diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'microblog/_.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | microblog/_.md | 556 |
1 files changed, 556 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/microblog/_.md b/microblog/_.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..03d1b26 --- /dev/null +++ b/microblog/_.md @@ -0,0 +1,556 @@ +# Runxi Yu's Microblog + +This is my *microblog*, a place for me to jot down random thoughts that +I want to keep, but are too small enough to constitute a real +article/post. Reverse chronological order. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Sometimes I just need to understand that most people have different +politics than I do, and that I'm not in this role to explain my politics +and beliefs to them. I think this is particularly prominent in +gender-related issues. I get really pissed without sufficient empathy +taking into account of the fact that it is fine to stick to social norms +as long as they don't try to actively disrupt others. Moving between +extremes has been normality to me for quite a while and I'm tired of it. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +我好像已经习惯了把自己很痛苦的想法捂在心里，即使想说应该说出来的时候也很麻木……？ + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I would like to take a moment to reflect on how I’m somehow prejudiced +in the Israel–Hamas war. +I grew up in an environment where I was taught about the acts of +terrorism by the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, with terms +such as “muslim suicide-bombers”. Even when consciously understanding +the concept of religious freedom and personally being agnostic, I’ve, +arguably subconsciously, sided with Israel. +I haven’t really noticed this, until realizing my lack of reaction and +internal dissent towards what was committed by Israel’s military. I +strongly disagreed with arguments that justify Israel’s actions based on +the Jewish experience in the Holocaust—the Holocaust was worse by three +scales of magnitude, but it is irrelevant and does not justify bombing +civilian targets. But there was something inside me that didn’t want to +criticize Israel. Perhaps it was just because Hamas performed the first +attack on October 7th? That, however, was based on stringent Israeli +occupation and blockades for half a century… + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Rain doesn't wash anything away, it just soaks me with the sky's ashes. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +我就会在那里 +等待着 +有人能救救我 + +我会将我以为 +对我最重要的人 +拽入那个漩涡 +他们一一挣脱； +远去 +我仍然倔强地伸出我的一只手 +试图引人注意 +乞讨 +展现自己 +所谓的 +无助 +渴望找到一个人 +与我一起 +沦 +陷 + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +消逝殆尽 +心逐渐变得透明 +茉莉花散落在淡蓝色的玻璃上 +我祈祷着 +若许能快点结束 + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +我的灵魂， +出 +窍 +凭空蒸发消失。 +穿上刺猬的皮， +吞掉河豚的肝。 +吞噬 + +吞噬。 + +浸润。 + +自己用独角兽的肉体搭建出的城堡 +摧毁，让其分崩离析 +麻木不仁地破坏 +我才不会失去一切 + +一滴滴血，多么具体 + +全身皮肤析出点滴的脓 +点缀着我令人恶心的体毛 +我内心却依然是颗黑洞 +祂让自己枯竭，而又迭代 +毁灭所谓的理性 +才不会失去它，和 + +一切。 + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +In Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), the Federal District Court for D.C. +ruled that "Underlying that adaptability, however, has been a consistent +understanding that human creativity is the sine qua non at the core of +copyrightability". 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) says that "Copyright protection +subsists \[...\] in original works \[...\] either directly or with the +aid of a machine or device". +My question is outside of the scope of this lawsuit: do prompts to AI +count as a human using the "aid of a machine or device" to create a +creative work? Or, is the transformation from a simple textual prompt to +a graphical representation considered transformative under Campbell and +17 U.S.C. § 107, such that the AI is the creator of the secondary +graphical work, to the extent that it is not a derivative work of the +text prompt? Or would the prompt simply be considered an idea, which is +not copyrightable under Baker v. Selden? + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Should the federal government prevent overreach of *state* governments? + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Disclaimers and definitions: This post is written in the context of my +school and my group of friends therein. Please note that this post is a +pattern-based generalization, and is hopefully not consistently true. +Please also note that terms such as "female" and "male" below refer to +biological sex, as it is biological sex that this pattern applies to. +Due to the small sample of transgender students, and complete lack of +intersex students at our school, this conclusion may be unrepresentative +in a wider context. Additionally, "homosexual/homosocial" and +"heterosexual/heterosocial" when applied to myself are relative to my +male biological sex for the sake of this post. However, the essence is +likely the same. + +The implicit/instinctual patterns of social interaction in relation to +biological sex is uncomforting. It is common to see friends of the same +biological sex engage in intimate or intimate-like interactions but are +perceived as completely normal, such as written communications involving +Unicode code-points often associated with love e.g. the heart emoji +("❤️") and emojis related to kissing ("😘", "😚", "😗", "😙"), physical +display of affection which is likely platonic e.g. hugging and patting, +et cetera. + +I find it possible to engage in such behaviour with friends of the same +biological sex, but generally impossible with friends of another +biological sex. This disparity is uncomforting, and definitely violates +my postgenderist theory. In fact, should this cause tangible differences +in advantages or qualitative changes in relationship because of +differences in biological sex, this would satisfy all criteria to be +considered a unduly discriminatory act. + +Perhaps it's just people gossiping? Although I have multiple recorded +precedents across four years to demonstrate how gossip is likely to +arise in platonic heterosocial relationships, but I hardly come across +gossip even in obvious instances of homosexual affection. I don't want +to just throw it to vague social concepts and just blame the +heterosexual-normative social context; after all, fear of gossip is not +an effective mitigator for potential undue discrimination. + +Or perhaps, based on the same social context, intimate interactions +without explicit consent are more likely to be interpreted as sexual +assault, under 18 U.S.C. § 2242 and YKPS Behaviour Policy § 5.4.3? +(Technically any intimate interaction with any possibility of a sexual +interpretation must be under a contractually valid and informed mutual +consent, but it's hard to draw the line, and playing on the safe side +would mean asking "may I hug you \[for the purpose of …\] \[no later +than …\] \[no more than …\]", which seems rather ridiculous. And that +doesn't solve the question why there's a boundary when it comes to +biological sex.) This doesn't make sense for me either because I'm +pansexual, and there is nothing that makes an act of intimacy with a +biologically female person more sexual than that with a biologically +male person. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Shock + +Squeeze— +For a drip of blood +That bitter-sweet +Drip of blood +My heart's still an enigma +Mysterious, nebulous +—Galling. + +That shadow approached me, +Interrogated me, +Tortured my spirit, +Yet spared my hollow body + +Squeeze— +For a sour drip of +Inflammed fester, +I fought, but barely + +The apocalypse; +Sepsis. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +我觉得喜剧和现实之间常常有着太大的落差。在读喜剧的剧本的时候（我很少看 +production），如果我能把自己的情绪陷进去，会形成一种很奇怪的感染性的 +optimism；但是这种感觉在现实中会很 +illusional。至少从我的那一部分理性考虑，相比于梦幻的乐观主义和…有希望的那种感觉，我更希望让自己理解现实，虽然 +evidently 我不怎么会这样做。 On the other hand, tragedies do in general +have a fatalist element consistent with my view of my subjective +experience of reality. I don't think in terms of a reIigious deity, but +I like to see exaggerated mirrors of "natural events" and fate that +appear in life, rather than attempting to experience an imaginary world +that might be deceiving me. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Quite a significant part of the national sentiment here in China, is +that everything doing by the Japanese is somehow bad, somehow wrong. +They don't want to learn what tritium and carbon-14 is, they don't look +up what the relevant international standards are. They just assume that +we'll be making mutated radioactive robotic fish. +Sorry, no. +Problems such as biomagnification are indeed concerning, but it's just +counterproductive and unconducive to make claims that it'll poison +everyone and appeal to emotions. The world isn't going to implode. +And oh well, what hipocrisy these historical claims are based on. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Pybeerhaps what I hate or fear isn't the entity itself, but is rather my +relationship with that entity. My concept of that entity is integrated +into my "self", it's not distinctly an "other"...? + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +it's being alive that makes them lie, and being almost not alive makes +me sort of accidentally truthful... +—Brick, Act 3, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, by Tennessee Williams + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Looking back, reading opinions, journal entries and poems I wrote a +while back, ranging from two years to a month ago. There's something +pinching and squeezing my heart. Candle smoke intoxicated my eyes, yet I +still could not blow them out. Tears create craters on my dusty face. I +need to have a rest, perhaps reflect on my experiences throughout the +years. There will not be any sort of "new beginning". History exists, +reality is not romantic, and the apparent me of the present is +responsible for the past. The most destructive kind of feeling is not +loneliness, not even guilt for other people. It's my guilt towards the +apparently innocent version of myself of the past. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I think I still have some blind faith in science and logic, like, I know +some statements are not absolutely scientific as they're not repeatable +or falsifiable, but are still \*intuitively\* (aaaaaaa) undeniably true + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +After all, moral theories are a approximations of the moral conscience. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +One part of me: "C'mon I don't want to have to demonstrate my existence +every time I talk to a conservative and why trans experiences exist" +Another part of me: "You must, as far as politics is concerned, hear +full arguments of both like-minded and opponents, and exert no +censorship over their ideas whatsoever." +Also, guilt towards myself is the most annoying feeling I have to date + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Uhhh things seem to boil down to [two concepts of +liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) +which then boil down to what we consider to be *internal* or *external* +to a particular being. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I love how "traditional family values" is the reason that justifies +antifeminism, patriarchy, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and +everything in between. Also, I don't understand how it could be valid to +consider a cis person arguing for "trans experiences do not exist". It's +a personal experience that exists in some individuals. Not existing in +everyone, or one particular person independently chosen, does not mean +it doesn't exist. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I'm seriously considering the moral intuitionist argument of "if +anything's wrong, it's wrong for someone to do something that they +believe to be wrong". But this still leaves the questions around the +legitimacy of the criminal justice system to punish acts that may be not +"wrong" according to the previous statement but still harm society. +Sure, the agency of the criminal justice system (or actually the +legislature that creates it) may believe that deterring people from +doing socially harmful acts, is moral, but the use of force here still +bugs me. I like the argument that only one specific act performed by one +abent under specific conditions has moral content. Moral descriptions of +abstract classes of acts are systematically necessary, but they aren't +the same as moral content because there is no acting agent. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Random thought: Any historical analysis, and interpretations of +evolution (in the biological sense, for why some organisms have their +current traits), are not science because conclusions reached therein are +not falsifiable + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Hm, do you think advancements in the understanding of physics could +improve understanding on causality, determinism and free will? +("Interpretations" of physics is not my expertise and I'm a bit +skeptical, but I'll try to be careful not to get into mysticism…) +(Warning: disgusting) The common argument that collapsing superpositions +leads to inherent randomness and thus makes free will possible seems to +be misaligned with what people mean when discussing free will. I'll +explain my skepticism with an analogy: A scientist will do something +differently if they detect that a radioactive sample decays in five +seconds. The scientist's state and actions depend on random decay of the +sample, and I won't call this free will of the scientist. I don't think +there's something fundamentally different about the supposed (and really +interpretive and perhaps mystic) collapse of superpositions in the brain +causing things to go differently, and my example on radioactive decay. +No matter if they're inside or outside the body, truly random events are +still spontaneously random + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Evaluate the claim that "the mere act of giving birth to a child +violates the child's consent by coercing the social contract upon them". +Actually, this is called +[Antinatalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism). + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +The consciousness of AI, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +The null hypothesis is haunted. It appears in almost any +reasoning/proof/etc. Typically, when discussing a policy, the null +hypothesis is the status quo; when evaluating a statement, the null +hypothesis is the current best understanding (which is often unclear), +or is simply a negation of the statement. Where does the burden of proof +fall? + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I used to not really understand utilitarianism, the lack of a universal +standard bugged me. But that was Bentham. Mill's theory of +utilitarianism seems to be more acceptable to me, it seemed to look into +the future and cover how individual cases affect a decision entity, be +it personal or systematic, in the long term. Generally when applying +Millian utilitarianism, I obtain similar results to when I using +existing principles. This somewhat reaffirms my hypothesis that these +moral principles still arise from a utilitarian analysis of cost and +benefit in the long term. +I wonder if we have a subconscious intuition to morality anyway, and +we're attempting to rationally derive theories that seem to cover the +underlying intuition. Is this, dare I say, motivated reasoning? + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +(Rant) In any social movement, we're dealing with real, live +individuals. Individual people. Not some uniform social group as a +whole. Every single time. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Is freedom of speech absolute? Why do we traditionally see it as a +fundamental right? Is it really inalienable? +I think a great portion of this lies upon the dangers to democracy when +censoring political speech. Is that a sufficient reason to accept +freedom of speech as a universal right, that protects e.g. hate speech +and inciting violence? + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +An illusion in a dream overpowers reality. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Hypocrisy is bad. I know, but I'm still complicit in it. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Continental liberalism and modern populist democracy eliminate the +ruling class external to the people being ruled, leading to +self-governance, preventing tyranny. However, the "people" who exercise +the power are not always the same people who are affected by the power. +The "will of the people", in practice, is the will of the most numerous +or active subset of the people. Democracy is, on these grounds, often +used as a utility for the tyranny of the majority. + +A Quote from *On Liberty* by John Stuart Mill: + +> The tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held +> in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public +> authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is +> itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals +> who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts +> which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society +> can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates +> instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought +> not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many +> kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by +> such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating +> much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul +> itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate +> is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the +> prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to +> impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and +> practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to +> fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of +> any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all +> characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a +> limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with +> individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it +> against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human +> affairs, as protection against political despotism. + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I think my experience of gender dysphoria has became inconsistent in +what I actually think about gender. My belief, in theory, is that gender +should be eradicated (see "Postgenderism") altogether, as it's an +unnecessary construct that limits people, imposes cisnormativity, etc. +I try to think along the terms of "gender doesn't matter, at all". But +my experience says otherwise: I found myself, perhaps "strangely", more +comfortable with she/her pronouns than with they/them. So when +interacting with people online, who don't know me IRL, I just declare +she/her pronouns and… well, it's a glaring inconsistency in my theory of +gender and society and INCONSISTENCIES BUG ME. I started feeling like a +hypocrite. +If gender really doesn't matter to me, why do I have gender +dysphoria??. +To make myself feel better perhaps I could explain it as "I wouldn't +feel gender dysphoria if society doesn't impose gender as a socially +significant construct altogether". And I can, only, hope so, as a +hypocrite. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I myself live in a string of characters, through emotionless computers, +running some old protocols. The me of appearance is dead. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Democracy is the protection of negative freedom and civil liberties, not +the enforcement of general will. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Reading *雷雨* and thinking about *A Streetcar Named Desire* and *The +Glass Menagerie* There's a commonality in these plays—and perhaps many +more—that struck me: The presentation of femininity as dependence. +I've always tried to fight against such interpretations as I found them +to be, perhaps a bit sexist. Yet looking at my own manifestation of +femininity, I find shocking resemblance with my dependence on peopole +(and occasionally also abstract entities like knowledge). +Perhaps it depends on what we mean by the word "femininity". Is it the +quality of being female? Or is it the behavioral norms traditionally +associated with the female gender? +(Or perhaps this experience is limited by my perception of my own trans +femininity and isn't a common theme upon modern cis femininity?) +Also, those who don't experience trans experiences cannot assume that +trans experiences do not exist. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I kinda think faith is something we all struggle with, and doesn't seem +to be too relevant to whether we are religious in the traditional sense. +For me there're things like faith in logic, faith in knowledge, faith in +properties of humankind, etc. They seem to be so ungrounded, founded +upon beliefs that I cannot support with my own weight. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +As much as I believe in determinism, I do not believe that humans have +capacity to pre-determine their own fate. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +My world is still of metaphorical illusions. I need to learn to be +afraid of romanticized narratives and perspectives. However, it is +apparently hard to do so—I sink into romantic words that create a color +filter in my perception, they make reality look so beautiful, so... +"sweet", moving me further away from what reality really is. + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I'm probably not the only one who has these dangerous/harmful/unhelpful +thoughts: +How different, or perhaps "better' could my life be, if I could go back +to the start of Year 9, and make different decisions? Perhaps that would +mean choosing something other than IGCSE History. Or perhaps that +means... when that was still possible, let my yearn and longing for +intimacy with trusted people to discuss philosophy and science with, +stay undeveloped. +Perhaps I could have became a happy person. The me of the present could +never know. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +To what extent is "it sets a precedent" a concern that justifies or +warrants declining a request that is on its own, appropriate? + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +I hereby discard the structuralist view that people are composed of the +opposing parts "benign" and "malicious". These simple and perhaps +judgemental concepts are insufficient in face of the complexity of the +human condition. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +[Runxi Yu's Website](/) + +Unless otherwise specified with the +"<span class="copyright">copyright</span>" HTML/CSS class, works hosted +on this subdomain (`runxiyu.org`) served with the HTTP(S) protocol is +available under [Runxi Yu's Public Domain +Dedication](https://runxiyu.org/note/pubdom.html). |