No. CoCs are now about shielding children from reality. It's all about appealing to insecurity in order to control narrative (and thus the organization). Once implemented, they encourage people to say/do stupid shit and then hide behind 'oppression' or 'discrimination' instead of facing up to mistakes and fixing them. Really, the end goal is to burn the project's resources in 'signal boosting' particular political ideologies towards society at large. The more relevant the group, the bigger a target it becomes.
This probably started at the topmost institutions in society (government, ivy league, corporates). Most of the individuals pushing these at lower levels are probably clueless about it, but some are not. These would be the 'crusaders' that've been discussed here before.
I would argue the opposite. The mainstreaming of computers/internet has caused an influx of neurotypicals to join the party, and they are used to being able to save face when they fuck up. The aspergers programmer stereotype does not understand this, because, to such personalities, the system is everything, and assumes everyone else involved has the same mindset. In fact, it may be this attitude that allows the blunt honesty that's necessary in technical work. Reality does not care about feelings.
Except that linus isn't constantly rude. He has rugburned a few people who should've known better. Good technical people know that stupid needs to be nipped in the bud. It can't be allowed to fester just so thin skinned people can retain their unwarranted self-images.
While it's possible that a thin skinned person might notice something others missed, it's much more likely that he'll routinely create drama that drags everyone else away from the purpose of the project.
Nah, it's usually the feminists who have that problem. They squawk at people who criticise and try to get them removed from whatever platforms are in play. Typical examples include fired from jobs, kicked out of schools (eg Duke, Dalhousie), and of course, nuisance sexual harassment law suits. It's not the anti-feminists who are building soviet show trial style 'tribunals' in every institution they can in order to intimidate and shout people down. Anti-feminists aren't also building coalitions to censor speech they don't like either.
No, that is not logical. Just because one group does it does not automatically mean an opposing group has. Both accusations are separate and require separate evidence.
Interesting.. I'd say the same thing about feminists shouting 'rape apologist,' 'patriarchy',' and other such idiotic things at people for disagreeing. The part that makes it unfunny is that their shenanigans are backed by the state and mainstream institutions, which make them dangerous to liberty.
It's interesting how these people bitch about labels and generalizations, yet are the ones spending more time than most applying them to people. I believe they call it 'intersectionality.'
Yes. In fact, I'd argue that SJWs created the controversy in the first place. This is typically what happens: 1. Find some collection of attributes or institutions in the target cultural context to dominate. In this case, gaming/technology. 2. Feign offense and put on a victim routine, the louder the better. I believe they call it 'signal boosting'. 3. Use this victim status to garner sympathy and thus political power within the target organizations. 4. Use this power to 'reframe the narrative', ie dominate the discussion before it even begins. 5. Extract whatever cultural relevance this group has and use it to 'signal boost' up to the next target. When it inevitably dies, abandon the husk and move to the next target.
Yes, because, you know, truth (or lack of it) is defined by the number of people who believe relative to the number that believe something else, right? Galileo is spinning in his grave..
So, lets see, your post boils down to argumentum ad populum, and ad hominem. Your statement about universities is also wrong. While places like liberty.edu are censorious, Yale and Harvard are no better. Don't forget Duke.
left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views
Nope. Ideological extremity is usually what breeds totalitarianism. This barrier between moderate and extremist is most easily defined as the point where the ideology matters more than facts, truth, or rational argument. I think this 'coalition' is a datapoint among many suggesting we'll reach that point soon.
In the last century, there have been far more examples of socialism running amok than fascism (USSR, DPRK, nazi germany, maoist china, argentina, and yes, even sweden, which favors the cloth covered iron fist even today). In the US, the neo-right used christian dogma to drive their statist cultural package, and the left positioned themselves as the ones who'd fight back, which sounded great to the 20something generation at the time. By the 80s, the religious right lost its prestige, and now, after 20 years of political dominance, we're seeing the left show its true colors. eg: they're attacking the youth culture their 60's era 'counter culture' bootstrapped ('free love' --> 'rape tribunals'), and protection of rational criticism against religious belief has been replaced with babblings about atheist/christian 'bigotry' towards muslims. Black lives matter? No. All lives matter. A misbehaving state affects all of us. Don't let the propaganda redirect your attention.
Enough. I'm sick of the bullshit multilayered double standards. The whole left wing pantheon is based on these fixed hierarchies, defining which group is more oppressed than the other. It's just a smokescreen to compel these cross-sections to fight among each other. The left wing calls this 'intersectionality,' and you can major in this stuff at your local university, just like a real science degree! Anything, as long as no one pays attention to the marxists behind the curtain.
It may not be, but when it's super easy to expand the definitions of 'harassment' to include criticism, suddenly the law becomes a tool to censor speech.
