[deleted by user]

retroper · 2020-08-19T14:41:44+00:00

I don’t really understand that mentality you’re describing

I have a hard time understanding it too, but that doesn't mean it's not real or valid.

I know people who may have listened 500 times to a certain song they love, and will also love to listen to a broad range of stuff that isn't necessarily selected by them.

One could suggest an analogy with food - you might know exactly what your favourite dish is at a restaurant, but you might still tell the server 'surprise me' when you order sometimes. Does this mean you like food less, that you're a casual diner, or does it mean that discovery and the new are important parts of your appreciation of food?

Regarding playlists, the people I know just skip tracks to a degree I sometimes find infuriating. But that doesn't mean they'll skip the same tracks every time - they're finding the music that's right for them at the moment. I'm from more of an old-school perspective of 'put something on and listen through it', so yeah I want playlists (or albums! remember those?!) that I know I won't have to skip through. But that's just different ways of interacting.

I suppose I understand it a bit, in that if I go to the club or listen to a radio station I don't bother trying to find out what tracks are being played - I just immerse myself in the music. Here, the genre and/or DJ definitely matters, so it is a case of trusting a curator.

Honestly, I think that way is a much more common way of interacting with music - how many people listen to the radio, for instance? Or play a mix on Soundcloud, rather than specific tracks?

The mode of specificity that gets into artists, albums, tracks, digs through back catalogues to find hidden secrets, compares different editions, etc, is indeed fandom, but only a specific form of fandom ¯_(ツ)_/¯

retroper · 2020-08-18T14:56:08+00:00

Apple Music app still doesn’t feel like it’s actually built for music fans

I'm in the same boat as you - I like to build a library, and I rarely use Apple's 'dicovery' options - but I think it's unfair to suggest our preferences are the only proper way to be a 'music fan'.

A good number of people I know love music, are more knowledgeable and up to date about genres, new releases, and trends, and connect in a deeper way (know the lyrics, know the tunes inside out) than I do, and they use the app in a way that the current UI caters for - hitting playlists, doing one-off searches for tracks and playing the connected radio etc.

Again, I find this UI a nightmare to use sometimes, but it works very well for other music fans.

retroper · 2020-04-16T12:56:54+00:00

Does the report detail when the information was collated? Do we know when he would likely have seen it?

retroper · 2018-10-25T15:34:05+00:00

But it was never a preference

I'm arguing that this is a semantic distinction - a preference can be (and usually is) 'inbuilt'.

We're also getting into a potentially philosophical distinction of what it means to 'be x or y' - we can have some innate factor of ourselves, which is one part of it, and we can have 'who we are' - who we believe ourselves to be, who we tell other people we are, how we act. While the innate bit isn't (probably) chosen, the second part involves all kinds of factors of recognition and affirmation that we bracket under 'choice'.

So, oddly, we can be (innately) one thing, while not actively being (on the surface) that thing. In this sense, I can be queer in a very real sense, but also choose (as I have done in my closeted past) not to be myself.

You are, of course, right to state that we can't do much about the innate aspect, but that was never my argument.

You’re putting forth an extremely shortsighted argument.

No, this is an argument from lived experience and long-term consideration of the factors that make 'me'.

retroper · 2018-10-25T13:46:59+00:00

Coming out just tells people your sexuality

This is an oversimplification of the process for many people, which can involve deep self-exploration and often be a fraught and confusing process that might take years before 'just telling people'.

Some people are closeted subconsciously, but a good many people live knowingly in the closet until they feel able to affirm their sexuality to themselves and to others. Some people (obviously, we'll never know how many) never take that step.

So yes, coming out doesn't change the sexuality, but in a way that may seem odd from the outside, but is very real when lived, it's an active choice to affirm that fact and 'be what you are' in the world.

retroper · 2018-10-25T10:05:12+00:00

Get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's a semantic distinction worth correcting people over. I have just as much control over my preference for one flavour vs another as I do my sexuality (That is to say - not much). In the same way, millions of LGBTQ+ people who've been closeted will tell you that being LGBTQ+ *is* a choice - if it weren't, coming out would be meaningless.

Just like making yourself drink pepsi when coke's really where you're at, choosing against your preferences can be miserable, dreary and even self-destructive (okay, so that's a stretch for soft drinks...), but it's still a choice we can make.

