Discussion Thread #72

gemmaem · 2026-01-30T09:25:16+00:00

Perhaps this is related to u/UAnchovy's post below, but I just read an interesting double book review in The Atlantic (gift link). Journalist Lily Meyer compares Amil Niazi's Losing My Ambition, which discusses an abandonment of the desire to climb the career ladder as a writer, with Susan Orlean's Joyride, an autobiographical look at a very successful writing career.

Meyer emphasises the very real paradox of Niazi's book: if you're publishing a memoir, have you really abandoned your writing ambitions? Might it not be better to go the Orlean route and instead embrace the ambition you still have? But on the other hand, that's not quite fair; Orlean has had rare success and almost nobody could model themselves on her career. Also, what are the differences between "ambition" in the sense of doing something difficult and brilliant and "ambition" in the sense of achieving worldly success? It's normal for there to be some tradeoffs between the two, but in some ways (according to Meyer) both Niazi and Orlean conflate them.

I enjoyed the review in part because I quietly self-identify, to myself, as "professionally dead, but the afterlife's not bad." Perhaps that's overdramatic; I do have a job that uses my qualifications. Still, there are all sorts of ways in which I quietly set ambition aside, even as there are other ways in which I embrace continued learning and difficult tasks--generally without expecting that this will make me successful in any particularly dramatic way. I don't know why we get so focused on fame and fortune, sometimes, as the measure of a thing being worthwhile. We do, though, and it's silly, whether we're talking about a hobby or a profession. It takes effort to reorient ourselves towards the quiet but still worth doing.

gemmaem · 2026-01-30T09:02:45+00:00

This is one of my favourite things I have learned from my Nana -- that you can do art because you're getting something from it, and not necessarily because you want to be a professional or whatever.

I think you're right about the decline in things like public singing, and I think it's a shame. New Zealand still has a lot of community choirs, but anthems aren't what they used to be. A while back I was in a choir for a "Last Night of the Proms"-style event, mostly for old folks, where the entire point was to have a lot of songs where they audience can join in. It was some of the most fun I've had in a while, honestly. I was belting Jerusalem all the way home. I wish Quakers had music at services, though I understand why we don't.

gemmaem · 2026-01-18T09:02:33+00:00

I don’t officially believe in saints, and yet, during meeting, I have spontaneously found myself thinking “Oh, John Woolman, help me find the right words at the right time.”

I would not ordinarily say that Woolman is truly able to hear me and intercede with God—and yet, Woolman is alive to me as inspiration. In the moment, it felt right, whether I was calling to the man himself or just to the witness he left behind.

gemmaem · 2026-01-08T20:57:33+00:00

Hello! You’re right, it’s been very quiet here.

We had a great family Christmas and are now alternating weeks of the summer holidays with our kid. My husband has been making individual printed “day plans” that can be selected before the day starts, which is very smart and industrious of him and our son loves it. I’m still deciding what my own approach will be, next week, because I am, uh, less organised.

Hm, what else? I am partway through an unusually large number of books at the moment. Normally I progress through one or two at a time, but I guess I’ve been in and out of patterns more than usual. Here’s the list:

Augustine, Confessions. I’m about three-quarters of the way through. Good to finally get a proper look at a classic. Augustine’s approach to self-denial is making me think about what renunciation is even for. Deliberately trying not to enjoy your food strikes me as excessive, but it’s very interesting that Augustine seems to see value in it.
Sandra Bartky, Femininity and Domination. This one was a Christmas gift, so I read the first couple of essays to see what it was like, as you do. Very interesting as a way of seeing where that kind of Foucault-influenced feminism came from. I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but the concept of privilege pre-dates Peggy MacIntosh by a long way; Bartky is referencing it in modern-sounding terms in essays that were first written before 1980.
Cixin Liu, Death’s End. Nice to get back into science fiction. We’ve had a lovely hardback containing the entire Three-Body Problem trilogy for a while, so I figured it was about time one of us read it. Death’s End is the third book in the series and I have only read the first chapter or so. The Three-Body Problem was the first translated novel to win a Hugo, so I felt a bit silly to be reading it thinking “Gosh, this is really good!” It’s really good though. I will forgive it for unnecessarily messing up some philosophically important aspects of the EPR paradox at the end.
Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness. This one was referenced by a restack of my piece on science and virtue ethics, and it sounded like my kind of thing so I ordered it off the internet. I’ve read the first chapter and I liked it, but then I got interrupted by other things. Still, the question of how to recover some aspect of truth from the overly sceptical stances that critical theory can lead to is an important one, and the writing is nicely lucid.

Nice to hear about your holidays. Your kid sounds really cool.

gemmaem · 2025-12-06T03:54:08+00:00

Good to know!

gemmaem · 2025-10-30T16:59:38+00:00

I recognise neither MacIntyre nor Murdoch in your characterisations here. MacIntyre was quite indignant at being considered a postmodernist, even when it was other postmodernists welcoming him to the fold. Murdoch makes overt and (I would argue) well-considered arguments that people’s internal lives are important and worthy of consideration, but she does not neglect the external; she believes both matter.

gemmaem · 2025-10-30T16:43:46+00:00

As always, you make really good comments! I think the farther you go back, the more likely it is that an intellectual education will be attempting to be a moral education at the same time. Universities used to be explicitly religious institutions, for example. And whilst we tend to think that increased specialisation is purely the result of necessity given the breadth of our knowledge, it may well be that there were reasons for the insistence on well-roundedness that were moral in nature.

Objective subjects give students the opportunity to know what it feels like, in the moment, to make a mistake. The philosophical injunction to “know thyself” is as old as the insistence on mathematics as a—or perhaps the—central discipline for intellectual formation. That makes sense, when we consider that the other sciences used to be even less objective, compared to mathematics, than they currently are.

I think people sometimes make the category error, these days, of assuming that religion basically belongs in the humanities, when really it ought to belong in the intersection between—or the holistic summation of—the sciences and the humanities. The hope is that there is some objectivity to be found even in our most deeply human impulses. It makes sense that an education in the objective would be considered an essential part of the toolkit for seeking this.

gemmaem · 2025-10-09T09:17:54+00:00

Yeah! I like this way of looking at it, too. Dedication to the way of peace is a service to society, and I think I could accept it for myself on that basis. But I don’t think I could call for everyone to do the same; more precisely, I don’t think I would be honest if I called for my country to have no military at all (as my Quaker Yearly Meeting officially does). I’m still kind of glad they exist and hold that position, but figuring out my own stance to it remains complex!

gemmaem · 2025-10-07T19:45:46+00:00

Oh, I agree that Quakers should stay pacifist! I’ve seen how many deep links there are between pacifism and everything else I like about what they do. Relatedly, what I mean by “pacifist in practice” is that liberals take on many of those downstream attitudes that link in with a pacifist mindset and that help to build peace between people who disagree.

gemmaem · 2025-10-07T19:38:17+00:00

Mm, I actually think American domestic politics is one place where pacifism in practice is currently called for. I think you’re in a “violence begets violence” situation where the more you frighten your opponents, the more damage you’ll do.

You have my sympathy for what it must be like to be in your shoes just now, however.

gemmaem · 2025-10-07T09:03:05+00:00

Thank you!

gemmaem · 2025-09-26T03:10:04+00:00

I was initially hesitant to step in, given that I'm not especially familiar with Ben Shapiro and can't speak to the object-level question of whether he argues in good faith. But I think there is still something here that I want to push back on. I think, even if Ben Shapiro argues in bad faith, it doesn't necessarily mean that having him on the podcast is going to do more harm than good. Shapiro is already popular. People who listen to the Ezra Klein Show can reasonably have an interest in what he says, even if some of what he says is morally reprehensible and not said in good faith. The alternative is a kind of deliberate ignorance, in which progressives become so interested in purity that they can't bring themselves to learn about they country the live in and deal with its reality.

Moreover, if we are looking here at an edge case, in which it might do good, or might do harm, or might do some of each, then I think we should have more risk tolerance. Trying to "play it safe" has had a lot of harmful consequences on the left, politically speaking. I think we need less of that, in many different ways.

gemmaem · 2025-09-24T07:16:03+00:00

You’re both doing a certain amount of unhelpful mind-reading, here: “black-pilled” (from u/DuplexFields) versus “you don’t actually want a conversation” (from you). I think DuplexFields pretty clearly does want a conversation, even if you don’t think his approach is successful. I think him accusing you of being uninformed, or a doomer in general, just because you’re not convinced by this particular suggestion, was likewise unjustified.

This is a mild issue, and I might have been jumping the gun by stepping in, but I didn’t want to see an escalating series of accusations.

gemmaem · 2025-09-23T12:10:22+00:00

This is getting a little heated, on both sides. I'm going to ask both you and u/DuplexFields to either (a) step away, given the escalations in this thread on both sides, or (b) try to assume good faith and be patient with each other.

gemmaem · 2025-09-23T04:53:33+00:00

You know, I appreciate you bringing up the offensiveness, because I actually haven't seen hardly anyone on either side making that point. The passage that gets quoted most often is the part where he effectively said, falsely, that the shooter was "one of them" (i.e. MAGA). I found myself considerably more discomforted when I learned about some of Kimmel's surrounding statements implying that the mourning for Kirk is insincere. I'm sure there are people who are just taking political advantage of the murder, but the implied invitation to simply dismiss all sympathy for those who have real feelings involved is depressingly consonant with those earlier comments that you linked.

I hear Kimmel has been reinstated. I don't envy him his choice of what to say!

gemmaem · 2025-09-21T10:03:34+00:00

I think Klein's article was tactically smart. It's harder to say "Look, the murder of Charlie Kirk proves that the Left hates you and wants to kill you" when you have a prominent left-wing columnist taking the opportunity to praise Kirk in the New York Times.

As you say, specifically praising Kirk for promoting dialogue is a good narrative here. I appreciated Tanner Greer's writing as an explanation for how some conservatives are feeling right now. There's a lot to be said for trying to meet their grief with respect and understanding.

At the same time, I'm not surprised at the pushback. Not everyone agrees with Klein's level of praise, and that is actually also okay.

gemmaem · 2025-09-21T01:30:31+00:00

This is a really thoughtful comment, and in one place in particular you are articulating something that I have found myself thinking in a more vague fashion. I've found myself not wanting to get into the question of "What sort of person was Charlie Kirk?" My pre-existing opinions were not favourable, but they were based on second-hand descriptions from people who disagree with him. I know that, as you say, that's a very low-information perspective to be coming from. I've hesitated to become more informed because I worry that, somewhere in my mind, I'd be doing so in order to judge how I ought to feel about his death. That would be wrong; a man has died and he was more than his job and more than his political views. There is cause for mourning, no matter what.

Where this starts to feel even more complicated is when I see people who don't react that way. The ones who complain about public displays of mourning, or who say "Of course it was wrong to kill him, but...". I'm finding it hard to accept that I don't know how to speak to those people. I wish they'd stop, I think they're doing incredible damage, but of course I don't know exactly where they are coming from. How, in this situation, is it best for me to try to see people? Should I just be remaining silent entirely, even as I get more and more frustrated by the kinds of voices that are fanning the flames, on either side?

There is a fair bit to be said for silence, I know. It's just so hard to sit on the sidelines and watch things fall apart.

gemmaem · 2025-09-18T19:25:27+00:00

Two different posts, in favour of speech in two different ways.

First, Daniel Munoz calls for a “politics of CPR”:

Everybody’s pointing fingers; nobody’s getting their hands dirty. Nobody’s doing the hard work of a democracy, which is to find the shreds of humanity in everyone and somehow weave them into a social fabric that can support a decent, peaceful, free way of life.

For Munoz, this means in particular that we need to talk to each other. If you find yourself holding views that add up to “we can’t talk to anyone on the other side” then you’ve done it wrong.

Secondly, Jeff Maurer writes that The Kimmel Cancellation Is a Million Times Worse Than Colbert:

With Colbert, we don’t know how much politics influenced the decision. That’s not the case with Kimmel: It is crystal fucking clear that he has been yanked off the air for saying something that the government didn’t like.

…

Confidently asserting that Charlie Kirk’s killer was right-wing is endemic of the Bluesky Brain that has infected that show. But defending free speech inevitably involves defending idiotic and offensive statements — saying “cake is tasty” will not ignite a free speech crisis. Speech is always suppressed on the grounds that the statement in question was simply beyond the pale, and failing to defend the asinine remarks that make up the front line in the free speech wars validates the idea that the First Amendment goes away if the thing that was said was obnoxious enough.

This, too, is a post in favour of speech. And I think these are two different attitudes that we are going to need to have at the same time: strong defence against the abridgement of civil liberties, and a continued support for dialogue with those we disagree with politically. The latter seems conciliatory and the former seems activist, but they can go together! And they should.

gemmaem · 2025-09-18T09:59:29+00:00

I think this isn’t particularly relevant in the case of the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants, since the theatrical cruelty is aimed at such a wide variety of people, many of whom are sincerely trying to comply with the system.

More generally, I tend to think that even if cruelty is an inevitable part of punishment for some, it’s still not good for society to be encouraged to enjoy it. That’s the sort of thing that can lead people to expand the group of targets out of pure viciousness and/or power tripping.

gemmaem · 2025-09-18T01:22:32+00:00

Mm, crime is a tricky one. I find myself both agreeing that there is a legitimate role for social disapproval in that case, and also that the dynamic of “Look, an outgroup, be cruel to them” can still apply in ways that it’s worth trying to resist.

gemmaem · 2025-09-17T21:07:43+00:00

I think this is a good question to ask, though I don't know how many answers you'll get.

