Wow. So if the facts available don't support your position, the facts must be wrong? That's a perfect little bubble you've made for yourself there.
Countries with the best traffic accident stats (e.g. my own UK) use roundabouts extensively. People are not terrified of them. Personally I'm rather fond of being able to go straight through a junction at 30mph without stopping when conditions are right. It's traffic lights that are best avoided where possible - not all of us need somebody else's help to get us from A to B.
If Americans are terrified, well that's just sad. A country with a car culture scared of a traffic junction? That's kinda pathetic isn't it?
Could I just say I admire the way you're continuing the debate even though I am making comments that, for all the fancy wording, do refer to your character directly? For what it's worth, I think that your argument is understandable and well intended and largely "correct". But the hardline interpretation has negative consequences. I think there is a threshold to be passed before editorial decisions become censorship; it is only on this basis that we can go beyond disagreeing with it but actually build a case for taking steps to prevent it. Censorship that really fits the meaning of censorship should be prevented, I believe.
Now, back to being an asshat...
Alright, but as I said, that in itself does not answer my original argument.
Your original argument was that I was making assumptions about your feelings. I have in fact answered that several times, and will again:
However, because you do not know my true feelings, it remains an assumption, does it not?
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact. As well as confusing "conclusion" with "assumption", you seem to be assuming that conclusions must be irrefutable to be considered valid.
I do, because as you said, it fits one of the definitions.
True, but using other definitions it is not. Effectively asserting that yours is both relevant and to be considered in isolation is similar to fundamentalist logic. I believe it should be challenged, not simply accepted. Assuming that dictionary definitions can be applied with the precision of a mathematical proof is not, in my subjective experience, reality-based.
"Censorship" is bad in my view, something to be resisted on principle. You could, however, apply a strict definition such as "withholding information from the public by a body" to any and all acts of scheduling, filtering, editing, selecting or prioritizing. Those are all essential activities for a TV network, so in practice the word loses any substantive meaning. However, I believe that words should count for something, because free speech is worth fighting for.
Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes if they were removed merely because some people were offended.
So would I. But why make that assumption? I don't think it follows from the article.
Yes. What does this have to do with a piece of fictional entertainment? If no one is offended by it, then why is there a need for "empathy"?
Again with the "quotation marks", I see. Again, without any demonstration of understanding what empathy is, I can't really answer that question for you. For my part, empathy is not only a valid consideration in any decision involving other people, but usually desirable and sometimes essential. Read around; it's not unusual to find empathy given as an essential part of living a happy, fulfilling life. I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
I've read your posts, but I don't agree with them, just as you don't agree with me.
Absolutely. I just pointing out the difference between disagreeing with a point of view, and acting like it doesn't even exist.
I would disagree more if they were making the assumption that no one else thought that they were funny as well. But that probably didn't happen, did it?
I wouldn't make that assumption. Many people might not find jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster particularly funny. They've been getting the news about earthquakes, deaths and meltdowns, see a meltdown on a TV show, and start talking about Japan instead of just chuckling at Homer and Bart. That seems a realistic scenario to me. It's that empathy thing, you see. You keep suggesting empathy isn't r
See the bit where it says, "invalidation"? That's the bit that tells you that yes indeed, a rebuttal generally implies you think the thing rebutted is invalid. As for what is and isn't on topic, isn't it hypocritical to think that people disapproving of what others choose to do, would not accept the same in return? It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that jazz.
Proclaiming that I am offended as you did a few comments ago is indeed an assumption about my feelings
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
Be careful with the absolutes.
I have been, weren't you paying attention? It's actually quite time consuming writing out all the little caveats, drawing comparisons rather than making assertions, and so on. The debate would probably be more substantive if I didn't have to tread so carefully around you.
Justify an opinion?
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that". The former is just an opinion; everyone has them. The latter is a basis for active interference in individual choice. It's the difference between just having an opinion (probably just given once), and being self-righteous (the kind of thing you might repeat, as you did, in multiple threads).
Like I say, I think words should count for something and I comment on that basis. If you want to write as if yours don't count for anything, that's a shame, but you can't reliably expect others to treat them that way.
Have I changed my mind about anything? No. Have you changed your mind about anything? Not that I see.
Open minds are about more than being willing to change them. This is a one on one debate on a particular subject; it stands to reason that we might not change our minds. However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I don't understand where you're getting this. It's just assumption after assumption.
First, it's interesting that as I repeatedly explain how my comments respond directly to your actual statements, you repeat the word "assumption" like a mantra. Second, it's just a little debating trick to highlight an opponent's tendency to over-react. I use a little hyperbole; you fall back on cookie-cutter, catch-all statements, the "get out of jail free" card of irrational debate.
Censorship is 'bad' only to me, and I'm disagreeing with people who say otherwise. Of course, that doesn't make them 'wrong'.
That's the whole self-righteous thing right there. You're not disagreeing with people who say that censorship isn't bad - you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all. In the process, you're judging people's innocuous, sympathetic TV scheduling. You're even setting yourself up as someone of higher standards, someone willing to denounce censorship where others will not.
Yes, you did. Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid. I've repeatedly demonstrated that I'm responding only to what you say. There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings. If the comparisons make you uncomfortable, that's a matter for self-reflection rather than complaints. Denial does not an argument make.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum. This is just a discussion on Slashdot. Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great. An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help. Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards. Even so, it is reassuring for me that I'm not condoning censorship by any reality based definition. So I find that useful.
I believe that a few people who are easily offended having the ability to have content taken away from others, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, would count as a "negative consequence."
That would certainly be a negative consequence. One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
"Reasonable" is subjective.
Oh, absolutely. Arguably, it would be reasonable to recommend to someone buying a new car that they ask for it to be painted lime green with cyan polka dots on the roof and purple doors. It's just that most people would tend to think that such an argument is ridiculous. Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
Evidence for opinions about what others think is important?
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
the article implies that some people could be offended. I am speaking of this scenario, and I thought it was obvious.
Sure, but "unsuitable" also has other implications. I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities. As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
what word shall I use to describe it quickly?.. All you've actually done is attack my word usage, and seemingly nothing more.
Well, this is an online discussion. Words are kind of fundamental to the whole process, in my experience. Would you prefer hieroglyphics? It should be clear that if I'm happy to use "disapproving", "sensitive" and "easily offended" as replacements for each other, I'm more concerned with substance than with labels. So no, I'm not attacking your word usage, but what they imply about your thinking. Unless you're about to propose there's a way I could read your mind, we're just going to have to live with the whole "using words to communicate" thing.
Really, this is just an ad hominem attack at this point.
Is the latin supposed to be impressive? "Ad hominem attack" is just a pretentious way of saying "personal criticism" (as compared to the logical fallacy the phrase is more usefully applied to). Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
There could be a number of reasons that I wish for my desires to be fulfilled or that I post here.
I couldn't care less what your reasons for posting are, just what you say in those posts. I believe that what someone says should count for something. Although if you don't mean anything you say, I'd still enjoy the whole process because it's a little intellectual exercise in wading through sophistry to get to the core of an issue.
I support free speech. It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
You try to downplay the situation and act as if, because you think it is unimportant, it is unimportant for everyone.
Not at all. I think that if it is unimportant, then it is unimportant, and claiming the direct opposite would be indicative of being overly sensitive. Seeing as we're talking about a couple of cartoon re-runs, my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable. Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
I've already explained why I disagree.
Well, kind of. For your argument to make sense, we have to use your definition of censorship, assume that your assessment of their motives is correct (having never met them or communicated with them), assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained, assume that it is bad for people paid to provide light entertainment to feel an obligation to provide it, and fear un-named consequences.
There is a high degree of similarity between that kind of judgemental and fearful argument by assertion and, say, those of a fundamentalist Christian who takes a strict view of morals and the US Constitution to justify their hysteria about abortion.
Don't get me wrong, though. Just because you quack like a duck doesn't make you a duck.
No, my interpretation is rock solid, as you yourself explain. You are using this definition:
censorship
The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.
Your post is a tautology: your disapproval isn't because it's censorship, but because of what the situation represents, and what it represents is censorship. My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
Slightly worse, in fact - now you're choosing definitions to suit your delicate sensibilities. That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended! Sorry, you don't the word being applied to you, do you? A "hallmark of the quick to disapprove", then.
I'm surprised you think TV networks should be completely free to act as censors. It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
A TV scheduler's job includes simple concepts like, "put light entertainment material in the light entertainment slot." It's entirely reasonable that in their view, jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster are not light entertainment.
I think they should be completely free to make that choice. You clearly don't, and are judging other people's scheduling decisions. This is closer to the logic of censorship than it is to free speech.
Most definitions of censorship would not apply here. The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical. It is a free decision made by individuals, as a minor gesture, at a moment in time, with no intent to force that view on others, that does not prevent you from viewing the material in question.
It's true that it is censorship - strictly speaking, according to a particular definition, with no sense of perspective or sympathy. Interpreting words in such a manner is a hallmark of the easily offended. It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
Fair enough. But that makes for a long list of people they disagree with: the channels doing something on a voluntary basis, the executive producer of the show for not challenging their right to make independent decisions, and all the people that think it's a small courtesy to show some sympathy for dead and dying people caught up in a national crisis.
You have to ask just what is their motive for whining about censorship? Does the voluntary delay of a few re-runs that have been shown before, and will be again, and are available elsewhere, really count as censorship in their minds? Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities must their lives be to come to that conclusion?
I'm afraid, as a Brit, I find your post to be such an embarrassment to our nation that I must ask you go into a quiet room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver, and do the right thing.
Surreal and nonsensical humour requires that you enjoy the "different", are not so concerned with what is "proper", and don't need at least 4 episodes of preparatory material before you can "get" the joke. Don't criticise what you can't understand. Let's take a brief tour of exaggeration, silliness, farce and slapstick in British comedy:
18th century: Jonathan Swift writes about midgets and giants to satirise the pomposity of Brits obsessed with what is "proper".
19th century: Gilbert & Sullivan based entire plots on ideas like a fully grown pirate being only 5 years old, having been born on Feb 29th.
20th century: in the 50s, The Goon Show goes surreal, blazing the path 18 years before Python. Spike Milligan is famous both for being surreal and for writing funny books which do not need to be acted out to be funny, and Peter Sellers is famous for his over-the-top characters. The Two Ronnies relied upon "stupid costumes, over-exaggerated characters [and] nonsensical situations" for 16 years. Eric Morecambe, also drawing in many millions of viewers with Ernie Wise for 15 years, was famous for slapstick.
We're now in the 21st century. We still have several of The Goodies, another surreal 70s show, as regulars on I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue in its 54th series, with guests such as the ridiculous and surreal Ross Noble. How much more bloody "proper" and "English" can you get than Radio Four on a Sunday afternoon?
It's about time to get down from your ivory high chair and catch up with the past few centuries of what us Brits think is funny. Don't be the guy giving the rest of us a reputation for having a stick up our arse.
people jump on the ignorance when it's relating to something anti-European or pro-American much faster than they jump on it when it's pro-European.
You're not thinking it through. Here's roughly how it works:
American website hosts an ignorant, anti-European comment. That's insulting. Europeans will respond, and fellow Americans will respond because you're making them all look like douchebags.
American website hosts an ignorant, pro-American comment. That's bragging. The rest of the world will respond, and fellow Americans will respond because you're making them all look like douchebags.
American website hosts an ignorant, pro-European comment. That's being nice, even if it was ill-informed. It's a compliment. Nobody wants to jump on it, because they don't want to be douchebags.
What you're observing is just the natural outcome of people trying to be good people. Don't be the douchebag. You got it wrong, you got called on it. If that's too much to handle and you need to go all caps, then, like OMG!!!, the big, bad internet may not be for you.
If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.. not even a common language
You're absolutely right. And here's the problem - you're struggling with some basic English. Seeing a "meaningful distinction" is completely different to just seeing a "difference".
It's nothing but semantic masturbation to claim there is any difference in real world outcomes between "I'm better than you" and "I'm perfect". Makes you feel good, maybe, but it's no use to anybody else, and embarrassing to witness in public.
Out of interest, how far did you have to shove your head up your ass to find lines like, "we have no common ground upon which communications could profit"?
Mandela, that well known Western leader! And Kenya, surely the finest of all Western nations! Not a single result on Google for Blair calling him a murderous autocrat, either.
You're just making it up, aren't you?
