Maybe there should be therapy for people who leave fundamentalist communities, it's difficult to abandon everything while telling yourself that God isn't damning you. That might be akin to having PTSD. Aside, at least here in the Western+European liberal traditions, most of the Christians (and members of other creeds) I personally know are pretty chill about it too, you're quite right there. But in the Bible belt it affects government policy over classroom science education, Roe vs Wade, and who votes for which political candidate. Also, until 50 years ago we still took blue laws (aka the sabbath) seriously. "Sodomy" laws prohibiting what consenting adults do in privacy, usually because of religious convictions, were repealed only in 2003. Our chill religious society is very recent and fragile...
I think this is very normal group/tribal identity and social influence at work, not mental illness. This applies to a lot more than just religion (which is why I mentioned group behavior above). There's the "third wave" experiment, but in more ethical studies, people form in-groups over arbitrary things so quickly that it's shocking. It's a bug or feature of being human. Agree with a political partisan on nearly everything but tiny details on one of their models, and they claim you're with the out-group. They've heard it all, and they already have a response designed to quickly deal with views that disagree. In our daily political life you'll constantly run into interpretive articles or YT lectures that oversimplify your political critics, teaching you how to dismiss them, while reaffirming your tribal identity..There are many books I have seen that get passed around Christian households detailing why other faiths are mistaken and what the correct view really is. Even some of the open-minded I know share things on why who they deem the closed-minded are wrong or are willfully insincere, while reaffirming their "correct" scriptural interpretation. So this isn't just religion. It's kind of normal. Hopefully that explains better the point I was trying to make about religion and socialization. Religion is the venue, socialization is what people do. Next time I'll be more careful in the first post haha.
Anecdotally, I know of hardcore believers who still do quite well as engineers+computer scientists and so forth. They have strong communities and familiesr. I can't say, in this case, that their beliefs are disabling. Misleading maybe, but not enough to be unable to function in society or find happiness. These types are puzzling.. but I think it comes down to the above, tribal identity, not mental illness.
Since we agree on most other things (you are right that YT can do whatever it wants) there's no need to rehash, but I'll look up some of the stuff you're talking about. No offense to whistling Dixie, it's a nice turn of phrase.
I think the YT problem is that discrimination has different word senses/meanings (like a crop can be any of these: a photoshop job, a style of haircut or a harvest). The definition I see about discrimination is specifically about treating people based on the groups they are in. If I read you correctly, what you are talking about seems to be quite different, more discrimination in the sense of judgment about what a thing is and what it does--but no group is entitled to have people sign up for them.. Anyway if YT takes it as far as you are saying, it's going to be a gong show. They'll be revoking major media documentaries.. time to break out the popcorn..
Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.
I don't see hundreds of thousands of young adults in Utah lining up to become Hinduists or Taoists. If you're born in Utah you will more likely be a Mormon, raised in a Mormon household, or you will be a member of another Western religion in the same way. That's because you make your choices based on what you get from your surroundings, what you're socialized in. For most believers, religion is not a hat you choose to discard on a whim anymore than the rest of your culture or traditions, it is part of your family and community history, it's how you see the world. Saying it's just "a choice" is being flippant about the majority of the world's religions.
Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, fundamentalists could easily blame the self-professed open minded religious people for humiliating them when they disagree. After all, the open minded types often claim that fundamentalists are being willfully disingenuous and insincere, practicing only "in the name of religion." Even the claim of being open minded is to distinguish from those closed-minded types. Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism. And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation. Discrimination is exclusion of group members (eg not hiring members of a specific religion), it isn't about preventing criticism.
"People are born into religions, and then trained to interpret reality through that lens." Where does that sentence even say "the religion trains"--that's two independent clauses! This is about socialization, who teaches, and how people learn!
I really can't find anything on this in the policy. Youtube itself only provides the example "it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but not okay to post malicious hateful comments about a group of people solely based on their ethnicity." A nation-state is a state of mostly one ethnicity--criticism is ok, discrimination is not.