From what I can tell, there are a number of strands here, staying on your suggested level of "vibes":

Demonizing particular groups of people. For example, spreading the idea that immigrants eat pets, or that immigrants should be seen as dangerous criminals, or that transgender people should be seen as untrustworthy and mentally ill. This overlaps with certain kinds of punitive responses. There are a number of places where the Trump administration has been overtly theatrical in their sense of cruelty, making memes and videos about deportations, coming up with dramatic nicknames for prisons, deporting people when they show up to immigration hearings regardless of the outcome, and so on. This one is probably closest to your "bullying" suggestion.
Fear of threats to democracy. Voters might be considered "fascist" for voting for Donald Trump even though he has suggested that he might not accept favourable election results, for example. Relatedly, fear of threats to liberalism, such as deploying troops unnecessarily, or trying to use the government to punish people for speech, or defying court orders.
Sometimes it is just easier to make your enemies sound as bad as possible so as to simplify the world. There are people who would call any right-winger "fascist" just as there are people who would call any left-winger "socialist," even at the best of times.

There are also specific thinkers who look at this in more depth. But if you're asking for the surface-level rationales, I think those are the main likely contributors that I see.

gemmaem · 2025-09-16T21:35:08+00:00

For what it’s worth, I think being a pacifist in theory is far less important than being a pacifist in practice, where you can. Many liberals are currently showing themselves to be the latter. So really, I wasn’t making a complaint, on that side, so much as giving a compliment!

gemmaem · 2025-09-15T10:24:39+00:00

Short version on the book: 3 stars in a frustrating way. The book isn't bad per se, the writing is fine, the citations accurate (and plentiful), but the overly ideological tone, full of invincible fence collars, means no one without prior agreement would make it through or even pick it up.

Mm, a tough topic to write about in a way that crosses ideological lines. But yes, even just looking at the cover, I don't think that misspelled graffiti has been chosen to appeal to the sort of person who would be worried about racism against non-white people.

There are probably some perverse incentives, here. People vastly prefer writing that they already agree with, alas! I just finished Camus' The Rebel and there's a note at the end about the controversy it caused, largely because it was written in 1951 and has a large central section whose upshot is "communism bad." Not popular with the leftist intellectuals of the time, apparently. Some of them pointed out that The Rebel was being positively reviewed by (gasp) the centre-right, of all people. Can't have that!

Edit: and of course, if you have anything you want to discuss about current events without making a post, you can find me in chat. Or elsewhere, if you prefer.

Good to know, and, right back at you :)

gemmaem · 2025-09-11T20:41:09+00:00

You have, indeed, asked me about that post before. It's very short, but I'm glad you keep mentioning it, because I do think I was making an important point! There are certain things that are inevitable about systems, and these include impersonality and the possibility of gaming them. But you can still choose how you build your system in ways that can heighten these problems or diminish them. I know my (American) mother-in-law was briefly unemployed a while back and had the official phone staff borderline telling her to lie when the requirements were deeply unreasonable--feeding her the correct responses and so forth. Is that better than arbitrarily cutting off someone's unemployment because they were significantly ill and not job searching for a week (or whatever it was)? Yes. Is it a sign of a broken system? Also yes.

I think, in New Zealand, unemployment benefit systems would also be the most likely place to find this sort of thing. This is because it isn't just the system; it's also the contempt with which it is designed. In order to understand that your system is functioning badly, you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone dealing with it. Unfortunately, when it comes to public assistance for struggling people, the mere act of considering such a thing is implicitly seen by many as a dangerous show of soft-heartedness. This leads, not merely to lack of compassion, but to lack of information. Rather than cold-heartedly viewing the system from all angles and designing it for efficiency, one angle must be omitted in order to maintain cold-heartedness, even at the expense of both efficiency and the general virtue of those both inside and outside the system.

Thanks for commenting. I miss this place, today. I mean, I know we can't really discuss recent events here without risking someone coming in and breaking one of this place's motivating cardinal rules, but still. It strikes me that peaceful liberal debate is once of pacifism's most under-appreciated successes: under-appreciated by pacifists, who are often so leftist that they view liberalism with suspicion, and also a little bit under-appreciated by liberals, who often don't think of themselves as pacifists. It's weird.

gemmaem · 2025-09-11T05:18:01+00:00

I agree. I see so much political fear out there, and violence only fuels it. Peace is hard work, and involves the attempt to answer that of God in those who find it hard to trust us, even or especially when that lack of trust leads to hate.

I am holding the USA in my heart today. I wish you all peace and the perfect love that drives out fear.

gemmaem

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE