Author Topic: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash  (Read 15552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6142
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2018, 07:30:26 PM »
Back in the day, words like "nerd," "geek," "dork," and "dweeb" were all shameful slurs, certainly not the kind of epithet one would ever actively self-identify as.

...but we are no longer back in the day. I'm almost 50. I played red- and blue- box D&D when I was 9 or 10. Nerd is no longer a pejorative because we took over the world.

That's a quaint interpretation, but I disagree. The n-word didn't cease to be a pejorative in the US when we had a black president.

African-Americans use the n-word (spelled slightly differently if you want to be technical) to refer to themselves, but it is still not acceptable for white American to use it, and these two circumstances are not contradictory. In contrast, I know of no self-described nerds who would object to non-nerds calling us that. So your analogy isn't quite appropriate.

You are welcome to your opinion. I have been able to work through and let go of the pain of my childhood trauma, as have many other nerds. We have been raising nerd children for decades. They will have their own pain, of course, but need shame is much lower on the list.

Yeah, I should probably walk that one back a little. It's really not fair to compare a childhood taunt to a vile racist slur redolent of hundreds of years of oppression that persists to this day. Looking back at that comparison, I'm feeling a bit ashamed of myself. 

And I agree that the word "nerd" has indeed been reclaimed somewhat. Even back in the '80s we had movies like Real Genius and Revenge of the Nerds that celebrated young people who sought education for its own sake. Then, during the tech boom of the late '90s, "the nerds inherit the Earth" became a popular trope. Apparently, everybody loves you so long as you're putting money in their hands. Nowadays, everybody loves their smartphones, video games and adolescent power fantasies, and visionary "nerd" CEOs are the heroes of our economy.

You and I are at the age where we can laugh it off if somebody were to call us a "nerd." But for a kid, it's hurtful to be called by any name that ostracizes them from the group. It's not even about the name itself, it's about being targeted for ridicule. The kids with the athletic skills, the good looks, the money and the social skills will always be more popular than the one who studies hard and cultivates a range of non-mainstream interests.

Our culture is changing with respect to technology. Despite the prevalence of tech, we're currently in the midst of an anti-intellectual backlash. Most kids aren't "nerds" in the same sense that you and I were in our youth. Today's children have never known a time without ubiquitous Internet and mobile devices. To them, being connected online is roughly analogous to what television and the regular ol' land line telephone was to us in our youth. When we had the opportunity to get our hands on computers, we couldn't wait to fiddle around, learn programming, and make them do what we wanted. But unlike our generation, today's kids take them for granted. They're mostly passive consumers instead of tech hobbyists.

I suppose that's why I still find it pandering and annoying to hear "nerd" turned into a marketing term to hawk mainstream movies, TV shows and videogames. Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety.

There are a lot of kids in the maker movement. Arduino and Raspberry Pi and such have sold by the millions, and not only to adults. My 7 year old daughter is learning programming concept by making animated movies on her iPad. She likes tabletop RPGs I run for her and her friends. Her classmates spent the spring coming up with little pranks - like spicy gummy worms - as a good natured response to some bullying in the class. All the girls collect LOL dolls obsessively. They all know the Pokemon to an absurd degree.

Nerdy behaviours are alive and well where I live in Toronto. We usually provide nearly adequate funding to schools, though.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 14452
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2018, 07:38:16 PM »
People dont bat an eye at my knowledge of obscure DC characters, but the minute I pull out my swiss army knife to solve a problem or the needle and thread in my wallet to sew a button, people take the piss😂

But then a week later, they ask to borrow one or the other.

Offline Vicarious

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #92 on: August 19, 2018, 05:51:30 AM »
Believing one side based on gender, ethnicity or perceived social status while dismissing the other side for similar reasons is pretty much the opposite of the modern justice system in most states we’d like to live in. This is a reversion to mob justice based on personal biases, the very thing a court of justice is trying to counteract, but internet street justice seems to be all the rage these days and I think it’s dangerous. Very few skeptics itt.

Online brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6142
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #93 on: August 19, 2018, 10:31:45 AM »
I didn't really intend to write a wall of text here, but here it is.

tl;dr: Your statements ignore the context of sexual assault resulting in a framing error that inappropriately recasts men as victims.

I'm trying out superscripted notes here rather than splitting this into many quotes, but I've attempted to write this so you don't have to keep referring to the referenced statements as you read.

Believing one side based on gender, ethnicity or perceived social status while dismissing the other side for similar reasons1 is pretty much the opposite of the modern justice system in most states we’d like to live in.2 This is a reversion to mob justice based on personal biases,3 the very thing a court of justice is trying to counteract,4 but internet street justice seems to be all the rage these days5 and I think it’s dangerous.6 Very few skeptics itt.7

I am assuming that your reference to 'one side' refers to 'women who claim to have been sexually assaulted' and the 'other side' refers to 'men who deny accusations of sexual assault'. If my assumption is wrong you can ignore everything that follows. Also I use "#MeToo" as shorthand for the current outrage and cultural change and internet mob and so on, especially from (3) onward.

1Believing one side based on demographics alone is pretty heinous, so your opening argument is true -- as far as it goes. That is not the situation we are discussing, however. We are talking about sexual assault. This is a crime with a long history that meaningful discussion should not ignore. To do so is to (quite literally) take the discussion out of context.

The omitted context is a persistent systemic bias for men and against women in claims of sexual assault. We are discussing police, courts, and legislators who accept claims of innocence based on gender, ethnicity or perceived social status - that would be the men - while dismissing women's claims for similar reasons. To be fair, the systemic biases in the legal system are reflections of deep currents in the way power is distributed in culture. They are not leading the charge for systemic bias, as it were. Regardless of the root cause, the systemic problem is real and it harms (or at least devalues) about half the population every day.

2If our "modern justice system" had fair laws that were enforced and judged fairly, #MeToo would not have any reason to exist in "most states we'd like to live in." There would be no motivation to form a mob.

It seems to me that we want fair and equitable laws, enforcement, and judgment. These are things we do not have today. The path to achieving them does not start within the system. It starts with social and economic pressure on lawmakers, judges, and police. We are in a moment where there is public outrage over the aforementioned systemic biases, and it is putting the aforementioned pressure on the people who embody the legal system.

3If you frame #MeToo without context it does look like lynching the innocent. If you frame #MeToo in context it is the emergence of a societal demand for an end to sexual assault and punishment for sexual assault. The legal system that is supposed to apply equally to all demonstrably does not. Taken in context this mob isn't founded on personal bias. It is founded on the repeated personal experiences of sexual assault on about half the population.

Before someone says, #NotAllMen or similar: you're correct. Not all men sexually assault women. Unfortunately, enough men assault women often enough that it is plausible that any man could sexually assault any woman.

4Moving on to the middle of the second sentence, let's look at what the legal system is and it's purpose.

The legal system is a cultural technology that humans have kludged together over thousands of years. Where most of us live it is supposed prevent crimes and punish criminals. It contains and controls the societal desire for justice and vengeance. The rage that mobs embody is a manifestation of these same drives.

The legal system is not supposed to prevent society rising up in a rage at injustice. It is not supposed to persistently ignore crimes being committed by many members of a demographic group.

To say that mob justice is what "a court of justice is trying to counteract" is incorrect. If a mob engages in criminal activity the legal system should spring into action to prevent crime and punish criminals. If a mob engages in basically anything else the legal system is not relevant.

5When you call out 'internet street justice' how is it distinct the 'street justice' has existed for all of recorded history? 6What do you think is dangerous?

If you mean 'mobs are dangerous', well sure. When a lot of angry people lash out there's power behind the punch. It's likely to do some damage. The legal system has demonstrated a persistent inability to address sexual assault as a serious crime deserving of serious attention, and an internet mob is filling that gap with cultural Molotov Cocktails and online IEDs. While this is definitely harmful and causes collateral damage, is it more orless destructive than the gap itself? We're already seeing elements of the mob separating themselves from the attacks, as with Peter Gunn.

