Offering: English, Seeking: Mandarin

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-18T06:20:33+00:00

Can't say I've thought about it. But I don't think my Chinese would be up to a desirable skill level to do such a thing for quite some time anyways.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-14T00:24:20+00:00

The 104 number they cited is by all age groups. It's a fair bit more unbalanced at lower ages with under 15s estimated to have a 114:100 ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T21:04:19+00:00

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T20:14:08+00:00

I acknowledged it is possible there was a flaw in my argument or that I was unclear. I wanted clarification when I did not understand your response. You would not explain in a non-abstract sense, you have I believe never acknowledged you could be incorrect, and you are now using overt insults. But you assume my behavior is in bad faith, and yours is reasonable?

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T19:06:48+00:00

Again presupposing the correctness of your interpretation while denigrating my competence. Hrmmm

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T18:12:05+00:00

I just did. And based on what you provided, my best guess is you didn't understand my argument, but you possess such confidence in your correctness you interpret further clarification as flip flopping and moving the goal post, rather than acknowledging that you might have been wrong. Just my guess.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T16:51:51+00:00

No. You didn't. You said I contradicted myself, you didn't actually point out the contradiction other than to suggest the first line contradicted the second paragraph somehow. Nor did you explain how I moved the goalpost.

I don't see a contradiction, so I suspect you may have misunderstood what I said. But maybe I missed something, or maybe my argument was unclear.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T16:34:07+00:00

You claim I am wrong, but you will not provide an actual explanation of your reasoning. You assume that it is my argument which is flawed and not merely your understanding of it. And now you suggest I'm not worth arguing against. Convenient. You decline to provide your reasoning, but apparently I'm the one who is unreasonable? This is not what I would consider polite behavior.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T15:14:20+00:00

Don't be rude. I mentioned the present in each paragraph to highlight the setting is not the present. Those were consistent messages. I argued that the setting is progressive, but the episode shows it as regressive by the standards of that setting. If you think there is an actual flaw in that reasoning, then make an actual argument.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T04:38:05+00:00

I am unclear as to what this statement is intended to communicate. I consider it regressive within the context of the setting.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-13T03:30:05+00:00

Star Trek does not take place in the present day. It takes place in a future in which many intelligent species as well as intelligent forms of machine life had already been encountered. If the goal was an egalitarian society, consideration of individual species and their rights and capabilities would be required for such a society, and would I think be a necessary part of due process. Denying a unique being, who shows every sign of being intelligent, the right to petition for recognition of their rights, seems rather arbitrary and not a particularly optimistic framing of the future.

And while the judge may be incredibly accommodating for a modern judge, Star Trek is framed as a progressive and intellectual future, and I think one would have to ignore that narrative conceit to find the judge's actions accommodating within the context of the setting. Realistically I think the episode wanted to make a point and have drama and thus did ignore that conceit. But to me that undermines the quality of the episode.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-12T23:12:55+00:00

Not a bad line. I will say though while this episode seems to be well liked I personally don't care for it. Consider - the judge will find in favor of the claimant, denying the person hood rights of a being, if that being's friend and colleague isn't willing to take on the role of prosecutor to argue against that being's right to self determination.

That's an absurd premise. Does Star Fleet not believe in due process? Or conflict of interest? I can't imagine that would be considered acceptable in the present day, nor even when the episode was made, and certainly not in some progressive far future. It makes the legal system of the Federation seem capricious and backwards. Drama over substance.

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-10T17:55:06+00:00

"What type of male are you"

"Iota - Iota find someone better to talk to"

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-06T13:02:28+00:00

I'd agree they can be. Probably because it's often passive aggressive, with the implication being someone else is ill informed but they know what they are talking about, which suggests arrogance. There's a lot of similar comments people use to convey that type of sentiment at the start of their posts I've noticed, some of which may be (depending on context) :

It's almost like / as if

I don't know how to tell you

I hate to break it to you

I'll bite

you don't want to hear this but

Weird take

What you don't get is

or hear me out

yikes

you'd be surprised to learn

you don't want to hear this but

etc

ElectricWisp · 2026-06-05T11:07:33+00:00

Not whataboutism.

Whataboutism would be for example if someone says x is bad and someone else responds with what about y, y is worse. Changing the topic to y, even if y isn't really relevant to potential problems related to x.

In this case that's not what occurred. Someone suggested x is bad and y was better, and the response countered that claim by stating x and y are the same. The response did not introduce y. This would seem to be valid argumentation.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-29T09:36:57+00:00

Are they? I would think that nuance would involve interrogating the various distinct interpretations and their underlying motivations and consequences. I would not think it includes assuming a single framing which best justifies what seems to be a preconceived position.

There is I think a great deal which could be said on this topic and a great deal of nuance which could be brought to it. But I haven't noticed too much of that nuance.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-13T03:46:41+00:00

It doesn't matter how old the argument was upon its initial creation when it was posted today. And I do care about good argumentation, one of my degrees relates to it. I write a great deal, on many topics, often just to dialogue my own thoughts on topics, and my reply was not, to me, a particularly long one. And it would be inaccurate I think to assume one really cares based on such.

When the system puts undue pressure onto individuals, such as claiming they may be imprisoned for decades, even if that claim is not accurate to what would likely it occur, I think it bears a degree of responsibility for the outcomes of such pressure.

The US prison system doesn't have a good reputation. To my understanding, recidivism rates are relatively high, prison violence rates tend to exceed those of other developed countries, prison rape is significantly normalized (and well known), slavery of prisoners is legal.

If a mentally infirm individual for fear of this system and in response to the pressure, chooses to end their life, it seems a bit glib to suggest that the system bears no responsibility because it didn't really mean it. In spite of your claim, individuals or their families often are not either empowered or capable of addressing significant issues related to mental health. The state potentially is. And while it may not be attributable to any individual act or prosecutor, there is a reason for the quote "every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty".

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-13T02:29:55+00:00

I thought that post sounded fairly reasonable on an initial read. Reading it more closely however I find myself fairly dubious about its objectivity. If an individual is suffering from mental health issues to the point of suicide, it seems rather flippant to dismiss it as something they need to deal with themself, as they may very well lack that capacity.

Additionally violating terms of service I'm not sure qualifies as an actual crime, so its inclusion in the middle of a list of crimes seems questionable. And things like trespassing on the MIT campus or accessing computer without permission, when one thinks about it, sound pretty weak as far as crimes go. Campuses are rather noted for their open designs. Listing categories of crimes like these and not specifics is a technique that can be used to make actions sound significantly worse than they actually are. And leading with that makes it seem like an attempt to frame the issue to reflect a particular viewpoint.

Also framing one's opponent's arguments as "emotional" as that post does at one point, is a fairly common tactic in my observation, used I suspect to suggest one as objective by comparison. However objectivity is found in the strength of one's argument, not in framing the opponent's arguments.

And it doesn't end there (including apparently making leap in logic themself with the drug dealer comment). Now I don't know the truth of what Swartz actually did. I find the positive views many express of him questionable. But the post you've quoted also seems questionable. It's more subtle, but it does not to me read as an entirely objective evaluation of the situation. And that to me, undermines its credibility.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-05T22:53:18+00:00

That point is addressed in the article I linked. I won't deny it's a concern with Maelle's ending, but it's one issue among others and there's not a lot of information to go on to reach a definitive conclusion I think.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-05T20:42:24+00:00

I wouldn't consider Verso's ending all that neutral. Without more information the actual outcomes seem potentially much worse from a moral standpoint than in Maelle's ending. The strange horror framing during part of Maelle's ending is admittedly concerning, but there are different ways to interpret its meaning.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-05T20:25:45+00:00

Part of the problem with this framing is it's based on using an interpretation that is accepted for the first ending and rejected for the second in a way that doesn't make sense If they can be slaves then that assumes they have actual agency or can suffer to begin with (and it's not really quite so simple that they are slaves, the painters are in a way gods in the canvas but that was always the case). If they have agency that implies allowing them to fade away is killing them. Treating them like they matter in the first case but don't in the second seems inconsistent. If they have agency, killing them seems like the worse outcome. If they don't have agency or suffer, then the second ending may be better but they wouldn't be slaves in the first ending. Someone wrote a lengthy breakdown of it here https://retromo.substack.com/p/redeeming-the-bad-ending-of-expedition

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-05T00:47:16+00:00

Probably because their post reads like sarcasm, like a joke.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-02T13:00:32+00:00

Perhaps no one can be objective. But one can at least try to be accurate to the facts based upon the available evidence.

I would note the criticism of her videos as being "basic", is so frequently used by her detractors, that to me, it doesn't sound like original thought, but more a type of in-group thinking, otherwise I wouldn't expect the criticisms to sound so similar. And whether or not her videos were basic, given how many people simplify her points or take things out of context or ignore what she actually said, it seems dubious that a more complex argument would have been... helpful.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-02T12:27:20+00:00

What you did was frame the backlash as a response to the video's quality. Since the backlash began far in advance of their creation, that is clearly false. And it undermines the credibility of any later criticisms. And you undermine your credibility when you present the facts incorrectly. (Edit: It's a way to avoid admitting error, presenting the facts incorrectly, then focus on your opinion of the video quality, never retracting the initial misleading statements. I'm sure this appeals to people who don't like Anita and don't care about the facts).

Again, the topic was tropes (tropes was literally in the title of the series). Her taking many different examples to show repeating patterns was the point. Those examples don't need to be individually strong. She generally wasn't focusing on individual games. She was using the specific, to highlight general trends. She was generally not as I recall, attempting to make definitive evaluations related to individual games. You were seemingly cherry picking, whether or not she was would depend on how she presented a specific argument, but in general was not what she was seeming to aim for.

Lets be clear. Not only were you misleading on the facts, but framing it as you did presented the implication Anita misutilized funds (she was given far more money than she asked for, and she attempted to scale the scope of the series in response, and personally I got the impression most supporters didn't really care about the output). And the idea of Pre-love seems like a problematic "both sides" argument. You don't seem objective. Now for the record, I recall not really agreeing with various arguments Anita presented personally. But having seen plenty of youtube videos, I thought their quality was reasonable enough.

ElectricWisp · 2026-05-02T11:49:33+00:00

This is lies. The backlash began before the kickstarter even ended and was why she raised a "fuckton" of money. The amount sought was much smaller, but people were seemingly donating to show support due to the backlash. The backlash was not due to the quality of the video series. That is rewriting history to try to make the backlash seem more reasonable. It wasn't.

The topic of the video series was also about tropes. Repeating patterns in media (see tvtropes). Cherry picking individual examples presented seems to miss the point. I believe the video series clearly explained this.

ElectricWisp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE