EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Black Phoenix on February 28, 2023, 12:51:53 am
-
Some time ago I remember seeing a post about Dilbert being in hot water because of some journals dropping his daily strips.
As something that is part of most the engineers and office workers daily routine to check the new strip released, I thought it would be good to point this news.
https://www.thepopverse.com/dilbert-comic-scott-adams-newspaper-syndication (https://www.thepopverse.com/dilbert-comic-scott-adams-newspaper-syndication)
Less than a week after Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams said and tweeted new racist comments online, both his syndication partner of more than a decade and his book publisher have cut ties with him, effectively ending his career as a published creator, at least temporarily.
On February 22, Adams posted a live YouTube stream in response to a Rasmussen poll that asked Black Americans whether or not they agreed with the phrase, 'It’s okay to be white' — a phrase that is a known slogan for alt-right and racist groups. 53% of those polled agreed, with 26% disagreeing and 21% unsure.
Adams’ response to the poll was vehement. “If nearly half of all Blacks are not okay with White people… that’s a hate group,” Adams said during the broadcast. “I don’t want to have anything to do with them. And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people… because there is no fixing this.”
The cartoonist is no stranger to sharing controversial and abhorrent views, having previously written, “the reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone.” In October 2022, he tweeted, “No white man would get hired in corporate America in 2022 if an equally qualified Black man applied at the same time. Everyone knows that. If I were the employer, I would hire the Black candidate every time, to cover my own ass. Everyone would, and does.”
-
I don't think it's going to matter. The only place I've read Dilbert in the past 15+ years is on its own website and some of the books. I'm sure Adams will find somewhere to host it, and sooner or later the outrage mob will find something else to focus on.
-
Print media; newspapers, magazines, and the like, become more and more irrelevant everyday. Their banning Scott Adams is a perfect example of why.
I'll continue reading Scott long after their rags print their last distortion.
-
Scott Adams has been pulling back the curtains to show who is running the show for decades now. This time he exposed a group that trades on the image of having no power. It outraged them and it is ironic watching them use the power they don't have to poke back.
-
The guy was borderline amusing 30 years ago.
It got boring, repetitive, mean and just unfunny quite soon so I stopped following it, then, still many years ago, I happened to read some of the things he had written - what an entitled and self-righteous asshole.
He is free to spout his latest inflammatory bigotry, others are free to not want to listen or be involved with him.
Freedom of speech (https://xkcd.com/1357/) goes both ways, does not mean you are entitled to have a platform.
IMNSHO, YMMV.
Were I a moderator, I would probably lock this post - not technical, and quite prone to devolve in a shitfest.
I'll report myself.
EtA: Done.
-
I don't see how Dilbert is any different to any other form of media, fashion trend, design, or colour etc... One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
* I'm not suggesting this is the case.
-
He is free to spout his latest inflammatory bigotry, others are free to not want to listen or be involved with him.
Freedom of speech (https://xkcd.com/1357/) goes both ways, does not mean you are entitled to have a platform.
For all the clinging flag calls of 'Freedom' and 'Rights', many people only seem to think it applies to them - and if you choose not to participate, they've been maligned and 'cancelled'.
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
Doesn't Dilbert use computers in the office?
But yeah, topics like this are likely to get out of hand.
-
While we are on the subject of, Scott Adams.
There seems to be differences of opinion, as to if he was an actual (job function) engineer or not, when he was working for employers, before he became famous.
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
-
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
Well, I don't know if he was an engineer, but a Scott Adams certainly created several great text adventure games. I think Adventureland was the first cartridge I got for my Vic 20 8)
-
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
Well, I don't know if he was an engineer, but a Scott Adams certainly created several great text adventure games. I think Adventureland was the first cartridge I got for my Vic 20 8)
Thanks, but I think that is a different 'Scott Adams'.
http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/interviews/129/ (http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/interviews/129/)
This Scott Adams is not the one of Dilbert comics, but the one of Scott Adams Graphic Adventures.
-
Yeah I know :P
I was making a funny by referring to a Scott Adams.
And as much as I'd like to think my Scott Adams wouldn't make a video rant like that Scott Adams, I guess you never really know people you don't really know.
-
I don't see how Dilbert is any different to any other form of media, fashion trend, design, or colour etc... One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
* I'm not suggesting this is the case.
Dilbert is an engineer. Sometimes he is a bit of software, sometimes a bit of hardware, sometimes a bit of network engineering. And the phenomena that Scott shows in his cartoon is very much relevant to todays office culture, I see it every way, and having a cartoon for it is nice to have. We don't get that much representation.
Some time ago I remember seeing a post about Dilbert being in hot water because of some journals dropping his daily strips.
Yeah, I think he was cancelled a few times now.
-
As usual it's a big overreaction. I don't think what he said was even that bad, even though I don't completely agree with it, given so people say the same with the races swapped all the time. It just proves the double standard.
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.
-
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.
Either that, or he's just an idiot.
Agree or disagree on the topic, if you hold a public position or your employment relies on the public at large, going on a rant like that today is simply guaranteed to have consequences, most likely affecting your employment.
I hope he feels better getting that off his chest. He's certainly going to pay for the privilege. And whining about it won't change anything.
-
We don't get that much representation.
I definitely don't want or need to be represented by a misogynist, racist and pretentious asshole.
And even forgetting that, as a reminder, he's decidedly on the PHB side, not "ours".
Some might find Dilbert's strips to be funny (I disagree), but in this time and age it's truly difficult to keep separate an author and their work.
It might have been easier before the Internet.
-
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.
Either that, or he's just an idiot.
Agree or disagree on the topic, if you hold a public position or your employment relies on the public at large, going on a rant like that today is simply guaranteed to have consequences, most likely affecting your employment.
I hope he feels better getting that off his chest. He's certainly going to pay for the privilege. And whining about it won't change anything.
There is a large movement to build alternatives to the access media.
A few reports are saying he is joining the Daily Wire, and got a large contract.
-
I believe that psychological studies have shown that people tend to migrate towards information sources that align with beliefs they already espouse.
That Fox News is the #1 rated 'news' service in the US proves that to me. That recent leaks reveal they prioritized viewership ($) over facts is likewise unsurprising.
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem; but when Scott Adams then says that that kind of attitude means there is no way to have a working multicultural society, and for "[white people] to get away from [black people]", he is the racist, far-right neo-nazi (as todays ExplosmEntertainment "comic" suggests)?
When ideology and isms beat logical and rational thought, the world is lost.
Modern humans do not seem to think much if at all, and rather experience the world solely through their emotions. We are well on our way to becoming an urban eusocial species, it seems.
That said, the Rasmussen poll would never have been published in Finland. They would have been heavily fined and possibly ejected from Finland, for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred against black people. Such racist statistics are illegal here in Finland. (And racism is defined here as the oppression of ethnic or racial groups by white people.)
:palm:
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem; but when Scott Adams then says that that kind of attitude means there is no way to have a working multicultural society, and for "[white people] to get away from [black people]", he is the racist, far-right neo-nazi (as todays ExplosmEntertainment "comic" suggests)?
Polls and statistics are heavily related - you can massage either to present the result you desire.
FWIW, the phrasing is important here - 47% of Black Americans did not say they do not consider it okay to be white. The poll asked if the respondent agreed with the statement "Is it OK to be white?". A subtle difference, but an important one. Of course, their sample size was a grand total of 1,000 people, only 13% of which were Black. So, even within their poll, they are suggesting that 47% of 13% of 1,000 people disagreed with the statement.
Of course, the bigger issue is that Rasmussen polling is pretty much right wing biased to begin with.
If you’re not familiar, Rasmussen is a right-leaning pollster that produces semi-mainstream polls but is noted for its murky methods and what the New York Times has called “dubious sampling and weighting techniques.” Rasmussen’s results are often an outlier when it comes to, say, presidential approval numbers, as when Donald Trump famously cited a Rasmussen poll when it claimed to show a 50 percent job approval rating, more than 10 points higher than Gallup’s report at the time.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/dilbert-scott-adams-racist-rant-black-hate-explained.html
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem;
Sorry Nominal Animal, but I think you are being naïve here.
"It's OK to be white" does not have only a literal meaning and Rasmussen is is a very biased and unreliable poll house.
Since I highly esteem your intelligence, I'll leave you the burden of checking on the above.
It might not change your opinion (and I already know we differ quite a lot there), but it will at least be informed.
-
I will say this much - Freedom of speech is important. But as with anything important, it is subject to abuse.
The reality is that human races are different. Socially and physically. We ought to embrace and celebrate those differences rather than use them against each other. We can strive to be "one species" understanding we are comprised of multiple branches.
Any discussion about race is likely to become sensitive, which is unfortunate because to deny we are different is to deny reality. And that one race has abused another over the course of history doesn't help much either. But without discussion, we're not likely to solve issues that drive wedges between us.
-
No matter what tint of glasses you look through, the U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained. Adams seems to be someone who wears his opinions on his sleeve and amplifies it with his podcast.
-
They would have been heavily fined and possibly ejected from Finland, for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred against black people. Such racist statistics are illegal here in Finland. (And racism is defined here as the oppression of ethnic or racial groups by white people.)
There is a large push from the postmodernist woke to redefine words. To give you a very good example:
"Words are violence." If this statement is true, and we have institutions to reduce the violence on citizens, then it's acceptable to call the police on people that used words that are "unacceptable" (please read our current list of unacceptable words, updates every Wednesday and Friday). And that's how you change the law without rewriting it. Don't believe me? There was 3300 UK citizens arrested in 2017 for social media posts.
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/schedule/17/paragraph/169?view=plain
(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/schedule/17/paragraph/169?view=plain)
If someone, anyone really, thinks that the truth is inconvenient and you write about it, you can get arrested in the UK. And the same is coming everywhere, where this kind of mentality gets root. Welcome to the land of the free.
-
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis. Utterly unacceptable. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes.
I've never really enjoyed Dilbert so I guess I won't miss it slowly fading off, though I suspect that Adams will still have followers and revenue from other streams for some time and I'll be he'll be fine in his pseudo-retirement.
-
Dilbert was a pseudonym in WWII, Vietnam wars for AF pilot's that messed up
...Wrong flaps...into Saigon IFR...Dilbert bought the farm...
Scott Adams worked at Pacific Bell Téléphone in 1980s where he had the comic strip concept.
many fine characters, comics, books.
Best réf is his website
Jon
-
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis.
And replace "Black" with "white" and you'd have something not out of line with what has been said by tenured professors of CRT-type subjects and many media talking-heads. But of course that's different.
Godwin's law?
FWIW, I agree that Adams' publishers have every right to sever their relationship. And I agree that Adams was stupid to say what he said (unless it was all deliberate). But I also suggest that anyone who is interested in this event should look at Adams' comments in their full context -- then form an opinion.
-
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.
Either that, or he's just an idiot.
Either that, or he's just tired.
-
Peak Dilbert was when the TV show was on the air. Two seasons of wry comedy by Larry Charles (staff writer for Seinfeld) collaborating with Adams.
Since then, Scott Adams is a peddler of anti-intellectualism and deep down has entitled POS ideas. There's this gem from 2011:
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
So, he wasn't suggesting that women actually deserve equal pay for equal work... he just doesn't think its an issue worth fighting women over... as if it would be something you'd fight with women over if you had the energy to fight over it...
The dude is an asshole. The sooner he stops acting like a representative of 'rational, engineer thinking' (which he has postured himself as for years), the better.
-
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis.
And replace "Black" with "white" and you'd have something not out of line with what has been said by tenured professors of CRT-type subjects and many media talking-heads. But of course that's different.
Yeah, and those media talking heads and professors are wrong - but it doesn't mean that Adams gets a free pass.
I'm aware I referenced Godwin's law, but it's difficult to avoid in these circumstances.
Edit: error
-
Since then, Scott Adams is a peddler of anti-intellectualism and deep down has entitled POS ideas.
What "intellectualism" even is today? All I see in the West is politics masquerading as science and education.
Whoever has more money to throw at this shit or more minions to mobilize, wins all.
You guys are back to square one.
-
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis. Utterly unacceptable. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes.
I've never really enjoyed Dilbert so I guess I won't miss it slowly fading off, though I suspect that Adams will still have followers and revenue from other streams for some time and I'll be he'll be fine in his pseudo-retirement.
Just to feel the double standards, do the same with your post. Invert the color, I dare you.
-
Since then, Scott Adams is a peddler of anti-intellectualism and deep down has entitled POS ideas. There's this gem from 2011:
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
And nobody comes up with the idea that the above is just a look in the mirror of how society works? Or at least a significant portion of it? Dilbert is all about ridiculing office / software developer life. Within that context I see the text above as ridiculing society.
Actually I see a lot of parallels with 'woke people' that deal with other people pretty much in the way as described above...
-
the only part I found amusing about dilbert was the greed / tradition problems in corporate engineering interactions, like how they suck at allocating resources and deciding how to handle a project
-
What "intellectualism" even is today? All I see in the West is politics masquerading as science and education.
Whoever has more money to throw at this shit or more minions to mobilize, wins all.
You guys are back to square one.
There are three areas in the U.S. where politics is intruding on science and education, and this is happening because the actual science doesn't agree with the worldview of the "anti-intellectuals": vaccines, evolution, and anthropocentric global warming.
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem;
Sorry Nominal Animal, but I think you are being naïve here.
Could be. Also, my command of the English language does not include interpreting the subtext other people may or will read into that phrase.
(I am aware of the various uses the phrase has had, and its origins at 4chan, but I do not know their effect on people in general. I do not follow social media.)
I did watch his video, and while I considered him kinda stupid, definitely frustrated, I didn't really see him as racist or truly bigoted (in their traditional definitions prior to year 2010 or so). I do not know his output, nor have I read his other writings or videos, except for the Dilbert comic. Some of the pointy-haired-boss and marketing-department and general workplace interactions are apt: they used to be taped to the doors of many an engineer and scientist I know.
What I did see, is a situation analogous to e.g. Jordan Peterson (also a flawed person) being called alt-right for trying to help young people find their way into traditional adulthood; analogous to how my own opinions and attitude are generally classified as "transphobic racist" here in Finland now.
I admit, much of my attitude is borne out of frustration. As I've discussed before, social cues others perceive clearly are hard for me to discern. Things like ethnicity and even gender are not obvious to me, and I just do not pay attention to such details because I do not care about such details: they have no value to me in the interaction I have with the other person. And I do place high value in human-human interaction. This is not a choice on my part, this is how my brain works. (It is why I tend to use "they" in English. The hardest thing to me in Swedish and German is the gender of words.)
Yet, it is now generally accepted to be 'proof' that I am racist and transphobic, at least here in Finland!
It is illogical, irrational, and most of all, unfair.
In other words, perhaps I am projecting my own deep-seated feelings of being treated unfairly with regards to the issue here, placing myself in Scott Adams' stead.