I remember when it was the religious right that was trying to impose its values on society using the government (eg: abortion rights). The left was positioning itself as supporting the live and let live attitude, especially concerning sex. Now, today's left is all about campus 'rape tribunals' that model soviet show trials and pushes out tons of fear-mongering propaganda to create neurotic behavior in young people (mostly men) about sex. Now this 'coalition'... I guess like the neocons censored for jesus, the New Left censors for marx. Yay for big statists!
How about we just let individuals speak their minds and deal with the fact that not everyone will agree? That is a required cornerstone of learning, right? Free thought? Free expression that includes criticism? What a bunch of pissant crybabies this society's become.
It's ok to bypass DRM in inconsequential areas like cellphones and old software, but not where you're actually strung up on a leash, like the spyware in vehicle telmatics. Got it. How nice of them to think of the little people.
Smart TVs, but not 'single function' devices like e-readers. What does single function mean, then? Does that include amazon's tablets? They're e-readers and they are multifunction. This is a distinction without a difference.
Whatever happened to real ownership? When I buy something, it should be mine. All of it, including the copy of whatever software ships with it. I should be able to modify it if I choose, especially if it is owner-hostile in nature. After all, I'm sure vendors wouldn't want me to have the right to control how they spend the money I give them, complete with tracking reports and heavy handed licensing.
What a nice sentiment. Perhaps the real problem is the hair trigger law enforcement rides. That's what allows swatting to happen in the first place. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if wackos on both sides of the issue have done it.
Not if the ideas aren't worthy of respect. The two definitions of respect: that it is deserved as a default vs earned on merit are part of the core ideological conflict between right and left.
Yeah.. It's just as likely that this 'cancellation' is nothing more than a publicity stunt design to 'signal boost' 'awareness' of the 'problem.'
If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Interesting. Marketplace of ideas, eh? I guess this guy's been watching certain vids on youtube. Too bad his 'new way of thinking' is newspeak jargon for 'politically correct' speech, which has no room for any other kind.
Slashdot Mirror
No. CoCs are now about shielding children from reality. It's all about appealing to insecurity in order to control narrative (and thus the organization). Once implemented, they encourage people to say/do stupid shit and then hide behind 'oppression' or 'discrimination' instead of facing up to mistakes and fixing them. Really, the end goal is to burn the project's resources in 'signal boosting' particular political ideologies towards society at large. The more relevant the group, the bigger a target it becomes.
This probably started at the topmost institutions in society (government, ivy league, corporates). Most of the individuals pushing these at lower levels are probably clueless about it, but some are not. These would be the 'crusaders' that've been discussed here before.
I would argue the opposite. The mainstreaming of computers/internet has caused an influx of neurotypicals to join the party, and they are used to being able to save face when they fuck up. The aspergers programmer stereotype does not understand this, because, to such personalities, the system is everything, and assumes everyone else involved has the same mindset. In fact, it may be this attitude that allows the blunt honesty that's necessary in technical work. Reality does not care about feelings.
Except that linus isn't constantly rude. He has rugburned a few people who should've known better. Good technical people know that stupid needs to be nipped in the bud. It can't be allowed to fester just so thin skinned people can retain their unwarranted self-images.
While it's possible that a thin skinned person might notice something others missed, it's much more likely that he'll routinely create drama that drags everyone else away from the purpose of the project.
What you describe is usually what happens to fun things after the political correction police have had their way with it.
Nah, it's usually the feminists who have that problem. They squawk at people who criticise and try to get them removed from whatever platforms are in play. Typical examples include fired from jobs, kicked out of schools (eg Duke, Dalhousie), and of course, nuisance sexual harassment law suits. It's not the anti-feminists who are building soviet show trial style 'tribunals' in every institution they can in order to intimidate and shout people down. Anti-feminists aren't also building coalitions to censor speech they don't like either.
No, that is not logical. Just because one group does it does not automatically mean an opposing group has. Both accusations are separate and require separate evidence.
Appealing to laws lobbied for by SJWs is circular reasoning. Also, just because it's the law does not make it a fact.
Interesting.. I'd say the same thing about feminists shouting 'rape apologist,' 'patriarchy',' and other such idiotic things at people for disagreeing. The part that makes it unfunny is that their shenanigans are backed by the state and mainstream institutions, which make them dangerous to liberty.
It's interesting how these people bitch about labels and generalizations, yet are the ones spending more time than most applying them to people. I believe they call it 'intersectionality.'
and yet here you are, doing the same kinds of things these supposed harassers do: calling people names.
Yes. In fact, I'd argue that SJWs created the controversy in the first place. This is typically what happens:
1. Find some collection of attributes or institutions in the target cultural context to dominate. In this case, gaming/technology.
