General > General Technical Chat

Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

<< < (120/222) > >>

james_s:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 03:20:17 am ---
--- Quote from: fourfathom on March 11, 2023, 02:43:22 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 02:12:24 am ---Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

--- End quote ---
Do you honestly believe this?  So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one.  But I can if you really need one.

--- End quote ---

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

--- End quote ---

Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.

If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close.  :-//

Kim Christensen:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 03:30:45 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 03:20:17 am ---I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

--- End quote ---
Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.
If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close.  :-//

--- End quote ---

It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 02:12:24 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 02:00:46 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
--- End quote ---
Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
--- End quote ---

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

--- End quote ---
No, of course it is not!

For example, I can, and have, questioned whether Finland should have a death penalty for serial murderers, to find the reason why we don't (via comparison to countries that do have the death penalty).  (I am also quite interested in the history as to why certain countries have it in law, and why it is or is not still applied in practice.  It tells me what other people in other cultural contexts have perceived as fair and just.)

If it were to come to a vote, I will vote against capitol punishment in Finland, because of my personal view of the world.

Indeed, questioning a subject as if you were a proponent for it, is an extremely important investigative and educational tool.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
I practice it all the time, and not just in human-to-human communications.  When I do IT security, I 'don' the persona of the worst black hat I can imagine (and that version of NA is a true asshole) to find out the weak points, and how to defend the position I truly 'advocate' for.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:53:29 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 01:25:12 am ---For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".
--- End quote ---

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

--- End quote ---

I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened:
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 11, 2023, 03:12:07 am ---I'm pretty sure that, while his "office jokes" were seen as pretty harmless in the past, ever since the "great resignation" movement and people more and more questioning the traditional work life model as servile employees having to tolerate office rules and politics, many companies now see him as a threat. Wouldn't be surprised if some large companies were behind this canceling.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

--- End quote ---

He mentioned this on a show recently. Dilbert was actually incredibly controversial at the time, and papers refused to carry it becasue it was making fun of their big company work culture.
Many saw this a golden opportunity to get rid of him, not for that these days, everyones over that, but because he's very influential politically and there are many people in power (almost all on the left) that would love him to be removed from the political influence equation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod