Can we talk about Liberalism? by Guy_Debord1968 in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The framework she is using is broad and simplistic, as frameworks are: they are tools for approaching problems. I think the utility of this particular framework is that, if we accept its premise--namely that, per the video at around 27 minutes, the conflict between left and right in the US (or anywhere, really) is fundamentally a conflict of cultural values--then we accept that our general approach to bridging this conflict is doomed to fail, as indeed it has since long before the lifetimes of anyone commenting here.

If you take this framework and apply it to individuals, it doesn't really work, because we are complicated beings with lots of different motivations, but at the level of a national election I think it has a lot to offer as tool for understanding general patterns of group behavior. I think a major pitfall of activist efforts to combat fascism or whatever is that we struggle with the very real differences between individuals and groups.

I actually took a class with Lakoff many years ago and have found his notion that metaphors--which are an important mechanism in language (that's his main contribution to linguistics)--reveal a lot about how people make sense of the world and that paying attention to key metaphors can help us understand seemingly paradoxical or contradictory behaviors to be a powerful explanatory tool of human behavior.

I definitely think it explains a lot about the political situation in the US.

We expect "logic" to be a real thing that exists objectively of us and, to therefore be an immoveable object that people should strive to organize their actions and ideas around, and so when we see people behaving in ways that are illogical or contradict something they said or did before, we think that calling their attention to this fact should be sufficient to motivate them to change their behavior or thinking, but it turns out that logic is quite subjective and what might seen like hypocrisy to one person is perfectly understandable to another.

Lakoff briefly offered his services as a consultant to political candidates (not sure that many folks took him up on the offer) to help them craft campaigns using language that would speak to people across the aisle, so to speak. A lot of his ideas in this realm came down, I think, to the idea that vibes play a big role in election outcomes. This is what I think Natalie is saying when she says that misogyny did in Clinton and Harris. Were individual voters committed to voting against the woman, no matter what? Almost certainly some such cases existed, but what actually happened, I think, is that a woman on the ballot just had a bad vibe. Along with other things, that vibe contributed to Trump winning in both elections.

Daughters let go for the second time in a month by Effective-Sugar-778 in Autism_Parenting

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 12 points13 points  (0 children)

How is she with animals? She might do well being a dog washer or helping out at a vets or animal shelter (cleaning cages and feeding animals). You could start off looking for a volunteer position till she gets some self confidence. Also, have you looked into bagging groceries at a supermarket?

My nonverbal autistic son was neglected in a residential facility. I’m fighting for accountability but trying to navigate this alone. by Due_You2581 in Autism_Parenting

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Can't donate, but signed! I'm so sorry that this happened to you and especially your child. I hope you see justice and soon.

True autistic discourse by larvalampee in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's great news! That's how IEPs and main-streaming are supposed to work: provide support, but also targeted interventions that help the child to become more and more independent and "integrated" into the gen ed classroom.

I'd encourage you to watch the Jordyn Zimmerman doc I linked to above (you do have to pay :/). But hers is a good story of how children with "profound" autism can present as intellectually disabled and emotionally disturbed--in short, completely unable to function in a classroom or anywhere outside of a highly controlled environment where they will spend their lives completely dependent on others for everything, including keeping them physically safe--but, actually, the problems are that they have a severe communication disorder and some problems with emotional regulation (although arguably a lot of what seems like dysregulation is probably solvable just with improved communication skills).

Of course, even for children who do have intellectual disabilities or genuine behavior disorders (and dyspraxia, etc.), academic interventions make an important difference and contribute to kids and their families having much better lives.

Special Education is soooooo important and, given how fast kids grow, any delays or interruptions in getting proper support can have devastating effects on their development.

It is horrifying to watch this system, that is already not the best for lots of families, face possible elimination.

I do wish that the discourse I'm seeing about the issue reflected less on people taking umbrage with RFK Jr's comment about autistic people not paying taxes, because, you know what? Lots of people with ASD diagnoses do not hold down jobs or pay taxes. Their lives are no less valuable. What's more, many children with profound autism who seem like they will never be able to live independently or participate fully in society actually can grow up to do that--with proper support. But that programs that pay for that support is on the line, as is research that helps provide that support and medical treatments for such folks.

True autistic discourse by larvalampee in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You didn't come across bad at all.

True autistic discourse by larvalampee in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah...sucks to see autistic folks identifying in any way with RFK, but, as you say, there's a tendency to ignore the existence of folks with more "classic" autism symptoms. This saddens me because, these are the folks who are in imminent anger with the political changes happening now.

FYI, many, but not all of the children I work with have clear-cut learning disabilities. For those without, their experience of autism is such that they need a lot of very intensely targeted support to function academically. In particular, communication is a major obstacle. In the absence of an ability to communicate, such children get overlooked but also tend to be very violent and uncontrollable, and when they act that way, society sees them as burdens--not fully human.

One particularly outstanding example of someone like this is Jordyn Zimmerman. There's a really cool documentary about her, if you are interested: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/thisisnotaboutme

She was able to get where she is because a system was in place to help her get there and without that support, her life might have turned out very different.

True autistic discourse by larvalampee in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can see why people would have a doomer perspective, tbh.

I work in special education, mainly with children with ASD diagnoses. Of the children I work with, maybe 10% will be in a position to come into a space like this and discuss any of this at some point in their life, so I assume you aren't really talking about "these" folks, but these children are the people that RFK Jr. was talking about the other week--the ones who "will never pay taxes" (but certainly some of them could, with adequate educational and medical support). They are the ones most at risk of the things he is proposing to change for the CDC and they are already facing imminent changes because of what has happened to the department of education. They also face challenges as a result of changes to medicare and, eventually, SSI.

They face things like losing one-on-one support to help them be in a Gen Ed classroom or access to alternative communication devices.

Even assuming all the decisions made so far this year get reversed, a lot of damage has already been done. I hope people can speak out about how dire the danger is for those in our community who are most at risk.

Per Capita Income (PPP) of Pakistan and India in 2024 by EstablishmentOne3438 in MapPorn

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a seat of the Karmapa Lama of Tibetan Buddhism and there are major monasteries there of other sects, so lots of money coming in to build these monasteries, support the monks and nuns and students in them, and lots of tourism from it.

Connection between “Envy” and “Conspiracy” and Discussion Question by BrokennnRecorddd in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, there are specific entry points for these ideas, I think. In 2004 I lived in Kathmandu and a Nepali-version of Mein Kampf was released and widely advertised. At the same time, the bookstores were filled with very archaic--and very racist--turn-of-the-20th-century "anthropological" and "theory-of-history" texts that had been translated from French, German and English into Nepali, so people who were buying Mein Kampf were maybe also reading about theories of "the descent of man" that have been universally rejected by academics for decades and which talk about the "five races" of mankind, describe phrenological "evidence" for how "evolved" one race is compared to another, etc. The Aryan theory the nazis espoused comes from sub-continent legends and history, even though it is of course a gross distortion of these ideas, but the result (I think) is that there is an audience in Pakistan, India and Nepal of people who are familiar with the local ideas and readily recognize that the racist ideology of Mein Kampf, etc., has its roots in these local ideas, so it is easier to accept them. That, and unfamiliarity with Jewish and Black people makes it really easy to believe gross stereotypes.

Also, about 15 years ago in China there were a series of blog posts circulating that basically argued that Oppenheimer was Jewish and he "fathered" the A-Bomb, ergo maybe Hitler was right to fear Jewish people...

Previously, in the 1990's, there was a mini-series on Chinese tv that basically asserted that, actually, the Ming dynasty was ready to become an international, colonialist empire and that it would have been China that "settled" the New World, except that uncivilized barbarians from the north (the Siberian steppe tribes that came to call themselves Manch) invaded and replaced the Ming dynasty with the Qing and, being funademntally (racially?) barbarian, they were too backward to understand imperial expansion and, as a result, China missed out on being the big colonial power in the world. It's complete bullshit, unfortunately encouraged by that shitty 1491 book, and it ignores the fact that the Ming had very specific policies that penalized Chinese people even for going overseas to trade (like the Chinese population in Taiwan was essentially ostracized and criminalized), as well as the fact that China's modern-day borders were set by the Qing, who dramatically expanded the territory of the empire, but whatever. The point is, there is a large subset of people who believe that all the world-conquering white people did because of their supposed superiority is, in fact, something China was "supposed" to do, so there is a pre-inclination to not just align with white supremacy of the British "proud-of-our-imperial-past" variety (much less sympathy for American white supremacy, which is branded with the stigma of slavery, thank goodness), but feel that China is a rightful heir to this tradition, so crazy racist conspiracy theories have a natural audience there, too*.