Discrimination is about exclusion. If I said, "don't let members of this particular religion into your establishment" that would be promoting discrimination. I'm not even pushing for anyone to do anything other than to not make up silly non-explanations as a reason for religious mockery. I'm not even targeting a specific group--"religious people" is pretty broad and general.
At the same time, when religious people go on long rants about atheist communists killing millions of people in the 20th C, I don't think that's discrimination either. If they refuse to hire atheists or exclude them in other ways that is.
I highly doubt it. I have seen far more inflammatory things on YouTube than a general description of things common to culture and group behavior. For example, the person I'm responding to thinks it's OK to mock anyone religious because it's something they "choose" to do even though nobody chooses to be born into a cultural group. He then shifts the goalpoast from choice to "they are brainwashed" which is totally contradictory and shows that it's mostly knee jerking--good for mod points though.
"But but.. humans can't possibly affect the environment! It would be so arrogant to think man could do that!" (Tosses on 30 spf sunscreen to counter the hole in the ozone layer caused by manmade cfcs)
The word "might" indicates its an example. Whether you do or don't is completely missing the point. If a person is not at the very least looking at the things Keynes is saying, if doing so elicits strong emotion, you'll never find the ideologies that are there, same goes for everyone else whom it's easy to accuse of "having ideology." Lots of religious people say the same in return about atheists. It's a thought terminating cliche that explains nothing.
Oh yes, I quite get that their value is determined by the market, and the value is pretty high if you are sinking $200 million into a film. Hence Ghost in the Shell stars Scarlett Johansson instead of an unfamiliar actor to the target audience. But this is only an explanation of why that most of us already know--if you turn that into a normative instead of a descriptive claim (turning an is into an ought), it won't do much to convince anyone who thinks that one is insufficient for the other.. or further along those lines, that this degree of wage disparity is unethical.
It wasn't intended to. Actors get paid way too much. For every actor there can be a team in the thousands working on the film for several years, so take out the actor's wages and material costs and do the math. The vast majority of people who work in entertainment make average to below average wages, frequently work ridiculous hours, and for every one of them there's a hundred more who go broke trying.
I worked as a physical laborer in a mill for many years. At the end of the day, most people need more than physical labor to survive. That's because most people aren't soulless automatons who live to push objects around and drop dead and even in hunter-gatherer societies you find arts and entertainment.
I highly doubt your living environment consists of blank white walls and zero movies. If you consume movies then clearly they have some value to you. If you didn't find it useful, you wouldn't even bother to pirate (if you do). If you think art has no value, then I challenge you to throw out anything in your environment that was designed, and live like a robot.
Lots of physical labor is involved in making a film or a game. You have to build the infrastructure. You have to build sets. Haul gear around. It's long hours and bloody hard work. Those film sets built themselves, the clothing made itself, the gear moved around by itself, the IT infrastructure required to make the visuals made themselves? Consumers are sheep who think the grass magically appears in front of them.
Natural selection is not about physical strength. The most well-adapted organism tends to survive. This includes socially adaptive behaviors.
Oh I think there is a long lineage of secret atheists probably dating back to the presocratic philosophers (some were charged with impiety). The thing about googling now is that everything is customized. You are more likely to see things in search engines that reinforce the filter bubble than disrupt it. Also, religion is adaptive--it evolves and the fittest versions stick around. Even the fundamentalist group I grew up in has adapted to reinforcing their beliefs on the internet. The "backfire effect" is real. But yes if you really are the type to ask the hard questions you can find things if you try hard enough. R'amen.
"I have nothing particularly against piracy" "My reasons against hating piracy"
Where did I say I hated piracy? Where did I say I worked in film?
AAA video games also have budgets now approaching and sometimes exceeding a hundred million, because they have to employ hundreds to thousands of people for years---and supply specialized IT infrastructure for all of them as well. None of these people are millionaires. You do the math. Do you want to have fun? Get a job and work 80 hours a week making eyeballs for several years.
