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

[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.