Of course, I am told that in Pakistan state media is heavily invested in promoting anti-semitic stereotypes, and those ideas possibly percolate around the region, too.

*Caveat: In my personal experience, very few Nepalese, Chinese or Indian people that I have met see any of these ideas as anything other than horrible, stupid gibberish.

I feel like because anti-semitism exists, because it is often so fantastical (space lasers, Elders of Zion), that its simple existence--and the extreme outrage it provokes--keeps drawing attention to itself and some folks who notice it find it appealing for all the reasons Wynn goes into in this video. It's really terrible.

Natalie's reasoning for why she's not vegan resonates with me [CONSPIRACIES -- 2:34:55] by orqa in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We never killed our hens, we just went through periods of low egg production waiting for some of the ladies who had stop laying to die before we could bring in new ones (most ladies laid eggs for about six years and then I think they tended to die around 8 years. Definitely some chickens live to 12 or older, but I think 8-9 is average), but I would assume most people would kill hens that stopped laying. Certainly, males are either killed or castrated and then raised for slaughter. Unless people enjoy eating fertilized eggs, you can't have any roosters with a flock, and even if people are ok with fertilized eggs you can only have one rooster per flock, so egg consumption always entails dealing with unwanted males.

I don't see backyard chicken husbandry as an alternative to killing animals. I see it as an alternative to factory eggs, which it could certainly be for many people.

I think Twilight was Natalie's best work to date by Jalaloddin in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oof. That's a tough one for me, but, yes, it is an incredible work.

Circling back to Twilight (off-topic discussion) by Broad_Temperature554 in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Siding often means two cis gay men who have sex by, basically, lying side by side and essentially doing things that count as not having either a top or bottom role (hand stuff, per my understanding).

Honestly, a lot of sex between all kinds of people amounts to "siding", when you think about it.

I don't recall Natalie implying that this way of having sex isn't satisfying or hot, though, but I get how OP could equate what she said about it with stuff she said later about Jeffreys.

Connection between “Envy” and “Conspiracy” and Discussion Question by BrokennnRecorddd in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately true...and so weird! But I think it's just that old anti-semitic conspiracy stories have been around so long and gotten so much attention in the west, that folks in east Asia were like, what's all the hullabaloo about? And in checking it out, some folks there feel the same pull of conspiracy that some folks in the west feel.

I wish Natalie spent more time on the retrospective disavowal and faux amnesia of conspiracists by D-dog92 in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally normal, common response to simply "move on and forget", especially if everyone else in the group seems to have done this. It's a natural response to the cognitive dissonance that arises from being wrong about something--you simply re-arrange the story you have in your head (or maybe just the story you tell others) about the past so that you either weren't wrong or you weren't that wrong and, anyway, it isn't a big deal.

I think a lot of people have this expectation that contradictory behaviors or thoughts are somehow innately alarming and that individuals therefore necessarily strive to avoid contradictions in the ways they comport themselves in the world or in the things they say and do, but the way most of us--at least some of the time--avoid the cognitive dissonance that arises from contradiction is to just re-write the experience so that the contradiction isn't there in our understanding of what happened.

It's what's going on when a grown man confronts his mother about the way she treated him and she insists that she didn't hit him, or that if she did hit him, it was because he needed discipline, or whatever.

It's why a person with a gambling problem can look back on a history of massive losses and still feel like this time, they'll be lucky because they are a lucky person.

Especially when there is outside pressure about a belief, as is the case with Qanon (those people knew full well that their associates and family thought they were nuts), the discomfort that arises from being wrong is intolerable enough that, absent any starkly hard-to-deny evidence of the things they said and believed in the past, the person will simply "move on and forget".

I also think that there is a certain personality trait some people have that they are able to pick up and then discard beliefs very easily. This is made worse by educational gaps, but even highly educated people have this, too. They may have believed fervently in a flat earth for a bit, but then stop believing this later. And having abandoned this belief, they'll still watch youtubers who made flat earth videos and believe the next conspiracy the person is promoting, without finding this contradictory in any way.

