tripu
boosted
A worrying thread that warns about China preparing for war with the US. Balaji says China would likely win a short war, and an internal US conflict would follow.
RT @balajis@twitter.com
Just saw The Battle at Lake Changjin. Through-the-looking-glass experience, where the good guys are the plucky underdog Chinese and the bad guys are the powerful Americans.
It’s the #1 movie in the world, and seemingly meant to prepare for conflict. https://youtu.be/1aHDj84CcsY
tripu
boosted
i wish i could recompile my brain this time proving the --with-happyness and --enable-ignorance flags
tripu
boosted
“Decoupling HTML, CSS, and JavaScript in design systems - Go Make Things” https://gomakethings.com/decoupling-html-css-and-javascript-in-design-systems/
> _“I'd love to conduct an actual research study of this sort, with proper controls and methodology. […] If I could get funding for a study, I'd do it, really.”_
OK, we'll have to shelve our little experiment, then. I'd love to see such a study, too. (Honestly, I would be surprised if it's not been done already; but I don't have the time to research that…)
> _“‘Racist’ is a charged word. ‘Biased’ is probably more objective.”_
Exactly. That's a good point. Now we're converging, I think.
One of my issues is that in your toots you seemed too quick to see racism where there might be other kinds of benign, or innocuous, bias. There are lots of ways in which lots of things can be “biased”, but only some of those biases are motivated by racial hatred. Causes and motivations matter a lot.
> _“After I presented my evidence, the response could be, ‘I don't think that's bias’, then we're back where we started.”_
I don't care about biases per se in art (I _do_ care very much about biases in public policy and in science, though.)
So my response to you would almost never be “I don't think that's bias”, but perhaps “how _exactly_ is that bias caused by racism, and not by a number of other explanations?”, or “if you think that biased representation is caused by racial animosity, how do you explain this _other_ bias in the _same_ piece of art or by the _same_ artist/company, which goes in the _opposite_ direction? wouldn't that be a _denunciation_ of racism? shouldn't they ‘cancel’ each other?”.
> _“Do the things I mentioned constitute bias in your opinion? […] Rarely is a black person cast for a leading character who is, for example a Wall Street banker…”_
Tell me first: what is the percentage of blacks among Wall Street bankers? And most likely there aren't enough Hollywood films with a Wall Street banker protagonist to constitute a large enough sample. But if there are, and we find that, say, out of 25 recent such films, only in one the guy is black, and in another one he's of Asian descent… so what? What is the minimum number of cinematic black Wall Street bankers to tick the box? And how could we answer that question without taking into account the real world (of Wall Street banking, in this case)?
I'm not being frivolous. How many Hollywood “hackers” are older than 35? My hunch is: very few. Is that ageism? Or rather a reflection of the real world (of computer geniuses)? Perhaps the real world _is_ ageist, insofar as it admires and comments on very young hacker disproportionately over their older peers. But **an artist who decides to more or less reflect an uneven reality is not necessarily endorsing nor promoting that unevenness**.
In how many 21st-century Hollywood films the serial killer is not white? I can't think of one right now. Is that anti-white hatred? Just a coincidence? Is it an accurate reflection of the demographics of psychopathy and violent behaviour in the US? Imagine a scriptwriter working right now on a thriller about a hideous black serial killer who is chased and killed by a white investigator: is it conceivable that that scriptwriter is feeling a certain unease about presenting their work to the world in 2021?
What percentage of film villains are female? Not the “cute” kind (Cruella de Vil) or the “cool” kind (a Bond villain), but the truly vicious type (Hannibal Lecter, Max Cady, Anton Chigurh)? Is it 50%, thus reflecting the distribution of male/female population? If not: does it match the percentage of female murderers? If not: is that a bad thing?
(I'll continue answering your toot on a separate response…)
/cc @bonifartius @freemo
@freemo I love bad word puns myself, actually 👍
tripu
boosted
10 random films of the 2010s: I found [this raking of 100 popular films of the decade](https://www.imdb.com/list/ls021078225/?st_dt=&mode=simple&page=1&ref_=ttls_vw_smp&sort=alpha,asc) (surely biased, but apparently it got lots of votes, and 100 is a large enough sample to smooth out some noise), sorted it alphabetically (ie, quite randomly), and then picket the 10 right at the middle of the list (ie from no. 46 to no. 55).
> “_I don’t think I have [watched ≥10 Hollywood films released in 2020]. […] Did they even produce 10 films during the pandemic?_”
Coming from someone who “watches a lot of films”, I'm surprised by the question. Of course they did, both _produce_ and _release_: [2019](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2019/), [2020](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2020/), [2021 YTD](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2021/).
> “_At this particular instant films may not be following the trend. However, if you picked 25 random films released during this century (20xx), I could find bias in 20 of them._”
One could almost say you're trying to duck out 😉 But OK, let's adapt the challenge: here goes your (reasonably random) selection of 10 Hollywood films of the 2010s (see image; methodology on a separate response).