All I can say is that the reactions towards him do not seem logical or rational to me at all; only purely emotive, mobbish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality), deindividualized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation).
To evaluate that claim of mine, consider the same statements if made by a black person, or a devout Muslim.
It is my belief that as a true egalitarian, I must not let the ethnic or religious background affect my reaction or understanding of the message or claims. Such details only provide background information as to why that person might construct such statements, and do not affect the veracity or reliability of such statements at all.
As such, I do believe this is a topic many engineers and scientists –– anyone thing-oriented rather than socially-oriented –– will encounter, as the general Western society turns away from logic and rationality into emotive assessment of statements, effects, statistics, and persons. You too will someday be me, or Scott Adams, if you talk to anyone you don't know, or Dog Forbid, make a video where you talk about anything topical.
Here in Finland, when a statistic shows something unfavorable to the prevalent political/social narrative, the immediate action is to stop collecting that data and publishing the statistic. It has become ridiculously predictable whenever unpleasant data is uncovered in the last ten years or so. Do expect it to happen in your legislations too, because it seems to be quite effective, and basically nobody seems to object.
-
So, he wasn't suggesting that women actually deserve equal pay for equal work... he just doesn't think its an issue worth fighting women over... as if it would be something you'd fight with women over if you had the energy to fight over it...
In general though, this is a very difficult area, and something that is hard to discuss rationally.
For example, why is the US Congress mostly filled with old white males? Because a very large number of women vote for them. Women have the vote, and represent about 50% of the electorate. If women as a group wished to have better representation, and wished to see more women in the House and Senate, they could seriously influence this. But for complex reasons it doesn't happen.
-
While we are on the subject of, Scott Adams.
There seems to be differences of opinion, as to if he was an actual (job function) engineer or not, when he was working for employers, before he became famous.
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
Who cares what he did? He nailed so many aspects of the corporate culture, the comic is funny because it resonates. I don't think it matters what actual engineering qualifications he has or had.
-
Who cares what he did? He nailed so many aspects of the corporate culture, the comic is funny because it resonates. I don't think it matters what actual engineering qualifications he has or had.
It's interesting, because.
If they are considered an engineer, that means that engineers (at least one), can create entertaining/funny comics and things.
But if they are NOT considered an engineer. It means that a non-engineer, can have the insight/capabilities, to interestingly pick up on engineers, how they think and things like that.
So, either way, it is interesting to know.
EDIT: I've poorly written this response. I didn't mean all engineers lack humor.
I more meant that someone who has created a wealth of $65,000,000, has become relatively famous, has sold a number of successful books, comics, (TV) animated cartoon series, and maybe other stuff. Has clearly been successful, as regards comedy/humor.
That is more like, what I meant.
-
I definitely don't want or need to be represented by a misogynist, racist and pretentious asshole.
You're saying Dilbert is a misogynist, racist and pretentious asshole? Or are you somebody that has difficulty separating art from the artist?
One of my other interests is music. A lot of musicians are jerks, idiots and generally people I wouldn't want to associate with. That is totally irrelevant in terms of me enjoying the music they create. I don't care, at all.
-
It's interesting, because.
If they are considered an engineer, that means that engineers (at least one), can create entertaining/funny comics and things.
But if they are NOT considered an engineer. It means that a non-engineer, can have the insight/capabilities, to interestingly pick up on engineers, how they think and things like that.
So, either way, it is interesting to know.
But he's not an engineer anymore, or for a long time even if he was, he's a comic artists. What makes someone an engineer? A degree in engineering? Experience doing engineering work? The mindset and thought process? I would argue it's mostly the latter in this case. Also of course engineers can create entertaining/funny things. I've worked with many engineers that had a great sense of humor.
-
I don't see how Dilbert is any different to any other form of media, fashion trend, design, or colour etc... One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.
They lost inspiration after series 12. Fight me.
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
Arguably, it pertains to the conflict between engineering and all the many and varied branches of administration (HR, accounting, design, marketing) in any given company that makes things, real or virtual.
I'd say that fits well enough into the General Technical Chat section.
Cancel culture is poison to free speech; I'd rather debate with someone as to why I think they are wrong. Of course, it isn't always possible, but everyone (in context) is free to not read the Dilbert cartoon. I don't read it as a rule, though what I have seen has been moderately apt and amusing, never met the author or read what he's said, so couldn't say whether he's a dick or not.
I have read quite a bit of Roald Dahl's work, and quite a bit about his life, and can confirm he could be a dick. However as a child when I read them I never took people with bent or crooked noses in his books to be Jewish; they were just people with bent or crooked noses, to me. Only as an adult have I been informed as to this association. YMMV :-//
-
So, he wasn't suggesting that women actually deserve equal pay for equal work... he just doesn't think its an issue worth fighting women over... as if it would be something you'd fight with women over if you had the energy to fight over it...
In general though, this is a very difficult area, and something that is hard to discuss rationally.
For example, why is the US Congress mostly filled with old white males? Because a very large number of women vote for them. Women have the vote, and represent about 50% of the electorate. If women as a group wished to have better representation, and wished to see more women in the House and Senate, they could seriously influence this. But for complex reasons it doesn't happen.
I've had similar conversations about this with people who are acolytes of Jordan Peterson or similar - who make the argument that women "just aren't interested in science" or "just don't care about politics" as much as the manly men.
This whole opinion is predicated on ignoring that women, in the USA, were disallowed the right to vote until 1920. It also ignores that women weren't even allowed to participate in academic science until the early-mid 20th century.
For example, the first women undergraduates from CalTech didn't graduate until 1973:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/forty-five-years-their-graduation-three-caltechs-first-female-bs-recipients-look-back-81687#:~:text=In%20June%201973%2C%20Stephanie%20Charles,engineering%2C%20technology%2C%20or%20medicine. (https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/forty-five-years-their-graduation-three-caltechs-first-female-bs-recipients-look-back-81687#:~:text=In%20June%201973%2C%20Stephanie%20Charles,engineering%2C%20technology%2C%20or%20medicine.)
And they were admitted only because the university president, Harold Brown, fought hard to allow women in 1970:
https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2019/january/caltech-6-americas-first-and-only-all-female-class-ches#:~:text=In%201891%2C%20Caltech%20was%20founded,at%20the%20time%2C%20Harold%20Brown. (https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2019/january/caltech-6-americas-first-and-only-all-female-class-ches#:~:text=In%201891%2C%20Caltech%20was%20founded,at%20the%20time%2C%20Harold%20Brown.)
So... DUUUUHHHH that our (American) institutions of power are populated entirely with a majority of a particular demographic. The people who occupied those institutions of power made it ILLEGAL for anyone else to participate for centuries.
The various waves of feminist movements are doing what you suggest to try to seriously influence a change. It takes time - and honestly, it also requires waiting for the old bigots to die off.
Max Planck said something similar that has always interested me even if I think he's a bit hyperbolic:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
The first women admitted to Harvard on equal basis to men didn't happen until 1913:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/centennial-women/#:~:text=Harvard%20University's%20first%20credentialed%20woman,for%20Health%20Officers%20in%201917.&text=In%201936%2C%20HSPH%20became%20the,to%20grant%20degrees%20to%20women. (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/centennial-women/#:~:text=Harvard%20University's%20first%20credentialed%20woman,for%20Health%20Officers%20in%201917.&text=In%201936%2C%20HSPH%20became%20the,to%20grant%20degrees%20to%20women.)
Demographically speaking, and depending on how old you are... our parents/grandparents were the first generations of people in the West to even be ALLOWED entry to higher institutions on the basis of their abilities and not whether or not they had a penis...
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white
A nitpick - the actual number was 26% (because "I don't know" does not mean "it is not okay"). Basically 26% of people proudly admitted being racists. On the other hand, one cannot blame every single one of them - people often answer to questions based on what they think they are expected to answer.
It's still an alarmingly big number, so your point is valid. I don't subscribe to the idea of having "good" or "bad" kind of racism based on exact set of races, either. Racism is just racism, and any racial group can be racist against any racial group (I wrote "other" first, but one can be racist against their own group, as well!).
-
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
Yikes, that's actually the law? That's rather terrifying, there are very few people that couldn't be charged with that in some capacity. A law against something like openly inciting violence or repeatedly harassing someone is reasonable, but causing them annoyance?? This sort of thing makes me all the more thankful to live somewhere where we at least ostensibly have a constitutionally protected right to free speech.
-
I believe that psychological studies have shown that people tend to migrate towards information sources that align with beliefs they already espouse.
That Fox News is the #1 rated 'news' service in the US proves that to me. That recent leaks reveal they prioritized viewership ($) over facts is likewise unsurprising.
CNN and MSNBC don't appear to be any better.
Of course, the bigger issue is that Rasmussen polling is pretty much right wing biased to begin with.
No doubt, a left-wing poll would produce an even stronger anti-white result.
Some might find Dilbert's strips to be funny (I disagree), but in this time and age it's truly difficult to keep separate an author and their work.
Why not? Shall we just dump everything which someone with "bad opinions" helped to create? Sounds crazy to me.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis. Utterly unacceptable. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes.
I've never really enjoyed Dilbert so I guess I won't miss it slowly fading off, though I suspect that Adams will still have followers and revenue from other streams for some time and I'll be he'll be fine in his pseudo-retirement.
Stupid black people say that kind of shit about white people all the time, without any consequence.
No matter what tint of glasses you look through, the U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained. Adams seems to be someone who wears his opinions on his sleeve and amplifies it with his podcast.
Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism. Misogyny is still a problem, but misandry is too.
-
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
Yikes, that's actually the law? That's rather terrifying, there are very few people that couldn't be charged with that in some capacity. A law against something like openly inciting violence or repeatedly harassing someone is reasonable, but causing them annoyance?? This sort of thing makes me all the more thankful to live somewhere where we at least ostensibly have a constitutionally protected right to free speech.
It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK.
-
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
-
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
I completely agree. Racism of all kinds (and I do not accept this attitude that "black people can't be racist towards white people") should be extinguished. Hence why I don't like what Adams had to say, because I think it was racist.
-
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
I just did and don't care if I get called racist. There are obviously plenty of stupid black people, same as there are many stupid, white, Asian, Mexican, Middle Eastern etc. people.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
I completely agree. Racism of all kinds (and I do not accept this attitude that "black people can't be racist towards white people") should be extinguished. Hence why I don't like what Adams had to say, because I think it was racist.
Unfortunately the idea black people can't be racist, is very well supported by many on the left, including some teachers. It's one of the pillars of critical race theory.
I actually don't think Adams is necessarily racist. It's open to interpretation whether he meant all black people are a hate group, or just those who don't think being white is okay are a hate group. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, although I admit I could be wrong in this case.
-
I did watch his video, and while I considered him kinda stupid, definitely frustrated, I didn't really see him as racist or truly bigoted (in their traditional definitions prior to year 2010 or so).
Yes, you are missing the context. American liberals have been "race blind" for half a century and it isn't having much of the promised effect. I spent 3 months interning in California and it was laughable how big the contrast between Hollywood movies and reality is. Americans experience this dissonance through their whole lives. Simply put, if you don't believe that the system is still unfair and there is work to be actively done, you might as well be for re-segregation, because the long term outcome of your policy is anticipated by them to be the same.
American population is a meaningless clump of cells held together by the duct tape of idealistic egalitarianism. Remove the duct tape and they will be at each others' throats immediately. Fail to reapply the tape where it tears, you might as well take your AR-15 and start shooting random people on the street. Ultimate outcome will be the same. Tangentially, that's why I advocate for just nuking that failed colony with no survivors - still same outcome, but less drama along the way.
Other than that, I think I must belong to the 90% of men that Adams said don't give a fuck about what's happening to others. Not my circus, not my monkeys, they are sleeping in a bed they have made themselves. Don't pay attention to them or you will go nuts. Ban Twitter and Hollywood in the EU.
Or, if you like watching things burn,
:popcorn:
-
It's interesting, because.
If they are considered an engineer, that means that engineers (at least one), can create entertaining/funny comics and things.
But if they are NOT considered an engineer. It means that a non-engineer, can have the insight/capabilities, to interestingly pick up on engineers, how they think and things like that.
So, either way, it is interesting to know.
But he's not an engineer anymore, or for a long time even if he was, he's a comic artists. What makes someone an engineer? A degree in engineering? Experience doing engineering work? The mindset and thought process? I would argue it's mostly the latter in this case. Also of course engineers can create entertaining/funny things. I've worked with many engineers that had a great sense of humor.
It was poorly worded on my part. I've edited it, so it is better, but still far from perfect.
-
A lot of musicians are jerks, idiots and generally people I wouldn't want to associate with. That is totally irrelevant in terms of me enjoying the music they create. I don't care, at all.
The same applies to many highly-esteemed philosophers and scientists. Many of them were really horrible persons, treating close ones like shit, and behaving destructively. Yet, what they discovered, has merit.
Thus: a logical and rational person must not classify a statement based on who utters it, or the utterer's personal characteristics. Each statement must be evaluated on its own merits.
If we refuse to divorce the statement from the person of the utterer, we reject everything that made Western societies reject slavery and move towards equal rights for everyone. If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat the same errors.
Even an offensive statement can be true, and an obvious and positive statement false. Analysing the statement while changing the messenger's ethnicity and religion is a perfectly applicable and required tool, if rational and logical thought is to be applied to the statement; it is the tool we can use to separate our emotions regarding the messenger and the message itself. Emotions themselves are useful, when examined and their weight on our decisions limited; they can provide cues or connections that the conscious mind has missed.
A society based on emotions only will devolve into eusociality, because it will be ordered based on its emotions and instincts, and not logic and rational thought. This is why I believe true egalitarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) individualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) is absolutely necessary for governance in Western societies to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse due to internal unresolvable schisms. Similar collapses are common in human history whenever population and population density exceeds resources available in a high population density area, through crime and moral and legal collapse, to human sacrifice and cannibalism (Aztecs, Easter Islands). (In more recent history, e.g. in Africa (Zimbabwe, South Africa), it has lead to famine, widespread violence, and humanitarian crises.)
I find it important how game-theoretical analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory) of interactions between humans recommends the same choices as egalitarian individualism does, if the game is to maximize fair mutually beneficial interactions between individuals. (And if applied to e.g. a pet or service dog, horse, or elephant, you acquire someone who wants to work with you, not against you. Fairness and unchanging rules are the key here.)
Egalitarian individualism is absolutely opposite to current multicultural intersectionalism, which is the stated view/target of e.g. the current Finnish government.
-
I'll keep reading the comic - it's funny enough.
As to the debate, anyone saying that heavily biased double standards on what is okay to say do not exist, well, good for you. Just try to do a thought experiment, take statements that have been claimed as racist, caused an "outrage" (also known as a >2% increase in incoherent screeching on twitter) and peoples careers ended for it, flip the ethnicities and think if the result would have been the same.
One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.
It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.