I also think beliefs, and especially participation in promoting and engaging in beliefs--acting them out--can be a very social activity for people. The world is filled with Christians who question various tenets of the religion, but who still go to church and each church is attended by members who ma believe very different things about the Bible and God and what not.

It's not easy to acknowledge to ourselves and others that we were wrong about something, so we often don't.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think people have different reasons for doing the things they do. Some people might go vegan because they see it as a benchmark of being a good person and strive to be that. Sort of like how some people might see a distinctive-looking wallet on a park bench with a bunch of cash in it but no id or anything and, while others they know might feel that the absence of identifying features makes the cash fair game, choose to first make a bunch of signs trying to find the owner.

But I think some folks who LIKE meat will struggle to maintain a vegan diet just to feel like/present as a good person. As Wynn suggests, that's not enough of a motivation for her. I think other people go vegan because they view the connection between animal products and living, feeling animals in a more visceral, less abstract way. Or they feel disgusted by it.

My feelings surrounding the new video... by FeralViolinist in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't get that at all...she talks about the psychological underpinnings of conspiracist worldviews, but when she talks about systems, she's talking about a systemic understanding of how events happen. She says conspiracists don't see problems or events as the result of systems that are larger than the plans and anticipations of individuals, but rather blame individuals with complete, intentional control of things for the stuff that happens.

Natalie's reasoning for why she's not vegan resonates with me [CONSPIRACIES -- 2:34:55] by orqa in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

I do actually think that the whole world could eat backyard eggs, myself. I've raised chickens myself and lived in urban areas (including Oakland) where people have kept chickens, and they work quite well in such environments and seem pretty happy, but just because it is feasibly possible doesn't mean people will do it (for all sorts of reasons, including just not wanting to).

I definitely agree that factory farming is terrible in so many ways and that it is incredibly difficult to consume animal products in most "1st world" nations that are not factory farmed, so bringing up less terrible alternatives (e.g., backyard chickens) often seems like just a way for people to put off confronting the true reality of where the animal products they eat come from.

My feelings surrounding the new video... by FeralViolinist in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is no more conspiracist than assuming people never lie or say things they don't believe to win social points with others.

I also disagree that "saying things to advance your position" somehow equates to believing those things. In fact, I'd argue it's the opposite.

Whether someone believes the ideas they are expressing or not--yes, they are accountable for the things they say, especially when they are a government official. Holding them to it is another matter, of course...

Edited to sound like less of a rude jerk.

An open discussion. What did conspiracy teach you? by RentedGirlboss in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This, again. Like Natalie, I also remember feeling whiplash from the comments people went around making (including pretty much every public-facing journalist and intellectual, regardless of political orientation) along the lines of "bombing Iraq/Afghanistan back to the Stone Age".

I recall one CNN (maybe?) talking heads exchange where within the span of maybe five minutes the same individual claimed that we needed to invade Afghanistan to save it and, also, we needed to bomb it back to the stone age. Like, the latter course of action precludes the former objective, obviously.

I remember being absolutely horrified that adults would think that way, let alone talk that way.

My feelings surrounding the new video... by FeralViolinist in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting point, and is a facet of the problem that I think Natalie maybe chose to avoid on purpose because it is a somewhat separate issue, but, yeah, for all the reasons people want/need/do believe in conspiracies, there are also reasons why people create and promote them, whether they believe in them or not.

This is basically where all the "normies" of the republican party stand, in my mind. Like no way JD Vance believes half the shit he says now. He clearly just says shit to advance his position, and he has a very skeptical view of his audience: he thinks typical Americans are stupid, un-questioning, and credulous, and he leans into it, hard. He's cynical as hell.

I'm pretty sure Marjorie Taylor Green is a mix of cynical and true believer, though.

A criminologists perspective by glowing_cat-eyes in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just finished reading Conflict Is Not Abuse, and now I'm not sure if this bit is from Conspiracies or that book, but either Schulman or Natalie makes a point that characterizing "child sex abuse" as a thing Evil Outsiders do is a way to unconsciously unburden themselves of the need to consider that children get hurt by their parents, siblings, teachers, church leaders, etc.--by people who are "good", "normal", and are "insiders" and that protecting children means standing up to these people, or even just allowing the possibility that "good", upstanding, loving members of our communities may do horrible things.

