Since 'self-driving systems' aren't really self driving yet, perhaps the best thing is to stick to selling manual drive cars until it is actually possible to build cars that can safely navigate unattended. We already have too much of a problem with distracted driving, so it's better if everyone just 'knows' they are actually expected to pay attention when getting behind the wheel.
Nope. Expressing broken ideas does not help them die, nor is it related to challenging them. That is merely resurrecting them, instead of putting them in the grave they deserve.
Exposing each generation to the bad ideas of the past will lead us right back into the dark ages, as they inevitably fail to learn the lessons. Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be any kind of memetic immunity that is passed down through inheritance.
Not reliably anyway.
Ideas often come from within. They can never truly be buried forever.
If such ideas are truly broken then it should be simple for a society's elders to debunk them. Most who challenge them will eventually understand why they're wrong and will learn the lesson as they should. It is true that humans are poor at reliability and that not every student will learn the lesson, but this is still better than brutally repressing expression that is deemed untrue by some Ministry of Truth. That just invalidates the legitimacy of established 'doctrine' in the eyes of those whose voices were suppressed, whether it is correct or not on the subject. Also, inevitably, such a Ministry would corrupt itself into uselessness as those running it jockey for control.
Good. That is the point of choice, being able to support some, and oppose others.
Choice for whom, though? I didn't say google doesn't have the right, just that it shouldn't when it comes to their youtube policies.
Mysteriously, you have failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention. Maybe you thought you said something, but failed to notice your oversight in leaving it out?
or perhaps your reading comprehension skills failed you?
That extremism is merely a "relative term" and a "generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law" is merely the latest mechanism that extremists have tried to use to defend themselves from the immunization methods being brought against them. Such extremists are not dopes, they are not fools, they are sophisticated and manipulative, and you're, at best, carrying water for them.
This doesn't address the issue of 'extremism', which bases the validity of a position on its distance from popular consensus. A society that can't or won't face uncomfortable ideas is weaker for it, especially if it is so afraid of said ideas that it won't teach subsequent generations the errors made out of fear of their rebirth. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, eventually. While, I am sure such 'dopes' attempt to crybully their way into legitimacy, societies that regularly remind themselves why such 'dopes' are wrong stand better chances at resisting this than societies that won't out of fear or insecure virtue signaling on the part of their leaderships and institutions.
Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation? This applies to any religion, not just islam. From the perspective of islamic fundamentalists, the watered down 'moderate' interpretation you defend is blasphemy (or perhaps 'hate speech' towards allah and mohammed if you like). The fact this whole conflict is based on fantastical, improvable beliefs is why religion receives criticism in the first place.
Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam. He just ran into trouble with progressives because they had placed muslims on the protected caste list and he refused to give the religion a free pass.
Using censorious tactics also grants them credence. If the critics resort to (ab)use of authority to prevent such expression, it just appears they can't construct a valid criticism. Better to let all the camps have it out so that those on the sidelines can draw their own conclusions.
That example is not really a clash of ideas like what one finds on youtube. It involves actions taken by both sides. Words != actions.
Depends what you mean by society. As individuals, or via the state by proxy? I agree with the former because the result would be that individuals can express their views. By doing so, 'society' has expressed itself. The latter is just ripe for tyrannical abuse as dominant groups apply pressure to get themselves included on the 'do not challenge' list.
Yet, as you say, 'hate speech' bans are laws and laws are written and imposed by the state. Shouldn't they therefore be unconstitutional? While you're right that there's plenty of language twisting precedent to justify them, none of it really gets around this fundamental conflict. The reason the first amendment exists is to make it difficult for thin skinned opportunists to shut people up for expressing ideas they don't agree with or which run counter to their interests/agendas. Better to let the idiots speak than let easily manipulated committees decide what speech is acceptable.
That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged. In order for that to happen, they must be expressed. People aren't static creatures. They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives. Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again. Youtube's new policy helps set a narrative that favors certain sets of ideas (doctrines) by allowing them continued ad funding and commentary, while effectively silencing others. While google can do what they like with the site, this policy is not good for the user base nor society as a whole.
'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness. It's just a generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law.
An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in deities. It offers no justification. An agnostic atheist does not believe due to lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with Dawkins except that he probably is one.
Dawkins rightfully criticizes islam for its intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers. This should not surprise you as he has always been quite vocal and critical towards irrational belief systems. The funny thing is, if this was prior to ~2004, you'd probably be on board with him. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam. I just hope it's not at the expense of the former.
On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.
They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy. We don't tolerate it from the religious right so why should we from the left?
Now you're venturing into protected class type scenario.
