No, actual free speech is *not* destroyed by such chilling effects. The ability to speak without consequences is only possible if you get the government to *restrict* other people's freedoms to respond to your speech. The consequence of your stance includes requiring the government to force companies to employ unrepentant Nazi supporters, to force book publishers to publish books that will damage the sales of their other books, to force business partners to work with people they don't want to work with any more, etc. Mad.
The government was the subject of the document because checking government power was the entire point.
It is surely by now obvious that it is not true that "the best way to fight dumb ideas is to expose them". Dumb people *like* dumb ideas. Dumb ideas are often superficially appealing.
And Cern's job is not to fight dumb ideas. It is "provide for collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character". Employees who detract from that mission will self-evidently put their jobs at risk.
Talk about spectacularly missing the point. The OP was saying that the evidence base that demonstrates geocentrism is discredited is so overwhelmingly large (and largely historical, because this is a settled question in science), that it is absurd to treat it as a live debate now. Been there, done that -- as you pointed out.
1. This wasn't the US. 2. The 1st amendment is about not granting the government power to restrict your speech. It doesn't promise you that you can say any shit you like without fear of being fired by your employer, shunned by your neighbours, divorced by your spouse, disowned by your kids, not published by a newspaper or social media platform or book publisher, sued by your business partners, turned away by your customers, etc et bloody cetera.
When did rightwingers become such fucking whiners? Grow up and own your words and the consequences that flow from saying them. Christ knows, the rest of us have had to.
Oh, that's interesting. Personally, I believe in the old fashioned ideas of individual responsibility, actions having consequences, and freedom of association. Including for employers to dissociate themselves from employees with views they don't like.
Follow the specialist press and you'll see you are completely wrong about this. Apple has hundreds of specialists working in its product teams focused on health. Of course it does. It's got shit loads of money and this is an important part of its offer.
Apple said the same damn thing in their presentation, except without the snarky language.
does it even register electric polarisation in heart? I strongly doubt that. Thus you can not just call it ECG.
Well, they did call it an ECG, and the President of the American Heart Association seemed OK with that when he stood up on stage, so I think I'll take comfort from that.
And get a medic employed to help developers and documentation creators.
Oh please. Apple employs hundreds of medics, physiologists, biomedical engineers etc. Obviously.
Why Huawei thought a marketing stunt comprised of taking the piss out of consumers was a good idea is beyond me. Taking the piss out of Apple? Well, sure. But of Apple *users*? That's a remarkably crass thing for a company to do.
No need for one. The problem of patients needlessly taking GPs' appointment slots is much smaller than the problem of patients on a GP's list who don't come to the practice when they really should. The UK runs free-at-point-of-use GP service where patients have no co-pays etc and can see the doctor as many times as they need to, in theory, and until the Tories decimated primary care in the last 8 years (taking it from an average 9% of NHS spend down to 6%), many practices were routinely able to provide an appointment within 48 hours to patients on their lists. I worked with a bunch of practices in an inner city who were struggling to provide good access to GP appointments for their patients, and the issue was not a lack of resource but about how they ran themselves. They all were able to achieve good access swiftly, and then they focused attention on ensuring they were bringing in the people who really needed proactive care: the frail elderly, people with mental health issues (often living chaotic lives), mums with young children, people with unstable chronic diseases, etc.
Oh, so the argument that women are emotional is *not* a traditional standpoint? All that stuff in Victorian times about hysteria was about men, was it?
Which is weird, because I did. It's almost like you think you have some kind of privileged insight into Damore's arguments because you agree with them. You don't.
You think I'm exactly wrong, but you're exactly wrong.
See how that works? You hold your belief and think I'm mistaken, and vice versa. And you don't even recognise the hypocrisy in mouthing pieties about "demonizing our opponents" while also saying: 1. The left (and by implication not the right) is guilty of name-calling 2. The left is to blame for the rise of Trump (a form of ridiculous gaslighting)
Ordinary German working families were badly hurting at the end of WW1 and throughout the 20s and 30s. But they chose an evil solution, and the world stayed schtum and the evil bore fruit.