Incredible vanity will also make you feckless and ineffective. Why use three words when one will do? But it is very impressive that you prefer to use the big words. Maybe Jiminy will give you an extra wish as a reward.
Read those papers again. You'll find the leaders of the Western World use diplomatic language regarding Mugabe personally. Words like "tyrant" might crop up, but not "scumbag" or "murderous". They don't meet with him anyway, which makes them irrelevant to the discussion of how diplomats should talk to their contacts. You should read the posts a bit more closely before commenting.
If your point was about how everyone knows Mugabe is a scumbag - well, no shit, Sherlock. And is anyone surprised to find out that Berlusconi is vain? Is anyone of adult age really so naive that it bothers them diplomats don't call him that to his face?
You can wish for unicorns and ponies and everybody always being honest with each other if you like. I'm sure Jiminy Cricket will be right along to sort that out for you.
If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.
Absolutely. I'm sure you'd agree that Robert Mugabe is a wonderful person, and how terrible it is that anyone might criticise him simply for being a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of vast swathes of his felIlow citizens. How uncivil it would be to point such a thing out. Right thinking people such as yourself should not stand for such indecent revelations.
Try reading that book again. Adams includes the budget process in his list of one level removed activities, and says, "You couldn't run a company, for example, without a budget process. I'm not suggesting you try." He then goes on to provide further advice, essentially that fiddling and reorganising is usually bad, while re-engineering and streamlining can be good. The latter are one level removed.
Be careful of taking simplisitic advice out of context to reinforce your own sense of superiority.
I would've sworn that was mob rule. This recent decision to give the "gangs" rights certainly keeps the US at the very forefront of democratic experimentation.
As a legal convenience.. The AARP is a corporation. The NEA is a corporation. The AFL/CIO is a corporation. The NAACP is a corporation.
True, true. So, your democratic philosophy is one of gangs and legal conveniences. I've got to admire the inventiveness. It would never have occurred to me to look at it that way.
As a Brit, it's fascinating to watch the direction the US is taking. When the colonies declared their independence, they were all about "self-evident truth" and "unalienable rights". We were awfully put out. But it turns out, they're just as keen as us to find ways to ensure hereditary power. We really shouldn't have worried.
It doesn't work like that. Off-the-shelf software is far cheaper than paying development time for a bespoke solution, even including upgrade costs. Software vendors typically have to make significant changes over a ten year frame. Accept that some of those changes may favour a different set of users, learn to factor maintenance into your budgeting, and suck it up.
Heh. That isn't brutal honesty, it's rampant insecurity.
If you're smart, then a new interface isn't a challenge. If you're focused, then a new interface won't interfere with your work. If you're experienced, then you'll know that even after 15 years you can find better ways to do things - and that the more you've invested in the previous method, the more effort the change will take. You'll also have noticed that resistance to change is strongest from those who fear their superiority is being challenged. The smarter they are, the more excuses they can come up with. The less confident they are, and the more pathetically emotive their language becomes (the ribbon interface is "whoring"? Seriously?) .
People focused on outcomes rather than self-aggrandisation tend not to bother with excuses or complaints. Stick with familiar tools for the duration of the project, or set aside some time to learn a new set of keystrokes. Either way, stay focused on the things that matter.
Office has never been specialized software, and certainly not for thesis work. The 65K limit was removed at the same time the Ribbon was introduced. You probably shouldn't be doing a Ph.D. if a new interface is more than you can cope with, and with that disregard for actual facts you really should ask yourself if research is the kind of thing you're suited for.
You might want to re-think your sarcasm there. XP's development started back in 1999, and most of Microsoft's customers are happy to keep using it. It's also a business product, as are Vista and 7.
Do you really think the operating system is a good example of how exciting and successful Microsoft has been in the consumer market in the last 10 years?
It's not too difficult to understand if you think about what's going on in the use case: presentation software is used in situations where the presenter is having their competence judged.
Imagine this prosecutor shows up with an.odp file that can't be used by the industry standard, PowerPoint-based set up provided by the venue. So after bit of confusion, he gets it saved as a.ppt file. It looks like ass. He started late. Some of the transitions or animations go funny in the change of file format. He's put off his stride and doesn't do a great job in front of an important crowd. 400 of his peers think he's an idiot. Suddenly the conversations he'd been planning to have with a few key people are more about the style rather than the substance of his presentation. A minor IT problem which no-one had ever thought to mention in the cross-training from MS to Open Office has a critical impact.
If all IT had to say was, "Seriously? It just puts stuff up on the screen," then I wouldn't blame the rest of the organisation just shutting down the migration process due to incompetence.
it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"
The full piece also comments on public works. It is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually read it that the subject is artificial stimuli and their unseen consequences. Oh, and deficit spending isn't basically the government taking a loan and investing it, because that definition wouldn't allow for a government choosing to build a surplus and using it for deficit spending at the bottom of an economic cycle.
You might ask yourself: if you're getting all the facts wrong, just how good is your judgement regarding who is and who is not being productive?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. So if the facts available don't support your position, the facts must be wrong? That's a perfect little bubble you've made for yourself there.
Countries with the best traffic accident stats (e.g. my own UK) use roundabouts extensively. People are not terrified of them. Personally I'm rather fond of being able to go straight through a junction at 30mph without stopping when conditions are right. It's traffic lights that are best avoided where possible - not all of us need somebody else's help to get us from A to B.
If Americans are terrified, well that's just sad. A country with a car culture scared of a traffic junction? That's kinda pathetic isn't it?
Could I just say I admire the way you're continuing the debate even though I am making comments that, for all the fancy wording, do refer to your character directly? For what it's worth, I think that your argument is understandable and well intended and largely "correct". But the hardline interpretation has negative consequences. I think there is a threshold to be passed before editorial decisions become censorship; it is only on this basis that we can go beyond disagreeing with it but actually build a case for taking steps to prevent it. Censorship that really fits the meaning of censorship should be prevented, I believe.
Now, back to being an asshat...
Your original argument was that I was making assumptions about your feelings. I have in fact answered that several times, and will again:
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact. As well as confusing "conclusion" with "assumption", you seem to be assuming that conclusions must be irrefutable to be considered valid.
True, but using other definitions it is not. Effectively asserting that yours is both relevant and to be considered in isolation is similar to fundamentalist logic. I believe it should be challenged, not simply accepted. Assuming that dictionary definitions can be applied with the precision of a mathematical proof is not, in my subjective experience, reality-based.
"Censorship" is bad in my view, something to be resisted on principle. You could, however, apply a strict definition such as "withholding information from the public by a body" to any and all acts of scheduling, filtering, editing, selecting or prioritizing. Those are all essential activities for a TV network, so in practice the word loses any substantive meaning. However, I believe that words should count for something, because free speech is worth fighting for.
So would I. But why make that assumption? I don't think it follows from the article.
Again with the "quotation marks", I see. Again, without any demonstration of understanding what empathy is, I can't really answer that question for you. For my part, empathy is not only a valid consideration in any decision involving other people, but usually desirable and sometimes essential. Read around; it's not unusual to find empathy given as an essential part of living a happy, fulfilling life. I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
Absolutely. I just pointing out the difference between disagreeing with a point of view, and acting like it doesn't even exist.
I wouldn't make that assumption. Many people might not find jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster particularly funny. They've been getting the news about earthquakes, deaths and meltdowns, see a meltdown on a TV show, and start talking about Japan instead of just chuckling at Homer and Bart. That seems a realistic scenario to me. It's that empathy thing, you see. You keep suggesting empathy isn't r
Here's the Collins dictionary on "rebuttal":
rebuttal noun: disproof, negation, refutation, invalidation, confutation, defeatSee the bit where it says, "invalidation"? That's the bit that tells you that yes indeed, a rebuttal generally implies you think the thing rebutted is invalid. As for what is and isn't on topic, isn't it hypocritical to think that people disapproving of what others choose to do, would not accept the same in return? It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that jazz.
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
I have been, weren't you paying attention? It's actually quite time consuming writing out all the little caveats, drawing comparisons rather than making assertions, and so on. The debate would probably be more substantive if I didn't have to tread so carefully around you.
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that". The former is just an opinion; everyone has them. The latter is a basis for active interference in individual choice. It's the difference between just having an opinion (probably just given once), and being self-righteous (the kind of thing you might repeat, as you did, in multiple threads).