As John Maynard Keynes so eloquently put it: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”
Everyone has ideology, especially the people who deny it. I grew up in a cult, and according to them, everyone else had a "religious ideology" and we had the truth. Few people question their reality, so their ideology is invisible to them. "Ideology" has become a code word for "a worldview that is obvious to me because it conflicts with mine."
Brainwashing is ostensibly used to reprogram adults, not children. It came into prominence as a cold-war word for deserters, and has about as much scientific evidence behind it as cold war LSD experiments to find truth serums. What I went through was shitty but it wasn't "brainwashing". It's what any kid goes through when they grow up in a culture and believe what their parents tell them, just amplified because of the cult language and the imprinting of fear responses from a young age.
More to the point, religion is infused with cultural traditions. Which is why as an atheist, you still probably believe in a rationalist universe that Christianity created, or why you might still celebrate Christmas, even if you know it's horseshit.
The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree. I don't know how you call that a choice. Like, not to break into a free will debate, but we only make choices based on what we know, and if what we know is limited, our choices are limited.
I have nothing particularly against piracy, but if you think that making entertainment isn't work, then I cordially invite you to enter the industry and pay your dues. You will enjoy not having a family life anymore, when you're pulling 12+shifts sitting in front of a screen doing repetitive tasks without any glamour whatsoever. Just because it's fun to watch movies doesn't mean it isn't real work to make them. The vast majority of people who work in entertainment don't make millions. For every wealthy actor there's thousands of people you never see behind the scenes.
My reasons against hating piracy are that 1: I think it's gone too far, it stifles innovation and breaks with thousands of years of history where humans could freely share ideas 2. If you are a student and want to break into a field, the cost of educational materials can be kind of shocking---you may have no other means to be competitive other than to pirate software, or the hundreds of movies you might need to watch to become knowledgeable in your field. 3. broke people can't afford to buy the movie anyway
Piracy would be if I looked at the car, took detailed notes and photos and then made a copy of it. Theft is depriving you of your property--hopping in the car and driving away. They have entirely different consequences, and as far as I know most legal systems rightly distinguish between them, which is why p2p is charged under civil, not criminal law (so far).
If someone steals my music, that means they've come into my studio and stolen the multitrack files off my hard drive, or claimed my work as their own, for profit.
Just because two things might be (debatably) bad doesn't mean they are equivalent, and just because Hollywood makes videos about piracy equaling theft doesn't mean they are true.
Sorry to rain on the buzzword parade,but I'm pretty sure version 1.0 was copying sheet music and forging paintings, and 2.0 was copying cassette and VCR tapes. If I've missed a step there please feel free to fill me in.
Yes and maybe that's the point. Some say that just addressing this issue perpetuates it. But if you want equality, you're never going to have it if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend this doesn't happen.
Glad to know there's some sanity left on/. these days. Can't say I've ever had any issues with women in IT positions either. Not surprisingly when there's mutual respect, there's no real problems.
"Shhh...someone at AVFM told me 'mangina' was a dire insult.. weapon deployed! Impact in 5..4..3..2.. *fizzle*"
(because the best way to prove you like women is to think that "pussy" and "mangina" are insults) Can't say I feel guilty about anything. Your rage might indicate you've some subconscious guilt though.
You're right, diversity as meaning hiring unqualified people is not a straw man.. it's an anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, us vs those horrible universities who shut us out.. and it's supported with fringe evidence from outlying cases.
I don't admit that chemtrails have any bearing on my health either.
That's argumentum ad absurdum, which isn't inherently good or bad, it just depends on whether or not the issue is adequately represented.
For example, if out of two hundred applicants ten are more than qualified, diversity doesn't lead to lower quality applicants. 'Best' can depend on subjective things like how you tickled the interviewer's fancy or whether or not you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there should be therapy for people who leave fundamentalist communities, it's difficult to abandon everything while telling yourself that God isn't damning you. That might be akin to having PTSD. Aside, at least here in the Western+European liberal traditions, most of the Christians (and members of other creeds) I personally know are pretty chill about it too, you're quite right there. But in the Bible belt it affects government policy over classroom science education, Roe vs Wade, and who votes for which political candidate. Also, until 50 years ago we still took blue laws (aka the sabbath) seriously. "Sodomy" laws prohibiting what consenting adults do in privacy, usually because of religious convictions, were repealed only in 2003. Our chill religious society is very recent and fragile...
I think this is very normal group/tribal identity and social influence at work, not mental illness. This applies to a lot more than just religion (which is why I mentioned group behavior above). There's the "third wave" experiment, but in more ethical studies, people form in-groups over arbitrary things so quickly that it's shocking. It's a bug or feature of being human. Agree with a political partisan on nearly everything but tiny details on one of their models, and they claim you're with the out-group. They've heard it all, and they already have a response designed to quickly deal with views that disagree. In our daily political life you'll constantly run into interpretive articles or YT lectures that oversimplify your political critics, teaching you how to dismiss them, while reaffirming your tribal identity..There are many books I have seen that get passed around Christian households detailing why other faiths are mistaken and what the correct view really is. Even some of the open-minded I know share things on why who they deem the closed-minded are wrong or are willfully insincere, while reaffirming their "correct" scriptural interpretation. So this isn't just religion. It's kind of normal. Hopefully that explains better the point I was trying to make about religion and socialization. Religion is the venue, socialization is what people do. Next time I'll be more careful in the first post haha.
Anecdotally, I know of hardcore believers who still do quite well as engineers+computer scientists and so forth. They have strong communities and familiesr. I can't say, in this case, that their beliefs are disabling. Misleading maybe, but not enough to be unable to function in society or find happiness. These types are puzzling.. but I think it comes down to the above, tribal identity, not mental illness.
Since we agree on most other things (you are right that YT can do whatever it wants) there's no need to rehash, but I'll look up some of the stuff you're talking about. No offense to whistling Dixie, it's a nice turn of phrase.
I think the YT problem is that discrimination has different word senses/meanings (like a crop can be any of these: a photoshop job, a style of haircut or a harvest). The definition I see about discrimination is specifically about treating people based on the groups they are in. If I read you correctly, what you are talking about seems to be quite different, more discrimination in the sense of judgment about what a thing is and what it does--but no group is entitled to have people sign up for them.. Anyway if YT takes it as far as you are saying, it's going to be a gong show. They'll be revoking major media documentaries.. time to break out the popcorn..
Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.
I don't see hundreds of thousands of young adults in Utah lining up to become Hinduists or Taoists. If you're born in Utah you will more likely be a Mormon, raised in a Mormon household, or you will be a member of another Western religion in the same way. That's because you make your choices based on what you get from your surroundings, what you're socialized in. For most believers, religion is not a hat you choose to discard on a whim anymore than the rest of your culture or traditions, it is part of your family and community history, it's how you see the world. Saying it's just "a choice" is being flippant about the majority of the world's religions.
Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, fundamentalists could easily blame the self-professed open minded religious people for humiliating them when they disagree. After all, the open minded types often claim that fundamentalists are being willfully disingenuous and insincere, practicing only "in the name of religion." Even the claim of being open minded is to distinguish from those closed-minded types. Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism. And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation. Discrimination is exclusion of group members (eg not hiring members of a specific religion), it isn't about preventing criticism.
"People are born into religions, and then trained to interpret reality through that lens." Where does that sentence even say "the religion trains"--that's two independent clauses! This is about socialization, who teaches, and how people learn!
As for Youtube, I guess we'll find out in praxis.
I really can't find anything on this in the policy. Youtube itself only provides the example "it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but not okay to post malicious hateful comments about a group of people solely based on their ethnicity." A nation-state is a state of mostly one ethnicity--criticism is ok, discrimination is not.
Discrimination is about exclusion. If I said, "don't let members of this particular religion into your establishment" that would be promoting discrimination. I'm not even pushing for anyone to do anything other than to not make up silly non-explanations as a reason for religious mockery. I'm not even targeting a specific group--"religious people" is pretty broad and general.