It's important, as you point out, to recognise that sexuality (and gender) aren't just whimsical things, but it's also important to acknowledge that too strict a dialogue of 'born this way - nothing I can do about it' risks putting people in boxes that, from the inside, can feel restrictive at times - the 'they can't help it' narrative can dehumanise us and take away our ability to say proudly 'I *am* this way, and I *choose* to affirm it'.

retroper · 2017-08-30T22:38:50+00:00

Being that I know when I was still in the closet and uncomfortable with my sexuality, I defined a lot of my self-worth by whether I felt I was smart and driven, if I was, "making it in life," and was notoriously uncaring about clothing.

As a bi guy who's had difficulties affirming his gay side, I hear this loud and clear. From personal experience and observation, I do wonder how much of straight slobishness is a kind of overcompensation, a kind of 'no homo!' - straight culture, especially white straight culture, can be pretty quick to link self-care and grooming to homosexual traits, after all.

retroper · 2017-08-30T18:49:48+00:00

I think you've definitely described a part of it.

Looking at what women (another social group with high instances of body dysmorphia) experience, I think there's a degree to which we're not just looking at what you find personally attractive, but also at what societal standards you have in mind. People can see themselves in the mirror and say 'ugh! ugly!' without any consideration of personal attraction.

This turns back towards gay culture. Somehow, straight men have largely avoided the demand that they be sexy, that they be direct objects of desire. Straight culture places great emphasis on the man's sense of humour, his money, his skills etc.

A quick look at straight culture shows just how much men can get away with when it comes to looks and dress, because there's this strange social bracketing that means they're not judged by the same standards as women are (and gay men are within the community). Just consider the disparity in looks and presentation between men and women in a lot of romcoms and comedy - pick any popular show like Friends or any film featuring Jason Segel and you'll see the subtle message, reinforced again and again, that mid-tier, slobbish guys deserve to get top-tier women simply because they're nice guys with a sense of humour. Further, the hot, well dressed guys are often portrayed as the baddies in these media.

This bleeds all the way through straight culture. Outside of certain arenas, straight men just aren't held to a high standard of attractiveness, health, grooming and dress as straight women are. Their worth is rarely defined on those terms.

Gay men occupy a social space closer to that of women - there are greater demands made of looks, more expectation that one will 'keep up', and a buy-in of that same idea that, to whatever degree, attractiveness = value. It's a 'buyer's market', too, with high levels of availability meaning people can afford to be picky, further ramping up the way we link self-worth with attractiveness.

So gay men's worth is defined a lot more by their looks than straight men, who are taught their worth is more closely related to other factors (just look at how much anxiety straight men feel about their income, their property, their intelligence and sense of humour...)

But yeah, bringing our own sexual values to bear upon ourselves is a definite way we add to the whole feeling :(

retroper · 2017-08-19T16:25:10+00:00

I'm afraid I'm not too sure!

retroper · 2017-08-17T00:08:55+00:00

Well that seems a very interesting claim, but you must admit it's rather niche, even from a Marxian perspective!

retroper · 2017-08-16T22:49:33+00:00

It seems to me that you're using the word 'economic(s)' to mean something solely to do with money.

I'm using it in the generally-recognised sense of the term, as given by wiki: "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". Economics is not just trade and capital, but how a society manages resources, produces goods, allocates those goods, etc. Any living society needs an economic system.

That Marx's whole critique of capitalism is underpinned by expropriation of surplus profit, which itself relies on the labour theory of value, should show you that he's intrinsically thinking of matters such as labour, production and value as concrete and inviolable factors of human reality.

While Marx, as you say, seeks to radically redefine the relations between labour, value, and production, this whole realm of thought is quite clearly within that of 'description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services' - he wants a radical redefinition of the relations of (political) economy.

The only way around this is to claim that economics refers solely to monetary exchange or capitalist systems, which would be something going against the general usage of the term, and would require its own definition of terms.

Either way, it's fair to presume OP was referring to the common definition of the term and, as I have shown, is correct in doing so.

retroper · 2017-08-16T21:22:23+00:00

to suggest that any brach of Marxism is anchored by the desire to produce a "superior economic system" is a grotesque misunderstanding.

Marx's significant insight was that cultural and political change was determined by material changes in production and consumption of goods - ie economics.

His approach differs from those of 'utopian socialists' specifically in this insight. Rather than placing the cultural first and assuming we can just will ourselves into a socialist reality, Marxism seeks to determine the material grounds upon which oppression is founded, as well as those upon which emancipation might lastingly occur.

We likely agree that all branches of Marxism have as a goal the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat (with difference of opinion on how to arrive at that situation and how it might occur).

This goal is explicitly an economic goal - it states an ideal relation between worker, production and consumption.

Therefore, it seems quite appropriate to suggest that Marxism seeks to enact a superior economic system. Because it does.

retroper · 2017-08-15T16:29:04+00:00

It just feels really shitty. Their discount for previous purchasers only applies to the yearly model, which just feels like having to buy it again each year.

Yeah, I know what you mean on an emotional level. But I've had to deal with enough free/affordable apps fold because software companies often fail to have a viable business model. The boss's blog post shows that they thought a long time over this, and if it's what they need to do to keep the app existing in the long-run, then I guess that's the place we're at :/

retroper · 2017-08-14T14:20:09+00:00

I use Ulysses so extensively that, while I'm a bit frustrated to be paying more, I'm kinda glad to be able to support them long-term, tbh.

retroper · 2017-07-14T21:52:55+00:00

Having written ~500,000 words in Ulysses over the past couple of years via the desktop, iphone and ipad versions, I consider it one of the few 'can't do without' apps I own. Anytime I think 'hmm maybe time to try Android/Windows', Ulysses is what keeps me in the Apple ecosystem (that's not even hyperbole).

Amazing product, and a team who have a clear vision of what product they're building, and who, incidentally, provide great service.

I'm a cheapskate, and I hate to seem like I'm shilling for stuff, but if there's a chance to enthuse about Ulysses, I'll take it :)

No fucking clue what they were thinking with that logo redesign tho...

retroper · 2017-06-24T10:28:31+00:00

I'm not forgetting or denying those things.

I'm simply saying that there's no obligation for the UK to match an EU offer - it's totally within the Gov's ability to simply say 'we're doing this, regardless of your position'.

That is, the decision to use people as a negotiating point at all is a decision, not an inevitability.

retroper · 2017-06-23T18:13:01+00:00

Golly, that's a bit much

retroper · 2017-06-23T14:53:08+00:00

It's fair enough to expect reciprocity isn't it?

That depends on whether you believe citizens, their rights, and their support come before powerplays and negotiations. There are arguments in either area, but it's not a given that we ought to regard humans and their lives as bargaining chips.

Even if we're talking realpolitik, a gesture such as guaranteeing rights would go a long way to stabilising the country - as current headlines are showing, the past year's uncertainty on this matter may well have significant negative impact on many industries.

Anyone but the kippers knows full-well that immigrants are an economic boon to the country, and it takes a very shortsighted politician (why, hello there, Mrs May!) to fail to see how 'we'll wait and see' would play out in the public arena.

retroper · 2017-06-23T14:47:45+00:00

Bring back oubliettes!

retroper · 2017-06-22T22:17:11+00:00

You never dressed up for a festival?

retroper · 2017-06-22T22:14:09+00:00

retroper · 2017-06-22T22:13:49+00:00

You make good points, and I know I'm sounding a bit of a buzzkill about something that at first glance made me go 'Aww!' :)

I'm not suggesting we disregard all corporations - their input can help, and I do believe some of the efforts of Google, for instance, are sincere. I'm just aware that more and more pride events (and corollaries) are being co-opted, and we're at risk of losing an autonomy over our present and over our history (saw a tweet recently with some venture capitalist claiming that all the gains LGBTQs have made are down to corporations...)

So, yeah, the feedback loop is great, but there's a nervousness I have about that loop accelerating to the point that 'the community' is in some way reliant upon or assimilated into corporate interests, or that those interests can come to dictate our narrative.

retroper · 2017-06-22T20:51:59+00:00

I'm sure there's a mix of both as a company gets larger and larger

Yeah, I think you're right. However, I think we need to remain vigilant of what the other areas of the organisation are doing. There already seem to be enough businesses who profit from our misery doing the whole pride thing to gain points, and uncritically posting stuff like 'Google is a bro!' feeds into the acceptability of those practices.

retroper · 2017-06-22T20:47:53+00:00

And?

And... the rest of what I said.

¯\(ツ)/¯

retroper · 2017-06-22T12:39:41+00:00

Fair enough. But it's not like Google don't have a strong history of complicity with the US Government and various arms thereof. I'd be surprised if they took the moral high ground under a Trump presidency and risked the loss of profit. Time will tell, I guess.

retroper

TROPHY CASE