-
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
Yikes, that's actually the law? That's rather terrifying, there are very few people that couldn't be charged with that in some capacity. A law against something like openly inciting violence or repeatedly harassing someone is reasonable, but causing them annoyance?? This sort of thing makes me all the more thankful to live somewhere where we at least ostensibly have a constitutionally protected right to free speech.
It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk)
-
It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.
Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob.
-
It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.
Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob.
Even that won't kill the show. They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)
-
It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.
Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob.
Even that won't kill the show. They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)
I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.
"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."
-
Even that won't kill the show. They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)
That's kind of my point, even the worst case scenario won't kill the show, as long as it is still profitable they can continue to produce it. With live action the characters age and eventually die, it's often not feasible to replace one of them.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.
"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."
Ok, Done...
FADE IN:
EXT. SIMPSONS HOUSE - DAY
Homer is sitting on the couch, flipping through TV channels when a knock is heard on the door.
HOMER: (yelling) Marge, can you get that? I’m in the middle of watching TV!
MARGE: (off-screen) Homer, it’s for you!
HOMER: (groans and gets up from the couch) Who could it be?
Homer opens the door to find a group of heavily armed men wearing black tactical gear standing outside.
LEADER: Mr. Simpson, you have been drafted into the Wagner Group.
HOMER: (confused) The Wagner Group? What’s that?
LEADER: We are a private military contractor working for the Russian government. We need your skills for a special mission.
HOMER: (intrigued) Special mission? Tell me more.
The scene cuts to Homer arriving in Russia and meeting with President Vladimir Putin.
PUTIN: Mr. Simpson, we need you to infiltrate the Ukrainian government and plant a listening device in President Zelensky’s office.
HOMER: (proudly) Don’t worry, Putin. I’m your man.
The scene cuts to Homer disguised as a Ukrainian politician sneaking into President Zelensky’s office.
HOMER: (whispering to himself) This is just like the time I snuck into the plant and stole all those donuts.
Homer plants the device, but things quickly go wrong when he accidentally triggers the alarm.
ALARM: (blaring) Intruder alert! Intruder alert!
HOMER: (panicking) Uh-oh. I gotta get outta here.
Homer runs out of the building with guards chasing after him. He eventually escapes and meets up with Putin.
PUTIN: (disappointed) You failed, Mr. Simpson. Zelensky is now aware of our plans.
HOMER: (ashamed) I’m sorry, Putin. I let you down.
PUTIN: (sternly) You have disgraced the Wagner Group. But I am a fair man. I will give you one more chance.
HOMER: (determined) I won’t let you down this time, Putin.
The scene cuts to Homer disguised as a Ukrainian soldier infiltrating the Ukrainian army base.
HOMER: (thinking to himself) Just like in that video game Bart plays.
Homer plants the device and escapes undetected. He meets up with Putin, who is impressed this time.
PUTIN: (smiling) Well done, Mr. Simpson. You have proved yourself to the Wagner Group.
HOMER: (proudly) Thank you, Putin. I’m glad I could help.
The scene cuts to Homer back at home, sitting on the couch with a beer in his hand.
HOMER: (thinking to himself) I may have saved the world, but I’m still just a regular guy.
MARGE: (off-screen) Homer, dinner’s ready!
HOMER: (smiling) Coming, Marge!
FADE OUT.
FADE IN:
The next day, Homer is sitting at Moe's Tavern, recounting his adventures to his friends.
HOMER: And then Putin said, "Well done, Mr. Simpson. You have proved yourself to the Wagner Group."
Lenny and Carl look impressed, but Barney seems skeptical.
BARNEY: I don't know, Homer. Working for the Russians sounds kind of sketchy.
HOMER: (defensive) Hey, I was just following orders. And besides, Putin is a tough guy. You don't want to mess with him.
MOE: (eavesdropping) Putin, huh? I heard he once wrestled a bear with his bare hands.
HOMER: (nodding) Yeah, that sounds like him.
Just then, the TV in the corner of the bar switches to a news report about Putin.
ANCHOR: And in other news, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again made headlines for his tough stance on foreign policy.
Homer and his friends turn their attention to the TV.
ANCHOR: Earlier today, Putin issued a warning to President Zelensky of Ukraine, urging him to comply with Russian demands or face dire consequences.
HOMER: (nervously) Oh no, what have I gotten myself into?
Lenny and Carl try to reassure Homer.
LENNY: Don't worry, Homer. You did what you had to do.
CARL: Yeah, and you're not the only one who's worked for shady employers.
Moe chimes in.
MOE: Yeah, remember that time I was a hitman for the mob?
Homer and his friends share a laugh.
HOMER: (smiling) Thanks, guys. I feel better now.
Just then, the TV switches to a commercial for Duff beer, and the conversation turns back to normal.
FADE OUT.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.
"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."
Ok, Done...
Yea that's more or less modern Simpsons. ;D
-
The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.
Scott Adams feels a lack of attention so says something stupid to bring the focus back. Robert Metcalfe used to do the same thing - the internet was going to implode! The "open sores" projects would never produce anything good! Saying stupid and wrong things has always been an effective way to draw attention and makes you money.
-
Clearly humor is subjective, I think Garfield is funny too, but Dilbert has long been one of my favorite comics, I generally enjoy xkcd slightly more.
-
Yea that's more or less modern Simpsons. ;D
It's in the top half of anything post season 18 or so.
-
Clearly humor is subjective, I think Garfield is funny too, but Dilbert has long been one of my favorite comics, I generally enjoy xkcd slightly more.
I stopped buying comics ages ago, but still read some webcomics.
Among my favourites, XKCD is still one of the most "funny", then I like SMBC a lot, but I admit I have a soft spot for Red Meat (might be slightly NSFW) and Oglaf (definitely NSFW)!
Does Garfield still exist? My kids used to like it 15 years ago.
The last comics I bought were from Disney Italia, a couple of series I think were not much distributed outside of Italy: PKNE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKNA) and MMMM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MM_Mickey_Mouse_Mystery_Magazine) - our usual characters in a quite different light - a thing Italian writers and artists have always been very keen on.
After all, it was in the Italian "Topolino" magazine that he got (briefly) married - and not with Minnie Mouse!
-
Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism.
Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).
-
Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).
It depends on who you talk to I guess. The most openly and unashamedly racist people I have ever encountered have been black. That is obviously not to say that all blacks are racist, not even close, but in some circles "racism" has been redefined so that only whites can be racist, I know, it makes no sense, but I have actually had people tell me on more than one occasion that "he can't be racist, he's black" :-// Meanwhile people of certain races get away with saying abhorrent things that would get someone of another race crucified and yet it is seen as acceptable.
-
The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.
Garfield Minus Garfield is hysterical whether you like classic Garfield or not. Even the creator of Garfield found it funny:
https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
-
Garfield Minus Garfield is hysterical whether you like classic Garfield or not. Even the creator of Garfield found it funny:
https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
I have to admit it is funnier than the original.
-
The most openly and unashamedly racist people I have ever encountered have been black.
I wonder if that's because blacks are inherently racist, or because they've been discriminated against for so long that their racism is a backlash against what they themselves have been subjected to? The latter, I expect.
-
I wonder if that's because blacks are inherently racist, or because they've been discriminated against for so long that their racism is a backlash against what they themselves have been subjected to? The latter, I expect.
I think neither. Far more likely is there are no consequences, they're allowed to be racist, they can say absolutely anything they want and it is deemed acceptable, because in the mind of many their racism is not racism at all. As I said, I have had people tell me that black people literally cannot be racist. That statement boggles the mind since it is objectively false, but if you can freely redefine words as needed, any statement can be made true.
At any rate, as long as racism is seen as acceptable, from anybody, directed toward anybody, it will never go away. You cannot fight racism by being racist and there is no such thing as "reverse racism", it's just plain old fashioned racism, period.
-
At any rate, as long as racism is seen as acceptable, from anybody, directed toward anybody, it will never go away.
This is really the crux of the matter. Racism feeds on racism and we have to break the cycle, somehow.
-
XKCD is still one of the most "funny"
Yup; it is the mix of informativeness and absurdness (bizarre/wild/nonsensical) that tickles me.
Oglaf (definitely NSFW)!
Most definitely NSFW! There, too, it's the absurdity I really like.
My favourite Finnish comic author is definitely Jukka Tilsa. That there is absurdist if anything is.
In Dilbert, it was the apt examples of workplace inanities and executives detached from reality that I liked.
I also really like Gary Larson's Far Side.
The one site I like to visit every day is however icanhas.cheezburger.com (https://icanhas.cheezburger.com/), simply because it is one site that is guaranteed to bring at least a fleeting smile on my face. It has many subcategories. It's a good way to start any day. I definitely recommend against reading any kind of news the first thing in the morning; it is better and healthier to start with a smile instead.
-
This is really the crux of the matter. Racism feeds on racism and we have to break the cycle, somehow.
Like not being racist? Like acknowledging that racism is racism regardless of the races involved and not accepting it from anyone? The way to break the cycle is to stop being racist, and to call out racism whenever it occurs, and whoever is doing it. Not to be racist against someone else or redefining the word "racism" to mean something else. Breaking the cycle requires doing pretty much exactly NOT what people are doing lately.
-
Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism.
Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).
Yes. That's exactly how it looks to me, going from what I see in the US media. Almost no racism directed towards blacks, loads towards whites and a significant amount against Asians. Harvard is even being sued for discriminating against Asians.
There appears to be a strong sense of black privilege. Scott Adams has been cancelled for saying the same kind of things blacks routinely say about whites, without facing any consequences. Where's his white privilege?
I admit I haven't been to the USA. I'm purely observing how things appear to be from what I see from US media. The fact so many go on about blacks being oppressed and white privilege makes it even more bizarre. It reminds me of the "I'm I the only gay in the village" sketch from Little Britain. It's about an overtly gay bloke who whines about being discriminated against, even though it's blatantly obvious almost everyone else where he lives is openly gay.
I'm aware that the mainstream media are guilty of a lot of selective reporting. A white police officer killing a black person makes national headlines, yet a group of blacks beating up a Chinese or white person is far more common and almost never makes the news and when it does.
-
If you permit me a slight diversion:
According to DOI: 10.1097/01.chi0000205699.58626.b5 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16670652/), "living in nonintact family at age 8 predicted all types of criminal offenses.", concluding with "Living in a broken home, low parental education level, conduct problems, and hyperactivity in middle childhood predict criminal offenses in late adolescence. Efforts to prevent later criminality already in childhood are emphasized."
The same has been observed all over the world at least for the last century, studying the outcomes for thousands of children from all different ethnicities. The above is from 1981-2001 in Finland, but basically all studies on "criminality predictors" I can find, say the same. (Feel free to do your own search and review at e.g. US NIH (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=criminality+predictors), for example.)
Yet, what would happen if someone were to comment that perhaps the reason black men in America are overrepresented in criminal statistics does not stem so much systemic racism, but from the prevalence of non-intact black families (70%+ single mothers)?
It does not matter that the argument would be the same for any other ethnic group having the same statistical disparity, and does not disparage blacks at all.
Simply because the argument does not find an external oppressor as the cause, the argument itself is deemed racist, per intersectional theory of racism.
The studies say that all humans are the same in this regard, although one should expand the concept of "intact family" to one with supportive role models of both sexes to cover for all known/traditionally functional family models, especially multi-generational ones. So, the above does not "devalue" blacks, because it has nothing specific to blacks; it just describes a likely model of what is happening to blacks in USA right now. In fact, it even tells us how we can help fix the situation: by teaching men and women to value intact family models, to try and provide an intact family to children, and especially for men, including black men, to be fathers and present and proper row models for their young children to help them avoid a future leading to a criminal record in young adulthood.
(That itself will be seriously opposed by neo-feminists, who believe the best possible family is a single mother free from all patriarchal influences.)
If the above research sounds logical to you, then what people like Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are saying about traditional family structures should make sense also. And while people like Scott Adams will never sound less stupid, at least you can understand why they are so frustrated and say the things they say, even if you don't agree with them.
-
[
FWIW, the phrasing is important here - 47% of Black Americans did not say they do not consider it okay to be white. The poll asked if the respondent agreed with the statement "Is it OK to be white?". A subtle difference, but an important one
Especially, seeing that the seemingly quite innocuous statement is a catch cry for political groups who are openly opposed to any benefits that "non-white" people may receive.
If the question was phrased differently, the results may be different.
. Of course, their sample size was a grand total of 1,000 people, only 13% of which were Black. So, even within their poll, they are suggesting that 47% of 13% of 1,000 people disagreed with the statement.
-
Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism.
Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).
Yes. That's exactly how it looks to me, going from what I see in the US media.
Yea... as someone who actually lives here I'm gonna have to stop you right there. ;)
-
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem; but when Scott Adams then says that that kind of attitude means there is no way to have a working multicultural society, and for "[white people] to get away from [black people]", he is the racist, far-right neo-nazi (as todays ExplosmEntertainment "comic" suggests)?
No, it just means he is an idiot!
-
Yes. That's exactly how it looks to me, going from what I see in the US media. Almost no racism directed towards blacks, loads towards whites and a significant amount against Asians. Harvard is even being sued for discriminating against Asians.
Is this based on statistics from reliable sources, or just based on a notion you have gathered from the media you happen to consume?
You do know that much of our media is 'angertainment', and that some 'news' channels over here classify their most popular personalities as entertainers instead of journalists so they cannot be held to any standards, yes? Heck, Rupert Murdoch just admitted in court (yesterday?) that he knew his folks were intentionally lying on air in order to keep their viewers happy. Why? $ $ $ $ $ $
jason
-
You lot should just move to Australia where the vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about any of this stuff. People are jerks regardless of their skin colour or background.
-
You lot should just move to Australia where the vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about any of this stuff. People are jerks regardless of their skin colour or background.
Which is how it should be. Once people start seeing things as us and them, and concentrate on perceived differences, it can start a whole pile of problems.
What gets me, is how often things are called 'racism' and it seems to be nothing of the sort.
E.g. A White person tries to return something to a shop, without a receipt. The shop keeper refuses and says "Sorry, I need the receipt, to issue a refund". The person then says, I'm disappointed with the customer services in this shop, and might not buy from here again.
But the Black person does the same thing and gets the response "Sorry, I need the receipt, to issue a refund". They (the customer) then say it is "racism", that is why they were not given a refund, it is because they are Black.
Which seems silly and wrong.
-
What gets me, is how often things are called 'racism' and it seems to be nothing of the sort.
When someone looks at the world through a particular lens, it influences everything they see. I think it's a form of confirmation bias, they believe everyone is racist, so whenever something doesn't go their way they blame race and racism. It annoys me, if I don't like someone it's probably because they're an asshole, not because of some immutable trait.
-
When someone looks at the world through a particular lens, it influences everything they see. I think it's a form of confirmation bias, they believe everyone is racist, so whenever something doesn't go their way they blame race and racism. It annoys me, if I don't like someone it's probably because they're an asshole, not because of some immutable trait.
That makes sense. Human psychology, can get very complicated. If much more accurate differentiation, between what really is racism, and what isn't, were to take place. Improved ways of handling those two types of situation, could much more easily be implemented.
E.g. If it really is racism, improve staff training, or various other solutions. But if it isn't, improve communications, and stuff, so that such misunderstandings, can be reduced or eliminated in the future.
-
Thing is, when the society is emotive instead of rational, we're doomed.
Let's say the studies I linked to are true, but we don't believe in them, and instead fight against 'systemic racism'.
Thus, no matter what we do, things do not get any better (because our efforts do not affect the actual causes).
Because we are emotive and not analytical-logical-rational, this does not disprove systemic racism for us: it proves it is even more deeply ingrained in the core structures of the society than we thought, because none of our efforts seem to make a dent in it!
See?
Question is, how do engineer and scientist types like us change that. I do not know, and already feel 'excluded' myself for trying.
-
Thing is, when the society is emotive instead of rational, we're doomed.
Let's say the studies I linked to are true, but we don't believe in them, and instead fight against 'systemic racism'.
Thus, no matter what we do, things do not get any better (because our efforts do not affect the actual causes).
Because we are emotive and not analytical-logical-rational, this does not disprove systemic racism for us: it proves it is even more deeply ingrained in the core structures of the society than we thought, because none of our efforts seem to make a dent in it!
See?
Question is, how do engineer and scientist types like us change that. I do not know, and already feel 'excluded' myself for trying.
I suspect that the real solutions, will occur over hundreds and even thousands of years. As, we gradually integrate and adapt.
My (limited) historical understanding. Is that the so called 'White' population, were made up of at least a few different sources, such as (quick internet search ...) vikings, Celts, Picts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse and the Normans.
So, in modern day times, those types have somewhat merged together, in many countries, over the centuries, since the original invasions and other historical events.
I.e. I expect the modern day population movements, will follow a similar trend. Whereby future generations, have less and less differences and much better integration, than we have now.
-
What gets me, is how often things are called 'racism' and it seems to be nothing of the sort.
When someone looks at the world through a particular lens, it influences everything they see. I think it's a form of confirmation bias, they believe everyone is racist, so whenever something doesn't go their way they blame race and racism. It annoys me, if I don't like someone it's probably because they're an asshole, not because of some immutable trait.
"Arseholes" are often racists, amongst their other unpleasant characteristics.
Some however, are "equal opportunity arseholes". :D
-
You lot should just move to Australia where the vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about any of this stuff. People are jerks regardless of their skin colour or background.
Most of the total turds I have known are "white", which is why I find it hard to feel it is great thing to be like them.
On the other hand, some of those of different skin colours are right up there in the "turd stakes".
In both groups there are a good number of "lesser turds" who are tolerable.
-
The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.
Clearly you have never seen Fred Basset.
https://www.gocomics.com/fredbasset/2023/02/28 (https://www.gocomics.com/fredbasset/2023/02/28)
-
What gets me, is how often things are called 'racism' and it seems to be nothing of the sort.
-
You lot should just move to Australia where the vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about any of this stuff. People are jerks regardless of their skin colour or background.
No need to move! The vast majority of any population doesn't give a crap about any of this stuff. People are jerks regardles of their skin color or background.
:horse:
-
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
Dilbert is certainly relevant to the EEVblog, and the loss of Dilbert (at least publicly) is a big blow to all those that like it.
I have suggested on Twitter that Adams takes up the new Twitter Subscription thing so people can sign up for it, but no response. At the moment is seems like the only avenue for Dilbert going forward will be his Locals platform.
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate, if that happens I will start deleting post without warning. I want this thread to stay open so people here can discuss Dilbert and the future of it.
-
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.
Either that, or he's just an idiot.
He's not an idiot, and anyone who follows his daily live shows knows what's going on. It's very deliberate.
Those who want context can watch a video pinned on his Twitter account and/or watch his recent daily live shows. I won't link them here, seek them out if you want.
-
As for him losing the website and book rights etc I heard him say on yesterdays live show that:
1) he still has his artist (he hasn't drawn it for a few years now AFAIK) employed, so Dilbert will still be produced and available via his Locals platform. (AFAIK he's an investor of some sort in Locals)
2) He did mention that the website will likely go down or something as it seems to be controlled by his syndication company that terminated their agreement with him. So presumably no more free Dilbert unless he makes a new website. No idea what happens with the massive database of users like me signed up on there to receive it daily.
3) His book rights are currently held by someone else but he said they agreed to give the rights back to him, but that hasn't happened yet.
4) His upcoming book is in limbo and amazon have specifically said they will not sell it.
5) As mentiond his, syndication company has dropped him, so that means no Dilbert in anay magazine anywhere in the world, presumably immediately. He either needs another syndication company deal or a direct deal with a paper. So that income has dropped to zero.
-
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate,
Seems like that has already happened. Every single post since #72, and quite a few before that.
if that happens I will start deleting post without warning.
What are you waiting for?
-
Here's a video of him drawing Dilbert for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm9bgMvSkRc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm9bgMvSkRc)
-
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate,
Seems like that has already happened. Every single post since #72, and quite a few before that.
if that happens I will start deleting post without warning.
What are you waiting for?
I'm waiting for someone to post another one now that they have been warned... >:D
-
While we are on the subject of, Scott Adams.
There seems to be differences of opinion, as to if he was an actual (job function) engineer or not, when he was working for employers, before he became famous.
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
No he is not an engineer.
He has a degree in economics and workd at Crocker national bank and then Pacific Bell I think before getting the cartooning gig. He mostly did economics forecast planning and that kind of thing.
-
A few reports are saying he is joining the Daily Wire, and got a large contract.
Greatly doubt it, he's not a conservative (although a majority of his audience seems to be conservative learning) and he doesn't need the money. He knew this would likely get him cancelled and he didn't care financially. He has repeatedly said he doesn't do things for the money, and has acticely done and said things for years that he knows will lose him money.
-
One of the classics...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6HojLBsnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6HojLBsnw)
-
Clearly humor is subjective, I think Garfield is funny too, but Dilbert has long been one of my favorite comics, I generally enjoy xkcd slightly more.
Dilbert often absolutely nails things and IMO it's hilarious. It so nails things that are bad in companies that Elon Musk has famously said that anything that makes it into a Dilbert comic will not be tolerated at any of his companies.
And BTW, Adams doesn't just think up random things for Dilbert, they are very much based on current social politics and events. e.g. the recent strips mocking ESG are his deliberate attempts to mock it and destroy it in the real world.
This is likely a big part of the reason why a lot of people of certain political persuations will not find it funny, it cuts too close to the bone.
-
No he is not an engineer.
He has a degree in economics and workd at Crocker national bank and then Pacific Bell I think before getting the cartooning gig. He mostly did economics forecast planning and that kind of thing.
Thanks!
He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment. But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.
E.g. A boss, with somewhat crazy, unachievable goals, requirements and ideas.
-
No he is not an engineer.
He has a degree in economics and workd at Crocker national bank and then Pacific Bell I think before getting the cartooning gig. He mostly did economics forecast planning and that kind of thing.
Thanks!
He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment. But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.
E.g. A boss, with somewhat crazy, unachievable goals, requirements and ideas.
His claim to fame is that he's a trained hypnotist and is an expert in methods of persuation. If you believe him, he is regurarly asked by very high profile people and organisations for advice on persuation.
So I think the seaming egnieering/office expertise stuff is because it's ultimately just general human nature/behaviour which he is an expert on, rather than there being anything specifc about engineering departments in particular. Dilbert just happens to be an engineer and they (we!) have very predictable traits. As do managers, CEO's etc.
Add in current socio-political events as I mentioned and he's nailed the office comedy algorithm.
He explains all this kind of stuff every day in his hour long live streaming show. And then usually goes and smokes a bong with the Locals people privately afterwards.
If you like the office/government department type humour I can highly recommend the Australian TV comedy series Uptopia. Mrs EEVblog works in a government department and they all say it's a doc(mock)umentary of what it's like to work there.
-
If you like the office/government department type humour I can highly recommend the Australian TV comedy series Uptopia. Mrs EEVblog works in a government department and they all say it's a doc(mock)umentary of what it's like to work there.
Thanks for that recommendation, I'll look out for that show.
Apparently, the name clashed with other show(s), internationally. So, internationally it can be called Dreamland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series))
-
The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.
There's a pretty good video on the topic of Garfield, what the internet did to him and how he gets away with not being lol funny but just kinda... there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE&ab_channel=SuperEyepatchWolf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE&ab_channel=SuperEyepatchWolf)
-
Thanks for that recommendation, I'll look out for that show.
Apparently, the name clashed with other show(s), internationally. So, internationally it can be called Dreamland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series))
yes, I did hear it was called something else in the US I think.
-
He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment. But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.
So I think the seaming egnieering/office expertise stuff is because it's ultimately just general human nature/behaviour which he is an expert on, rather than there being anything specifc about engineering departments in particular. Dilbert just happens to be an engineer and they (we!) have very predictable traits. As do managers, CEO's etc.
In my previous job the Dilbert cartoons were so amazingly accurate that it was almost as if there was a spy in the organization sending the ideas to Adams to write about.
-
Thanks!
He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment. But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.
E.g. A boss, with somewhat crazy, unachievable goals, requirements and ideas.
Has he worked with real engineers in the last few decades? The field has moved on so very much since the office cubicles of the 80's and 90's - don't get me wrong, some companies do work that way but a lot don't any more.
-
In my previous job the Dilbert cartoons were so amazingly accurate that it was almost as if there was a spy in the organization sending the ideas to Adams to write about.
That's what people in government departments say about Utopia.
Yet it is written by three comedians. They just take general human and government tropes and streotypes and it magically appears as applying to your personal circumstances.
It's like how all music and can be wittled down to just a dozen notes or something like that. And how all movie plot structures contain the same basic elements, regardless of the movie type.
Off-topic a tad, but I found this very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OB3279Vt8Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OB3279Vt8Y)
-
Has he worked with real engineers in the last few decades? The field has moved on so very much since the office cubicles of the 80's and 90's - don't get me wrong, some companies do work that way but a lot don't any more.
That is a good point. Because he is a popular (ignoring recent activities), famous and (I presume) entertaining / funny character. I suspect he gets invited in to many work-places, possibly in some cases for paid promotions, inspirational motivational lectures and stuff like that (speculation on my part).
He might also sometimes give talks / lectures and things at places such as Universities and other such places. Where he could discuss things with actual, modern working engineers, perhaps over dinner, at a restaurant or company sponsored meal. Where he is the guest of honor.
-
His claim to fame is that he's a trained hypnotist and is an expert in methods of persuation. If you believe him, he is regurarly asked by very high profile people and organisations for advice on persuation.
When Adams went off on that tangent is when I lost my respect for him. His infatuation with Donald Trump, the "master persuader", which was really an infatuation with himself and his own claimed mastery, made me sick. You are correct in describing this as "his claim to fame".
I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.
-
That is a good point. Because he is a popular (ignoring recent activities), famous and (I presume) entertaining / funny character. I suspect he gets invited in to many work-places, possibly in some cases for paid promotions, inspirational motivational lectures and stuff like that (speculation on my part).
He might also sometimes give talks / lectures and things at places such as Universities and other such places. Where he could discuss things with actual, modern working engineers, perhaps over dinner, at a restaurant or company sponsored meal. Where he is the guest of honor.
Speaking events was IIRC about half his income at one point before Trump. Because he publically called the Trump win and was subsequently branded a trump supporter, he was "cancelled" from practically every speaking event in the US. He was branded social poison.
One of his typical corporate gigs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Wzb6NvRKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Wzb6NvRKM)
-
He was funny 10-15 years ago but gradually became less relevant as the content seemed to be moving towards some kind of preaching. No longer exists in my bookmarks yet once upon a time I used to enjoy his strips almost daily.
-
Because he publically called the Trump win and was subsequently branded a trump supporter, he was "cancelled" from practically every speaking event in the US.
How strange that his claimed persuasion mastery did not help him to convince anyone otherwise... ::)
Really, I see very little persuasion skills, but a lot of confirmation bias at work here. Scott Adams is only "convincing" the audience which already subscribes to his opinions. Good luck persuading or hypnotizing me while I am grinding my teeth or throwing up...
On the other hand, what sort of claim to fame would this be even if it were true? "I am good at manipulating people, and sooo proud of it." Thank you, Scott, you lost me right there.
-
Speaking events was IIRC about half his income at one point before Trump. Because he publically called the Trump win and was subsequently branded a trump supporter, he was "cancelled" from practically every speaking event in the US. He was branded social poison.
Meh. Was it not more because he was a very avid Trump supporter and people stopped liking him? That's the thing about politics, how are you going to lecture a bunch of younger left-leaning students and university-goers if you're a Trumper (who appeal a lot more to middle age/older people, mostly white, bible-belt types.) They just won't turn up.
A lot of people, including for instance Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight, gave Trump a good chance of winning and were not 'cancelled' by predicting the election with a good chance of a Trump win. Many pollsters at the time put a Trump win in the low single digit percentage chance. (Silver gave Trump a 29% chance of winning against Clinton (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/796000742066753537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E796000742066753537%7Ctwgr%5Ed9d148f84a234f885445341caeb2e2d2e380dc54%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-36874355783384312703.ampproject.net%2F2302031721000%2Fframe.html), which he described at the time as being "well within the normal range of possible outcomes" [paraphrased], and in the end the election was decided by about 80,000 votes in the right seats flipping enough states red.)
Adams picked the wrong fight, and lost a lot of support. Remaining apolitical would have been far better for his career. And like Trump or not, I think almost everyone can admit he was extremely divisive, more so than almost any US president in living memory, so I can see why people reacted the way they did to support for him. It'd be a bit like waving a red communism flag in the middle of suburban America at the height of the cold war.
-
Speaking events was IIRC about half his income at one point before Trump. Because he publically called the Trump win and was subsequently branded a trump supporter, he was "cancelled" from practically every speaking event in the US. He was branded social poison.
Meh. Was it not more because he was a very avid Trump supporter and people stopped liking him?
He wasn't that pro-trump, he just predicted the win, and did so very publicly and was a winning high profile go-to political pundent on the issue at the time, so that made him public enemy number one.
If half the country doesn't like you, that alone doesn't get your speaking gigs cancelled (it's not that people didn't turn up, it was actually "sorry, you are uninvited"). You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.
-
He wasn't that pro-trump, he just predicted the win, and did so very publicly and was a winning high profile go-to political pundent on the issue at the time, so that made him public enemy number one.
If half the country doesn't like you, that alone doesn't get your speaking gigs cancelled (it's not that people didn't turn up, it was actually "sorry, you are uninvited"). You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.