Harvard's the one pushing such policy. That's why these would-be students had their acceptances revoked.
What do you mean by 'asshole' and 'asshole things'? Muslims won't like the things atheists have to say and vice versa. Each will want to criticize the other, which results in discussions and debates. This free expression is needed to separate bad arguments from good ones, which is why it is more important than individual feelings or group consensus, no matter how contentious. So while I agree that private educational institutions, which are supposed to have traditions of operating this way, can have restrictive policies on things like speech, it's not good for society or their students when they do. Policies against so-called 'hate-speech' are no better than blasphemy laws. They prevent criticism of certain groups' ideas and expression, often by equating it as bigoted ad hominem.
believe a private university SHOULD have the right to say what they will allow on their campus but only if they refuse ALL forms of federal grants and aid.
I'll ask you the same question: What if that includes zero tolerance of gays and dark skinned people? The lack of choice in having an attribute doesn't exempt it from consideration. Really, the correct academic response, here, is to ask people to justify their positions with facts and reason or to withdraw their statements, not to simply ban (or in this case, pre-ban) them from campus in order to shield the existing population from contrary thought. Harvard's perspective should be that these prospective students are in need of an education and to give them that same opportunity to be challenged.
I wonder how you'd feel if 'little Gavin' was facing such consequences for being dark skinned and expressing anti-white sentiments, gay and criticizing christianity, or muslim and criticizing 'western culture'.
If Harvard is truly the bastion of liberal education it claims to be, then it should welcome him and offer the opportunity to have his views challenged. At the same time, he'll challenge the views of others while there. Good arguments pass the gauntlet, bad arguments die. That's how it's supposed to be.
I wonder if you'd have that opinion if the school was not accepting them for liking the same sex or having dark skin. After all, they're still free to like the same sex and have dark skin.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you denying the Radiant Unity of Zuck's Social(ist) Future? Only hateful misfit extremists would question his wisdom.
Since 'self-driving systems' aren't really self driving yet, perhaps the best thing is to stick to selling manual drive cars until it is actually possible to build cars that can safely navigate unattended. We already have too much of a problem with distracted driving, so it's better if everyone just 'knows' they are actually expected to pay attention when getting behind the wheel.
No, they wouldn't, because today's socjus quackery is not yesterday's civil rights movement.
"But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words."
This is a perfect example where Trek's politics and today's SocJus diverge.
Nope. Expressing broken ideas does not help them die, nor is it related to challenging them. That is merely resurrecting them, instead of putting them in the grave they deserve.
Exposing each generation to the bad ideas of the past will lead us right back into the dark ages, as they inevitably fail to learn the lessons. Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be any kind of memetic immunity that is passed down through inheritance.
Not reliably anyway.
Ideas often come from within. They can never truly be buried forever.
If such ideas are truly broken then it should be simple for a society's elders to debunk them. Most who challenge them will eventually understand why they're wrong and will learn the lesson as they should. It is true that humans are poor at reliability and that not every student will learn the lesson, but this is still better than brutally repressing expression that is deemed untrue by some Ministry of Truth. That just invalidates the legitimacy of established 'doctrine' in the eyes of those whose voices were suppressed, whether it is correct or not on the subject. Also, inevitably, such a Ministry would corrupt itself into uselessness as those running it jockey for control.
Good. That is the point of choice, being able to support some, and oppose others.
Choice for whom, though? I didn't say google doesn't have the right, just that it shouldn't when it comes to their youtube policies.
Mysteriously, you have failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention. Maybe you thought you said something, but failed to notice your oversight in leaving it out?
or perhaps your reading comprehension skills failed you?
That extremism is merely a "relative term" and a "generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law" is merely the latest mechanism that extremists have tried to use to defend themselves from the immunization methods being brought against them. Such extremists are not dopes, they are not fools, they are sophisticated and manipulative, and you're, at best, carrying water for them.
This doesn't address the issue of 'extremism', which bases the validity of a position on its distance from popular consensus. A society that can't or won't face uncomfortable ideas is weaker for it, especially if it is so afraid of said ideas that it won't teach subsequent generations the errors made out of fear of their rebirth. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, eventually. While, I am sure such 'dopes' attempt to crybully their way into legitimacy, societies that regularly remind themselves why such 'dopes' are wrong stand better chances at resisting this than societies that won't out of fear or insecure virtue signaling on the part of their leaderships and institutions.
Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation? This applies to any religion, not just islam. From the perspective of islamic fundamentalists, the watered down 'moderate' interpretation you defend is blasphemy (or perhaps 'hate speech' towards allah and mohammed if you like). The fact this whole conflict is based on fantastical, improvable beliefs is why religion receives criticism in the first place.
Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam. He just ran into trouble with progressives because they had placed muslims on the protected caste list and he refused to give the religion a free pass.
Using censorious tactics also grants them credence. If the critics resort to (ab)use of authority to prevent such expression, it just appears they can't construct a valid criticism. Better to let all the camps have it out so that those on the sidelines can draw their own conclusions.
That example is not really a clash of ideas like what one finds on youtube. It involves actions taken by both sides. Words != actions.
Depends what you mean by society. As individuals, or via the state by proxy? I agree with the former because the result would be that individuals can express their views. By doing so, 'society' has expressed itself. The latter is just ripe for tyrannical abuse as dominant groups apply pressure to get themselves included on the 'do not challenge' list.
Yet, as you say, 'hate speech' bans are laws and laws are written and imposed by the state. Shouldn't they therefore be unconstitutional? While you're right that there's plenty of language twisting precedent to justify them, none of it really gets around this fundamental conflict. The reason the first amendment exists is to make it difficult for thin skinned opportunists to shut people up for expressing ideas they don't agree with or which run counter to their interests/agendas. Better to let the idiots speak than let easily manipulated committees decide what speech is acceptable.
You tell me. How long until feminists decide that women are 'at risk' sharing bathrooms with men? What happens then?
There's no winning with such unreasoning.
That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged. In order for that to happen, they must be expressed. People aren't static creatures. They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives. Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again. Youtube's new policy helps set a narrative that favors certain sets of ideas (doctrines) by allowing them continued ad funding and commentary, while effectively silencing others. While google can do what they like with the site, this policy is not good for the user base nor society as a whole.
'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness. It's just a generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law.
An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in deities. It offers no justification. An agnostic atheist does not believe due to lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with Dawkins except that he probably is one.
Dawkins rightfully criticizes islam for its intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers. This should not surprise you as he has always been quite vocal and critical towards irrational belief systems. The funny thing is, if this was prior to ~2004, you'd probably be on board with him. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam. I just hope it's not at the expense of the former.
So, therefore?
On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.
They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.
Critiquing technology != SJW crybullying
Ideologically charged people often compartmentalize their beliefs.
Citing 'human decency' is just another form of the 'for the children' fallacy. We don't tolerate it from the religious right so why should we from the left?
Yes.. No true 'progressive' would ever...
Now you're venturing into protected class type scenario.
Harvard's the one pushing such policy. That's why these would-be students had their acceptances revoked.
What do you mean by 'asshole' and 'asshole things'? Muslims won't like the things atheists have to say and vice versa. Each will want to criticize the other, which results in discussions and debates. This free expression is needed to separate bad arguments from good ones, which is why it is more important than individual feelings or group consensus, no matter how contentious. So while I agree that private educational institutions, which are supposed to have traditions of operating this way, can have restrictive policies on things like speech, it's not good for society or their students when they do. Policies against so-called 'hate-speech' are no better than blasphemy laws. They prevent criticism of certain groups' ideas and expression, often by equating it as bigoted ad hominem.
believe a private university SHOULD have the right to say what they will allow on their campus but only if they refuse ALL forms of federal grants and aid.
I'll ask you the same question: What if that includes zero tolerance of gays and dark skinned people? The lack of choice in having an attribute doesn't exempt it from consideration. Really, the correct academic response, here, is to ask people to justify their positions with facts and reason or to withdraw their statements, not to simply ban (or in this case, pre-ban) them from campus in order to shield the existing population from contrary thought. Harvard's perspective should be that these prospective students are in need of an education and to give them that same opportunity to be challenged.
I wonder how you'd feel if 'little Gavin' was facing such consequences for being dark skinned and expressing anti-white sentiments, gay and criticizing christianity, or muslim and criticizing 'western culture'.
If Harvard is truly the bastion of liberal education it claims to be, then it should welcome him and offer the opportunity to have his views challenged. At the same time, he'll challenge the views of others while there. Good arguments pass the gauntlet, bad arguments die. That's how it's supposed to be.
I wonder if you'd have that opinion if the school was not accepting them for liking the same sex or having dark skin. After all, they're still free to like the same sex and have dark skin.
What's going to happen now that Twitter's stock price has dropped from $66 a share to just $18?
Well, I hope the price drops to $0 and the company dies, taking the site with it.
Shitty content is the main threat these days. High prices too.
except it won't, as some simply won't submit their tips.
Not for the 99%.
if you only eat one meal a day how can you afford to post on slashdot? Perhaps you should cancel your network access and buy some more food.