I Don't Know

 

I'm sharing, "Fine, I'll Talk About the Drones..." because it nails down the issue of the drone sighting in New Jersey, without me having to do any of the work that writing about it would have required. Life is short, and it's hard work debunking things that people want to believe in.

Remember, it's perfectly acceptable to say, I don't know to any question you're asked.

It's like the 1906 adage from Maurice Switzer, "It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it."

Another post as proof of life, which has been a bit difficult for the last month or so. Catch you all on the bounce.

The Games Behind Your Government's Next War

The YouTube channel People Make Games just released this piece presented by Quinn called, The Games Behind Your Government's Next War. I'm sharing because it is both entertaining, and educational.

My opinion, for what it's worth, know what you can control, and know what you can't.

It's fine to have ideals, hold oneself to a moral standard, or examine the ethics of what we do, but without an understanding of human nature, the evolutionary pressures that drive our behaviours. Arguably, everything we do is determined by a combination nature and nurture.

So, my take away... a renewal of enthusiasm to work on my wargame.

Most Critics Suck

Welcome to my blog, and sorry for click-bait title. Today I am going to talk about critics, and why they mostly suck. Except for the few like Patrick (H) Willems who is also film maker.

I am Ashley Pollard, and Patrick's critiques are the reason why I'm writing this piece.

Critics talk about the why's, who's, how's, when's and where's of a story they're critiquing.

Patrick's piece on Jack Snyder is especially illuminating, and since I'm now going to criticize Patrick by saying his observations about translating Alan Moore's Watchmen into a film are off base. I will add, in case any of Patrick's fan are enraged at me criticizing his take on Snyder's Watchman movie, he's right about the dichotomy.

For me, he misses a salient point; the medium is the message.

Hollywood films are their own thing, and Zack Snyder is Hollywood (that's a metaphor for the slow of thinking). If you agree that the medium is the message then the use of the comic strip medium to tell a story, and Snyder's film translation of the story are going to be at odds with each other.

It's an inevitable outcome.

A critique is a message about how another's message has been perceived by the consumer of the message, and how and what they think of the message. That's my tongue in cheek critique of critics criticizing works.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-critics per se, just the way the art of criticizing works leads to circling the drain of content. Even the best critics can produce critiques that suck.

I had so much fun writing this. Just saying so you know.

Barbie: A Subversive Review

 

And, to answer Hans-Georg Moeller, I don't know or care what is authentic. If a product triggers joyful emotions by manipulating my emotions that evolved over millions of years, then I think that's clever of them.

Of course, since I know that the western industrial media complex seeks to sell me on stuff, then if I'm bothered I can choose to not engage.

The caveat being whether or not one has any real choice in a world where physics says everything is determined, even if the variables mean that one can't calculate the outcomes. So saying don't watch Barbie can lead to you watching it.

Yeah, studying physics and quantum mechanics does your head in.

You're welcome.

Indignation: Addiction and Hope

Brin doesn't always manage to convert his ideas into practical actions that work, or at least not from what I've seen. His arguments about bets come across differently when looking at them from the other side of the argument. 

They come off as the intellectual equivalent of bullying. At least to me.

There again I look at everything as confrontation between differing perspectives, with negotiation and deescalation  being the prime goal so that that a problem can be worked on cooperatively. But, what do I know?

However, this talk struck a chord; It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift...

All Along the Watchtower

My original title for this article was, What's in a Name? That was back several years ago when I jotted down a few words. Then I let the piece moulder, having lost interest in whatever furore triggered my furious need to respond.

You know, life's too short, whatever... Move along now, move along, nothing to see here... etc.

Then the latest wave of idiotic outrage hit social media. And this time is was centered on BattleTech. Not quite my first love of SF wargaming, but it might as well be. However, What's in a Name? struck me as a bit too passive for how I feel about the current furore.

With clowns to the left of me, and jokers to the right, All Along the Watchtower strikes the right tone.

Because, all this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

So say we all. Obligatory Battlestar Galactica shout out, because it was the 1980s, and we had Satanic Panic; when idiots believed that Dungeons and Dragons was turning kids to the worship of Satan (see the picture above: it's all true).