How exactly are ≥8 of them “racist”?
> “_I’m not sure I understand what [conceding that, in principle, nobody above twenty should need trigger warnings, etc] has to do with Prof. Sheng needing to contextualize his film that had blackface in it._”
It was a theoretical attempt of mine to compromise to move the conversation forward. I just wondered if we could agree to keep being that protective with young people (not that I like it) and in exchange agree to drop all that hypersensitive nonsense for _adults_.
Like, let's concede Sheng should have warned students in advance. All right. Can we at least forget about trigger warnings, taboo words, and images or words counting as “violence” when dealing with people aged 21+?
> “_In the US [the majority of the population today discriminates against blacks more than they unconsciously discriminate against other subsets of people]. Very much so. Prime example is in the selection of mates. Black/white interracial marriages are rare in the US._”
Of course they are. Not surprising at all. Stats say ~1/8 of US adult population is black. Let's make the most generous assumptions: everyone's married, and _all blacks are married to whites_ (ie, all blacks and whites are racist in that _they always prefer a mate of the other race_). In this (very favourable) scenario, still only ~1/4 of all marriages in the US would be black+white. And again, this is a _very distorted_ model.
But much more is wrong about using interracial marriage as a measure here:
> “_Think of all the RomComs out there. How many depict black/white leads? A random pairing of couples would yield many, many more. Even a random sampling of couples in the US would yield more._”
Marriage is _not_ a random pairing of two adults, by any stretch of the imagination. If there's nothing wrong with Americans of German descent being more likely to marry other German-Americans, or heavy metal fans marrying disproportionately other heavy metal fans, how is it surprising or problematic across any other demographical divide one could think of?
Even if actual interracial marriage doesn't match mathematical probability, how do you know that is not caused _also_ by _blacks_ not wanting to marry whites?
> “_So, yes, a majority of the population in the US does discriminate and segregate into black churches and white churches, white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc. But Hollywood films are even much worse than the general population when comes to bias. They perpetuate it._”
How is whites going to church with mostly other whites any different than Italian Americans going to church with mostly other Italian Americans, or fifty-somethings going to live music events with mostly other fifty-somethings, or PhDs inviting to their BBQ mostly to other highly educated people, or Korean Americans living mostly close to other Korean Americans, or…?
That's the hyper-sensitivity I was alluding to. #Race triggers emotions and conclusions that aren't justified rationally, and that takes us to very strange and divisive places.
/cc @freemo
https://qoto.org/@Pat/107122564291693893
@Pat: again, we agree about a lot 👏
Commenting on a few points of yours:
> _“I know that most actors self-identify as ‘progressive’, whatever that means, but the above-the-line producers, directors, editors who decide what the final product looks like – those guys are putting out racist content.”_
I meant those people, yes: actors, directors, producers and scriptwriters. Especially the celebrity types.
> _“I watch a lot films, and 8 out of 10 Hollywood films have racist content.”_
Since you watch a lot of films, I'll assume you've watched at least ten Hollywood films released in 2020. Among those, there should be (at least) eight films with “racist content”, according to you. **Would you care listing eight 2020 Hollywood films plus a succint description of the racist content in each?**
> _“As I said, college is supposed to teach those critical reasoning skills, so kids can learn to put those things into context themselves. But they come into college from a wide range of experiences.”_
OK, I _could_ concede that **seventeen-year-olds** _might_ need those warnings and explanations. Let's assume some of them may be that immature or simply inexperienced.
Would you then concede that, in principle, _nobody_ **above twenty** should need trigger warnings, advisories about “graphic” or “explicit” content, edited or softened versions of books/films/photographs/paintings, etc?
> _“People of color are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of Hollywood films.”_
I'd generalise with this variant of your own sentence, to summarise my position: _“people ~~of color~~ are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of ~~Hollywood films~~ places.”_
#Stereotypes, as useful heuristics and for humour, are everywhere, and that is not always a bad thing. People like me (software engineers, Spaniards, forty-somethings, introverts) are portrayed stereotypically _all the time_ — as are native Americans, poets, paraplegics, lesbians, counterfeiters, libertarians, participants in eating contests, CEO's, Mormons, British pensioners, and chemistry students.
This fixation with (against) stereotypes about very narrow subsets of the population, simply because those subsets endured very specific miserable situations at particular places and at particular times, is inconsistent, distracting, and exhausting. The majority of the population today does not discriminate against blacks any more than they unconsciously discriminate against British pensioners, Mormons, or introverts. But this atmosphere of denunciation, extreme sensitivity, and _guilty-unless-proven-innocent_ makes us all fearful, suspicious, less creative and free, and much less fun.
Let's combat #racism, and all other forms of meaningful discrimination, where they occur. But only there.