Like I say, I think words should count for something and I comment on that basis. If you want to write as if yours don't count for anything, that's a shame, but you can't reliably expect others to treat them that way.
Open minds are about more than being willing to change them. This is a one on one debate on a particular subject; it stands to reason that we might not change our minds. However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
First, it's interesting that as I repeatedly explain how my comments respond directly to your actual statements, you repeat the word "assumption" like a mantra. Second, it's just a little debating trick to highlight an opponent's tendency to over-react. I use a little hyperbole; you fall back on cookie-cutter, catch-all statements, the "get out of jail free" card of irrational debate.
That's the whole self-righteous thing right there. You're not disagreeing with people who say that censorship isn't bad - you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all. In the process, you're judging people's innocuous, sympathetic TV scheduling. You're even setting yourself up as someone of higher standards, someone willing to denounce censorship where others will not.
Classic self-indulgent, self-righteous nonsense.
Yes, you did. Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid. I've repeatedly demonstrated that I'm responding only to what you say. There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings. If the comparisons make you uncomfortable, that's a matter for self-reflection rather than complaints. Denial does not an argument make.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum. This is just a discussion on Slashdot. Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great. An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help. Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards. Even so, it is reassuring for me that I'm not condoning censorship by any reality based definition. So I find that useful.
That would certainly be a negative consequence. One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
Oh, absolutely. Arguably, it would be reasonable to recommend to someone buying a new car that they ask for it to be painted lime green with cyan polka dots on the roof and purple doors. It's just that most people would tend to think that such an argument is ridiculous. Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
Sure, but "unsuitable" also has other implications. I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities. As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
Well, this is an online discussion. Words are kind of fundamental to the whole process, in my experience. Would you prefer hieroglyphics? It should be clear that if I'm happy to use "disapproving", "sensitive" and "easily offended" as replacements for each other, I'm more concerned with substance than with labels. So no, I'm not attacking your word usage, but what they imply about your thinking. Unless you're about to propose there's a way I could read your mind, we're just going to have to live with the whole "using words to communicate" thing.
Is the latin supposed to be impressive? "Ad hominem attack" is just a pretentious way of saying "personal criticism" (as compared to the logical fallacy the phrase is more usefully applied to). Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
I couldn't care less what your reasons for posting are, just what you say in those posts. I believe that what someone says should count for something. Although if you don't mean anything you say, I'd still enjoy the whole process because it's a little intellectual exercise in wading through sophistry to get to the core of an issue.
I support free speech. It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
Not at all. I think that if it is unimportant, then it is unimportant, and claiming the direct opposite would be indicative of being overly sensitive. Seeing as we're talking about a couple of cartoon re-runs, my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable. Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
Well, kind of. For your argument to make sense, we have to use your definition of censorship, assume that your assessment of their motives is correct (having never met them or communicated with them), assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained, assume that it is bad for people paid to provide light entertainment to feel an obligation to provide it, and fear un-named consequences.
There is a high degree of similarity between that kind of judgemental and fearful argument by assertion and, say, those of a fundamentalist Christian who takes a strict view of morals and the US Constitution to justify their hysteria about abortion.
Don't get me wrong, though. Just because you quack like a duck doesn't make you a duck.
No, my interpretation is rock solid, as you yourself explain. You are using this definition:
censorship The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.Your post is a tautology: your disapproval isn't because it's censorship, but because of what the situation represents, and what it represents is censorship. My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
Slightly worse, in fact - now you're choosing definitions to suit your delicate sensibilities. That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended! Sorry, you don't the word being applied to you, do you? A "hallmark of the quick to disapprove", then.
I'm surprised you think TV networks should be completely free to act as censors. It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
A TV scheduler's job includes simple concepts like, "put light entertainment material in the light entertainment slot." It's entirely reasonable that in their view, jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster are not light entertainment.
I think they should be completely free to make that choice. You clearly don't, and are judging other people's scheduling decisions. This is closer to the logic of censorship than it is to free speech.
Most definitions of censorship would not apply here. The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical. It is a free decision made by individuals, as a minor gesture, at a moment in time, with no intent to force that view on others, that does not prevent you from viewing the material in question.