Plenty of people predicted the possibility of a Trump win and didn't lose face. It was supporting Trump, not predicting his win, that hurt Adams. Nonetheless, it is only one factor in his downfall. There are still mainstream celebrities that are or were pro-Trump, but I think after Jan 6 it became increasingly difficult to support him.
-
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate, if that happens I will start deleting post without warning. I want this thread to stay open so people here can discuss Dilbert and the future of it.
I called that out in Reply #4, but I'm really curious* about how a thread on Dilbert's future can eschew political discussion, given the current status.
*No, not really. I just check the thread to see if there's some good candidate for my list (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lately-mine-is-getting-longer/). I feared I would find more TBH, just a couple ATM (disagreement by itself is absolutely not enough).
-
Remaining apolitical would have been far better for his career.
That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering... Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want. But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
(https://media.tenor.com/B0BMN_OqeSQAAAAC/never-go-full-retard-tropic-thunder.gif)
-
You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population. These are the people that care about SJWs and equity and other of these ideas. What's actually happening is that the silent majority is now just tuning out of this. The "get woke go broke" proverb is getting more and more real, and large corporations like Blackrock is in trouble for bankrolling wokeness. It's the most visible in Hollywood, but I'm sure we will see it happening everywhere. Top Gun best box office. Netflix in trouble, Disney in trouble. Or Victoria's secret went for body positivity, lost 70% market value since that. Gilette does misandry (oh, sorry, toxic masculinity), loses 30% market share. People just had enough. The sooner companies realize this, and go back to good old fashioned profit, the better. Or you know, sooner or later they go broke, because we vote with our wallet instead of a temper tantrum on tiktok.
-
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.
The hardcore conservative right is probably a similar percentage. I think social media and biased 'journalism' have provided the fringe population more power and influence than they should realistically have. The larger 'centrist' population is being manipulated rather than pushing back on the extremists from both sides.
-
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.
The hardcore conservative right is probably a similar percentage. I think social media and biased 'journalism' have provided the fringe population more power and influence than they should realistically have. The larger 'centrist' population is being manipulated rather than pushing back on the extremists from both sides.
The left just appear to shout louder, from where I'm sitting.
Remaining apolitical would have been far better for his career.
But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
His audience had no say in him losing his job. A good proportion of them probably don't think what he said was that bad, even if they disagree, with some partially or completely agreeing with his sentiments. Most of them would have carried on buying his comics. Heck he probably would have picked up some extra readers to replace those he lost, who hated what he said. His publishers just bowed to the mob.
I wish him all the best. No doubt he's well off enough to retire, but will probably be able to find another publisher if he really wanted to, even if his income and reach is a fraction of what it used to be.
-
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.
The hardcore conservative right is probably a similar percentage. I think social media and biased 'journalism' have provided the fringe population more power and influence than they should realistically have. The larger 'centrist' population is being manipulated rather than pushing back on the extremists from both sides.
The centrist population usually wants to be left alone; they are doing actual work and are more concerned about putting food on the table, improving the outcome of their offspring.
The larger political and cultural discussions on both sides of the aisle tend to be accepted at face value without much deeper thinking until it personally affects them - inflation and school indoctrination are two aspects that go to the top of the mind.
-
That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering... Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want. But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
I don't have a problem with people losing their audience after saying something distasteful. What I have a problem with is the mob mentality and rabid efforts to completely destroy someone. If you don't like somebody then don't go to their event, that's perfectly fine, but bullying the venue, org, etc into cancelling the event and booting them out is something I have a problem with. Ultimately the issue it boils down to is bullying, and I see the "cancel mob" or whatever you want to call it as a group of bullies. Having been the victim of bullying as a kid, like most other nerds and geeks, it is something I do not tolerate.
-
He wasn't that pro-trump, he just predicted the win, and did so very publicly and was a winning high profile go-to political pundent on the issue at the time, so that made him public enemy number one.
If half the country doesn't like you, that alone doesn't get your speaking gigs cancelled (it's not that people didn't turn up, it was actually "sorry, you are uninvited"). You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.
I had a few people get really upset with me when I said I thought Trump was likely to win. I didn't even vote for him, I certainly wouldn't call myself a supporter, I simply pointed out that his message was resonating with people and I thought he would win. The anger such a prediction can create is something that even today I don't really understand.
-
That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering... Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want. But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
I don't have a problem with people losing their audience after saying something distasteful. What I have a problem with is the mob mentality and rabid efforts to completely destroy someone. If you don't like somebody then don't go to their event, that's perfectly fine, but bullying the venue, org, etc into cancelling the event and booting them out is something I have a problem with. Ultimately the issue it boils down to is bullying, and I see the "cancel mob" or whatever you want to call it as a group of bullies. Having been the victim of bullying as a kid, like most other nerds and geeks, it is something I do not tolerate.
Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.
Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.
In many ways its the end result of the capitalist hellscape that has been constructed since the 1980s - only conservatives are shocked to find that its their views getting shut out by the corporations.
Just take note of how many corporations pay lip service to slogans around Black Lives Matters or LGBTQ+ awareness... while running sweatshops in Asian countries or tacitly supporting concentration camps in China... :'(
-
That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering... Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want. But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
I don't have a problem with people losing their audience after saying something distasteful. What I have a problem with is the mob mentality and rabid efforts to completely destroy someone. If you don't like somebody then don't go to their event, that's perfectly fine, but bullying the venue, org, etc into cancelling the event and booting them out is something I have a problem with. Ultimately the issue it boils down to is bullying, and I see the "cancel mob" or whatever you want to call it as a group of bullies. Having been the victim of bullying as a kid, like most other nerds and geeks, it is something I do not tolerate.
and people staying silent and/or saying things they don't really believe for fear of being cancelled or ostracized is a really dangerous slippery slope
-
Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.
Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.
It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.
-
I had a few people get really upset with me when I said I thought Trump was likely to win. I didn't even vote for him, I certainly wouldn't call myself a supporter, I simply pointed out that his message was resonating with people and I thought he would win. The anger such a prediction can create is something that even today I don't really understand.
I honestly don't know if Trump "won" or Clinton "lost". I certainly had a cynical impression that the Democratic party threw the election at that time by acting in a complacent and entitled manner and did not make appropriate efforts to win the presidency. People calling a Trump win should have been a wake-up call for the DNC.
-
That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.
Only the right views and concepts ;)
-
Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.
Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.
It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.
Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.
If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.
Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.
PS
And of course there is the ol' joke that if the budget of the university football team is more than the rest of the school... then really its an athletics club that teaches classes as a side hustle.
-
Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.
Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.
It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.
Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.
If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.
Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.
PS
And of course there is the ol' joke that if the budget of the university football team is more than the rest of the school... then really its an athletics club that teaches classes as a side hustle.
Companies and universities have a skewed perception of what the general population believes to be acceptable. They live in their own bubbles of BLM and alphabet Pride parades. If publishers and advertises simply waited to see whether Scott's comments led to a mass boycott, which reduced sales and website views, they'd probably find it wouldn't happen, but they feared the mob and wimped out. Many predicted Hogwarts Legacy would be subject to a such a mass boycott, due to JK Rowling's supposedly transphobic comments, yet it didn't happen and so far the game has been a huge hit.
-
Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.
If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.
Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.
I think this is largely nonsense. It's not like it is some large portion of the population that has a problem with it, it's a very small, very loud mob that has a hugely outsized influence. Almost anyone can be controversial in some sense, controversy is good, especially in an academic environment. Universities should absolutely be pushing boundaries and discussing topics and ideas that push people out of their comfort zones, all people, not just one specific side. It is very lopsided too, from what I have seen it is only people with some kind of perceived conservative lean that get "cancelled", other people say far more controversial or vile things with no consequence at all, there is a massive glaring double standard, I see it and I wouldn't even call myself a conservative, really I'm left of center by American standards.
-
Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.
If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.
Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.
I think this is largely nonsense. It's not like it is some large portion of the population that has a problem with it, it's a very small, very loud mob that has a hugely outsized influence.
This loud but small mob aren't the people standing outside the venue with signs. They're the donors and corporate sponsors who bestow millions of dollars based on THEIR interests and objectives:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187765/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187765/)
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeshighereducation.com%2Fdepth%2Fare-corporate-interests-taking-over-us-higher-education (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeshighereducation.com%2Fdepth%2Fare-corporate-interests-taking-over-us-higher-education)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071558/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071558/)
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=hpt (https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=hpt)
https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/how-corporations-use (https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/how-corporations-use)
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-corporations-turned-into-political-beasts-2015-4 (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-corporations-turned-into-political-beasts-2015-4)
I could go on and on.
Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.
-
I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.
I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.
* or lack respect for, or whatever qualification you think is more apt.
people staying silent and/or saying things they don't really believe for fear of being cancelled or ostracized is a really dangerous slippery slope
And it is a major way of how good intentions lead to bad outcomes.
Is there a difference in being ostracized deliberately by bullies, and in being ostracized because nobody dares interact with you in public in fear of mob retaliation? I don't think so.
It is different when one is ostracized because of what they say. But, as others have said above, Scott Adams did not get canceled because he would not have had any readers, he got canceled because advertisers fear the actions of small, vocal, very visible activist groups. Those used to be despised as the political agitator scum they are –– regardless of their political leanings, as they use fear as their weapon! ––, now they're elevated to important celebrity status that even government leaders listen to with pomp and fanfare if it suits their agenda. :palm:
-
Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood is a ridiculous concept that ought to be abolished, but I think you are underestimating the size and power of the mob on social media.
-
Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood is a ridiculous concept that ought to be abolished, but I think you are underestimating the size and power of the mob on social media.
The mob is shown what the algorithms determine they should be shown. Humans aren't even involved in that anymore.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/16/algorithms-in-action-the-content-people-see-on-social-media/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/16/algorithms-in-action-the-content-people-see-on-social-media/)
Nearly all the content people see on social media is chosen not by human editors but rather by computer programs using massive quantities of data about each user to deliver content that he or she might find relevant or engaging.
https://www.theceomagazine.com/opinion/social-media-algorithms/ (https://www.theceomagazine.com/opinion/social-media-algorithms/)
https://funginstitute.berkeley.edu/news/op-ed-social-media-algorithms-their-effects-on-american-politics/ (https://funginstitute.berkeley.edu/news/op-ed-social-media-algorithms-their-effects-on-american-politics/)
Algorithms create filter bubbles and silos shaped by corporate data collectors; they limit people’s exposure to a wider range of ideas and reliable information and eliminate serendipity.
Based on data collected about you, if you want to see racism everywhere, you will. If you don't believe its everywhere, you won't see it. And both sides will be utterly flabbergasted at the lack of exposure the other side has to opposing viewpoints.
This is all exceptionally well-documented and its all driven by the fiction of corporations as people and the influence their money has to create these algorithms to drive engagement, outrage, and conflict.
The trick is not that the algorithms are actually CHANGING anyone's opinions or trying to manipulate you into believing something other than what you already believe. Quite the opposite - they are feeding exactly the opinion everyone wants to hear, tailored to their specific likes, dislikes, biases, and prejudices.
PS
Another example of this twisted fiction of corporate personhood manipulating opinions of the People is how Wendy's managed to successfully market their brand as a plucky fork-tongued tweeting machine. But the reality is they are a multi-billion dollar fast-food chain with 1000s of restaurants... Wendy's is not a person!
https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/wendys-social-media-strategy/ (https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/wendys-social-media-strategy/)
What's even more insane is when these brands, owned by the same conglomerate, get into "Twitter wars" with each other while the mob cheers on their favorite logo... THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE! AHHHH! :scared:
-
––, now they're elevated to important celebrity status that even government leaders listen to with pomp and fanfare if it suits their agenda. :palm:
“How dare you!”
-
I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.
I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.
That would depend very much on what you say (or write), wouldn't it? If you wrote a daily blog for a year, where you essentially kept repeating "xxx is so great, and I would know, since I am so great", I would probably dislike you.
As described in the first part of my earlier post (which you conveniently omitted), that is how I came to dislike Scott Adams. Very much based on what he said/wrote, as you seem to prefer.
-
Thanks!
He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment. But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.
E.g. A boss, with somewhat crazy, unachievable goals, requirements and ideas.
Has he worked with real engineers in the last few decades? The field has moved on so very much since the office cubicles of the 80's and 90's - don't get me wrong, some companies do work that way but a lot don't any more.
Not as far as I know. He left Pacbell a few months after I started working there, so I remember seeing him occasionally in the halls (we worked on the same floor and in the same wing of the building.
I've heard that he's worth something like $65M, so even if he never works again he's set for life.
-
1) he still has his artist (he hasn't drawn it for a few years now AFAIK) employed, so Dilbert will still be produced and available via his Locals platform. (AFAIK he's an investor of some sort in Locals)
And just when I thought I couldn't respect him less - you're saying he just signs the strips now drawn by someone else? Same as Jim Davis with Garfield?
-
I've just watched his pinned video on his twitter, he explains why he did it. For the goals that he had in mind, he kinda succeded.
It's an interesting conversation, though some of the topics seem really outlandish for me, but that's probably because I grew up on the other side of the globe.
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.
The hardcore conservative right is probably a similar percentage. I think social media and biased 'journalism' have provided the fringe population more power and influence than they should realistically have. The larger 'centrist' population is being manipulated rather than pushing back on the extremists from both sides.
Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.
I've just listened to an interview with Konstantin Kisin the other day, saying that conservatism doesn't seem to be "sexy" and doesn't seem to offer any group belonging to young people the same way these extreme views do. And saying" Hey listen, the lights are on, and while it's not perfect, but its much better to live here than in any other political system" is not having an effect.
Oh, and why is this important for me? Because the culture war seems to be at it's maximum and (as much as I hate to admit) it needs to be win in the US and Hollywood and Big tech. Because they got full control over the majority of opinions.
-
Remaining apolitical would have been far better for his career.
That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering... Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want. But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.
That's been how the world has worked for the last decade now. People are too afraid to say anything for fear of the mob. It used to be anything anti-woke, but then it was anything covid related have been the two main things you don't dare speak against or you'll get "cancelled".
If I had a day job I guarantee you I would have been fired from every single job because the cancel culture mob have come after me.
In fact it's worse than that, they have gone after my friends and colleagues and tried to have them cancelled, mearly because they are associated with me. And publicly disavowing somethign I said is not enough to appease the mob, you have to sever all ties both social and business. And even then that's not enough, because if even if you do all that if you don't continue to adhear to the purity test then you'll get cancelled too. It's a purity spiral all the way down.
In Adam's case he didn't say anything that "lost him his audience". In fact he has gained audience on Youtube, Locals, and twitter, by a lot actually. The financial "cancelling" was done by his political adversaries.
He talked about that on last nights live show.
-
1) he still has his artist (he hasn't drawn it for a few years now AFAIK) employed, so Dilbert will still be produced and available via his Locals platform. (AFAIK he's an investor of some sort in Locals)
And just when I thought I couldn't respect him less - you're saying he just signs the strips now drawn by someone else? Same as Jim Davis with Garfield?