/cc @bonifartius
> _“I'm not surprised that Hollywood was tone-deaf to that criticism. Judging by the subliminally racist films that come out of Hollywood (even now well into the 21st century), those filmmakers are much more racist than the rest of society.”_
You must be joking. Do you really think that #Hollywood is “much more racist than the rest of society”?
On the contrary: the film industry as a whole is very progressive. [Just one article about that.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/top-hollywood-execs-give-99-percent-political-donations-democrats-midterms-1151392/)
> _“I said, ‘...blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today...’. There are some very narrow cases where it is appropriate.”_
You are right: you left open the possibility of someone painting their face in black and that being an innocuous act, and I should have acknowledged that. Sorry.
(We differ about there being “very narrow cases” when it's innocuous. I'd like to think that innocuous make-up is the default presumption, and getting upset when there is evidence of racist implications only.)
> _“You cannot assume what kids know and what they don't, especially today with all these information silos. A freshman college student may not know about blackface or the civil rights movement at all.”_
This is patronising and exaggerated. Again: surveys show that college students are, as a whole, very progressive in their mindset. It's not like you have to tell them about slavery, racism, homophobia, or climate change: those concerns are fortunately front page and trending topic each and every day in 2021.
As I said before: if you feel one should warn college students about derogatory depictions of black people in art, be prepared to warn them every day about so much more, and worse, in the literary canon, in old paintings, in popular culture, etc — not to mention popular contemporary fiction (TV, films, comics) depicting verbal abuse, cruelty, violence, murder, and war _all the time_. Why do we feel compelled to give trigger warnings before showing a white actor impersonating a fictional black character (even if that impersonation is itself derogatory), but not before discussing a chapter of The Iliad (which may well be sadistic, xenophobic, abusive, misogynistic)? We are not consistent, because if we were, we'd spend half the time putting everything in (today's) context. Fortunately most people are mature enough to do that for themselves.
> _“Yes, context matters. And not just the context of presentation, but the historical context. Historically, blackface was used to deny black people acting jobs and to represent them in a derogatory, stereotypical manner. The use of blackface today happens within the backdrop of that historical context. This is why it is so different than painting a face in some other colors.”_
“Historically, blackface was used…” That's they key. Historically it was used for other purposes. Today people can (should) use it if they please without those connotations.
tripu
boosted
@Pat @bonifartius @tripu
> "The students should have confronted him directly and respectfully and discussed the issue."
That doesn't virtue signal enough, and it is all about "Look at me/us, we struck down on this....", not about educating, debating or strengthening our consensus.
@Pat @bonifartius It seems we do not disagree that much, that's great. Let me answer to just a couple sentences of yours:
> _“The practice of using #blackface perpetuates #racism whether or not the people doing it understand that it’s wrong.”_
I don't think so. This is too simplistic (and the source of so much unnecessary confrontation). Non-blacks can admire, and want to emulate, black figures. A white person may be cast sometimes to portray a black character (for a number of legit reasons). There's Halloween, historical recreations, sketches, comedy, parody. Context matters. Painting your face in black (or in white, yellow, brown) to more closely resemble some historical figure, fiction character, etc may be as innocuous as wearing a hat, high heels, a doublet, a wig, fake breasts, lipstick, etc.
How does a ten-year-old in love with Michael Jordan or Whitney Houston, who does all s/he can to emulate his/her idol, including hair and make-up, at a family party, school play or street parade, “perpetuate racism”. On the contrary!
> _“You can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming ‘#woke’.”_
It's the very wide chasm in between that's overlooked. **There's _a lot_ in between “racist” and “woke”!** That's where the majority of decent people sit, in fact.
Please let's all let that sink in, and share the thought with others.
tripu
boosted
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
I already knew of **doctors who smoke**.
The other day I learnt that a neighbour of mine, a **mathematician** by training (working in IT now), **plays the #lottery regularly** (weekly, plus special dates).
🤦♂️
tripu
boosted
> _“Older productions of that sort are designed to promote and perpetuate racism. […] It was designed to make people more racist.”_
I don't think so. Blackface in _Othello_ was not there “to make people more racist”.
Imagine that humans of the 22nd century have abolished farming and breeding animals for food and clothing. Are all contemporary depictions of farms, farmers, laying hens, pigs, etc — in film, rhymes, paintings, children's books, animation, etc — “designed to promote and perpetuate” farming, or just a reflection of every-day life and common values?
Imagine a future when fossil fuels are gone at last. Will our descendants see _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_, _Fast & Furious_, and _Cars_ as material “designed” to keep us enamoured with combustion engines, consuming petrol, and minimise our worries about climate change, or will they see those vehicles there as mere reflections of the times?
> _“He should have […] explained prior to the showing that that blackface was inappropriate even in the 60s when it was made.”_
That is debatable (if also irrelevant to this discussion): the film was nominated for four Oscars, four Golden Globes, and one BAFTA. If blackface were even slightly as taboo back then as it is today, this would have been impossible.
