Society's Ills - A study in the perceived inequalities between the "haves" and the "have nots" - The Bear and Badger

Minnesänger

Lord_Griff wrote:

Minnesänger wrote:

And if anyone here mispronounces Xi I’m not calling them racist. But if you’re part of a news organisation that writes or speaks that name dozens of times a day and still can’t find 20 minutes to check it...

I am anti cultural appropriation... Bonnet de douche Cinty.

Lol. Cool.

I’ve noticed not a single person here has actually engaged the point besides Yoss. Now, with Yoss I’d still disagree - how we treat words in foreign languages has changed in the last 50 years and the Paris example goes far beyond that - but at least he engaged.

Everyone else has dismissed by focussing on mistakes in my original statements (which I’ve admitted) or by just trying to go for lol jokes gags.

Does anyone not actually think that press should be pronouncing the name of a foreign leader who came to power in the mid-2010s correctly and that repeated mistakes of the same ilk implies they’re all imitating each other?

Lord_Griff

I get what you are saying.

Should you lisp when speaking Spanish?

What about sounds that are alien to people?

Minnesänger

I addressed alien sounds - the example I used was 粗 - in my post. Xi’s name is not an example of that.

poprock

I’ve never had reason to say Xi Jinping’s name out loud, so I have no skin in this game. And hey, I’ve learned today that it should be pronounced ‘Shee’ if I ever do need to say it. So thanks.

Yossarian

It may simply be a case of choosing the pronunciation that you believe is most likely to be understood by the majority of your audience over choosing the one that’s most accurate.

Yossarian

Although, the BBC pronunciation guide gives shee.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2012/11/how_to_say_chinese_leaders.shtml

Lord_Griff

Minnesänger wrote:

I addressed alien sounds - the example I used was 粗 - in my post. Xi’s name is not an example of that.

Fair point

Minnesänger

Yossarian wrote:

Although, the BBC pronunciation guide gives shee.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2012/11/how_to_say_chinese_leaders.shtml

Aye. It’s not unnatural, not hard to fact-check and it should be bread and butter.

Some get it right but the number that get it wrong bothers me and I’m no fan of him in particular. He’s a brute and he’s dangerous not just to the world but to the Chinese people.

Minnesänger

Sorry if I’ve been antagonist in this thread - I’ve talked a lot about moderate language and, once again, I’ve been a hypocrite.

I stand by the point about easy fact-checking but I never meant to attack anyone here personally.

Minnesänger

Man, China in general is fucking complicated.

SpaceGazelle

You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee.

Minnesänger

SpaceGazelle wrote:

You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee.

If we’re gonna do lols, this is the benchmark.

nick_md

Reminds me of this article I read last month:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50137955

I've never heard anyone pronounce Mane's name as it's described there.

acemuzzy

Hard to properly engage when I'm at with

For me it indicates not a good reporter, even an ignorant one, but it rarely particularly annoys me, and I've never thought of it as racist per we. But that's probably because when I'm on the receiving end of stuff like that is when I'm overseas and chilled etc so it amuses rather than bothers. Bobby Robson mispronouncing footballers names is another example where I just kinda ignore it or chuckle/groan. I think the world has bigger problems.

Diluted Dante

What did Bobby Robson call you Shola?

Carl Court.

Facewon

hunk wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/history-as-a-giant-data-set-how-analysing-the-past-could-help-save-the-future

Remember how I always go on about society repeating its mistakes and everyone's walking blind in circles? That's because everything in history is cyclical. Baby booms, prosperity, decline, strife, revolution. Record history, build a database, let AI have a go at your datasets to make sense of it all and hope you can identify relevant factors to break the cycle of violent revolution.

Very clever, very necessary.

Yeah, Nah. I'll read further shortly, but this falls down the exact same hole as Harris and his moral landscape shtick.

Like Harris didn't do the reading around what philosophers had already said around arguments like his, so these sciencebros seem incapable of seeing what historians have already worked through.

This stuff is inevitably the equivalent of click bait youtube vids with titles like "What THEY won't tell you about X!"

Inevitably, as soon as you scratch the surface, even a little, whatever supposed dirty secret or new idea is being raised has been asked and answered and dissected for 50 years.

For another good recent example of bs history, see that dumb article about how changes to marriage law in the 15th century created individualism and democracy.

(I may have messed up exact title/subject there, but it was something similar, and fuck me if it didn't require some monolithic cherry picking of data sets.)

Anyhoo, everyone follow Ted McCormick on twitter.

Facewon

In fairness, the article is doing a good job of balancing arguments, but as per, framed as science/data/precision vs touchy feely hippy we can't know guys. When it's often the "haters" who are pointing out the very obvious and human biases and omissions of inconvenient stuff.

Also, I do agree with the general "let's get cross disciplinary people!" vibe.

Facewon

https://twitter.com/lottelydia/status/1194158496343822337?s=19
Thread starts in link above, but review of similar big data book on history here...

"(Digital humanities is a good thing, but ‘cliometrics’ is nonsense. And this take has many of the problems that I wrote about reviewing Niall Ferguson’s networks book — it’s using ‘data’ to avoid engaging with the messiness of historical interpretation) https://t.co/nUyJrDPtNV https://t.co/a7tTDtDQ2s"

Plenty of examples of what gets left out in these things.

Facewon

Now, I know this is not about the article you have linked, but the pattern is clear.

See this from the review above....