7What does "itt" mean?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3693
  • I know you know I know
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #94 on: August 20, 2018, 12:52:46 PM »
Brilligtove:  The content of your message was well spoken and on point, and your formatting was unbelievable.  Nice work!
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 13149
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #95 on: August 20, 2018, 01:08:52 PM »
Brilligtove:  The content of your message was well spoken and on point, and your formatting was unbelievable.  Nice work!

Agreed.

7What does "itt" mean?

I can't vouch for anything else Vicarious spewed, but "itt" means "in this thread"

Offline Vicarious

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #96 on: August 20, 2018, 03:21:47 PM »
tl;dr: Your statements ignore the context of sexual assault resulting in a framing error that inappropriately recasts men as victims.

The core of your argument is a mischaracterization of my point, so no need to delve further until we agree on the premise. I have not tried to frame men as victims, I say there could be possible male victims were we to deliberately introduce bias against them in the court of law. If you intentionally add bias in favour of one group in a system that should strive to eliminate ALL bias, you are setting a dangerous presidence (regarding nr 6).

The movie "Jagten" with Mads Mikkelsen depicts this exact form of street law in a horrific manner when a male kindergarden worker gets accused, wrongfully, of pedophilia by one of the children and how this propagates through the adults in the the village where he lives into a witch hunt.

What I would like to know though is, exactly how is the current justice system biased against women? You have a lot of premises that you seem to take for granted and I would like to know what substantiates them. 


Online brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6142
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #97 on: August 20, 2018, 06:04:53 PM »
TBH I'm surprised that you are unaware of systemic biases against women in the legal system. One of the first Google results for "systemic bias women law" was this paper: https://library.law.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/media/Final_Paper_Women%27s%20International%20Human%20Rights_Howard.pdf

ETA: That one happens to be focussed on domestic violence, but many of the same factors exist in the domain of sexual assault.

As for mischaracterization, see note 3, especially the second paragraph. Well, and the rest. The TL;DR necessarily provides no arguements or nuance.

Brilligtove:  The content of your message was well spoken and on point, and your formatting was unbelievable.  Nice work!

Agreed.

7What does "itt" mean?

I can't vouch for anything else Vicarious spewed, but "itt" means "in this thread"

Very kind, both of you. :)
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 06:11:43 PM by brilligtove »
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline Redamare

  • Deleted
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *
  • Posts: 4206
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #98 on: August 20, 2018, 08:32:07 PM »
I really do consider the rights of the accused to be something like sacred. And, of course, I apply that to accused theives, murderers, child molesters, even Paul Manafort.

We're very fortunate that, in most cases, respecting these rights still leaves lots of room for us to make real effort to catch and convict criminals, usually without relying exclusively on the testimony of a single adult person whose ultimate motives can never really be known.

This doesn't work like we'd like when it comes to sexual assault, though. It's too easy to reduce it to a literal "he said she said" , which our jurisprudence is hesitant to cope with. It doesn't provide justice to the victims as constructed.

We need to change it, but it doesn't follow from any of this that the system was per se biased against women or devalued their perspective. I'm not saying other evidence of society systemically reacting to gender with bias, including in ways that devalue women's perspectives, doesn't exist. I'm just not sure that it's productive to express it in those terms, or accurate, in this case.

You may be tempted to respond that, since this affects women the way it does, it is sexism per se by definition. I'm not comfortable with this. Apart from disregarding male victims of assault, this view is confrontational towards the people who need to get on board if anything is going to change.

Don't assume malice or stupidity when commitment to other principles will suffice. Principles that really were a vast improvement when introduced.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Online brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6142
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #99 on: August 21, 2018, 09:54:25 AM »
Rough night. No footnote formatting today, and brevity suffers from sleep deprivation. Please forgive logorrhea.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here, though some of it makes me uncomfortable. There are a few points to consider though.

...it doesn't follow from any of this that the system was per se biased against women or devalued their perspective. I'm not saying other evidence of society systemically reacting to gender with bias, including in ways that devalue women's perspectives, doesn't exist. I'm just not sure that it's productive to express it in those terms, or accurate, in this case.