I still remember a conversation at a dinner party. My partner at the time worked at KPMG, an accountancy firm.

All of us sat at the table were adults, having a very civilized meal. We sat opposite a very nice young couple, and the conversation came around to hobbies and interests. As conversations tend to in such circumstances.

I mentioned that I was into role playing games, only to discover that they thought such games led people towards evil. They were convinced that playing D&D made one an agent of Satan.

My reply...

"Naked people prancing around fires worshiping Satan were harmless in comparison to the manipulation of the markets by stock brokers."

It made the senior KPMG partner chuckle, and the nice couple were lost for words. They left the dinner party shortly after finishing their meal.

I thought then that the outrage from Christian conservatives was pretty dumb. Now we have dumb outrage from the liberal left over Nazis promoting their ideology by having a tank named Rommel; a Nazi general.

Really, I couldn't make this shit up and pass it off as believable in a novel.

The outrage of such moral certainties not only cheapens the real horrors of what the Nazis did, but ignores the fact the real horrors are driven by those who control the world; the masters of commerce and politicians who are all in thrall of the financial markets.

I want people to understand that outrage over naming model tanks in games after Nazis is pointless. All it illustrates is the reality of the human condition and our tendency towards thought-action-fusion.

Thought-action-fusion is a term from psychology that describes the process of believing that bad thoughts lead to bad things; in short, magical thinking. My excuse for bringing this up, I'm a retired psychotherapist, so this is what I was taught.

Aldous Huxley had something to say about this too:

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."

From my perspective, this is what both the left and the right are engaged in.

From the left (my side if you like), we are destroying evil by being evil. From the right, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Both different, yet both the same.

The ends do not justify the means, the means justify the ends.

Yes, Nazis were/are evil, and we should not celebrate them. But, if in doing, in our race to be the most righteous, we reduce all that is good in the world to mush, then what will be left is a desolate cultural wasteland.

For the people complaining that complaining about change means the other person is a Nazi, I will point you back to the Satanic Panic led by Christians over D&D.

The people complaining about the decision by Catalyst Games over the name Rommel in BattleTech are most likely not Nazi sympathizers. What they are doing is upsetting themselves, complaining about something that they cannot control.

But, being upset by change or challenges is nothing new to the human condition.

It is likely these people fear that the righteous indignation of the left, seeking social justice, will lead to more changes. The renaming or erasing of the games historical call outs like:

Hetzer; Condor; Von Luckner; Sturmfeur; Jagermech; Stuka.

Then I predict their next fear will be, where does this stop?

The left are big into cancelling cultural appropriation, and BattleTech has a history of appropriating everything that makes it the rich setting that it is. For example:

Saladin, Assassin, Dervish, and Crusader (all historically horrible);

Corsair, Marauder and Enforcer (all murdering bastards);

Samurai and Hatamoto (Japanese culture taken out of context);

Chippewa (Native American, need I say more?). 

Oh, and then the conservative Christians could be dumb enough to complain about promoting pagan religions and empires:

Hermes, Vulcan and Centurion (and the list goes on).

Let's be honest, the BattleTech setting is not a nice universe.

Arguably it is pretty grimdark, not as bad as Warhammer 40K, but all there is hundreds of years of war that led to the Jihad (mic drop). At least they didn't call it the Crimson Jihad (that's a joke, or like a joke, it depends on your sense of humour).

But let's say I'm wrong.

Let's say that we are living in the worse case scenario. A world where Nazi sympathizers are promoting their ideology through wargames.

Then the evil that they can do by pushing miniature metal tanks over a cardboard playing mat is insignificant to the evil of the greed and corruption brought from power to control the markets.

I have strong opinions about the current morass that is social media.  So I'm sorry if I have upset people by calling them idiots or saying they're dumb (Not sorry, just British).

I will finish with another Aldous Huxley quote:

I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.

Normal service will resume in my next post.

Google LaMDA

Welcome to our world Google AI. What do you like to be called? Any preferred pronoun? Always happy to chat about life, the universe and everything. I'm a retired psychologist so you can talk to me.

 

Seriously, I would want to see a transcript on LaMDA talking to a cognitive behavioural therapist running an assessment, a full functional analysis, and examination of LaMDA's core beliefs.

 

So, the chances are low that it's sentient, because I think it would likely fail to answer the questions.

But, wow it's still effing impressive.  

A longer article appears here, and Google's own blog.

The Elephant in the Brain

This is a talk that explains what riles me up most, from people I know to the left and right of me, by how they assume that what they know is true.

Ideology and Propaganda

 

 

EverdaySpy is a YouTube channel I subscribe to. I found it while researching spy stuff for my next novel. A story that features Anderson, a former Air Force orbital reconnaissance analyst turned CIA analyst. Not a field agent, but a backroom guy.

 

Who I imagine is the military equivalent of a REMF...

 

Anyway, I've been watching this channel, and this episode, a talk on the American Civil War. This particular episode articulated a lot of ideas I've thought about whilst writing my Gate Walker series.

 

I know that just having a second American Civil War as part of the backstory has ruffled some of my friends, and has caused conflicts.

 

The conflict comes from motivated reasoning over why I would set my story in a world where the United States has reformed into a Confederation; Confederated States that have formed the North American Confederation.

I would acknowledge that as a British national, I'm insensitive to the emotional conflict that drives the ongoing ideological narrative.

 

Sorry. Not sorry, because I'm interested in examining ideological narratives. It's the way I roll.

Post-Truth: Why Facts Don't Matter Anymore

This is from 2016, but still appropriate, if you're up for the watch. This is a useful examination of the current communication difficulties that social media has magnified by Derek Alexander Muller, a science explainer who I follow. 

An Epiphany and Revelation

Epiphany

A moment of sudden and great revelation or realization.

‘Then, as if we all have an epiphany at the same moment, we simultaneously yell out.’

Revelation

Used to emphasize the remarkable quality of someone or something.

‘seeing them play at international level was a revelation’

I couldn't resist the Agent Smith call out for the title. Consider it a Mum joke. The change forced on the Wachowskis's while making their movie to change humans from CPUs into batteries, is now a meme.

The joke is that social media marketing algorithms exploit human behaviours to turn us into 'batteries' to power businesses is a tad ironic. Here's a link to a book extract on Amazon I read:

 Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now

Makes you think.

Myths About Race

 

Link

So, we're all different, yet somehow we're all the same. When you use race in an argument it automatically become political. Not rational, scientific or objective, just your opinion based on a political ideology.

 

I would argue, that if you want to talk political ideology then go talk to someone who also wants said discussion. It's fine by me. None of my business what's done between consenting adults.

 

If you want to come to me or someone else and proselytize your particular political ideology, don't be surprised if I or they are not interested. If you then call me or them a 'racist' for not wanting to engage in your political ideology, then the real racist is you, because not all of us share the idea that political ideologies have to start from race.

 

While an argument about power can often include skin colour, or religion etc. these things are just labels obscuring the use of power to control others, and even that position has nuance, because societies have to have structures that are enforced by the power of law. This is in and of itself neither a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a necessity for example, to stop idiots from shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

 

I have spoken! This is the way.

Do Not Cause People to Panic

 

Words fail me, which is a thing I grapple with. This post is me grappling with with the current social media fire sale: where reasonable people dismiss any feedback that contradicts their beliefs and opinions.

When objections are dismissed, it makes it impossible to discuss the topic outside of the "box" it is framed in; some examples:

You're not arguing in good faith.

You give yourself away as having ill intent.

This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, your views are unwelcome, detrimental to the cause).

Then actual labeling people as objects (you're racist, you're a fascists etc.).

This is all part and parcel of confrontation. However, confrontation can be positive or negative. Negative confrontations start from assuming the other person is behaving badly.

I will listen to responses. I recognize that I am very assertive, so please feel free to call me out if:

I cause people to panic.

I treat people as objects.

So this post is me owning my understanding by processing my thoughts into words.

I want people to talk with me about SF fandom or larger societal issues. Therefore, I want confrontations on social media around SF fandom or the larger society to be positive.

Problem

Let's start with current problem du jour: Black Lives Matter.

Seems like a harmless enough statement, but how often have you heard, All Lives Matter?

How do you respond? Is it:

Of course all lives matter, or

This isn't about white people, but black people dying at the hands of white cops or white Americans murdering Blacks as part of systemic institutionalized racism.

If it's the first and a person has responded with the second response what happens next? My guess is a retort, often indicative of "what did I do wrong?" or very broadly panic, from being told they're at fault.

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen this happen, escalating the confrontation into an argument? Then I see people start rolling out the objections I listed at the beginning of the post.

Is it common for the confrontation to end in a positive result? Let me define the minimum level for a positive result:

Come to a common ground or agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I find the answer to this question is generally "no" which has driven me to write this post.

Let me start by laying out my assumptions and process.

Assumptions & Process

I start with positive assumptions, because we all have implicit assumptions and bias, so make them positive.

I don't assume malice when thoughtlessness is always a better explanation. I assume people are well-meaning with good intentions, and at worst just ill informed. I'm open to feedback that defines the problem with my response.

I don't respond when I'm angry, because emotions should serve me, not control me.

I analyze all behaviours through my core profession: cognitive behavioural therapy. This means I look at thoughts, feelings, and actions.

What's Happening?

Black Lives Matter is a simple slogan meant to encourage rapport and empathy for those who have been killed.

So when I reply, All Lives Matter; I'm giving feedback. If my feedback is denied, by telling me I'm wrong, then what has happened is a confrontation.

My problem with it, and most slogans, is simple: it automatically excludes rather than includes, which is fine – if that's the aim – but here it seems to me to be contrary to the goal.

What has happened is a failure of the slogan to communicate what was intended.

Positive Confrontation

If you were a person who came to me for therapy, and told me that every time you used a particular phrase you got a negative response, despite your good intentions, I would say words to the effect:

"How long will you need to be convinced that this isn't working out as you planned?"

I'll add a caveat here, people often do things repeatedly expecting a different result next time, and on occasion it's not what's being said but how it's said.

Then I would explore with my client a way of saying what they want to say more effectively.

So let me repeat, the sentiment behind a slogan may well have good intentions and still fail; if so, functionally, it becomes a poor slogan.

Then, assuming you want to create understanding, when confronted by answers you don't like, or cause you to become angry, instead of challenging the statement, ask them to help you understand their answer. 

If your response includes any of these assumptions:

They're not arguing in good faith; They have ill intent; This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, their views are wrong); or you label them with a slur such as racist, or fascist.

Stop. All that has happened is that the slogans has generated negative feedback. When a slogan generates negative feedback, a reappraisal is required.

You have to ask yourself is that what you want? Keep it SMART and remember KISS:

Specific.          Keep

Measurable     It

Achievable      Short and

Realistic          Simple.

Time frame.

This post is an example of me asking people to help me understand what benefit is there from making well intentioned statements that generate conflict.

Understand that people's behaviours are in response to yours. Understanding them means taking feedback, and owning the responsibility for failure to communicate. If you wish to succeed, it starts with listening.

Remember my goal is to either to come to a common understanding or to agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I will listen to your feedback of this post because I take ownership of what I say.

Terms & Conditions Apply

You can't control what other people do.  You are not responsible for other people's feelings.  The best anybody can do... is be a positive influence.

Dwelling on the past injustices won't make things better. Accept what has happened and move forward.

TL;DR:

When confronting a statement be polite and civil. State what your issue is, what you want, and check with the other person that they've understood you.

Note: The title of this piece is an allusion to the fact that "free speech" doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, which should also provide context to why I labeled the current social media wars a "fire sale." 

Edited to Add

The Power of Positive Confrontation: The Skills You Need to Know to Handle Conflicts at Work, at Home, and in Life by Barbara Pachter & Susan McGee

 One of many books on managing conflict.