At the same time, when religious people go on long rants about atheist communists killing millions of people in the 20th C, I don't think that's discrimination either. If they refuse to hire atheists or exclude them in other ways that is.
I highly doubt it. I have seen far more inflammatory things on YouTube than a general description of things common to culture and group behavior. For example, the person I'm responding to thinks it's OK to mock anyone religious because it's something they "choose" to do even though nobody chooses to be born into a cultural group. He then shifts the goalpoast from choice to "they are brainwashed" which is totally contradictory and shows that it's mostly knee jerking--good for mod points though.
"But but.. humans can't possibly affect the environment! It would be so arrogant to think man could do that!" (Tosses on 30 spf sunscreen to counter the hole in the ozone layer caused by manmade cfcs)
The word "might" indicates its an example. Whether you do or don't is completely missing the point. If a person is not at the very least looking at the things Keynes is saying, if doing so elicits strong emotion, you'll never find the ideologies that are there, same goes for everyone else whom it's easy to accuse of "having ideology." Lots of religious people say the same in return about atheists. It's a thought terminating cliche that explains nothing.
Oh yes, I quite get that their value is determined by the market, and the value is pretty high if you are sinking $200 million into a film. Hence Ghost in the Shell stars Scarlett Johansson instead of an unfamiliar actor to the target audience. But this is only an explanation of why that most of us already know--if you turn that into a normative instead of a descriptive claim (turning an is into an ought), it won't do much to convince anyone who thinks that one is insufficient for the other.. or further along those lines, that this degree of wage disparity is unethical.
Oh ok, yeah I agree. My bad, I'm just quite used to having to explain this all the time... haha.
The market value of actors (to bring in the paying audiences) is already so high that it's ridiculous when they're asking for more.
It wasn't intended to. Actors get paid way too much. For every actor there can be a team in the thousands working on the film for several years, so take out the actor's wages and material costs and do the math. The vast majority of people who work in entertainment make average to below average wages, frequently work ridiculous hours, and for every one of them there's a hundred more who go broke trying.
I worked as a physical laborer in a mill for many years. At the end of the day, most people need more than physical labor to survive. That's because most people aren't soulless automatons who live to push objects around and drop dead and even in hunter-gatherer societies you find arts and entertainment.
I highly doubt your living environment consists of blank white walls and zero movies. If you consume movies then clearly they have some value to you. If you didn't find it useful, you wouldn't even bother to pirate (if you do). If you think art has no value, then I challenge you to throw out anything in your environment that was designed, and live like a robot.
Lots of physical labor is involved in making a film or a game. You have to build the infrastructure. You have to build sets. Haul gear around. It's long hours and bloody hard work. Those film sets built themselves, the clothing made itself, the gear moved around by itself, the IT infrastructure required to make the visuals made themselves? Consumers are sheep who think the grass magically appears in front of them.
Natural selection is not about physical strength. The most well-adapted organism tends to survive. This includes socially adaptive behaviors.
Oh I think there is a long lineage of secret atheists probably dating back to the presocratic philosophers (some were charged with impiety).
The thing about googling now is that everything is customized. You are more likely to see things in search engines that reinforce the filter bubble than disrupt it.
Also, religion is adaptive--it evolves and the fittest versions stick around. Even the fundamentalist group I grew up in has adapted to reinforcing their beliefs on the internet. The "backfire effect" is real.
But yes if you really are the type to ask the hard questions you can find things if you try hard enough.
R'amen.
"I have nothing particularly against piracy"
"My reasons against hating piracy"
Where did I say I hated piracy? Where did I say I worked in film?
AAA video games also have budgets now approaching and sometimes exceeding a hundred million, because they have to employ hundreds to thousands of people for years---and supply specialized IT infrastructure for all of them as well. None of these people are millionaires. You do the math. Do you want to have fun? Get a job and work 80 hours a week making eyeballs for several years.
I kan haz comprehension cheezburger.