You are confusing two things: - People are hurting - People are choosing to support terrible solutions as a result
It's not surprising you're confusing these things, because you don't believe these things are terrible. But you're wrong on this, and I'm more than happy to say so. Just as you're happy to call me an extremist without worrying about my tender feelings. The difference, obviously, is that I'm not so narcissistic and hypocritical as to say "you shouldn't be rude to people, it'll entrench them" at the same time as being rude to people.
I remember when everyone on Slashdot understood that "liberal" and "libertarian" were both kinds of "progressive".
If you don't like reductive approaches to political labelling, why would you try to bucket "liberal" and "libertarian" as "progressive"? Liberalism is a broad set of political concepts, and encompasses, for example, laissez faire economics, which would not reasonably be described as progressive. Libertarianism has some aspects that progressives like (bodily autonomy) but is often strongly anti-state intervention, and that is not something that would reasonably be described as progressive. I am using all these terms in their dispassionate descriptor sense, not a moral sense, ie I am not expressing a view about whether liberalism, libertarianism or progressive politics are good things.
So I agree with you on the importance of nuance, and I think you could go a lot further to be nuanced.
It did not advocate for protecting or preserving traditional values or traditional institutions.
It advocated for several traditional standpoints: that men are better at thinking than women, that positive discrimination is illegitimate, etc. What's wrong with accepting that these are conservative views?
Slashdot Mirror
No, actual free speech is *not* destroyed by such chilling effects. The ability to speak without consequences is only possible if you get the government to *restrict* other people's freedoms to respond to your speech. The consequence of your stance includes requiring the government to force companies to employ unrepentant Nazi supporters, to force book publishers to publish books that will damage the sales of their other books, to force business partners to work with people they don't want to work with any more, etc. Mad.
I'll fight for your right to continue to express stupid views while confusing "there" and "their". Fear not.
God, Evelyn Hall must be rolling in her grave at the abuse of her quote.
If a colleague of yours expressed the political views associated with Nazism, would you think your employer ought not to fire them?
The government was the subject of the document because checking government power was the entire point.
It is surely by now obvious that it is not true that "the best way to fight dumb ideas is to expose them". Dumb people *like* dumb ideas. Dumb ideas are often superficially appealing.
And Cern's job is not to fight dumb ideas. It is "provide for collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character". Employees who detract from that mission will self-evidently put their jobs at risk.
Talk about spectacularly missing the point. The OP was saying that the evidence base that demonstrates geocentrism is discredited is so overwhelmingly large (and largely historical, because this is a settled question in science), that it is absurd to treat it as a live debate now. Been there, done that -- as you pointed out.
Sigh.
1. This wasn't the US.
2. The 1st amendment is about not granting the government power to restrict your speech. It doesn't promise you that you can say any shit you like without fear of being fired by your employer, shunned by your neighbours, divorced by your spouse, disowned by your kids, not published by a newspaper or social media platform or book publisher, sued by your business partners, turned away by your customers, etc et bloody cetera.
When did rightwingers become such fucking whiners? Grow up and own your words and the consequences that flow from saying them. Christ knows, the rest of us have had to.
Oh, that's interesting. Personally, I believe in the old fashioned ideas of individual responsibility, actions having consequences, and freedom of association. Including for employers to dissociate themselves from employees with views they don't like.
A lack of insight coupled with shamelessness is the defining characteristic of the bitter modern misogynist.
Stop being a muppet. Apple spent 11.5bn on R&D in FY17. That will more than pay for a few hundred specialists.
Follow the specialist press and you'll see you are completely wrong about this. Apple has hundreds of specialists working in its product teams focused on health. Of course it does. It's got shit loads of money and this is an important part of its offer.
That is vaguely similar to Lead 1 ECG
Apple said the same damn thing in their presentation, except without the snarky language.
does it even register electric polarisation in heart? I strongly doubt that. Thus you can not just call it ECG.
Well, they did call it an ECG, and the President of the American Heart Association seemed OK with that when he stood up on stage, so I think I'll take comfort from that.