It's true that it is censorship - strictly speaking, according to a particular definition, with no sense of perspective or sympathy. Interpreting words in such a manner is a hallmark of the easily offended. It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
Fair enough. But that makes for a long list of people they disagree with: the channels doing something on a voluntary basis, the executive producer of the show for not challenging their right to make independent decisions, and all the people that think it's a small courtesy to show some sympathy for dead and dying people caught up in a national crisis.
You have to ask just what is their motive for whining about censorship? Does the voluntary delay of a few re-runs that have been shown before, and will be again, and are available elsewhere, really count as censorship in their minds? Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities must their lives be to come to that conclusion?
I'm afraid, as a Brit, I find your post to be such an embarrassment to our nation that I must ask you go into a quiet room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver, and do the right thing.
Surreal and nonsensical humour requires that you enjoy the "different", are not so concerned with what is "proper", and don't need at least 4 episodes of preparatory material before you can "get" the joke. Don't criticise what you can't understand. Let's take a brief tour of exaggeration, silliness, farce and slapstick in British comedy:
18th century: Jonathan Swift writes about midgets and giants to satirise the pomposity of Brits obsessed with what is "proper".
19th century: Gilbert & Sullivan based entire plots on ideas like a fully grown pirate being only 5 years old, having been born on Feb 29th.
20th century: in the 50s, The Goon Show goes surreal, blazing the path 18 years before Python. Spike Milligan is famous both for being surreal and for writing funny books which do not need to be acted out to be funny, and Peter Sellers is famous for his over-the-top characters. The Two Ronnies relied upon "stupid costumes, over-exaggerated characters [and] nonsensical situations" for 16 years. Eric Morecambe, also drawing in many millions of viewers with Ernie Wise for 15 years, was famous for slapstick.
We're now in the 21st century. We still have several of The Goodies, another surreal 70s show, as regulars on I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue in its 54th series, with guests such as the ridiculous and surreal Ross Noble. How much more bloody "proper" and "English" can you get than Radio Four on a Sunday afternoon?
It's about time to get down from your ivory high chair and catch up with the past few centuries of what us Brits think is funny. Don't be the guy giving the rest of us a reputation for having a stick up our arse.
people jump on the ignorance when it's relating to something anti-European or pro-American much faster than they jump on it when it's pro-European.
You're not thinking it through. Here's roughly how it works:
What you're observing is just the natural outcome of people trying to be good people. Don't be the douchebag. You got it wrong, you got called on it. If that's too much to handle and you need to go all caps, then, like OMG!!!, the big, bad internet may not be for you.
The point was that it was ignorant, not that it was anti anything.
You're absolutely right. And here's the problem - you're struggling with some basic English. Seeing a "meaningful distinction" is completely different to just seeing a "difference".
It's nothing but semantic masturbation to claim there is any difference in real world outcomes between "I'm better than you" and "I'm perfect". Makes you feel good, maybe, but it's no use to anybody else, and embarrassing to witness in public.
Out of interest, how far did you have to shove your head up your ass to find lines like, "we have no common ground upon which communications could profit"?
You don't even realise how sad it is that you thought the two big words are so much more important than the little one, do you?
Mandela, that well known Western leader! And Kenya, surely the finest of all Western nations! Not a single result on Google for Blair calling him a murderous autocrat, either.
You're just making it up, aren't you?
Incredible vanity will also make you feckless and ineffective. Why use three words when one will do? But it is very impressive that you prefer to use the big words. Maybe Jiminy will give you an extra wish as a reward.
Read those papers again. You'll find the leaders of the Western World use diplomatic language regarding Mugabe personally. Words like "tyrant" might crop up, but not "scumbag" or "murderous". They don't meet with him anyway, which makes them irrelevant to the discussion of how diplomats should talk to their contacts. You should read the posts a bit more closely before commenting.
If your point was about how everyone knows Mugabe is a scumbag - well, no shit, Sherlock. And is anyone surprised to find out that Berlusconi is vain? Is anyone of adult age really so naive that it bothers them diplomats don't call him that to his face?
You can wish for unicorns and ponies and everybody always being honest with each other if you like. I'm sure Jiminy Cricket will be right along to sort that out for you.
Absolutely. I'm sure you'd agree that Robert Mugabe is a wonderful person, and how terrible it is that anyone might criticise him simply for being a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of vast swathes of his felIlow citizens. How uncivil it would be to point such a thing out. Right thinking people such as yourself should not stand for such indecent revelations.
Try reading that book again. Adams includes the budget process in his list of one level removed activities, and says, "You couldn't run a company, for example, without a budget process. I'm not suggesting you try." He then goes on to provide further advice, essentially that fiddling and reorganising is usually bad, while re-engineering and streamlining can be good. The latter are one level removed.
Be careful of taking simplisitic advice out of context to reinforce your own sense of superiority.
I would've sworn that was mob rule. This recent decision to give the "gangs" rights certainly keeps the US at the very forefront of democratic experimentation.
True, true. So, your democratic philosophy is one of gangs and legal conveniences. I've got to admire the inventiveness. It would never have occurred to me to look at it that way.
As a Brit, it's fascinating to watch the direction the US is taking. When the colonies declared their independence, they were all about "self-evident truth" and "unalienable rights". We were awfully put out. But it turns out, they're just as keen as us to find ways to ensure hereditary power. We really shouldn't have worried.
It doesn't work like that. Off-the-shelf software is far cheaper than paying development time for a bespoke solution, even including upgrade costs. Software vendors typically have to make significant changes over a ten year frame. Accept that some of those changes may favour a different set of users, learn to factor maintenance into your budgeting, and suck it up.
Heh. That isn't brutal honesty, it's rampant insecurity.
If you're smart, then a new interface isn't a challenge. If you're focused, then a new interface won't interfere with your work. If you're experienced, then you'll know that even after 15 years you can find better ways to do things - and that the more you've invested in the previous method, the more effort the change will take. You'll also have noticed that resistance to change is strongest from those who fear their superiority is being challenged. The smarter they are, the more excuses they can come up with. The less confident they are, and the more pathetically emotive their language becomes (the ribbon interface is "whoring"? Seriously?) .
People focused on outcomes rather than self-aggrandisation tend not to bother with excuses or complaints. Stick with familiar tools for the duration of the project, or set aside some time to learn a new set of keystrokes. Either way, stay focused on the things that matter.
Office has never been specialized software, and certainly not for thesis work. The 65K limit was removed at the same time the Ribbon was introduced. You probably shouldn't be doing a Ph.D. if a new interface is more than you can cope with, and with that disregard for actual facts you really should ask yourself if research is the kind of thing you're suited for.
You might want to re-think your sarcasm there. XP's development started back in 1999, and most of Microsoft's customers are happy to keep using it. It's also a business product, as are Vista and 7.
Do you really think the operating system is a good example of how exciting and successful Microsoft has been in the consumer market in the last 10 years?
It's not too difficult to understand if you think about what's going on in the use case: presentation software is used in situations where the presenter is having their competence judged.
Imagine this prosecutor shows up with an .odp file that can't be used by the industry standard, PowerPoint-based set up provided by the venue. So after bit of confusion, he gets it saved as a .ppt file. It looks like ass. He started late. Some of the transitions or animations go funny in the change of file format. He's put off his stride and doesn't do a great job in front of an important crowd. 400 of his peers think he's an idiot. Suddenly the conversations he'd been planning to have with a few key people are more about the style rather than the substance of his presentation. A minor IT problem which no-one had ever thought to mention in the cross-training from MS to Open Office has a critical impact.
If all IT had to say was, "Seriously? It just puts stuff up on the screen," then I wouldn't blame the rest of the organisation just shutting down the migration process due to incompetence.
Happiness is exponentially growing income?
Nonsense. There's plenty of happy people not doubling their income on a regular basis. Where on earth have you observed this?
Like I said to the other guy, if you're going to be bitter, you should at least try to be well informed. Let me remove your veil of ignorance by quoting Bastiat's original conclusion of the parable of the broken window, contained in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen#The_Broken_Window/
The full piece also comments on public works. It is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually read it that the subject is artificial stimuli and their unseen consequences. Oh, and deficit spending isn't basically the government taking a loan and investing it, because that definition wouldn't allow for a government choosing to build a surplus and using it for deficit spending at the bottom of an economic cycle.
You might ask yourself: if you're getting all the facts wrong, just how good is your judgement regarding who is and who is not being productive?