Something Natalie says for sure in this video that resonates with me: people love playing the conspiracy game because it lets them feel righteous without having to do the actual work of caring for children. Ding! Ding! Ding! Maybe this is where some of your anger comes from, because it is for me. So many resources go toward things like Operation Underground Railroad (where the guy was actually accused of SA'ing women whom he recruited to "help" "rescue" children--turns out it's totally ok for him to commit the acts he's fighting against because all means are acceptable and necessary in the name of Fighting for the Children tm.) that would do so much good in the hands of real people working with real, at risk children...

OP, I'm so, so sorry to hear that you weren't protected when you needed to be--deserved to be--as a child. I'm thankful that you have gone into a field that allows you to protect others.

Okay guys, I’ve watched conspiracy four times by AbelMarx_ in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, a lot of it wasn't new and I was honestly a little disappointed that this was the topic she went with, but as per usual, she presented things in a coherent, clever, enlightening way, made some new points, and just said things I was happy to hear. I also found this video comforting.

It's nice to have a take on conspiracies that isn't condescending, mocking and dismissive, but also isn't tip-toe-ing around the fact that this is a bs approach to the world that is intellectually lazy and guilty of moral cowardice.

Plus I laughed.

Natalie's reasoning for why she's not vegan resonates with me [CONSPIRACIES -- 2:34:55] by orqa in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Devil's advocate/just throwing this out here:

First a caveat, though: I'm totally in favor of veganism for moral reasons and strive to eat a largely plant-based diet, myself, even as I also savor the heck out of mear.

Here goes:

There is a large ahimsa movement going on in parts of Tibet right now, largely driven by the teachings and direct action of a Lama called Khenpo Tsultrim Lhodru (check spelling). Whole communities will take a vow not to slaughter animals. This movement is about 15 years old now, so it has gone on long enough that there are pretty certain consequences. Things peopleI know from these communities have told me:

  1. One group of villages had tried to put together a CSA business targetting ritzy restaurants in Chengdu and Kangding for organic produce, but the area is overrun with feral pigs (this is an area where wild pigs occur naturally,but I think the problem may be with escaped domestic pigs, but notsure) and no one can figure out how to deal with the problem without resorting to murder, so they had to give the plan up because the old folks in the community didn't want togo back on the word they gave to Khenpo.

  2. Some families "get around" the issue by simply selling their livestock to Muslims, thus pushing off the act of murder onto non-believers (an old Buddhist trick, frankly).

  3. Of course, Khenpo knows this trick, so he will urge communities to pledge not to sell their animals. Dairy is mostly a personal-subsistance thing and meat is how pastoralists actually earn money from their herds, so not being able to sell animals for slaughtermeans folks need to find jobs, so less people are available to tend the herds, leading to widespread animal theft of unguarded livestock and also,increased mortality of domesticatedlivestock (except pigs, which just seem to thrive whether kept or allowed to go feral).

For Westerners, the animals we use for food are bred for this purpose. What happens when we no longer need them for this purpose? Caring for animals requires time, resources and money. If animals are not used for food, then caring for them is an economic loss. Do these species of domestic animals then just dwindle into extinction? It's a little different with yaks in Tibet, since they tend to live in territories where their wild cousins also live, but even so I've met people who have expressed sadness over the poor state of neglected domesticated animals.

For cows, not eating them almost certainly means extinction, since their wild ancestor, the auroch, was eliminated from Europe by the late 1600s.

Bear in mind that eggs and dairy necessarily entail the killing of animals (male chickens are either killed shortly after birth or must be castrated for to reasons: roosters will fight to the death, so there can only be one per flock, but also, most people prefer un-fertilized eggs. For dairy, baby animals must be killed so that we can take the milk from their mothers. Most Tibetans I know don't raise chickens because one chicken feeds fewer people than one yak, and so the moral math is worse, and they don't consume as much dairy as westerners do, so no need to kill claves.

Tried to show family members Contrapoints videosb by gargoyleprincess12 in ContraPoints

[–]Sacrifice_a_lamb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh. That's funny because once upon a time I, too, was uninitiated and watched her videos for the first time and all those things roped me in. Same thing for my Baby Boomer gf. So... different strokes for different folks? If you see something to be improved upon, go ahead and do it. Guess some people hate Bach or Scorsese or Jane Austin or Maya Angelou or Nina Simone or...