In which I talk about the same things everyone else is talking about, and also Star Trek: Picard.
Why “Smart” ≠ “Good”:
One time in high school science class me and another kid were hanging out with the teacher ’cause we’d already done all the work, and he warned us that in college just being smart wasn’t going to be good enough, that we’d have to learn how to study and work hard.
I thought about that conversation a lot when I was in college. He was not wrong. But it occurs to me that that wasn’t just practical advice. Certainty can be a dangerous thing, and it’s much easier to be certain when you don’t think you have to do the work.
Just being smart isn’t good enough. A lot of people should’ve been told that as teenagers. Politicians, pundits. Millionaires who buy a single board at Home Depot. Bill Gates. Elon Musk. Etc. You don’t get to be right just because you’re smart. Sometimes other people know better.
You don’t get to be right just because you’re smart. Sometimes other people know better.
Originally tweeted by me (@noplotr) on Jul 4, 2021.
On Literary Analysis and Pedagogy:
When we read The Crucible we had to fill out a worksheet and one of the questions was “Why do you think the author set this scene in a jail?” And I was like “Because all his characters just got arrested.” And I stand by that answer. *threademoji*
I knew that I was supposed to say something about it being a metaphor for McCarthyism or whatever but, no, that’s why he wrote the whole play. The reason this scene is set in a jail is because that is the logical place to set the scene. It is not, in itself, a metaphor.
Also, metaphor for what? People being in jail? That’s not metaphor, that’s just representation.
So point 1, which is actually (it turns out, having now written an unexpectedly long thread) not really my main point, is that sometimes a pipe is just a pipe, and thoughtless “analysis” can be just as bad as no analysis.
Point 2 is that OP is replicating the ideology of the exact same failed education system he so blithely dismisses (see [below] for quote).
OP says: “If you’re content to live in flagrant ignorance because of past trauma related to bad teachers instead of taking independent steps to better yourself, despite living in the Information Age, that has more to say about you than how the education system failed you.”
I disagree. I get the point the original tweet is making, but the problem isn’t people thinking this way, it’s that at no point does a standard high school English curriculum attempt to explain why they shouldn’t—
instead it punishes them for engaging with the text at all if they fail to do so in the prescribed manner, reaching the prescribed conclusion. So what motive do people have for “better[ing]” themselves if no one’s told them why it’s better?
High school English classes don’t teach you to find meaning, they tell you “the” meaning in the same way math tells you 2+2 = 4.
And then you have to parrot that meaning back in a 5-paragraph essay (timed, if they really hate you), as if that has any relationship at all to literary analysis. It doesn’t, it comes from medieval law schools.
It’s meant for argumentation, not analysis. And why teach people to argue something that’s already codified in the curriculum? Well, because the education system is designed to instill state-sanctioned ideology, not actually teach people.
Oh hey does this connect up with capitalism? You bet your exploited behind it does. Schools train you to learn “how things are” (according to the ruling class, anyway), not to wonder how things should be. They teach the status quo, i.e. capitalism.
And just to be clear, this is a structural criticism. Teachers are doing their best within the system they’re stuck with, and I don’t want to discount the hard work they do, work which is underpaid, underappreciated, and often goes above and beyond simply education.
Yes, “Why are you reading so much into it, I just think it’s a fun book/game/movie/show/etc.” is frustrating. So is blaming individuals for systemic failures. Ignorance is not a trait, it’s a condition, and one that is rarely alleviated independently.
Like, when was the last time you just up and questioned a seemingly fundamental principle of your worldview and went and did research on it and ended up changing your mind, all without any guidance or influence from anyone else?
tl;dr individualism is stupid and so is The Crucible.
Also I get the frustration and I get that Twitter rewards snark, but if you’re making a case for something and trying to actually convince people rather than just trying to look smart you might try being empathetic rather than condescending. …Or at least both.
Originally tweeted by me (@noplotr) on Aug 28, 2021.
Not Another 9/11 Post:
This started as a 9/11 post which I scrapped ’cause it was pointless so it became a non-9/11 post & then oops it became a 9/11 post again. *ariadneemoji* (is there a thread-related service called Ariadne there really should be)(that’s not the 9/11 part)(that’s farther down)
The right always goes first in the argument because everyone else is just accepting reality and doesn’t see anything to argue over until suddenly there’s an argument happening. And because they go first they win:
if you argue against the points they say they’re making they win because they don’t actually care about what they’re saying so they’ll never be intellectually obligated to argue in good faith and accept stronger counter-arguments.
And if you bypass their pretend argument to get at they’re actual argument then they’re like well you haven’t addressed my argument you’re just calling me a fascist.
By starting the argument they set the terms, which terms are fundamentally rigged in their favor.
If you think you have a cogent snappy counterargument to a popular right-wing talking point, all you’ve done is shown that that’s not what they actually care about.
You could use that for your own edification, going through arguments and eliminating the obvious ones to get to what they actually care about. But it’s more fun to just post it and look smart.
Like, please, tell them how 9/11 is actually not as bad as Covid, surely they will listen to you, the thousandth person to point that out. Also the naivete of assuming that the 600k death-toll is a universally agreed upon fact and this is just a math problem.
The people who will simultaneously bemoan the death of Truth and then make an argument based on an assumed universal Truth. What are you doing. Accept the implications of your own analysis before trying to convince anyone else of anything.
This kind of got away from me. It’s very late and 9/11 discourse is very frustrating. I’ll end with a semi-related quotation:
“The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight.
“Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism. One reason why Fascism has a chance is that in the name of progress its opponents treat it as a historical norm.
“The current amazement that the things we are experiencing are ‘still’ possible in the 20th century is *not* philosophical. This amazement is not the beginning of knowledge—unless it is the knowledge that the view of history which gives rise to it is untenable. [#neverforget]”
— Walter Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History”
Originally tweeted by me (@noplotr) on Sep 12, 2021.
Objectively Subjective:
Jason Pargin Said Star Trek: Picard Is Objectively Bad Because the Tone Isn’t the Same as TNG and I Got So Distracted I Missed The Rest of The Episode: A Thread
So it’s time once again to talk about Updike’s first rule of reviewing: “Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.”
Now, I don’t think the creators of ST:P were trying to replicate the tone of TNG, and what’s more I don’t think that Jason Pargin thinks that. Where then does this claim to objectivity come from?
It seems to me that a lot of people don’t distinguish between a work failing to do something it sets out do, and a work succeeding at doing something that they would prefer it didn’t do.
The former is perhaps as close to an objective critique of art as we can get–keeping in mind that what a work is trying to do and whether it succeeds at that may not be universally agreed upon facts.
The latter, while still perfectly valid criticism, is squarely subjective, and the danger of failing to see this distinction lies in framing an argument from preference as an argument from objective analysis.
This not only claims undo authority, but hinders the conversation from progressing to the interesting points of contention, in this case, should ST:P have the same tone as TNG? Is the tone of ST:P good actually?
Instead we have Pargin’s co-host just accepting his pronouncement and moving on, and me stewing in frustration and writing this thread in my head instead of listening to the rest of the episode.
(This is kind of my problem with Pargin as a podcast guest in general, in that he is always 100% certain of everything he’s saying and his interlocutors never question him because they all used to work for him. Also he tends to be a backseat hoster.)
For the record, this was on the “Why Modern Blockbusters Bore” podcast miniseries, and I actually agree with a lot of the points they make. Just not this one.
Anyway tune in next time for why “Punching Up” is also bad, maybe? (That’s unrelated, it’s just a thread that I already know I’m gonna write.)
Originally tweeted by me (@noplotr) on Oct 14, 2021.
“Punching Up” is also bad, maybe?:
The “Punching Up vs. Punching Down” taxonomy of comedy is insufficient and maybe kinda bad: a thread
One flaw with this type of categorization is that not everyone’s going to agree on what’s punching up (hereafter referred to as p.u.) and what’s punching down (take a wild guess what that’s gonna be).
This can be for one of two reasons. The first and easiest to spot is when the relations to power of the joke-teller and the joke-subjects is seen by some as going one way, and by others as going another way.
This is probably the most innocuous point of contention we’ll be discussing here, as a fairly straightforward material analysis will reveal the true power relation, and those seeing it the other way will be roundly mocked for their obtuseness.
The second reason people might disagree on what’s p.u. and what’s fist-moving-in-downward-trajectory is harder to spot, and likely to spark more controversy. This is when the ostensible subject of the joke is being punched up at, but the *actual* subject of the joke is not.
Take, for example, jokes about a certain powerful person being fat. The ostensible subject is the powerful person, which might make the joke seem like it’s p.u., but the *actual* subject is fat people, and thus the joke is hitting-a-lower-point-with-one’s-closed-hand.
This reveals one of the fundamental ways in which p.u. and third joke fail as analogies. A punch implies a single point of impact. This puts the focus on the target of the joke, and as long as the joke affects that target and that target is powerful, it’s “punching up.”
But this ignores the fact that jokes are also impacting the audience of the joke. In this way jokes are really more of a roundhouse kick than a punch.
Whatever Chuck Norris joke I was going to put here you’ve already thought of a better one, so just pretend I wrote that.
Even sticking with the punching analogy, there’s a whole third category of jokes that are being completely ignored here: jokes that punch directly in front of you.
Take the finale of Bo Burnham’s what. (in which he literally punches two of the characters, which I’d bet is not a coincidence). While the characters in that bit are all trying to exert pressure on him, I don’t think we’d characterize any of them as being more or less powerful.
Also there’s punching yourself, aka self-deprecation, which, power-wise I guess is identical to punching directly in front of you? I dunno, I was gonna do a whole thing about that scene in The Good Place where Michael figures out the Trolly Problem, but I don’t think I need to.
Finally, and this should maybe be the most obvious problem with the whole p.u. vs. p.d. system…comedy doesn’t need to punch. Or roundhouse kick. Or lob truthbombs into the bunker of society or whatever.
Like, that running gag in Airplane! where Leslie Nielsen takes everything literally (“I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley” etc.). Or the “drinking problem” gag from Airplane!. Or the “Looks like I picked the wrong week” gag from…look it’s a funny movie, alright?
The point being, none of those jokes are punching at anything. All they’re doing is subverting expectation. As Zoe Bee pointed out in her recent video on puns, jokes about, [e.g.] “women can’t drive” aren’t unfunny because they’re p.d., they’re unfunny because they’re predictable.
I’ve previously mentioned the Night Court episode “It’s Just a Joke” (S08E12). An Andrew Dice Clay stand-in is brought to court for obscenity. While the middle of the episode is actually a very cogent criticism of the hypocrisy of right-wing grifters, that’s not relevant here.
The climax of the episode (https://dai.ly/x6phmr0, ~12 min) is a stand-up act, in which the comic is taken by surprise when the lights are turned on and he’s forced to face his audience. And yes the audience is mad and disgusted, but mostly? They’re just bored.
That’s not to say that power relations don’t matter. It’s just they don’t matter to comedy. Criticizing a comedian for, say, making fun of trans people because he’s “punching down” is a valid moral and ethical criticism.
(Yes, I also thought that Night Court tweet was the conclusion. I’m subverting even my own expectations.)
(Also I started planning this thread before that whole thing [the other thing, not the Night Court thing], but yeah, it is surprisingly relevant isn’t it?)
But whether a comedian is “punching up” or “punching down” (setting aside the previously stated flaws with those analogies) has, at best, an indirect relationship to whether or not they’re funny, and treating it as a direct relationship is maybe kinda bad actually.
Because what that does is conflate morality and humor, and while treating morality as a barometer for humor is what “cancel culture” paranoiacs are constantly whinging about, the far more dangerous side of the coin is treating humor as a barometer for morality.
Ok I think I’m actually done now.
Or am I?
.
.
.
Webster’s Dictionary defines a punch as—
Originally tweeted by me (@noplotr) on Oct 19, 2021.
Certain of Eventual Failure 