And get a medic employed to help developers and documentation creators.
Oh please. Apple employs hundreds of medics, physiologists, biomedical engineers etc. Obviously.
Why Huawei thought a marketing stunt comprised of taking the piss out of consumers was a good idea is beyond me. Taking the piss out of Apple? Well, sure. But of Apple *users*? That's a remarkably crass thing for a company to do.
No point asking Apple for the data. They don't have access to it. The user gives permission, not Apple. They designed it that way.
No need for one. The problem of patients needlessly taking GPs' appointment slots is much smaller than the problem of patients on a GP's list who don't come to the practice when they really should. The UK runs free-at-point-of-use GP service where patients have no co-pays etc and can see the doctor as many times as they need to, in theory, and until the Tories decimated primary care in the last 8 years (taking it from an average 9% of NHS spend down to 6%), many practices were routinely able to provide an appointment within 48 hours to patients on their lists. I worked with a bunch of practices in an inner city who were struggling to provide good access to GP appointments for their patients, and the issue was not a lack of resource but about how they ran themselves. They all were able to achieve good access swiftly, and then they focused attention on ensuring they were bringing in the people who really needed proactive care: the frail elderly, people with mental health issues (often living chaotic lives), mums with young children, people with unstable chronic diseases, etc.
Which is why single-payer systems typically have gatekeeping mechanisms, such as GP referrals.
This is a solved problem.
Oh come off it. It argued that men are rational where women are emotional, and that is why men do better in the workplace.
Stop pussyfooting around and being cowardly, and own your fucking viewpoint. You people are such pathetic cowards.
No, my point is that it's patently absurd to assert that Damore is not making a conservative argument.
And Hitler was a vegetarian and Mussolini made the trains run on time!
Do these arguments actually work in your head?
Oh, so the argument that women are emotional is *not* a traditional standpoint? All that stuff in Victorian times about hysteria was about men, was it?
Which is weird, because I did. It's almost like you think you have some kind of privileged insight into Damore's arguments because you agree with them. You don't.
You think I'm exactly wrong, but you're exactly wrong.
See how that works? You hold your belief and think I'm mistaken, and vice versa. And you don't even recognise the hypocrisy in mouthing pieties about "demonizing our opponents" while also saying:
1. The left (and by implication not the right) is guilty of name-calling
2. The left is to blame for the rise of Trump (a form of ridiculous gaslighting)
Ordinary German working families were badly hurting at the end of WW1 and throughout the 20s and 30s. But they chose an evil solution, and the world stayed schtum and the evil bore fruit.
You are confusing two things:
- People are hurting
- People are choosing to support terrible solutions as a result
It's not surprising you're confusing these things, because you don't believe these things are terrible. But you're wrong on this, and I'm more than happy to say so. Just as you're happy to call me an extremist without worrying about my tender feelings. The difference, obviously, is that I'm not so narcissistic and hypocritical as to say "you shouldn't be rude to people, it'll entrench them" at the same time as being rude to people.
I disagree. Being mealy-mouthed about calling bad things bad is what got us this mess. Being afraid to have a real fight is what got us this mess.
I remember when everyone on Slashdot understood that "liberal" and "libertarian" were both kinds of "progressive".
If you don't like reductive approaches to political labelling, why would you try to bucket "liberal" and "libertarian" as "progressive"? Liberalism is a broad set of political concepts, and encompasses, for example, laissez faire economics, which would not reasonably be described as progressive. Libertarianism has some aspects that progressives like (bodily autonomy) but is often strongly anti-state intervention, and that is not something that would reasonably be described as progressive. I am using all these terms in their dispassionate descriptor sense, not a moral sense, ie I am not expressing a view about whether liberalism, libertarianism or progressive politics are good things.
So I agree with you on the importance of nuance, and I think you could go a lot further to be nuanced.
It did not advocate for protecting or preserving traditional values or traditional institutions.
It advocated for several traditional standpoints: that men are better at thinking than women, that positive discrimination is illegitimate, etc. What's wrong with accepting that these are conservative views?
Yeah I know. The OP I replied to did not