As I undertand it, the actual strip is drawn by someone else in the last year or so now I think. But he still comes up with all the ideas and captions and maybe even lays out a rough sketch of the compositions and then leaves the final detail work to someone else. See the video I posted before of him drawing the stip, it's a multi step process.
-
I had a few people get really upset with me when I said I thought Trump was likely to win. I didn't even vote for him, I certainly wouldn't call myself a supporter, I simply pointed out that his message was resonating with people and I thought he would win. The anger such a prediction can create is something that even today I don't really understand.
Trump Derangement Syndrone is real.
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously. It's a very real thing. Doesn't matter that I had posted anti-tump stuff and even made fun of him in videos on my channel, you are either 100% with the mob or you risk getting cancelled.
In the last few years it's been my supposed views on covid related issues, they are just as rabbid.
-
You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.
The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.
I'd estimate it's never been more than 5%, but they wield a very big social stick and every person, corporation and government department is scared shitless of them.
They also tend to hold jobs in the upper echelons of silicon valley tech companies that rule our lives. Patreon for example that would ban creators for opinion or things they did off their platform.
The Locals platform started specifically because of this happening.
-
Trump Derangement Syndrone is real.
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously. It's a very real thing. Doesn't matter that I had posted anti-tump stuff and even made fun of him in videos on my channel, you are either 100% with the mob or you risk getting cancelled.
In the last few years it's been my supposed views on covid related issues, they are just as rabbid.
I think social media, Twitter in particular, creates a positive feedback loop with enormous gain that amplifies this sort of thing. I don't know how to correct it, but from what I have observed the absolute worst thing a person can do is apologize. It is an admission of guilt and they will pile on you like cheetahs pouncing on a wounded prey.
-
Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.
The horseshoe theory. I made this same observation quite a few years before I had a name for it. The far left and far right are diametrically opposed and yet nearly indistinguishable from each other in their behavior. A lot like the north and south poles of a magnet I suppose. You'd never know the difference without having an opposing pole to see how it reacts.
-
Woke outrage case just yesterday:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1630361968099065857
Electroboom posted about how Canadian schools have apparently dropped geometry from the sylabus and he wasn't happy about it.
I sarcastically replied "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" (because it actually has been huge news in Canada for many years now of this happening, that's the joke)
Electroboom then replied with a funny woke type quip.
And you guessed it, the mere mention of the word woke triggered people into outrage, saying how dissapointed they are in us, and trying to "re-educate" us that it's not true etc etc. The usual stuff.
The interesting thing is a few years ago this would have been a massive pile on by the woke mod. They would have trawled my Twitter history and bought up the MAGA hat thing I mentioned and other stuff, and there would have been an attempted twitter cancellation again.
Thankfully such things are considered pretty meh these days and the outrage mob are losing their power big time, at least on Twitter.
-
I think social media, Twitter in particular, creates a positive feedback loop with enormous gain that amplifies this sort of thing. I don't know how to correct it, but from what I have observed the absolute worst thing a person can do is apologize. It is an admission of guilt and they will pile on you like cheetahs pouncing on a wounded prey.
Yes, it's the #1 rule that must be followed at all costs. It's guaranteed to cost you even more if you try and apologise. This includes corporations.
-
a few years ago this would have been a massive pile on by the woke mod.
It's interesting to see how the use of the term "woke" is evolving. A few years ago when "woke" hit the mainstream, the SJW-types were embracing the term, applying it proudly and self-righteously to whatever they were trying to do. It was a badge of honor.
Now, whenever someone from the other side uses the "W" word, those same SJWs heap scorn and outrage, claiming that "woke" isn't a real thing, just something that the right-wing MAGA mob made up to be used as a slur.
[Yes, I know not everybody does this, but just over the past few days I've seen this in more than one editorial or commentary.]
And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf (https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf)
Re. Scott Adams, I do think he shot himself in both feet with his "I identify as Black" and "see how much I have helped Blacks" comments. "Identifying as black" could have been funny, just not when he was defending/explaining himself. BTW, I still find Dilbert funny, often. And I do have "The Knack" -- just ask my family and friends.
-
Woke outrage case just yesterday:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1630361968099065857
Electroboom posted about how Canadian schools have apparently dropped geometry from the sylabus and he wasn't happy about it.
I sarcastically replied "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" (because it actually has been huge news in Canada for many years now of this happening, that's the joke)
Electroboom then replied with a funny woke type quip.
You're free to post a joke, that part is fine.
Electroboom saying "I just realized x" without posting any proof or citation whatsoever, is deceptive and disingenuous. Now people are left thinking its a fact, while simultaneously stirring up outrage/whatever. This is an actual problem.
Its a bullshit statement, geometry is right there: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/mathematics/12/geometry
-
Woke outrage case just yesterday:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1630361968099065857
Electroboom posted about how Canadian schools have apparently dropped geometry from the sylabus and he wasn't happy about it.
I sarcastically replied "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" (because it actually has been huge news in Canada for many years now of this happening, that's the joke)
Electroboom then replied with a funny woke type quip.
You're free to post a joke, that part is fine.
Electroboom saying "I just realized x" without posting any proof or citation whatsoever, is deceptive and disingenuous. Now people are left thinking its a fact, while simultaneously stirring up outrage/whatever. This is an actual problem.
Its a bullshit statement, geometry is right there: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/mathematics/12/geometry
That's not the point. The point is they got triggered because the word woke was mentioned.
-
It's interesting to see how the use of the term "woke" is evolving. A few years ago when "woke" hit the mainstream, the SJW-types were embracing the term, applying it proudly and self-righteously to whatever they were trying to do. It was a badge of honor.
Now, whenever someone from the other side uses the "W" word, those same SJWs heap scorn and outrage, claiming that "woke" isn't a real thing, just something that the right-wing MAGA mob made up to be used as a slur.
[Yes, I know not everybody does this, but just over the past few days I've seen this in more than one editorial or commentary.]
And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf (https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf)
I first remember noticing that phenomenon with "socialism", I remember hearing conservatives calling everything socialism, even things that had nothing to do with economics. Now I guess everything is woke, and on the left everything is racist. The problem with this of course is that when you apply a label to everything, it starts to mean nothing.
-
And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf (https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf)
Ah, memories. I do believe that was the post at the time that spawned my infamous FX-Problematic calculator joke reply. Another thing that still gets used today to prove that I'm a racist, homophobic, transphobic, misoginist, bigoted, Trump MAGA loving, alt-right privledged cis white male nazi.
If you think I'm being hyperbolic, I'm not, I've been called all those things and piled-on because of a joke tweets in reply to woke stuff like this. And anyone who dared associate with me got attacked too.
Go look at any article on any electronics wesbite like Hackaday that dares mention me and you'll enevitably find comments saying "why are supporting this xxxx-ist xxxx-phobe?" ::)
They'll still be doing it 10 years time.
-
And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf (https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf)
Who gets to say if an answer is right?
:palm:
-
I had noticed for years before all this hysteria arose, when nobody knew anything about Scott's political views, that Dilbert was losing popularity, & didn't appear as often as before.
It happens with cartoons---they are trendy for a while, then fade.
Maybe his more recent pronouncements were an attempt to lift his profile above "that bloke who used to do this cartoon with the pointy haired boss --can't remember the name".
He might have picked up a few followers on the right side of the spectrum, but I doubt they will stay, as so-called "conservatives" are not into the wry humour of his older cartoons, being more of the "true believer" type
Re "the mob"---- I'm not on Twitter, but I have noticed with comments on MSN News that Right wingers outnumber "lefties" by about 5 or 6 to 1, totally out of proportion to their numbers in society.
Many "lefties" & a very few "righties" try to logically discuss the subject, but they are the ones that get told their comments "don't fit the guidelines".
It seems the platform really wants comments of the intellectual level of "Your Mother wears army boots", as they get more clicks.
On "Whirlpool" the same policy seems to exist, as I was banned on a particular board for "going off topic" when I tried to put people (both left & right) straight on their factual mistakes.
They very kindly offered to let me stay on the other fora, but I said "Up Yours" & left. >:(
-
That's not the point. The point is they got triggered because the word woke was mentioned.
Yes I get that point. Attacking you based on the use of the word is dumb.
But it also doesn't look great to not take a few seconds to verify, is what I am replying to a fact, or just a made up/clickbait statement to generate views?
Not saying thats the case here, but, may have been in other scenarios.
-
I had noticed for years before all this hysteria arose, when nobody knew anything about Scott's political views, that Dilbert was losing popularity, & didn't appear as often as before.
It happens with cartoons---they are trendy for a while, then fade.
Maybe his more recent pronouncements were an attempt to lift his profile above "that bloke who used to do this cartoon with the pointy haired boss --can't remember the name".
If you've been watching his live shows for the last few years then you'll know that his goal is certainly not to get more Dilbert viewers. In fact everything he says he admits will alienate a lot of people.
He does it because he's got "screw you" money and wants to educate people on how society and the media works etc
Of course you can say its ego etc (which he readily admits), trying to prove how smart he is etc, and you likely wouldn't be wrong.
In the last 6 months or more he's been saying ever more provocative things to "test" the public, media and platforms to see if he can get "cancelled" or banned from Twitter or Youtube. And he's actually been disappointed that many of these test have failed. Looks like he finally hit on a winner.
All of this seems very bizzare to Joe Average, but it's obvious what he's doing if you follow him, especially the daily live shows (which have very interesting takes on the daily news BTW, where he filters the news through the lens of persuasion techniques and fake detection)
-
That's not the point. The point is they got triggered because the word woke was mentioned.
Yes I get that point. Attacking you based on the use of the word is dumb.
But it also doesn't look great to not take a few seconds to verify, is what I am replying to a fact, or just a made up/clickbait statement to generate views?
Not saying thats the case here, but, may have been in other scenarios.
Welcome to the world of Twitter.
Do you know how many times I tweet a day?
And I trust Medi wouldn't tweet something like that just for the clickbait views. He obviously thought it was true. I know he has a daughter in high school I think now, so maybe it's based on her experience.
-
Dilbert held a mirror up to the evolution of tech/engineering workplaces.
As time passed, there were inevitably those who were exposed & offended by those revelations. The other people that weren’t involved just had to be offended because that’s the 21st century method of validation.
Aslong as you read it tongue in cheek, it’s quite clever and funny.
If you think the strip is about you personally, there’s a chance you’re the problem, not the cartoon.
-
so-called "conservatives" are not into the wry humour of his older cartoons, being more of the "true believer" type
Really??? Or is this some of that "wry humour" that I' must not be into?
-
And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf (https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf)
Ah, memories. I do believe that was the post at the time that spawned my infamous FX-Problematic calculator joke reply. Another thing that still gets used today to prove that I'm a racist, homophobic, transphobic, misoginist, bigoted, Trump MAGA loving, alt-right privledged cis white male nazi.
If you think I'm being hyperbolic, I'm not, I've been called all those things and piled-on because of a joke tweets in reply to woke stuff like this. And anyone who dared associate with me got attacked too.
Go look at any article on any electronics wesbite like Hackaday that dares mention me and you'll enevitably find comments saying "why are supporting this xxxx-ist xxxx-phobe?" ::)
They'll still be doing it 10 years time.
Nah,Dave, you're none of that shit---you are a bit of a "rightie", but who gives a damn!
I have seen the mirror image of this, where a "rightie" posts some nonsense on a forum saying that "the ALP federal government are going to turn Australia into a Communist Dictatorship".
I comment that they are going about it in a very strange way, as like every other Federal govt, they only have the rest of their 3 years to do it!
The result is a barrage of abuse, calling me everything from a "fellow traveller" to a "union thug", with a lot of other crap in between.
Telling them they are dumb, usually is the trigger for the forum to refuse to add my comment.
At that point, I usually give up.
I have also had arguments with some "young" lefties who assume because I am old, I am sitting on millions.
Then there are, usually in the same threads, the self-satisfied twats who say I should have made a lot of money like them.
The more I see of social media, the more I despair of the intelligence of humans.
-
...
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously.
...
Someone had posted a link at the top of this thread but the message was removed right away. I don't have a twit account but sounds like the you or admins did not pull it.
... social cues others perceive clearly are hard for me to discern. Things like ethnicity and even gender are not obvious to me, and I just do not pay attention to such details because I do not care about such details: they have no value to me in the interaction I have with the other person. And I do place high value in human-human interaction.
...
:-+
I have a similar view. It's all about what you bring to the table or in other words what you personally have to contribute. I could care less about anything else.
-
... social cues others perceive clearly are hard for me to discern. Things like ethnicity and even gender are not obvious to me, and I just do not pay attention to such details because I do not care about such details: they have no value to me in the interaction I have with the other person. And I do place high value in human-human interaction.
...
:-+
I have a similar view. It's all about what you bring to the table or in other words what you personally have to contribute. I could care less about anything else.
I think that's true of a lot of people really, but we aren't the ones making all the noise. Gender is only of interest to me in the context of dating/romance. Outside of that I can't really think of a situation where I'd care. Ethnicity is only interesting as far as learning about a place or culture I'm not familiar with, otherwise it too is irrelevant.
-
Nah,Dave, you're none of that shit---you are a bit of a "rightie", but who gives a damn!
No actually, I consider myself left wing, as in old school left wing.
At one point in my life I would have been considered far or even extreme left.
But because the overton window shifted and the "left" has now gone batshit crazy, I'm still standing in the same place I always have politically, but now I'm constantly called "right" or "alt-right" for holding the exact same values.
These days I'd be closest to what you'd call a classical center liberal. And not Liberal in the Australian meaning of it, as in liberal party. For those outside Australia, the "Liberal party" here is the right wing christian conservative party, roughly equivalent to the US Rupublican party.
-
...
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously.
...
Someone had posted a link at the top of this thread but the message was removed right away. I don't have a twit account but sounds like the you or admins did not pull it.
Wasn't me.
-
Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.
The horseshoe theory. I made this same observation quite a few years before I had a name for it. The far left and far right are diametrically opposed and yet nearly indistinguishable from each other in their behavior. A lot like the north and south poles of a magnet I suppose. You'd never know the difference without having an opposing pole to see how it reacts.
It's bollocks, I'm afraid.
Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible.
Radical left wing wants: any religion or none (not usually specified), open borders (varies), a controlled market which is centrally planned, maximal governmental involvement.
I think it is hard to say that those two ends are equal in any significant manner.
Are they similarly rabid? Sure. Can they use similar techniques (violence, intimidation, protest, authoritianism) to get their way? Sure. But they definitely are quite distinct groups, even at the surface level, with a diametric opposition in many areas.
-
It's bollocks, I'm afraid.
Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible.
Radical left wing wants: any religion or none (not usually specified), open borders (varies), a controlled market which is centrally planned, maximal governmental involvement.
I think it is hard to say that those two ends are equal in any significant manner.
Are they similarly rabid? Sure. Can they use similar techniques (violence, intimidation, protest, authoritianism) to get their way? Sure. But they definitely are quite distinct groups, even at the surface level, with a diametric opposition in many areas.
You're missing the point I'm afraid. They both want different things but they both behave identically. They both want religious supremacy, the left's religion is primarily atheism, but it's a religion for all practical purposes. I can't prove there is no god any more than someone else can prove there is, it's a belief either way. Both sides want to control your life, both sides think they are clearly right and everyone else is clearly wrong, both have similar double standards, both are blindly idealistic and inflexible. I find both to be intolerable and want nothing to do with either one. Perhaps the biggest difference is the far right mostly keeps to themselves and has no real power, while the far left is very much mainstream and has become incredibly powerful thus I see them as a greater threat, even though I am closer to the left than the right.
-
atheism, but it's a religion for all practical purposes.
This is simply bollocks. :bullshit:
It's like saying that the absence of any ailment is an illness in itself.
Or (on the converse, to give a non-negative example) that the absence of any virtue is a virtue in itself.
But there are some atheistic religions, I'll concede that.
-
Nah,Dave, you're none of that shit---you are a bit of a "rightie", but who gives a damn!
No actually, I consider myself left wing, as in old school left wing.
At one point in my life I would have been considered far or even extreme left.
But because the overton window shifted and the "left" has now gone batshit crazy, I'm still standing in the same place I always have politically, but now I'm constantly called "right" or "alt-right" for holding the exact same values.
These days I'd be closest to what you'd call a classical center liberal. And not Liberal in the Australian meaning of it, as in liberal party. For those outside Australia, the "Liberal party" here is the right wing christian conservative party, roughly equivalent to the US Rupublican party.
I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal
-
atheism, but it's a religion for all practical purposes.
This is simply bollocks. :bullshit:
Plenty of atheists have pledged allegiance to a flag, an inanimate material object, and what it represents, and more importantly, died for it. And quite a few flags appear to have religious symbols on them. The Union Jack for example has the crosses of three saints. That sounds like idolatry, plain and simple. So I'd say that degree of devotion has some of the hallmarks of religion. Not devotion to a deity, but religion nonetheless.
-
Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible.
Every US president for the last 25 years starting from Bill Clinton has "built the wall", including Biden.
-
I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal
Yes, 100% accurate.
-
Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible.
Every US president for the last 25 years starting from Bill Clinton has "built the wall", including Biden.
Build-the-wall as in Trump's rhetoric on immigration rather than functional anti-immigration policy. Trump was definitely the most publicly anti-immigration, even if his policies did not have a great effect.
Besides, the US political system is "far-right to right-wing" (Republican) or "right-wing to centre-right" (Democrat). There are very few mainstream left-wing politicians in the US, if we use the academic definition of left-wing. (You could apply some kind of political relativism if you want but I don't think it's really sensible because it makes it difficult to compare with other countries).
-
Every US president for the last 25 years starting from Bill Clinton has "built the wall", including Biden.
Build-the-wall as in Trump's rhetoric on immigration rather than functional anti-immigration policy. Trump was definitely the most publicly anti-immigration, even if his policies did not have a great effect.
Building a wall and securing your border should have nothing to do with immigration policy. A wall is to stop people illegally entering your country. "illegal immigration" is not the same as immigration. No sane immigration policy formally includes illegal immigration. This is why all US presidents, either Democrat or Republican have helped "build the wall".
Clinton (D) started it. George.W (R) built some. Obama (D) built more the 100miles of it. Trump (R) built the most I think at 400 miles or something. Biden (D) built some, but was the most reluctant.
-
...
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously.
...
Someone had posted a link at the top of this thread but the message was removed right away. I don't have a twit account but sounds like the you or admins did not pull it.
Wasn't me.
It was ME!
I wasn't sure if Dave wanted it discussed or not, and decided not to mess up the flow of this thread, by making the post. So, I deleted/removed the post, perhaps within 10 or so minutes, of it being public.
The mods/admins didn't contact me or have anything to do with its removal, I did it myself.
EDIT:
The link/image, was probably like this:
With me making a post, that said things like that some parties (maybe on social media), had objected to it.
Another reason for me removing the post, is that I'm NOT sure of the proper/full story behind what happened.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/?action=dlattach;attach=1728443;image)
-
I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal
Yes, 100% accurate.
How about 60% accurate?
I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.
How about "affordable cars for all and generous roads and highways for an accessible city", for example? With resource and environmental concerns, this is no longer considered a progressive stance today. And in general, as basic needs are fulfilled for most people, their focus turns towards the next wave of "needs". This went from food/shelter/health to travel/entertainment/fun and currently, at least for some, to mindfulness/non-discrimination/sensitivity...
I also struggle with some of the "modern" positions, and sometimes feel that we are addressing decadent pseudo-problems instead of the real issues at hand. But I also don't rule out the possibility that I am simply getting older, and some of my comfortable, well-worn attitudes no longer cut it. My grandparents' generation might have found a vacation in Italy "decadent", which became totally normal for the younger generation. And I am pretty sure that some of my opinions and positions fall into a similar category from the point of view of today's youngsters.
-
I think this one sums up your (and many others) situation: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-fellow-liberal
Yes, 100% accurate.
You can mirror that picture, and it would also be 100% accurate. So, it is at best 50% accurate, i.e., pointless.
-
I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.
An example of this might also be church attendance falling to lowest levels ever. So, on the one side you've got folks pushing to mandate the US as a 'Christian' nation government, while others are moving away from organized religion altogether. That the Church seems to be intolerant to many modern social issues is not - and has never been - a big surprise.
And that will have to end my participation in this thread, because while I'm generally pretty easy going all that hypocrisy ties me up in knots.
-
Nah,Dave, you're none of that shit---you are a bit of a "rightie", but who gives a damn!
No actually, I consider myself left wing, as in old school left wing.
At one point in my life I would have been considered far or even extreme left.
But because the overton window shifted and the "left" has now gone batshit crazy, I'm still standing in the same place I always have politically, but now I'm constantly called "right" or "alt-right" for holding the exact same values.
These days I'd be closest to what you'd call a classical center liberal. And not Liberal in the Australian meaning of it, as in liberal party. For those outside Australia, the "Liberal party" here is the right wing christian conservative party, roughly equivalent to the US Rupublican party.
Dave, I am much older than you, & your "old school" left wing is probably well to the right of mine.
I wouldn't call the modern Liberals "conservative" in anything other than the US use of the word.
Bob Menzies was a real "old school" conservative, & like most of the conservative parties around the world at that time, the original Liberals effectively ran a Social Democrat state, not a long way off that the ALP of the time would have run.
Public utilities were owned by the taxpayer, Unions were strong, & we had central wage fixing courts.
Those large corporations which existed actually had some interest in what they did for a living, rather than just being in it for the profit, so were efficient, as were the large government enterprises.
The Libs & Country Party weren't angels, though, they were as ready to use dirty tricks as anyone else, but at least they were fairly competent, unlike some of their Coalition successors.
-
I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.
Thing is, change can be good or it can be bad. Just because someone has a new idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea - at some point every idea that we today consider idiotic was new and doubtless there were people seeing it as progressive.
Resisting change by itself does not qualify a person as a foaming at mouth conservative afraid of new ideas looking to the comfort of the Dark Ages and burning witches. I myself am all for the idea of, say, gay marriage, I'm not for the idea of drag queens reading to kids in kindergarten.
-
With me making a post, that said things like that some parties (maybe on social media), had objected to it.
Another reason for me removing the post, is that I'm NOT sure of the proper/full story behind what happened.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/?action=dlattach;attach=1728443;image)
IIRC the full story:
It started as a thread on the forum, probably talking about merch or something, I don't quite recall. The MAGA hat was all the talk at the time, and I think we had made the Make Electronics Great Again joke on The Amp Hour so I created the image as a joke. Then I posted it on my twitter, and as you can see, most people thought it was funny by the like ratio. No one seriously thought I was selling this as merch.
But all it takes is one person to remember that image exists and then use it as (out of context) ammunition later on.
That hat image combined with the FX-problematic calculator joke about that Candian woke math things posted eariler, and an innocent photo of a soldering iron with a hashtag people took the wrong way (they thought it was mocking BLM at the time, its wasn't), and some other image as combo image went viral and hundreds, maybe even thousands in the electronics community piled on an called me -ist -phobic etc.
That also started the attacks on my friends and colleagues for just being associated with me, even to the point of getting their talks cancelled, worse than Scott Adams had, at least only his own talks were cancelled AFAIK.
No individual post got me cancelled, it was only when someone trawed my history for everythign they could find and them combined them as "proof" I was this always this problematic bigot.
That's what happens, they go through your history and find anything to build up a case for their already made-up opinion of you.
And to this day that thread and combo image is still referenced as the proof that I'm a *insert slur here*
They'll still be using a decade from now, I'm absolutely sure of it.
The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.
Interestingly, the person who put up that photo montage and started it all, I chatted to them privately and it was a very cordial chat and they admitted that they knew I wasn't -ist and -phobic and all that stuff I was being called, but they still didn't take it down (and I didn't ask them to BTW), as they implied that it was imporatnt to somehow teach me a lesson or something like that.
I only deleted those tweets because my friends were being attacked, and that was red line for me. I had to limit the attacks on them as best I could.
I think you can still find them on Instagram where they didn't even raise a singe eyebrow or comment. This outrage mob attack thing is entirely a twitter based phenomenom.
-
I think there is also the aspect that our world is indeed changing. Some positions that were progressive 50 years ago have since become mainstream, and are now gradually moving towards old-fashioned.
Thing is, change can be good or it can be bad. Just because someone has a new idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea - at some point every idea that we today consider idiotic was new and doubtless there were people seeing it as progressive.
Resisting change by itself does not qualify a person as a foaming at mouth conservative afraid of new ideas looking to the comfort of the Dark Ages and burning witches. I myself am all for the idea of, say, gay marriage, I'm not for the idea of drag queens reading to kids in kindergarten.
Sometimes I think change is just implemented for no reason. I don't like the way the meaning of words has been changed, for the sake of political correctness. This is why I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage. I'm completely in favour with same sex couples having exactly the same legal rights and legal protections as heterosexuals, just call it something else.
Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.
The horseshoe theory. I made this same observation quite a few years before I had a name for it. The far left and far right are diametrically opposed and yet nearly indistinguishable from each other in their behavior. A lot like the north and south poles of a magnet I suppose. You'd never know the difference without having an opposing pole to see how it reacts.
It's bollocks, I'm afraid.
Radical right wing wants: religious supremacy (often), radical policies on immigration ("build the wall" and so on), an entirely free market with no controls, as little government as possible.
Radical left wing wants: any religion or none (not usually specified), open borders (varies), a controlled market which is centrally planned, maximal governmental involvement.
I think it is hard to say that those two ends are equal in any significant manner.
Are they similarly rabid? Sure. Can they use similar techniques (violence, intimidation, protest, authoritianism) to get their way? Sure. But they definitely are quite distinct groups, even at the surface level, with a diametric opposition in many areas.
I find it funny how radical leftists accuse those on the centre-right of being Nazis. Many of those on the radical left have similar ideas to the Nazis. Quotas for ethnic groups in high paying jobs and at university is one example of this. Affirmative action, to ensure a certain number of Hispanic and black people, and not too many whites and Asians, is similar to what Nazi Germany did at the start by limiting the number of Jews in positions of power. It stems from jealousy: hinder the most rich and successful races, to benefit the rest.
-
I recently discussed the left-right topic with a group of younger people here (related to our local politics issues)..
:palm: :palm: :palm:
OMG, how easy it was 33+ years back:
Left - a communist, socialist, marx-leninist, maoist, anti-monopolist, anti-militarist, anti-capitalist, anti-monarchist, freedom fighter, anti-colonist, anti-rasist, pro-sovietist..
Right - a capitalist, monopolist, militarist, monarchist, colonist, fasist, nazist, rasist, pro-americanist..
Frankly, today I understand a shit about what does left and right mean..
:D
-
The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.
Sorry, can't help myself. One last comment.
IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative. I found that image hysterical, and even if you sold them under the banner of supporting Trump, I'd have no problem. I think many Trump supporters have legitimate concerns that are worthy of discussion, and I don't write anyone off just because they don't support my opinions.
But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side. IMO, the 'MAGA' type crowd is more likely to have full-on tirades against others they do not agree with. The name calling and insults seem to me to fly from the right side much more than the left. We're learning recently that Trump tried to pressure Disney to put the reigns on Jimmy Kimmel because he didn't like the jokes about him while he was president. And it seems like the vast majority of conspiracy theories originate from the right extremists as well.
The reality is there are extremists on both sides. But as I see it, the majority of vitriol and calls of destruction come far more from the right than they do the left.
-
But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side.
This is the problem with discussing politics in general and in particular in English - a whole multidimensional spectrum of opinions, values, ideas and whatever is imploded into a binary choice of Republican/Democrat, or Liberal/Conservative. Which is complete nonsense and leads to the extremes getting the spotlight, thanks to which one side can point to some extreme point of the other, while ignoring the discussion on legit points in their programs. I have opinions that are commonly associated with both sides and I've been named a "woke libtard" by one side and "fascist bigot" by the other. And note that I'm labelling them myself as two sides :D
Whatever else you can say about Slovakian politics, there's a fine grained choice between the political parties available, a fair amount of which actually get into the parliament. We've got everything including Communists (real communists) and Nazis (who did Nazi cosplay), many flavours of Socialists, Liberals, Christians, some who act as Libertarians, Nationality based parties...
-
I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage.
Which part of the "definition" of marriage do you mean exactly?
The "til death do us part" bit seems to have been heavily eroded independent of the type of couple... The "love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health" part should work just fine for gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't recall anything in the marriage vows about having heterosexual intercourse and procreating... ::)
-
I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.
I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.
That would depend very much on what you say (or write), wouldn't it? If you wrote a daily blog for a year, where you essentially kept repeating "xxx is so great, and I would know, since I am so great", I would probably dislike you.
Yes, but I was being literal, because you have said the same about me in another thread, having lost respect for me due to an opinion or statement I made.
This is related to the core issue at hand, that has been discussed here before: that one disagreement or stupid/idiotic/irrational/illogical opinion or belief should not be reason enough to completely ignore everything that person utters.
(The way political agitators start online campaigns and demonstrations to demand nobody should be able to listen what they have to say, and they should be fired and ostracized, like what happened to Scott Adams, is related but different: the extremist emotive mob reaction.)
Personally, I haven't read Scott Adams' blog or watched his videos (other than the one at the center of this furor), because his opinions on most things are irrelevant to me, and I want to enjoy the occasional good Dilbert strip without having the authors opinion taint the experience. If they were talking about their own experiences, it would be a bit different. But just having floating heads or "celebrities" spout their opinions is just not my cup of tea.