"Early in the book, Ferguson argues that historians have long paid too much attention to hierarchies and not enough to networks; he thinks that this is because networks lack “readily accessible archives”. If this were true, it would be a central criticism of the discipline. But it is only true if you discount huge swathes of historical scholarship. Social history, at its heart, focuses on the networks and connections between ordinary people rather than the hierarchies of power and politics; gender history has always prioritised interpersonal connections; imperial history focuses increasingly on the multiple overlapping linkages between metropole and periphery. These fields use creative approaches to sources that move away from those found in the “readily accessible archives” of governments and diplomats. Ferguson briefly acknowledges the existence of prosopography, which historians have used to trace the connections between people and ideas for decades, but dismisses it as “collective biography”. In the same paragraph, he rejects the work of “social(ist) historians” as simply narrating “rising and falling classes”. This is odd, given social historians’ enthusiasm for using social science methodology and quantitative methods in their research."

I could go and find fundamentally the same criticism in reviews of Jarod diamond's stuff.

And a couple of others recently.

Anyhoo.

hunk

Facewon wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/history-as-a-giant-data-set-how-analysing-the-past-could-help-save-the-future Remember how I always go on about society repeating its mistakes and everyone's walking blind in circles? That's because everything in history is cyclical. Baby booms, prosperity, decline, strife, revolution. Record history, build a database, let AI have a go at your datasets to make sense of it all and hope you can identify relevant factors to break the cycle of violent revolution. Very clever, very necessary.

Yeah, Nah. I'll read further shortly, but this falls down the exact same hole as Harris and his moral landscape shtick. Like Harris didn't do the reading around what philosophers had already said around arguments like his, so these sciencebros seem incapable of seeing what historians have already worked through. This stuff is inevitably the equivalent of click bait youtube vids with titles like "What THEY won't tell you about X!" Inevitably, as soon as you scratch the surface, even a little, whatever supposed dirty secret or new idea is being raised has been asked and answered and dissected for 50 years. For another good recent example of bs history, see that dumb article about how changes to marriage law in the 15th century created individualism and democracy. (I may have messed up exact title/subject there, but it was something similar, and fuck me if it didn't require some monolithic cherry picking of data sets.) Anyhoo, everyone follow Ted McCormick on twitter.

That is a bit harsh as I don't believe Peter Turchin to be a Sam Harris. I may be wrong though I'd have to read up on him.

Yes he's using AI and big data to identify factors which determine the stability of a society but that doesn't mean he's a conservative zealot who's blind to his own internal bias (hello Harris!). I agree, traditional research must and should not be dismissed. AI is yet another tool for researchers to gain insight in the stability of a society.

Facewon

hunk wrote:

[That is a bit harsh as I don't believe Peter Turchin to be a Sam Harris.

See follow up posts. I softened a little, but point stands.

hunk

Ah, objective history. Gotcha!
The term is obviously an oxymoron and one should always be careful for revisionist history and internal biases with AI.

That doesn't mean his angle on history (society described using mathematical parameters) isn't a valid approach. It allows one to identify where things go south when a society goes belly up.
The big issue here obviously being 'relevant parameters' and dodgy biased AI algorithms which can lead to revisionist history.

But still, think of the application in simulation and games. A simulation of the rise of Rome and it's downfall with all the socio economic variables in place. Same for nazi Germany or China's Qing dynasty. Things get interesting when one alters parameters and see if one can change the outcome.

But yeah, many many pitfalls to this approach. Cons will obviously try to exploit it in due time with appropriate propaganda. Just a matter of time before they do. Worst case scenario: the ultra rich will use their model as excuse/mandate to intervene in politics; Trump and Brexit being prime examples.

Diluted Dante

Not sure where else to post this, but the CWU have lost a High Court battle over strike action, after they recorded the most overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action since the Tories ludicrous strike breaking rules were brought in. 97% on a turnout of 76%.

LivDiv

Were there confirmed dates for the strike? All I can find is "Christmas". If that includes the lead up to the election, which they had previously refused to deny, then I think it is right to block the strike.
Otherwise not.

Diluted Dante

No, they hadn't confirmed any date, but Royal Mail were scaremongering they they were planning to to it in the lead upto the election.

Also workers were balloted before an election was called, so I don't have much sympathy for that argument. Perhaps if it were a state owned company...

LivDiv

They should have set a date post (pun) election once the election was announced.
The right to strike isn't as important as the right to vote.

LivDiv

Thing in the news about the standards of rentals.
The landlords representatives keep peddling the statistic that 84% of tenants are satisfied.

That is a horrific number. 16% of people who rent are miserable in their homes, their place of safety and comfort. That is disgusting.

GurtTractor

This was playing again on NTS earlier - https://www.nts.live/shows/timeisaway/episodes/time-is-away-18th-june-2018

With East London in the midst of planned urban regeneration, on the site of the 2012 Olympic Games, Time is Away considers the cautionary tale of the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). Contributions from Doreen Massey, David Harvey, William Raban, the LDDC and SPLASH (South Poplar & Limehouse Action for Secure Housing) reveal who and what gets left behind when cities privilege enterprise zones over community and quality of life.

A meandering musical soundscape, with many spoken word records about the Docklands development, as well as voices of those displaced and disenfranchised by it. I think I'll listen again, quite interesting, might be particularly so for those living in or around London or who follow that stuff.

Quite a chilled Sunday listen.

LivDiv

Julian Richer fighting the good fight again.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/19/richer-sounds-founder-bankrolls-push-to-end-zero-hours-contracts

Facewon

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-prophecies-of-jane-jacobs

This is a fantastic article. Interesting woman, to say the least. Subject for this thread and her intellectual development is hella cool.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories