Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.
That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu episode.
His is a perfectly valid response. Just because something's from the 1980's doesn't mean we need to ditch it. Hell, I'm from the 1980's and I find new uses for myself all the time.
Incidentally, the 3.5 mm jack is actually 19th c. tech, just slightly scaled down for some applications in the 20th c..
You misunderstand me. Organizations set up systems, whether by automation or by policies individuals within the organization are compelled to enact, in order to ensure consistent, efficient, and fair application of policy. A rule under such systems might include the requirement that a balance carried over X number of months will result in termination. Such a straightforward rule would be used by about any company, inasmuch as no company will want to be caught in an argument over defining precisely where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off.
The application of such policies, however, as rational (in the Weberian sense) as it might be, will also result in particular absurdities. I call them decent because they addressed the absurd case very likely as soon as a human with the necessary prerogatives saw it. What's more, they addressed the case in the right way.
I should add that I'm not a Google fan-boy. I just think that praise should be given when it's due if we want to see more of such behavior.
If an engineer says it works and a biochemist says it doesn't, who are you going to believe, the one who has experience and training in that field, or the one who doesn't?
The one who makes a reasoned argument. Not the one who says, "Just trust me; I'm an expert and the other guy isn't." Thunderf00t's arguments were relatively simple and straightforward. If they're flawed, it should be a simple task to show their flaws.
Only someone who has relevant expertise can effectively judge the validity of an argument.
This goes a bit far. I have trouble believing that you believe this, at least as stated. Otherwise you could, for example, draw no conclusions about politics without a degree in political science, about history without a degree in history, etc. You'd also be up the creek if two doctors advised you different treatments.
If the biochemist has actually hit upon a valid point, then you'd expect engineers to confirm that, but when he's directly contradicted by engineers then it's considerably more likely they have knowledge in their own field that he hasn't taken into account.
But that's the rub. I was asking for the reasoned opinions of those engineers. I'm sure they do have knowledge he hasn't taken into account. What is it? I'm asking for that, not for 'engineers know more about this than biochemists, so if an engineer says a biochemist is wrong, then, well, QED.'
Almost every gushing hyperloop article on/. will include a commenter who points to a set of Youtube critiques of the hyperloop by Thunderf00t. Watching these videos I find myself sympathetic to his position, but I recognize that I'm predisposed to suspect grand promises about what the future holds when there's no clear, demonstrable, and scalable example yet. (My father had a subscription to Popular Science when I was a kid. The main thing it taught me was an interest in science and a mistrust of vaporware. I still don't have a flying car.)
The responses I've seen to such on/. have been disappointing to say the least. On more than one occasion, I've seen Thunderf00t's critique dismissed with a wave of the hand and a reference to his credentials as a biochemist rather than, say, an engineer. That is not an argument. At best, it's an appeal to authority. The worst I've seen so far has been a lazy claim that to the effect of 'don't worry, smart people have already worked all this stuff out.' This kind of thing is tiresome on Youtube; it should be well-nigh unforgiveable on/.
So I'm interested in hearing from critics of Thunderf00t's critique. Can you point me to an article or video that will serve as a response to his position? And to proponents I would ask whether there are responses to Thunderf00t's critics. Many thanks in advance.
The tone of the headline and text is critical. But if there is a story here at all, it's how decent Google acted about it. We should read this, not as it was intended, but as an article of praise for Google.
Comcast, TWC, Spectrum, or whatever you are now, take notice. This is how to get people to like you: when you find your policies and automated systems have done something absurd, sacrifice the small change, fix the problem quickly, shell out a few courtesy bucks, and enjoy free publicity and good will.
Nah. That's just the way I talk when something aggravates me. Remember, the root of the word 'expletive' is 'to fill out'. I just use different filler.
That doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Again, I don't deny that it makes some practical sense. It's when we get to the principles of the thing that I object. Let's consider this case as a thought experiment:
An 18 year old girl is preparing to graduate from a Chicago school. She's a diligent, straight-A student. She has a 20 year old boyfriend who is gainfully employed by his family's construction company. The couple plan to wed upon her graduation and, due to her love of children and the influence of their Mormon faith, she would like nothing better than to start a family and avoid the workforce.
Now, the couple in this example have a very clear notion of what they want to do with their lives. It happens this doesn't involve subordinating oneself to some state-approved entity or having money enough to take a one-year state-approved vacation. But it's meaningful to them. It's what they wish to do. Who are we to deny them this? Who are we to tell them what objects they really ought to pursue in life? Even if there's some practical value to the state, should there be no sphere in life where the state's interests are weighed little in comparison to the private values of individuals and families? For I can say this much with certainty: "I wish to stay home and raise children" will sound exactly like, "I dunno, chill with my crew, I guess" to any state-approved professional. It may even sound worse, because even wealthy kids are known to chill with their crews, but having children while still young sounds like just the kind of behavior the proles need to be weened of.
One might well say that she can do all this and just not get the diploma if it's so important to her. This is true. But supposing he bites it in some construction accident three years hence? We've now handicapped her ability to go and earn what she can for her family, when she most needs it, and for what? She met all her academic requirements; she only failed to have goals the state recognized as worthy. (And I have, in fact, known intelligent, lower-middle class girls loosely fitting the above description.)
One might disapprove of her goals, but this would be most telling of all. For this reveals just how much we think our neighbor's business is our own. Yeah, maybe she wants to have kids rather than work 40 hours a week at the behest of some supervisor, but that's the wrong thing to want. Maybe she thinks family is more worthwhile than getting a business degree, but she's wrong. If she won't choose the right things, perhaps she can be made to do so. It's for her own good.
In short, by what principle do we presume to dictate to this girl that her choice of something, anything lined up after graduation is wrong?
Those 18 year olds are free men and women. Neither Chicago, nor the State of Illinois, nor the Federal government own them. This proposal, however, presumes too much. One must have a diploma at minimum to participate in much of society. But now this paternalistic body speaks to these young men and women as if to say, "Before you can receive this academic certification, you must prove your willingness to offer years of your life to a corporate master (i.e. find an employer who will deign to accept you), a military hierarchy (with the concomitant possibility of losing your life), or to a bank (in the form of bankruptcy-proof student loans). The wealthy, of course, will be excepted by means of gap-year programs but you, peasant, you must swear fealty."
I cannot deny the practical value of a proposal like this. It's certainly there. But I do deny the right of the state to gainsay an adults freedom to choose either to work or not work, to go to college or to spend a few years mooching off his willing parents, to take on debt or hang out in the basement writing or inventing or starting a business or playing video games.
It's worth noting that whatever Time might have intended, the error here isn't just on the part of the Slashdot summary. Just about every media outlet that mentions the Time cover calls it the Kremlin.
This reflects a truth about the depth of the media's knowledge and understanding of Russia.
Click your name/icon in the top right. At the bottom you'll find an option to "Restore Classic YouTube". This has the added advantage of giving you a chance to tell them why you don't like the new design.
"Some things should be taboo" "All things should be taboo" nor "All taboos are good"
A taboo against posting signs that say "Death to all Jews", for example, can be a good thing. I shouldn't like legislation to that effect, but I am happy that such language is not acceptable in polite company.
also who guarantees that the taboo is " right"
No one. Taboos are a matter of social pressure and standards, not some centralized guarantor or body. The mental mechanism which causes taboos can certainly be put to bad ends. Such taboos should be challenged. But, again, there is a some/all distinction we have to make here. It does not follow that because some taboos should be challenged, on account of them being unjust, all taboos must always be opposed.
Even if such were the case, it'd be an endless task. Taboos naturally arise among humans. There isn't a human society lacking taboos. Now of course natural does not mean good, just, or even 'ought'. But it does mean that eliminating taboos entirely is likely an impossible goal without modifying human nature itself. Better, therefore, to focus one's efforts are unjust taboos than to waste effort supporting some idealist goal of eliminating all taboos. In short, I do not (and did not) say all taboos are good. I merely said some things should be taboo.
At the same time, I can say quite honestly that if one of my staff made Youtube blatantly anti-Semitic Youtube videos, he'd be gone in a hurry.
Yep. Me too.
I believe in free speech, so I suppose to some extent that makes me a hypocrite [...]
Nope. I don't think you are. It's quite simple: "We've chosen to dissociate ourselves with Mr. Kjellberg because his actions do not reflect the values and attitudes of Disney." I'm not objecting to their dissociation, and I think what I just offered is at least passable corporatese. As I said before, I think taboos can be a good thing. My objection is to the implicit approval of praising 'irreverence'. I really don't think PewDiePie meant any harm. But its precisely a culture that praises irreverence as a good in itself which leads to irreverent and, sooner or later, 'inappropriate' speech. My objection is that the corporation was perfectly happy to associate itself with 'irreverence' as such.
The difficulty is that our culture lionizes irreverence for its own sake, but then is unwilling to accept the same when it is applied to very particular (i.e. profit threatening/socially objectionable) circumstances. This is where I find the hypocrisy.
Let me put it this way: I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian; I am also a supporter of free speech and liberal democracy. If I ran a media corporation and I spoke in glowing terms of 'irreverence', and then, upon discovering that my corporation was sponsoring Andrews Serrano (who did the (in?)famous 'Piss Christ'), distanced the company from the artist, I would be a hypocrite. For this reason I would not heedlessly lionize irreverence. I should sooner support mutual respect: "Our company would recognize your individual right under the law to do as you please artistically. But, if you're a Muslim, you'll not find my company doing cartoons of Muhammad and praising ourselves for being 'irreverent.' If you're a Buddhist, you won't find my company Photoshopping the Dalai Lama into compromising positions, even if we think it funny or artistic. If you're African-American, you won't find us making jokes about slavery. If you're Jewish, you should understand that we don't think the Holocaust is a laughing matter."
I'm all for a CEO saying something like this. I call him a hypocrite only when he treats 'irreverence' as something to be desired in itself (as is often the case in our culture). If one wishes to sell material which offend my religious sensibilities, very well then; I leave that to them. But if the same one objects when an employee draws a picture of Mohammed or makes an elephant dung virgin Mary, I think I'll be justified in calling them out for hypocrisy.
Certainly. I agree with the thrust of what you say. PewDiePie was blockheaded for doing this. It was in poor taste and, frankly, some things should be taboo.
My objection is to the corporate speak and the hypocrisy it allows people to rationalize. One shouldn't praise 'irreverence' as something great and courageous, on the one hand, but reject the speech of others as 'inappropriate' once it's applied to one's own sacred cows.
"Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate."
It's funny how one of these words has a positive connotation, and the other one a negative. This, despite the fact that opposing groups might apply each term to the same content. All inappropriate means in a context where one is praising someone for irreverence is that the irreverence was applied to a preferred group.
I am reminded of Isaac Hayes's objection to South Park's irreverence toward Scientology.
The greek city states never had republics... You are mixing this up with Rome.
That's a matter of definition. The term republic as used by the Romans, res publica, merely refers to affairs handled publicly. In many ways, the Roman system was closely comparable the mixed constitutions present in most Greek city states. (Before the Delian League, at any rate, Athenian style democracy was far less common than mixed constitution systems.) Most of these were outgrowths of competition among elites. Early city states would be headed elders from wealthy landowning families. (Even the term senate, from senex or old man, reflects this--incidentally senile is from the same root as senate.) Popular assemblies would also be used for matters like war and use of public lands. In many cases, nouveau riche from the merchant classes would agitate for change and gradually expand the franchise to increase the number of loyal voting blocks to achieve their ends. The real anomaly is the Athenian system which, under the likes of Pisistratus and Cleisthenes, expanded the franchise to ever greater proportions--and in their own interests--until the people's assembly held most of the power.
The term republic has evolved since that time. If you look at the way it was used in the Renaissance/Early Modern period, it merely meant a constitutional arrangement without a monarch. This is rather closer to the Latin meaning of res publica than the way we use it today. (There's not really an ancient Greek equivalent, though the Greeks freely discussed mixed constitutions composed of democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.) But under the influence first of Anglo-American and then of French systems of representative government, it has come to mean something very different. When we speak of republics these days, we often mean representative systems. But this is one of the (great) innovations that has occurred since parliamentary systems came about in the past millennium. Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Republic was not a representative system. See Polybius, Histories, Book VI if you'd like some details, but the quick and dirty version is this: Romans did elect magistrates for certain positions we would term 'executive.' But all legislative power was vested in an assortment of popular assemblies. The senate was an advisory body made up of former magistrates who'd attained a respectable rank, but it had no direct legislative powers.
In short, the meanings of these words have changed so much that saying the Greeks had no republics but the Romans did requires some parsing. If by republic we mean a representative system, then neither Greeks nor Romans had republics. But if we mean what the Romans meant, then many Greek poleis were republics.
Slashdot Mirror
And here I thought you were referring to Archie.
Well, now we know what every guy will use.
Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.
That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu episode.
Oblig.
His is a perfectly valid response. Just because something's from the 1980's doesn't mean we need to ditch it. Hell, I'm from the 1980's and I find new uses for myself all the time.
Incidentally, the 3.5 mm jack is actually 19th c. tech, just slightly scaled down for some applications in the 20th c..
You misunderstand me. Organizations set up systems, whether by automation or by policies individuals within the organization are compelled to enact, in order to ensure consistent, efficient, and fair application of policy. A rule under such systems might include the requirement that a balance carried over X number of months will result in termination. Such a straightforward rule would be used by about any company, inasmuch as no company will want to be caught in an argument over defining precisely where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off.
The application of such policies, however, as rational (in the Weberian sense) as it might be, will also result in particular absurdities. I call them decent because they addressed the absurd case very likely as soon as a human with the necessary prerogatives saw it. What's more, they addressed the case in the right way.
I should add that I'm not a Google fan-boy. I just think that praise should be given when it's due if we want to see more of such behavior.
The one who makes a reasoned argument. Not the one who says, "Just trust me; I'm an expert and the other guy isn't." Thunderf00t's arguments were relatively simple and straightforward. If they're flawed, it should be a simple task to show their flaws.
This goes a bit far. I have trouble believing that you believe this, at least as stated. Otherwise you could, for example, draw no conclusions about politics without a degree in political science, about history without a degree in history, etc. You'd also be up the creek if two doctors advised you different treatments.
But that's the rub. I was asking for the reasoned opinions of those engineers. I'm sure they do have knowledge he hasn't taken into account. What is it? I'm asking for that, not for 'engineers know more about this than biochemists, so if an engineer says a biochemist is wrong, then, well, QED.'
Almost every gushing hyperloop article on /. will include a commenter who points to a set of Youtube critiques of the hyperloop by Thunderf00t. Watching these videos I find myself sympathetic to his position, but I recognize that I'm predisposed to suspect grand promises about what the future holds when there's no clear, demonstrable, and scalable example yet. (My father had a subscription to Popular Science when I was a kid. The main thing it taught me was an interest in science and a mistrust of vaporware. I still don't have a flying car.)
The responses I've seen to such on /. have been disappointing to say the least. On more than one occasion, I've seen Thunderf00t's critique dismissed with a wave of the hand and a reference to his credentials as a biochemist rather than, say, an engineer. That is not an argument. At best, it's an appeal to authority. The worst I've seen so far has been a lazy claim that to the effect of 'don't worry, smart people have already worked all this stuff out.' This kind of thing is tiresome on Youtube; it should be well-nigh unforgiveable on /.
So I'm interested in hearing from critics of Thunderf00t's critique. Can you point me to an article or video that will serve as a response to his position? And to proponents I would ask whether there are responses to Thunderf00t's critics. Many thanks in advance.
The tone of the headline and text is critical. But if there is a story here at all, it's how decent Google acted about it. We should read this, not as it was intended, but as an article of praise for Google.
Comcast, TWC, Spectrum, or whatever you are now, take notice. This is how to get people to like you: when you find your policies and automated systems have done something absurd, sacrifice the small change, fix the problem quickly, shell out a few courtesy bucks, and enjoy free publicity and good will.
I got to keep the magazines I bought after I cancelled the subscription.
Waiting for Bruce Willis's career to end.
Oblig: This is He-Man!
So, they're building a tablet but one intended to have fewer capabilities?
Nah. That's just the way I talk when something aggravates me. Remember, the root of the word 'expletive' is 'to fill out'. I just use different filler.
Again, I don't deny that it makes some practical sense. It's when we get to the principles of the thing that I object. Let's consider this case as a thought experiment:
Now, the couple in this example have a very clear notion of what they want to do with their lives. It happens this doesn't involve subordinating oneself to some state-approved entity or having money enough to take a one-year state-approved vacation. But it's meaningful to them. It's what they wish to do. Who are we to deny them this? Who are we to tell them what objects they really ought to pursue in life? Even if there's some practical value to the state, should there be no sphere in life where the state's interests are weighed little in comparison to the private values of individuals and families? For I can say this much with certainty: "I wish to stay home and raise children" will sound exactly like, "I dunno, chill with my crew, I guess" to any state-approved professional. It may even sound worse, because even wealthy kids are known to chill with their crews, but having children while still young sounds like just the kind of behavior the proles need to be weened of.
One might well say that she can do all this and just not get the diploma if it's so important to her. This is true. But supposing he bites it in some construction accident three years hence? We've now handicapped her ability to go and earn what she can for her family, when she most needs it, and for what? She met all her academic requirements; she only failed to have goals the state recognized as worthy. (And I have, in fact, known intelligent, lower-middle class girls loosely fitting the above description.)
One might disapprove of her goals, but this would be most telling of all. For this reveals just how much we think our neighbor's business is our own. Yeah, maybe she wants to have kids rather than work 40 hours a week at the behest of some supervisor, but that's the wrong thing to want. Maybe she thinks family is more worthwhile than getting a business degree, but she's wrong. If she won't choose the right things, perhaps she can be made to do so. It's for her own good.
In short, by what principle do we presume to dictate to this girl that her choice of something, anything lined up after graduation is wrong?
Those 18 year olds are free men and women. Neither Chicago, nor the State of Illinois, nor the Federal government own them. This proposal, however, presumes too much. One must have a diploma at minimum to participate in much of society. But now this paternalistic body speaks to these young men and women as if to say, "Before you can receive this academic certification, you must prove your willingness to offer years of your life to a corporate master (i.e. find an employer who will deign to accept you), a military hierarchy (with the concomitant possibility of losing your life), or to a bank (in the form of bankruptcy-proof student loans). The wealthy, of course, will be excepted by means of gap-year programs but you, peasant, you must swear fealty."
I cannot deny the practical value of a proposal like this. It's certainly there. But I do deny the right of the state to gainsay an adults freedom to choose either to work or not work, to go to college or to spend a few years mooching off his willing parents, to take on debt or hang out in the basement writing or inventing or starting a business or playing video games.
It's worth noting that whatever Time might have intended, the error here isn't just on the part of the Slashdot summary. Just about every media outlet that mentions the Time cover calls it the Kremlin.
This reflects a truth about the depth of the media's knowledge and understanding of Russia.
Your tautology is circular. If it lasted, you wouldn't call it a fad.
Click your name/icon in the top right. At the bottom you'll find an option to "Restore Classic YouTube". This has the added advantage of giving you a chance to tell them why you don't like the new design.
"Some things should be taboo" "All things should be taboo" nor "All taboos are good"
A taboo against posting signs that say "Death to all Jews", for example, can be a good thing. I shouldn't like legislation to that effect, but I am happy that such language is not acceptable in polite company.
No one. Taboos are a matter of social pressure and standards, not some centralized guarantor or body. The mental mechanism which causes taboos can certainly be put to bad ends. Such taboos should be challenged. But, again, there is a some/all distinction we have to make here. It does not follow that because some taboos should be challenged, on account of them being unjust, all taboos must always be opposed.
Even if such were the case, it'd be an endless task. Taboos naturally arise among humans. There isn't a human society lacking taboos. Now of course natural does not mean good, just, or even 'ought'. But it does mean that eliminating taboos entirely is likely an impossible goal without modifying human nature itself. Better, therefore, to focus one's efforts are unjust taboos than to waste effort supporting some idealist goal of eliminating all taboos. In short, I do not (and did not) say all taboos are good. I merely said some things should be taboo.
Yep. Me too.
Nope. I don't think you are. It's quite simple: "We've chosen to dissociate ourselves with Mr. Kjellberg because his actions do not reflect the values and attitudes of Disney." I'm not objecting to their dissociation, and I think what I just offered is at least passable corporatese. As I said before, I think taboos can be a good thing. My objection is to the implicit approval of praising 'irreverence'. I really don't think PewDiePie meant any harm. But its precisely a culture that praises irreverence as a good in itself which leads to irreverent and, sooner or later, 'inappropriate' speech. My objection is that the corporation was perfectly happy to associate itself with 'irreverence' as such.
The difficulty is that our culture lionizes irreverence for its own sake, but then is unwilling to accept the same when it is applied to very particular (i.e. profit threatening/socially objectionable) circumstances. This is where I find the hypocrisy.
Let me put it this way: I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian; I am also a supporter of free speech and liberal democracy. If I ran a media corporation and I spoke in glowing terms of 'irreverence', and then, upon discovering that my corporation was sponsoring Andrews Serrano (who did the (in?)famous 'Piss Christ'), distanced the company from the artist, I would be a hypocrite. For this reason I would not heedlessly lionize irreverence. I should sooner support mutual respect: "Our company would recognize your individual right under the law to do as you please artistically. But, if you're a Muslim, you'll not find my company doing cartoons of Muhammad and praising ourselves for being 'irreverent.' If you're a Buddhist, you won't find my company Photoshopping the Dalai Lama into compromising positions, even if we think it funny or artistic. If you're African-American, you won't find us making jokes about slavery. If you're Jewish, you should understand that we don't think the Holocaust is a laughing matter."
I'm all for a CEO saying something like this. I call him a hypocrite only when he treats 'irreverence' as something to be desired in itself (as is often the case in our culture). If one wishes to sell material which offend my religious sensibilities, very well then; I leave that to them. But if the same one objects when an employee draws a picture of Mohammed or makes an elephant dung virgin Mary, I think I'll be justified in calling them out for hypocrisy.
My objection is to the corporate speak and the hypocrisy it allows people to rationalize. One shouldn't praise 'irreverence' as something great and courageous, on the one hand, but reject the speech of others as 'inappropriate' once it's applied to one's own sacred cows.
It's funny how one of these words has a positive connotation, and the other one a negative. This, despite the fact that opposing groups might apply each term to the same content. All inappropriate means in a context where one is praising someone for irreverence is that the irreverence was applied to a preferred group.
I am reminded of Isaac Hayes's objection to South Park's irreverence toward Scientology.
No one individual is America, not even the President. For all its flaws, Congress is the elected representative of the American people.
Fox News to Create a New Channel Targeting Progressives
Valve to Start Selling DVDs on Steam
That's a matter of definition. The term republic as used by the Romans, res publica, merely refers to affairs handled publicly. In many ways, the Roman system was closely comparable the mixed constitutions present in most Greek city states. (Before the Delian League, at any rate, Athenian style democracy was far less common than mixed constitution systems.) Most of these were outgrowths of competition among elites. Early city states would be headed elders from wealthy landowning families. (Even the term senate, from senex or old man, reflects this--incidentally senile is from the same root as senate.) Popular assemblies would also be used for matters like war and use of public lands. In many cases, nouveau riche from the merchant classes would agitate for change and gradually expand the franchise to increase the number of loyal voting blocks to achieve their ends. The real anomaly is the Athenian system which, under the likes of Pisistratus and Cleisthenes, expanded the franchise to ever greater proportions--and in their own interests--until the people's assembly held most of the power.
The term republic has evolved since that time. If you look at the way it was used in the Renaissance/Early Modern period, it merely meant a constitutional arrangement without a monarch. This is rather closer to the Latin meaning of res publica than the way we use it today. (There's not really an ancient Greek equivalent, though the Greeks freely discussed mixed constitutions composed of democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.) But under the influence first of Anglo-American and then of French systems of representative government, it has come to mean something very different. When we speak of republics these days, we often mean representative systems. But this is one of the (great) innovations that has occurred since parliamentary systems came about in the past millennium. Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Republic was not a representative system. See Polybius, Histories, Book VI if you'd like some details, but the quick and dirty version is this: Romans did elect magistrates for certain positions we would term 'executive.' But all legislative power was vested in an assortment of popular assemblies. The senate was an advisory body made up of former magistrates who'd attained a respectable rank, but it had no direct legislative powers.
In short, the meanings of these words have changed so much that saying the Greeks had no republics but the Romans did requires some parsing. If by republic we mean a representative system, then neither Greeks nor Romans had republics. But if we mean what the Romans meant, then many Greek poleis were republics.
just because barbarians have started using the free press. Dangerous ideas are nothing new. The free press is how a free people fights them.