Some definitions of terms for clarity:
  • System: The laws and lawmakers, judges and lawyers, and police that all act together to transform some inputs into outputs. Key inputs are the accused and accusers. Key outputs are criminals (accused of abuser and convicted of a crime), victims of criminals, and innocent people (not convicted of any crime).
  • Context: Any factors that are external to the system but which also influence or constrain the system. This includes many factors, such as culture, religion, politics, history, economics... the list goes on.

I think we agree that a bias against women exists with respect to sexual assault. The question you raise is where it exists: in the system or in the context? I say both, but lets assume that the system ignores the sex of the inputs - accused and accusers. Unfortunately the system can still institutionalize a bias that disproportionately effects one sex because of contextual factors. An example would be having a stadium with exactly the same number of bathroom stalls for men  andwomen. (Let's ignore all other factors like accessibility and non-binary sexes for this thought experiment.) At an event with equal numbers of men and women, women will have a very different bathroom experience than men.

In the case of sexual assault, the context includes a vastly larger number of sexual assaults by men on women than any other [genter] on [gender]. As such, the system will have many more women as accusers and men as accused. As you noted, our jurisprudence doesn't deal with 'take my word for it' very well, so independent of any other factor, many more instances of sexual assault against women will not result in the accused being turned into criminals.

You argued, "...it doesn't follow from any of this that the system was per se biased against women..." and "I'm just not sure that it's productive to express it in those terms, or accurate, in this case." I'm arguing that the system is implicitly biased against women because the system does not account for at least one critical contextual influencer. While the idealistic solution would be to eliminate the contextual problem - stop men assaulting women! - that is not realistic without changes to the system, since the system also influences the context. To that extent I think it is productive to examine the system for places that implicit biases can be mitigated.

You may be tempted to respond that, since this affects women the way it does, it is sexism per se by definition. I'm not comfortable with this.

I'm not tempted to say this is sexism, though I can see arguments for that position.

Apart from disregarding male victims of assault, this view is confrontational towards the people who need to get on board if anything is going to change.

If the system is unbiased, as you argued above, it ignores all victims of assault with equal fervour (because of jurisprudence). There just happen to be a ton more women victims run through the system. I suppose we could balance this out by drastically increasing the number of women who sexually assault men? (cough cough modest proposal cough)

Don't assume malice or stupidity when commitment to other principles will suffice. Principles that really were a vast improvement when introduced.

I don't think I have assumed malice or stupidity, nor questioned the current or historical value of the system or its principles. I have certainly seen arguments based on all of these though. Right now I would say that the fact that the current system and context are better that what came before them is of vanishingly small significance to finding a way to improve the current system and context. Not totally irrelevant because 'doomed to repeat' and such, but nearly a red herring in terms of where effort can be applied to make it more likely that the system turns real abusers into convicted criminals.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1868
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2018, 05:34:27 PM »
The idea that it is men who rape, and that men want it all the time, can make for more of a threshold before men report assault and rape, not feeling they'll be believed or understood.

I'm not keeping statistics, but I have noticed some cases recently of men and women in positions of power who get sentenced to probation and no jail time for having systematically abused patients or underage students. The challenge of finding out what really happened is one thing, but there does seem to be a reluctance to actually deal with the crimes of authority figures once they've been documented.

Offline Vicarious

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) is also trash
« Reply #101 on: September 14, 2018, 09:11:34 AM »
The idea that it is men who rape, and that men want it all the time, can make for more of a threshold before men report assault and rape, not feeling they'll be believed or understood.

I'm not keeping statistics, but I have noticed some cases recently of men and women in positions of power who get sentenced to probation and no jail time for having systematically abused patients or underage students. The challenge of finding out what really happened is one thing, but there does seem to be a reluctance to actually deal with the crimes of authority figures once they've been documented.

Asia Argento case is a recent and vile example.

I’m not knowledgeable about women being treated unfairly in the justice system although I’m certain they are, just like men are on average given longer sentences, get longer sentences for same offenses like DUI’s and are less likely to get child custody. We should work to diminish these differences but not at the expense of basic principles of presumption of innocence, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and fairness. If two people are drunk and have sex, you can’t be presumed guilty based on you’re gender in a rape case. If she’s too drunk to consent, you may be also and this should be investigated on a case by case basis, not by knowingly introducing bias into the courts.

 

personate-rain