You’re right, and thanks for checking me on that. On reflection, I said it was trite because I think I felt uncomfortable with the level of vulnerability I was feeling when writing that comment, so I tacked that onto the end. The vulnerability came from a place of “who am I to give advice when the advice I’m giving myself hardly feels sufficient, because my inner monologue is basically a screaming possum most of the time”. Lots of people are feeling similar, which is why I made my original comment in the first place.

I think a lot of us are struggling under the pressure about not knowing how to cope with this dreadful situation, and for me, that meant feeling like I needed to come up with the perfect words that would be useful for everyone who is struggling. It is sufficient for me to go “for me, this is a useful way to think (and other people may do also)”. It’s silly for me to dismiss myself as trite just because I feel like I am only valid if I have a Solution. As you highlight, this is a collaborative process, so muddling along together is how this goes.

This is only tangentially related, but I’m reminded of a thing from Plato where he was complaining that communicating through writing was a bad way of doing philosophy. His concerns weren’t just around communicating ideas between people; he was even opposed to writing as an introspective tool to help a person think through their ideas, or make notes to come back to.

"And so it is that you by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.”

• Plato, “Phaedrus” ^([citation needed])

It’s interesting because I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong about the skill atrophy angle of it. It’s just a question of to what extent we need those memory skills in the modern era.

Even if you’re competent at arithmetic in school, those skills can definitely atrophy. I say this as someone who’s unreasonably slow at basic arithmetic despite being an ex-mathlete; I got complacent because I’ve been learning and using graduate level maths, so I thought that would keep me from getting rusty. Nope — it turns out that basic arithmetic that you’d use in daily life is a different “muscle” to the kind of maths you use in academic research (which is obvious in hindsight)

I can’t imagine how much I’d be struggling if I didn’t have a good foundation to be starting from

“You can be the juiciest, ripest peach in the world, but some people just funny like peaches.”

“Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”

That’s interesting, I hadn’t thought about things in those terms before. I am wondering whether part of why the right seem to be so good at recuperation is that the right (in particular, fascists) benefit from capitalist support. Money and media have a lot of power; I weep for the people who were indoctrinated to hatred to the extent that they voted against their own interests. The scales are tipped in the right’s favour in that regard. What do you think?

(I haven’t read Society of the Spectacle yet, in case that addresses some of what I’m saying)

Tangentially related, but I’m reminded of this quote from Disco Elysium:

“Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who critique capital end up reinforcing it instead.”

Thanks for sharing that article. I actually haven’t heard of Mike Davis before, but following this article, I am now reading one of his essays.

Not so much advice as a selfish request: please try to stay with us. I mean that both figuratively (i.e. mentally checking out and becoming hollow) and literally (i.e. existing in this world). It’s a selfish request because though I’m not even American, I am one of the countless people who are scared shitless today. I don’t know how we will make it through this, but I know I can’t do this on my own.

If you’re here, scared with me, then I am not alone, and neither are you. It’s a bit trite, but it helps me somewhat.

The modern world runs on plausible deniability, especially the tech world

I respect your approach. I bet you’re the kind of parent who apologises to their kids when you make mistakes

I always find it tricky to understand how tools all relate to each other in an ecosystem and this is a great example of why: the fact that Ansible can do this task, but Teraform would be better suggests that they are tools that have different purposes, but some overlap. What would you say is Ansible’s strong suit?

Thanks for the recommendation, I’m always glad to discover new resources. I’m also forever cursing the fact that science degrees don’t put more emphasis on writing and speaking well.

My dude, I’m agreeing with you

Edit: effectively I was saying that I agree with you that there seems to be a particular kind of person who is overly contrarian, very loud and impossible to have productive discussions with.

I felt like the wheelchair example you picked was a great example of how this happens “in the wild”. I wanted to build on your comment by using that example to elaborate on how these contrarian types cause harm, even if they might seem to be concerned and well-intentioned. I found the wheelchair example to be a good one because it is actually something that I’ve seen happen multiple times.

I feel that your reply is an unfair characterisation of my comment. Given how the internet’s communication norms can prime us to read and respond to things in an overly adversarial manner (especially as it’s clear from your original comment that you’ve got way too much experience with silly argumentative types, so I sympathise), I am hoping that your response was based on a misinterpretation of my comment and/or me being insufficiently clear in what I originally wrote (apologies if so).

I’ll keep an eye out for one, but in the meantime, I’ll be more specific about what I mean about ignoring how science actually is.

One of the things I find most beautiful about science is how it thrives in uncertainty — great science is more likely to arise from a “huh, that’s strange…” than a big “Eureka” moment, not least of all because most breakthroughs involve large collaborations of researchers.

“Scientism” is the term usually used for the kind of thing that irks me. I’m realising now that I feel unequipped to properly explain that, so I’m going to point to a video I like on this matter by a cardiologist and science communicator I like: https://youtu.be/CVPy25wQ07k

I find “cis” useful, personally. I’m bisexual, so certainly “straight” isn’t applicable. In a lot of contexts I’d use “cis” to refer to myself, I suppose “not trans” would also work, but it’d be clunkier.

Plus, there are times when the thing I want to centre in my communication is the cisgender perspective that I have. For example, I was recently discussing with a friend that seeing trans friend’s gender euphoria improved my own relationship to my gender because it made me ask myself whether cis people could experience gender euphoria and if so, why couldn’t I recall any instances of experiencing it?

I feel like the term “cisgender” implicitly acknowledges that voices and experiences like mine are important in building a shared understanding of gender — i.e. trans people aren’t the only ones who have a gender. Like, obviously I can’t speak directly about trans experiences, but that doesn’t mean that I’m expected to shut up and contribute nothing to the wider conversation.

“teachers who interact with middle schoolers; our frontline troops facing the bleeding edge of internet memespeak.”

Reason number 201 why teachers are underpaid

Perchance is a great word though. I think I’d probably use it if I knew how to do so appropriately in a sentence (though I imagine only a fraction of people who do use that word use it properly. That tends to be the case with formal or archaic words used in informal contexts)

I do this too much. My defence is that I am a bad writer who’s working to be better.

I am someone who really likes the term for myself, because it can encompass a whole bunch of complex identities across gender and sexuality. It feels like it simplifies things for me, and has helped me to properly understand the necessity of LGBTQ solidarity. There have been times when I have been told it’s inappropriate for me to personally identify as queer because some people find the term offensive, which I find absurd because such a large and heterogeneous community will never be unanimous on what terms or labels to use.

However, much more frequently than that, I have seen people being insensitive to the reality that there are a ton of people who have pretty legitimate beef with the term and who don’t want it applied to them. I’m talking about situations like “queer folk like us <gestures at the entire room>” or “the queer community”. It’s a pretty reasonable request if someone says “hey, if you’re referring to a group that involves me, I’d prefer you not use queer as a blanket term”. The appropriate response to that is “I’m sorry, my bad”, but I have seen way too many people start arguments that actually the (usually but certainly not always) older gay men are obstacles to Progress.

I like the way that a friend of mine framed it when he said that he’s actively jazzed to see a word that did such harm being reclaimed by a new generation who are finding great power and solidarity in it. But that’s never going to erase the sting he still feels when remembering being victimised for years by people who’d shout that word. “You can’t reclaim a slur if you ignore all its history and disown the members of your community who experienced it as a slur”.

It boggles my mind that there are people who are heavy advocates of the power of self determination of one’s identity, but who don’t see the issue in forcing the label of “queer” onto individuals who have expressly rejected it.

The wheelchair one (whilst obvious hyperbole) is a great example of why this rhetoric isn’t useful.

Often people who say we should plan walkable cities don’t consider what that would mean for wheelchair users and other disabled people, because they don’t have the lived experience to think along those lines. So it would actually be super useful if someone could say “okay, but what about wheelchair users?” in a constructive way, because there are additional considerations re: pedestrianisation and public transport. Disabled people are way too often treated like an inconvenience or obstacles to progress, and that’s fucking exhausting, so it’s useful to have allies who ask “hey, what about disabled people tho”

The people your comment is about don’t do this. As you highlight, they make things about themselves, and if anything, this makes it harder to have productive conversations about what a ‘walkable city’ for everyone would look like. I suspect that for many of these people, it’s based on a nugget of good intentions inside a blob of insecurity and dread at the state of the world; they feel like they’re not doing enough so they resort to very loudly virtue signalling in the most bizarre ways.

I’m also sick of it, but I also sort of like how it’s gone viral. I had a very non-techy friend mention it to me the other day. I feel like most of the people who I see talking about it are jazzed because it makes them feel seen. My friend, for example, said to me that before she learned of “enshittification”, she felt like she was going mad because of how things don’t seem to work like they used to, especially in tech; she said that for the longest time, she had assumed it must be something that she was doing wrong.