The people that are most likely to insert a sin or a vice or a ethics accusation at people loudly and often or when it makes the least sense are the people who are thinking about it constantly. For some of those people, the reason they think of it constantly is that it is there job to think about it, like law enforcement, journalists, social workers, etc. and they are trained to see the signs everywhere. For some others, they have personal traumas that cause them to see that trauma reflected at them at the slightest trigger.

But the other people, by and large, are those who are thinking about it constantly because they are constantly craving it and/or trying to find ways to get it. This is the “every accusation is an admission” crowd. Your sister in law who is obsessed with calling people out as thieves, who will swipe cash off your night stand without hesitation. Your “gays will burn in hell” preachers that get caught soliciting male prostitutes. Your “trans people are groomers” politicians who get arrested for CSAM. Whether it is shame over their desires that makes them genuinely angry or an attempt at subterfuge by going over the top against it so they don’t get in trouble, they are obsessed with the subject to the point that they either bring it up all the time or they shoehorn it in seemingly out of nowhere.

So any time I see someone like Elon, who has absolutely nothing to go on but a white guy existing in Thailand and children being involved, immediately come to the association of pedophilia… well he’s not a sex crimes cop or journalist is he? It makes me feel very confident that either he was a victim of child sex abuse, or someone who might be a perpetrator of it, or both (as is unfortunately very common). Pair that with his later revealed desires to go to Epstein’s island, and, frankly, what I would perceive as a halting in his maturation from adolescence (genuinely think he has Peter Pan syndrome) which can be caused by childhood trauma, I really wonder if it is both.

Not if you think socialist won’t get enough/majority support. There is still a spoiler effect with ranked choice due to the elimination.

Imagine socialist gets 35% of first choice, dem gets 28%, republican gets 47%. Dem gets dropped but only 6% of the 28% also ranked the socialist while 25% of socialist first voters seconded dems. Then republican wins even though dems had more support overall. If you are being strategic and expect that sort of outcome, even if you prefer the socialist, you still might ranke the dem as a 1 to prevent that occurrence and ensure that at least your second choice wins.

Approval is more idealistic, but it also incentivizes idealism and cooperation. If people don’t approve of you or the job you have done, they don’t vote for you when they have a better alternative. And people of different parties can campaign together, boost one another, cooperate to get stuff done, etc. and boost their own approval numbers in the process.

And I don’t hate the issues based idea, so long as the tests, questions, and results are not controlled by any political bodies and have completely open processes for oversight. And there is also no reason that such compatibility and approval voting couldn’t coexist either. In that case the approval would be based on the policy positions, not the individual. There are kinks to work out there. For example, if someone lies on the tests, or you agree with them on the majority of the policies, but have other valid reasons to not support them like a particularly important policy for you that they differ on, or they have a criminal history, etc.

It’s an epidemic

Well first, the middle is where it should be pushed if representational goverment is the goal. They should represent the most people. Not the most popular minority group on election day. Not your politics over everyone else’s no matter what. But also, it can work in favor of the the more extreme candidate too when the electorate feels like the more central, safer option has the better chance and vote accordingly.

Example, the Socialist candidate is charismatic, popular, and has good ideas, but the term socialism leaves people uneasy or unsure if they can get enough support. So under Ranked Choice, many hedge their bets and vote Democrat as their first rank and the socialist as their second. 12% for as first rank for the socialist, 55% for the democrat, and 33% for the republican. After runoff, the socialist is elminated and dems win. But with approval, 45% of the 55% of dems actually approve of the socialist. Now the socialist has 57% support. The results then entirely hinge on on how many socialist first voters also support dems.

True. Ranked choice is progress. My problem with it is that still makes polarizing politics an advantage.

Example: 3 candidates run, A is leftwing, B is more center (leftwing or right leaning), C is right wing. A and C both get 40% of rank 1 votes because they benefit from the polarized atmosphere, B only gets 20% of rank 1, so they are eliminated and their voters are run off to either A, C or dropped if they didn’t pick a second candidate.

Say after runoff A has 44%, and C has 45%. Or vice versa, it doesn’t matter. The winner doesn’t even have support of the majority of voters and polarized politics continues to be an advantage. But if you look at those who voted for A or C as their first choice, of the 40% for A 25% had B as their second, and of the 40% for C 18% had B as their second. So 43% of the voters gave a ranked 2 vote for B and 20% gave a ranked 1.

Approval voting is similar to ranked choice where you vote for every candidate you would be happy with. But you don’t rank them and there is not elimination and runoff. You just give 1 vote to every candidate you would approve of and the highest wins. So let’s look at the results with approval voting.

A has 44% approval. C has 45% approval. And B has 63% approval. B is the clear winner, despite being the first eliminated in Ranked Choice.

If the goal is to have a representational government that is approved of by the governed, where oppositional polarizing politics and manipulation holds less sway, then Approval voting is the goal to shoot for.

Approval voting, please.

So just to be clear, I was not saying it is objectively good. No piece of media is objectively good. Qualitative goodness is an inherently subjective matter.

As I said, in my very first reply in this chain, whether or not you find it good is entirely a matter of taste. OP had stated that it is not good, which is fine if that is their opinion. But they did so in a way that implies disbelief that others feel differently. That the people defending a site that they hold special due to their fandom are wrong, not because it is a fictional character who fictionally died on a specific spot (as I feel), but because it is wrong to like the story at all.

Again, OP is absolutely free to feel about the story anyway that they want, as is anyone else. But they are not objectively right in that opinion, and their incredulity that other disagree with them is silly as it is incredibly, famously, popular. The popularity of the franchise, in itself, does objectively indicate that a lot of people do feel very differently from them about the franchise. Again, that does not mean that it is objectively good. That means that, objectively, many people think that it is good. Goodness is a subjective qualitative judgement. Popularity is a more quantitative measure of the relative number of people who have judged something to be good. And gross financial success is an objective metric of that Popularity.

Now, as for my opinion on the series, I grew up reading the books. In fact, they were the first chapter books I ever brought myself to actually read of my own volition. As such, I have a fair amount of nostalgia for them. Given I was a child, and as a child, I enjoyed them greatly, I really think it is silly to claim that they are “not even good children’s books”. I enjoyed the messaging about selflessness and heroism. I enjoyed the idea of flying around on a broom a lot. I enjoyed seeing a kid who had grown up with absolutely nothing and told he was nothing overcome that to find out that he was special and had something that others would appreciate.

As an adult, I do find some of the elements a bit distasteful. Most of the things about the House Elves are super problematic (though, Dobby is the least problematic example of them). The race-coded stuff, especially the goblins, is concerning now that I can recognize those things. I do think some of the concern about character names for non-white characters, like Cho Chang, is a bit overblown, but I’ll grant people their feelings over it. Narratively, some of the character decisions are a bit contrived or full-on stupid sometimes. Don’t get me started on the entire climax of the 5th book. And the rules or lack there of around the soft magic system leaves some character choices making no sense.

Then there is the vile bitch author herself who has long since surpassed the retchedness of her Umbridge character. It certainly leaves a disgusting taint on the IP. And I do not begrudge anyone from wanting nothing to do with the property since her revelations as a bigot. I certainly won’t ever provide her another dime in my life.

But I am unable to pretend that the books were bad, that they weren’t formative in my childhood, that they don’t still mean something to me and that I don’t enjoy them overall. As far as I see it, the themes of those books, that people of all sorts are good on the whole, that everyone deserves respect until proven otherwise, that authority doesn’t necessarily deserve respect in itself, that doing good is more important than selling a good image, that bravery and friendship are virtues, that racist pricks can get fucked, that women are as, or often more, smart, brave, talented, and capable as men, that we can honor our dead by carrying on the lessons they taught us and the sacrifices they made for us… they supersede whatever stupid shit that billionaire asshole says these days. They are beyond her.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. You can think what you want of me too. That’s how I feel.

