker]

I was working up to getting into an argument until that last sentence :-)

But yes, once you take out human rights type of things there are definitely plenty of arguments where people on all sides have good points

In fact the main adjustment I'd make to your statement is that there are usually more than two sides!

[andrewducker]

You?

[mountainkiss]

First stab: that I care far more about whether a party is decent and competent than whether it is of the left or of the right, and regard extreme positions on both sides as identically destructive, morally and practically. But I may revise this view on further reflection.

I like the question a lot, because it is multilayered: revealing both what someone thinks and what they regard as controversial.

[andrewducker]

I'm with you on that. I find, in general, elevation of political theory over whether something will increase happiness/wellbeing to be damaging and off-putting.

[mountainkiss]

I don't actually think you are with me on the essence of the position, though, from previous conversations that we have had here. I think - perhaps entirely wrongly - that you are very clear that you play for one team rather than the other.

[andrewducker]

There are a lot more than two teams.

And me being on one of them doesn't mean I think that everyone on every other team is wrong (certain human right based things apart).

[mountainkiss]

I get this. This is good and forcing me to think more clearly about what I mean. I will try to find an example next time one comes up, I think.

I genuinely do think there is a substantive difference between us here.

[andrewducker]

I believe you, and will look forward to understanding further.

[mountainkiss]

This has been ages, sorry, but I did not forget and have been reflecting on it on and off since our conversation.

Here is a restatement of my position. It is categorically different from my first stab, so (i) sorry for misleading (ii) this has been useful! (iii) I think it will now be clearer why I think there is a substantive difference between us.

In essence: I care more about how someone treats their opponents on the political spectrum than where they themselves sit.

An example: someone we both know and love retweeting a story about police violence with the added comment "ACAB". Having looked up the acronym (I am old), my instinctive response was "whichever team you are playing for, I am playing for the opposite." This is not because I am in favour of police violence, which as it happens I'm not. It's because I think the collective demonisation is more harmful than pretty much anything the police are doing.

There is probably a point on the political spectrum where this would cease to be true - by the time someone is advocating racial genocide, I probably play for the other team no matter what - but I would argue that this is a fairly facile argument because the intersection of "people who advocate racial genocide" and "people who are thoughtful, nuanced and respectful in engaging with those who have different views" is almost certainly a null set. Other than this I find it difficult to identify a political issue where this would not be true.

[andrewducker]

"I care more about how someone treats their opponents on the political spectrum than where they themselves sit."

I can totally get on board with this. So, when I see someone trying to remove LGBT rights, I know exactly how they treat the people on the other side, and I care deeply about that. Or when I see people enact legislation that pushes poor people into starvation, I know how they treat the people on the other side, and I care deeply about that.

(I also agree about ACAB. Too wide a brush. "Insitutionally Corrupt" would be the correct term for at least some of them. Or "Institutionally racist" for others. "All" clearly isn't true. Although I do worry about the ones who see the corruption/racism going on and don't say anything - but that's clearly very difficult to do when the institution works to cover things up.)

[mountainkiss]

So this is really interesting. My reading ot your second paragraph:

Sentence 1: I agree with you. Sentence 2: [content that completely goes against what I'm saying] Sentence 3: [content that completely goes against what I'm saying]

So I am now really unsure whether I'm completely misreading sentence 1 and it's actually a takedown rather than any kind of agreement at all. (Which is what I was expecting, because having read these links and your commentary for perhaps a decade, I really don't think you do agree with me. And is also fine.)

Let me unpack your sentence 3: "Or when I see people enact legislation that pushes poor people into starvation, I know how they treat the people on the other side, and I care deeply about that."

So, to me, that's a politically (maybe values-based? not quite sure what the right word is here) identical statement to "ACAB", and as soon as I read it I am playing for the other team. It's "everyone who is enacting this legislation is the same"; "everyone who is enacting this legisation can only be either immoral or at best ignorant and uncaring" and - let me be really clear about this - I think that this will ultimately cause more social harm than enacting the legislation. So I have no particular wish that people fall into starvation (and do care about this quite a lot, as it happens) but I do not believe that any behavioural enactment of your sentence will make this less likely, and I think it's more likely to have the reverse effect. There are certainly exceptions but I think if this body of activism is considered as a whole, it does more harm than good.

I do not think it is conceivable, from what you have written and what I have heard you say and write before, that you and I can agree on this.

[andrewducker]

"everyone who is enacting this legislation is the same" - they all did the same thing. I don't understand how you can say that you care about how people treat others, and then say that you don't think we should judge people on the acts they carry out?

How is this different from you saying "Everyone who says ACAB is on the other side"?

Are you saying that you can judge people for a speech act in one case, and then not judge people for a consequential act?

If so then I'm even *more* confused than I was.

[mountainkiss]

Perhaps this is one for a conversation and this cannot be the right medium for it. My apologies.

[andrewducker]

No no, not at all.

It did sound a bit like you were saying "I don't mind what people say, as long as they say it politely", but I've been assuming that you weren't saying *that* - but talking around it here doesn't seem to be leading to enlightenment!

Happy to talk about it in person next time you're up :-) Or, if you find another approach that you think might work then I'd be happy to carry this on, either here, or over some other communication medium.

[mountainkiss]

I am saying it a bit. I mean, it’s not quite the same as politely; politeness can be assumed whatever one’s convictions about the opposing team. It’s more “with an appreciation that most people are rational actors with at least some prosocial motivation”. But I think that someone with this conviction will do less harm than someone who is convinced that anyone with different political motivations must inevitably be a bad actor, pretty much whatever the issue.

I think the reason you’re confused might be that you and I disagree so deeply on this that you are second-guessing your accurate interpretation, though I could be wrong.

[andrewducker]

"anyone with different political motivations" covers a huge amount of space. I think it would be awesome if there was a tram that came past the local shopping centre, and they reopened the train line to passengers where it goes nearby. But I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is acting badly. And I'm totally happy to engage in friendly debate with such people.

Whereas I do believe that people who want to take away LGBT rights are causing large amounts of harm. And I believe I've read plenty of research which would back that up. And I think that I could see that some of the people who were against LGBT rights are totally rational (if by which we mean can follow logical steps) and prosocial (provided their idea of society didn't include LGBT people). But I still think they'd be causing more harm by letting them act in that way than if we prevented them, even if we did so rudely.

I assume that you'd disagree with me in the second paragraph?

[mountainkiss]

I would, I’m afraid. I disagree with the premise, because I don’t think there is a block thing called “people who want to take away LGBT rights”, but more importantly I think that this mindset will ultimately cause more harm long term through polarisation and most particularly more harm to the most vulnerable, even if there are short term benefits of the activism.

Which was the point of the original question, I think: to uncover the beliefs that others would find most controversial?

[andrewducker]

I started to write a reply about what I think causes polarisation, but then realised that we're polarised around so many axes that it would end up being an awfully long comment - and I have to go and get Sophia from nursery before the 50mph winds get here.

So I will just say that I think that my understanding of polarisation is pretty complex, and that I certainly don't believe that it's always bad, although it certainly can be.

[mountainkiss]

I probably don’t think it’s always bad, because few generalisations always hold. (See what I did there.) But I think it’s bad much more often than it’s good, and I think the badness is bad badness.

[andrewducker]

And, of course, now I've just re-read up the thread, if I am understanding correctly, then this would, indeed, count as a controversial opinion :-)

[mountainkiss]

Hah! I’ve just written that.

One sub-point: I do in principle strongly support the value of activism per se; the world desperately needs activists, though it does not need me to be one of them. I am not saying “sit tight and watch bad things happen”. But I think there are different mindsets from which this can be undertaken, and there are some mindsets that I think will ultimately cause more harm than any benefit of the activism.

[andrewducker]

I think we need different activists working in different ways. And that we almost certainly need some pulling very hard in one direction, while others try to find ways to compromise with each other. Checks and balances on each other, if you like.

[mountainkiss]

I basically agree with this. I wonder if my viewpoint stems from thinking we are currently out of balance and in a different context might be the reverse. Hard to say without testing.

Go and get Sophia! 😍

[andrewducker]

I did! We only got hit by 5 minutes of the storm rather than all of it!

"I wonder if my viewpoint stems from thinking we are currently out of balance" - interesting idea, which I'd be happy to discuss when you've got your thoughts into a state you're happy to share :-)

Also, thank you for continuing the conversation yesterday to the point where it felt like we'd got somewhere. I know it's not always easy (goodness knows I find it stressful myself).

[mountainkiss]

No, I’m glad we did too. Thank you.

It’s pretty clear to me that our goals are similar, even if our weighting of them is not the same, or our views about how to achieve them differ wildly.

I will reflect on my underlying assumptions, which I think are important. Certainly something around how people are different versions of themselves in different contexts / systems, Haidt’s moral intuitions, how people are and are not influenceable. I’m better on individual than systemic psychology but to be be fair so is everyone else because it’s much easier.

I think we are over the big milestone, which is you believing that I really do intend to say what I am saying. (?) That said, it’s both emotive and nuanced territory and genuinely I suspect this is not the best medium.

My time horizon is very, very short right now, but I will be sad not to be in Edinburgh at some point in 2022.

[andrewducker]

I think that my thinking has been greatly influenced by Martin Luther King's quote here, and by huge amounts of online discussion I've seen between people saying "But why do they have to people whose rights are being taken away/ignored have to be so rude about things?" and the backlash against that. And so I don't expect to bump into people nowadays who seem to be espousing that - so I initially discounted it. But, as you say, it's supposed to be an unusual opinion that you were sharing!

Very happy to discuss further later in the year, when hopefully you will be happy to be visiting!

[mountainkiss]

Yeah, my preliminary reading is that I really disagree with this. I mean, I don't disagree on moral grounds, but it feels a long way from optimised from the perspective of embedding lasting social change. It should however be noted that he is arguably the most successful civil rights leader ever, so I will reread and reflect.

I am going to have to stop and do some actual work, sorry. More at some point I hope.

[andrewducker]

Of course :-) I may even go and do some myself!

[mountainkiss]

I have more thoughts but first a q. Why does the MLK quote speak to you so deeply.

[andrewducker]

Because I used to be one of those people, and then through looking at how long term societal change happens, and how well meaning people can hold it back by saying "Oh no, those people are far too loud and angry at their loss/lack of rights, I can't be involved in *that*" they effectively joined the side of the oppressor, I changed view entirely, and that quote sums up my thinking on it pretty neatly now.

[mountainkiss]

Could you unpack "looking at how long term societal change happens, and how well meaning people can hold it back by saying "Oh no, those people are far too loud and angry at their loss/lack of rights, I can't be involved in that" they effectively joined the side of the oppressor"? Will understand if prefer not to take the time.

[andrewducker]

I will, but my mother is up for the weekend and I'm off to meet her now, so it will be a while.