As John Maynard Keynes so eloquently put it: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”
Everyone has ideology, especially the people who deny it. I grew up in a cult, and according to them, everyone else had a "religious ideology" and we had the truth. Few people question their reality, so their ideology is invisible to them. "Ideology" has become a code word for "a worldview that is obvious to me because it conflicts with mine."
Brainwashing is ostensibly used to reprogram adults, not children. It came into prominence as a cold-war word for deserters, and has about as much scientific evidence behind it as cold war LSD experiments to find truth serums. What I went through was shitty but it wasn't "brainwashing". It's what any kid goes through when they grow up in a culture and believe what their parents tell them, just amplified because of the cult language and the imprinting of fear responses from a young age.
More to the point, religion is infused with cultural traditions. Which is why as an atheist, you still probably believe in a rationalist universe that Christianity created, or why you might still celebrate Christmas, even if you know it's horseshit.
The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree. I don't know how you call that a choice. Like, not to break into a free will debate, but we only make choices based on what we know, and if what we know is limited, our choices are limited.
I have nothing particularly against piracy, but if you think that making entertainment isn't work, then I cordially invite you to enter the industry and pay your dues. You will enjoy not having a family life anymore, when you're pulling 12+shifts sitting in front of a screen doing repetitive tasks without any glamour whatsoever. Just because it's fun to watch movies doesn't mean it isn't real work to make them. The vast majority of people who work in entertainment don't make millions. For every wealthy actor there's thousands of people you never see behind the scenes.
My reasons against hating piracy are that 1: I think it's gone too far, it stifles innovation and breaks with thousands of years of history where humans could freely share ideas 2. If you are a student and want to break into a field, the cost of educational materials can be kind of shocking---you may have no other means to be competitive other than to pirate software, or the hundreds of movies you might need to watch to become knowledgeable in your field. 3. broke people can't afford to buy the movie anyway
Piracy would be if I looked at the car, took detailed notes and photos and then made a copy of it. Theft is depriving you of your property--hopping in the car and driving away. They have entirely different consequences, and as far as I know most legal systems rightly distinguish between them, which is why p2p is charged under civil, not criminal law (so far).
If someone steals my music, that means they've come into my studio and stolen the multitrack files off my hard drive, or claimed my work as their own, for profit.
Just because two things might be (debatably) bad doesn't mean they are equivalent, and just because Hollywood makes videos about piracy equaling theft doesn't mean they are true.
I'm an analog piracy purist. I only pirate my movies on Beta tapes.
Sorry to rain on the buzzword parade,but I'm pretty sure version 1.0 was copying sheet music and forging paintings, and 2.0 was copying cassette and VCR tapes. If I've missed a step there please feel free to fill me in.
Yes and maybe that's the point. Some say that just addressing this issue perpetuates it. But if you want equality, you're never going to have it if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend this doesn't happen.
Glad to know there's some sanity left on /. these days. Can't say I've ever had any issues with women in IT positions either. Not surprisingly when there's mutual respect, there's no real problems.
"Shhh...someone at AVFM told me 'mangina' was a dire insult.. weapon deployed! Impact in 5..4..3..2.. *fizzle*"
(because the best way to prove you like women is to think that "pussy" and "mangina" are insults) Can't say I feel guilty about anything. Your rage might indicate you've some subconscious guilt though.
You're right, diversity as meaning hiring unqualified people is not a straw man.. it's an anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, us vs those horrible universities who shut us out.. and it's supported with fringe evidence from outlying cases.
I don't admit that chemtrails have any bearing on my health either.
Are you sure you aren't creating the divisiveness? Easy to point fingers.
That's argumentum ad absurdum, which isn't inherently good or bad, it just depends on whether or not the issue is adequately represented.
For example, if out of two hundred applicants ten are more than qualified, diversity doesn't lead to lower quality applicants. 'Best' can depend on subjective things like how you tickled the interviewer's fancy or whether or not you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
"I'm gonna straw-man 'diversity' to pretend it means hiring people who aren't qualified. Look at how stupid and oversensitive women are.
Y'all better listen quietly and agree with me, or you're an SJW"
FTFY