2. Feign offense and put on a victim routine, the louder the better. I believe they call it 'signal boosting'.
3. Use this victim status to garner sympathy and thus political power within the target organizations.
4. Use this power to 'reframe the narrative', ie dominate the discussion before it even begins.
5. Extract whatever cultural relevance this group has and use it to 'signal boost' up to the next target. When it inevitably dies, abandon the husk and move to the next target.
Yay for parasitical political philosophies!
Yes, because, you know, truth (or lack of it) is defined by the number of people who believe relative to the number that believe something else, right? Galileo is spinning in his grave..
So, lets see, your post boils down to argumentum ad populum, and ad hominem. Your statement about universities is also wrong. While places like liberty.edu are censorious, Yale and Harvard are no better. Don't forget Duke.
https://youtu.be/im25MN5AwIc?t...
left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views
Nope. Ideological extremity is usually what breeds totalitarianism. This barrier between moderate and extremist is most easily defined as the point where the ideology matters more than facts, truth, or rational argument. I think this 'coalition' is a datapoint among many suggesting we'll reach that point soon.
In the last century, there have been far more examples of socialism running amok than fascism (USSR, DPRK, nazi germany, maoist china, argentina, and yes, even sweden, which favors the cloth covered iron fist even today). In the US, the neo-right used christian dogma to drive their statist cultural package, and the left positioned themselves as the ones who'd fight back, which sounded great to the 20something generation at the time. By the 80s, the religious right lost its prestige, and now, after 20 years of political dominance, we're seeing the left show its true colors. eg: they're attacking the youth culture their 60's era 'counter culture' bootstrapped ('free love' --> 'rape tribunals'), and protection of rational criticism against religious belief has been replaced with babblings about atheist/christian 'bigotry' towards muslims. Black lives matter? No. All lives matter. A misbehaving state affects all of us. Don't let the propaganda redirect your attention.
Enough. I'm sick of the bullshit multilayered double standards. The whole left wing pantheon is based on these fixed hierarchies, defining which group is more oppressed than the other. It's just a smokescreen to compel these cross-sections to fight among each other. The left wing calls this 'intersectionality,' and you can major in this stuff at your local university, just like a real science degree! Anything, as long as no one pays attention to the marxists behind the curtain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It may not be, but when it's super easy to expand the definitions of 'harassment' to include criticism, suddenly the law becomes a tool to censor speech.
I remember when it was the religious right that was trying to impose its values on society using the government (eg: abortion rights). The left was positioning itself as supporting the live and let live attitude, especially concerning sex. Now, today's left is all about campus 'rape tribunals' that model soviet show trials and pushes out tons of fear-mongering propaganda to create neurotic behavior in young people (mostly men) about sex. Now this 'coalition'... I guess like the neocons censored for jesus, the New Left censors for marx. Yay for big statists!
How about we just let individuals speak their minds and deal with the fact that not everyone will agree? That is a required cornerstone of learning, right? Free thought? Free expression that includes criticism? What a bunch of pissant crybabies this society's become.
It's ok to bypass DRM in inconsequential areas like cellphones and old software, but not where you're actually strung up on a leash, like the spyware in vehicle telmatics. Got it. How nice of them to think of the little people.
Smart TVs, but not 'single function' devices like e-readers. What does single function mean, then? Does that include amazon's tablets? They're e-readers and they are multifunction. This is a distinction without a difference.
Whatever happened to real ownership? When I buy something, it should be mine. All of it, including the copy of whatever software ships with it. I should be able to modify it if I choose, especially if it is owner-hostile in nature. After all, I'm sure vendors wouldn't want me to have the right to control how they spend the money I give them, complete with tracking reports and heavy handed licensing.
I believe the pop term is 'cultural marxism': marxist ideology applied to culture rather than economics.
It is if it's a badly designed weapon.
What a nice sentiment. Perhaps the real problem is the hair trigger law enforcement rides. That's what allows swatting to happen in the first place. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if wackos on both sides of the issue have done it.
Not if the ideas aren't worthy of respect. The two definitions of respect: that it is deserved as a default vs earned on merit are part of the core ideological conflict between right and left.
It was done purposely so that rational discussion is suppressed. 'Listen and believe', or you're a jackboot oppressor.
Yeah.. It's just as likely that this 'cancellation' is nothing more than a publicity stunt design to 'signal boost' 'awareness' of the 'problem.'
If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Interesting. Marketplace of ideas, eh? I guess this guy's been watching certain vids on youtube. Too bad his 'new way of thinking' is newspeak jargon for 'politically correct' speech, which has no room for any other kind.
No it wasn't. GG was also about calling out marxist narratives for what they are. Propaganda is not journalism.
As opposed to all the other-trained monkeys that use whatever wunderscript language their professors adored?
any side JS is not much better.