You know you are being disingenuous. You know plenty of people enjoy(ed) the series. This is a stupid pedantic argument.

Fan merch doesn’t sell for “fine”. Theme parks aren’t floated on hate-watching. People don’t spend $30 billion ironically. Yea, those things factor in, but they are clearly not the main drivers. And flaws do not make a work not good overall. I’m the first to admit it is flawed, for every reason you mentioned and more. But none of that makes it bad.

Popular doesn’t mean great, of course, but it does mean it was at least good enough to be enjoyed by a lot of people. If it were objectively bad, as in it had no good qualities at all, it wouldn’t be popular.

Even you, when defending the book, can only point to its popularity as an argument.

Well, that’s a bad assumption. I was appealing to it popularity and financial value because that is a real objective measure that indicates that people liked the series. I didn’t argue with someone on the internet who declared that the books were bad, full stop, over my subjective perception of its merits and quality becuase that is a pointless argument to have. Not to mention, likely one to be met with open hostility on Lemmy. No thanks.

Have you read Animorphs? Those books were bought entirely by people judging them based on their cover. They have kids on them turning into a different animal on each. That just looked cool. If I had had the money for it, I too would have collected them, entirely based on the animals on the cover (I’ll take the dog, the hawk, and the dolphin, thanks). 99% of kids who bought them would have done so for the exact same reason.

The actual story is some of the least kid-friendly I’ve ever heard. It’s filled with body horror, cosmic horror, guerilla warfare and espionage with child soldiers, children losing their bodies, children losing their minds through torture, kids having existential crises after witnessing and participating horrific acts of war, countless murders of loved ones, planet scale genocide, etc. It’s not for normies. I don’t know anyone personally that has actually read the whole series, including myself. I have watched a guy on YouTube go over the plot in summary and… holy fuck. Those books are darker than anything I’ve read as an adult.

It’s, of course, a matter of taste whether or not you find them good. But let’s not pretend that we’re not talking about one of he most popular, best-selling children’s book series of all time that spawned a 30+ billion dollar franchise of movies, merch, games, and a theme park. Plenty of people found them plenty good enough to generate that big of a financial success.

My wife was arguing with her father, who has 4 daughters, that his stance on abortion could get one of his daughters killed should she ever have an ectopic pregnancy or other medical complications from a pregnancy that needs to be terminated. His response was that if her or her sisters ever absolutely needed an abortion, he had the money to make sure they got one. He saw absolutely nothing of concern with that response or the fact that plenty of less well off fathers would lose their daughters that did not have his financial privilege. It drives me absolutely insane how selfish Consevatives can be. Truly, the older I get, the more it seems the difference between conservatives and leftists is that the former can’t/won’t/don’t care to see past the concerns of themselves and their immediate loved ones.

Because nothing could be more objectively and obviously true

Regarding the knitting thing, I’ll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.

It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I’m inclined to give grace to someone for that.

Again, I didn’t see the comments on HRT either, and I don’t much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn’t speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don’t think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you’ve been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don’t fully understand, and you don’t always know what you don’t know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don’t know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can’t expect that much else from a YouTuber.

My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default.

I don’t think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.

Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.

It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he’s going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.

Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.

If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.

Edit: Also, I’m interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven’t seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I’m curious what I may have missed.

There’s nothing wrong with reading mein kampf until you start considering it art.

Your opinion is bad then. And I realize the irony of saying that with my username.

The “centrist”/right-leaning/neo-liberal democrats would rather rip the party in half than to use this swell of popular support for leftist ideals to win elections and make real change. The old Dems will flail and writhe and hurt themselves in confusion as the old guard dies and change happens whether they like it or not. They’ll try to kick leftists out, jump ship themselves (going independent, forming a new third party, merging with libertarians, or maybe going all the way to going Republican), and bomb the entire party with infighting, fixing nominations with anti-democratic party tricks, and intentionally letting republicans win rather than supporting a socialist candidate. Can’t wait for this cluster fuck.