At this forum, I don't read the TEA threads, or even the recent purchases threads anymore, because I found it evokes slight jealousy in me, as I don't really have good test equipment, even a good oscilloscope, nor can I afford them right now. The difference to "canceling" is, of course, that I am only controlling my own behaviour, not telling anyone else what to do, or even to not listen to those I kinda-sorta avoid.
(This is not to try and paint myself as somehow "better": I have to consciously do this, to work at it, to interact in a mutually beneficial way. Otherwise, I would be just an annoyance, whether I intended it or not. Other people do it instinctively and well, without conscious effort.)
As described in the first part of my earlier post (which you conveniently omitted), that is how I came to dislike Scott Adams. Very much based on what he said/wrote, as you seem to prefer.
Apologies about that. :-[
I did not intend to imply that that was not the case. I just saw the exact same reaction from you towards him, towards myself in an earlier thread.
I was just trying to keep the quote as short as possible.
-
I have a problem with gay marriage, because it redefines the meaning of the word marriage.
Which part of the "definition" of marriage do you mean exactly?
The "til death do us part" bit seems to have been heavily eroded independent of the type of couple... The "love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health" part should work just fine for gay marriage. On the other hand, I can't recall anything in the marriage vows about having heterosexual intercourse and procreating... ::)
I don't mind language changing, but not when it's mandated from the top down.
Marriage originally started for the purpose of procreating. It has been defined as occurring between a man and a woman for the last couple of thousand years. There was absolutely no reason to change that definition. Same sex couples could have easily been given exactly the same legal right and protections, under a different name.
But it bothers me a bit when I see folks lumping all the extremists into ONE camp without acknowledging similar behavior from the other side.
This is the problem with discussing politics in general and in particular in English - a whole multidimensional spectrum of opinions, values, ideas and whatever is imploded into a binary choice of Republican/Democrat, or Liberal/Conservative. Which is complete nonsense and leads to the extremes getting the spotlight, thanks to which one side can point to some extreme point of the other, while ignoring the discussion on legit points in their programs. I have opinions that are commonly associated with both sides and I've been named a "woke libtard" by one side and "fascist bigot" by the other. And note that I'm labelling them myself as two sides :D
Whatever else you can say about Slovakian politics, there's a fine grained choice between the political parties available, a fair amount of which actually get into the parliament. We've got everything including Communists (real communists) and Nazis (who did Nazi cosplay), many flavours of Socialists, Liberals, Christians, some who act as Libertarians, Nationality based parties...
Yes, it's BS. Libertarians have ideas typically associated with both the left and right in the US. They're in favour of low taxes, a position supported by conservatives and the legalisation of prostitution, which is supported by the left.
-
IIRC the full story:
It started as a thread on the forum, probably talking about merch or something, I don't quite recall. The MAGA hat was all the talk at the time, and I think we had made the Make Electronics Great Again joke on The Amp Hour so I created the image as a joke. Then I posted it on my twitter, and as you can see, most people thought it was funny by the like ratio. No one seriously thought I was selling this as merch.
But all it takes is one person to remember that image exists and then use it as (out of context) ammunition later on.
That hat image combined with the FX-problematic calculator joke about that Candian woke math things posted eariler, and an innocent photo of a soldering iron with a hashtag people took the wrong way (they thought it was mocking BLM at the time, its wasn't), and some other image as combo image went viral and hundreds, maybe even thousands in the electronics community piled on an called me -ist -phobic etc.
That also started the attacks on my friends and colleagues for just being associated with me, even to the point of getting their talks cancelled, worse than Scott Adams had, at least only his own talks were cancelled AFAIK.
No individual post got me cancelled, it was only when someone trawed my history for everythign they could find and them combined them as "proof" I was this always this problematic bigot.
That's what happens, they go through your history and find anything to build up a case for their already made-up opinion of you.
And to this day that thread and combo image is still referenced as the proof that I'm a *insert slur here*
They'll still be using a decade from now, I'm absolutely sure of it.
The important point to remember even if I was serious about all that stuff and did it deliberately, so what? So what if someone likes Trump? So what if someone makes fun of a stupid woke school math thing. The woke crowd can't let it go, they can't let you have a different opinion, they have to destroy you.
Interestingly, the person who put up that photo montage and started it all, I chatted to them privately and it was a very cordial chat and they admitted that they knew I wasn't -ist and -phobic and all that stuff I was being called, but they still didn't take it down (and I didn't ask them to BTW), as they implied that it was imporatnt to somehow teach me a lesson or something like that.
I only deleted those tweets because my friends were being attacked, and that was red line for me. I had to limit the attacks on them as best I could.
I think you can still find them on Instagram where they didn't even raise a singe eyebrow or comment. This outrage mob attack thing is entirely a twitter based phenomenom.
Thanks, for the really nice and detailed story. :)
You raise a VERY good point, about the red line being breached, when it involves, even your friends being attacked, such as any financial/business's they run or are part of. Especially as this sounds like a very small number of individuals, reacting to stuff you didn't really say (properly), or mean, just some fun, jokes and things.
I'm arguably a fan of Scott Adams, over a very long period of time. I think I have a number of their books / comics (one or more, I'm not sure), and have seen a huge quantity of his comics and stuff.
But, I am disappointed in him making one (in particular), of his opinions, public, a number of months ago. Perhaps August 2022. But, that doesn't stop me from liking them and enjoying their works.
On the other hand, I believe in freedom of speech, and think it is extremely important. So, if he had kept that (August 2022, approximately) opinion, secret. People like me, wouldn't be able to offer alternative opinions. Which could be much more hurtful, to society in a bigger longer term sense, than hiding much / all (free)speech.
E.g. Ending up like some countries, whose leaders (or should I say, dictators), essentially 100% (less in practice) control the news media, TV stations, internet and other sources of true / honest information (although in the West, a fair quantity of the stuff, is not genuinely independent or 100% factual, for various reasons, just not anywhere nearly as bad, as those dictator countries).
Scott Adams (around August 2022), was presenting an opinion, about parents of would be mass very bad things (attacks), should do very drastic things, to stop their offspring, from carry out such attacks in the first place.
One of the sources, of information:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/dilbert-scott-adams-kill-sons-b2117427.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/dilbert-scott-adams-kill-sons-b2117427.html)
The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me. I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.
I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population. Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.
Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general. As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others. With terrible consequences.
-
And you guessed it, the mere mention of the word woke triggered people into outrage, saying how dissapointed they are in us, and trying to "re-educate" us that it's not true etc etc. The usual stuff.
That word is burnt though. It has been appropriated by right-wing media as a label for "anything we don't like" and is essentially devoid of meaning now. It is the new "socialism". I think it is mostly perceived as saying you see yourself as a part of conservative culture war. At least in the US, the UK and increasing continental Europe as well. I don't know about Australia. I think many people consider it a way to signal that you are not interested in civil discussion and want to start an argument instead.
I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.
I have to admit I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter but people may overestimate its impact. I do not condone the offensive (and at times scary) way some act over there and I can only imagine what it feels like to find yourself subjected to it personally.
But I think the narrative that business decisions are driven by a fear of a crazy Twitter fringe is overblown; often on purpose, to fuel outrage and sell tabloids. In many cases, the simple question is "do we want our brand associated with what they said/did". In the case of Scott Adams, he essentially argued for segregation and I think most buinesses would come to the conclusion that large parts of their customer base do not look kindly on that. Yes, he may not have literally said that but it was heavily implied and he was clearly aware of that. You can argue endlessly (preferably elsewhere) whether that makes him a racist/contrarian/master of persuasion/whatever but from the publisher's perspective that would seem to be a distinction without a difference.
There is definitely a larger discussion to be had about freedom of speech, not just on a legal level but on a social one as well. About the role of platforms, shifting taboos and "opinion" media (see Dominion vs Fox News). It's fascinating and complicated and unfortunately there is so much noise from people who haven't actually thought about it seriously for 5 minutes and probably don't even care.
-
I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.
I believe so, definitely.
There is definitely a larger discussion to be had about freedom of speech, not just on a legal level but on a social one as well.
I for one like these threads exactly because they tell me how other people (with wildly different views and experiences to mine) perceive the world.
(I'm so curious about that that I sometimes trawl through even conspiracy sites, to find out. It does not matter to me that I personally happen to not agree; the thing to me is trying to understand the viewpoint that generates the opinions and experiences.)
I also struggle with some of the "modern" positions, and sometimes feel that we are addressing decadent pseudo-problems instead of the real issues at hand. But I also don't rule out the possibility that I am simply getting older, and some of my comfortable, well-worn attitudes no longer cut it.
Me too! Although, I think it is natural (and not something to "counter"); something like a balancing factor. Like when becoming a parent, most people tend to shift a bit toward more conservative attitudes, because their values change a bit. If we describe young people as explorers, older people are somewhat more like caretakers instead.
It also means that we need to understand how others perceive the world – the entire huge set of viewpoints – before we can even tell what changes we could do to the world to make it better, and what perceptions are just due to a limited viewpoint. We absolutely have to listen to even those we disagree with, and apply logic and rational analysis, especially when emotions limit our ability to interact.
(Of course, there is a limit, when someone spouts nonsense or just tries to manipulate others. But we don't determine that emotionally either, but through logical analysis and comparison of their statements.)
-
I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.
Well it certainly makes it difficult for us. And not just in politics -- yesterday I was trying to track down the origin of a particular concept (ignoring authorial intent when analyzing content) and found myself deep into Derrida and deconstructionism, and all that followed. What a load of crap! There is may be some nugget of value there somewhere, but if so it's buried under a mountain of manure. My STEM brain just isn't capable of making sense of it, and there is no way I could participate in a learned discussion on the topic (nor would I want to). But for some other people this is the most important thing in their lives.
I shudder to think of what kind of person I would be now if I had somehow fallen into that quagmire when I was young. But that's assuming that nurture wins over nature. I became an engineer, could have been a musician, but probably could never have been a competent philosopher. (Is there such a thing as a competent philosopher? Perhaps "influential" is the appropriate term.) Nurture helped me be good at what I do, but nature is what drove me in this direction. Or so I believe.
-
I find it funny how radical leftists accuse those on the centre-right of being Nazis. Many of those on the radical left have similar ideas to the Nazis. Quotas for ethnic groups in high paying jobs and at university is one example of this. Affirmative action, to ensure a certain number of Hispanic and black people, and not too many whites and Asians, is similar to what Nazi Germany did at the start by limiting the number of Jews in positions of power. It stems from jealousy: hinder the most rich and successful races, to benefit the rest.
It's neomarxism. Mostly concerned about social inequality, and opression, by another class of people. It's repackaged to the 21 century, with a bit of racism on top, because instead of a working class vs rich, it's now whites vs minorities and intersectionality. It turns into oppressions olympics, where "just being gay" is almost like normal. And the only way it work is by force.
It's bollocks, I'm afraid.
Radical right wing wants: ...
Radical left wing wants: ...
It's not what they want, which places them close to each other. It's the methods they achieve it. Both ideas are incompatible with our way of life, and ends up with the state forcing citizens to things they don't want (euphemism). For more info, read Europe's history cca 1940-1990.
IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative.
So would you like to classify it? We write woke, because "postmodernist neomarxist, intersectional, fourth wave feminist" is a bit mouthful. And people can be conservative on both sides.
-
[...] he was clearly aware of that. You can argue endlessly (preferably elsewhere) whether that makes him a racist/contrarian/master of persuasion/whatever but from the publisher's perspective that would seem to be a distinction without a difference.
He was clearly aware of the consequences because the man is an incurable troll.
He even tweeted (about a year ago) the he was thinking about retiring and going out with a bang.
These has been his modus operandi for years, and one of the reason (in addition to his hideous ideas) I despise him.
And, for me, the law of goats applies.
If you kiss a goat, but you are doing it "ironically" or "provocatively", you still are a goats kisser.
As They Might Be Giant put it in "Your Racist Friend":
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding
-
IDK if I'd classify as "woke", but certainly more liberal than conservative.
So would you like to classify it? We write woke, because "postmodernist neomarxist, intersectional, fourth wave feminist" is a bit mouthful. And people can be conservative on both sides.
The whole "woke" thing is a pet peeve of mine... Like so many other things, I don't believe it has any commonly understood definition other than trying to label someone/something as oppositional to the users conservative viewpoints. And I also find it ironic that people use a synonym of "conscious" as an insult, when the opposite meaning would align with "asleep" or "unconscious"...
woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
-
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
I don't, nor do the kind of people I like to interact with.
The concept is complex, but at the core its use boils down to "what you are doing will not have the effect you hope it will, and will instead just make things worse"; and the reason that specific word is used is exactly because of the inherent irony.
(Just as important at the core is the concept of being offended on behalf of someone else they do not even know.)
What other word should we use? I fear that any other word with the same message/connotations would still annoy you the exact same way, because it is not the word but the entire concept, the way it points out the utter illogic of the movement and ideology that spawned the term. Perhaps your own model of the world does not allow for criticizing the effects separately from the intent; I see this in many people, regardless of their political leanings.
I myself am very interested in the reasons behind the opinions, and the viewpoints that support the opinions, even if I disagree. I have read TomKatts posts with interest (regardless of whether I agree or not), but as with eBastler, I do fear that I might use a word or idiom that causes them to reject any further interaction with me. This has happened to me in real world, you see: typically, when someone I'm not directly talking to/with, overhears something I said, and interjects that because I uttered that, nobody sane/professional/sensible should talk with me.
I really don't like the feeling that I should be watching like a hawk constantly around myself to make sure nobody will be vicariously offended on behalf of an imaginary person, by an out of context quote or mis-chosen word.
-
woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
Words change their meanings over time and this is governed not by the elites, but common usage. It is very true the original meaning of the word woke was to be awakened to racial and social injustice, but now the term is mainly used in the pejorative. This is a reaction to many nasty people who claim to be woke, falsely accuse those who disagree with them as being bigoted racist trans/homophobic etc. Many people who claimed to be woke would say anyone who isn't actively devoting their time to achieve equity for racial minorities, is an white supremacist. It's no surprise that most people didn't like this and conservatives were disproportionally targetted by the woke, which is why you see it being used more by those on the right.
-
Yes, but I was being literal, because you have said the same about me in another thread, having lost respect for me due to an opinion or statement I made.
This is related to the core issue at hand, that has been discussed here before: that one disagreement or stupid/idiotic/irrational/illogical opinion or belief should not be reason enough to completely ignore everything that person utters.
On the second point I fully agree. I believe Dave had a thread on this a while ago, pointing out the absurdity of people stating in their Youtube comments that they "lost all respect" for him due to a single sentence they disagreed with. As pointed out earlier, my dislike of Scott Adams stems from his being so full of himself (and his self-proclaimed persuasion expertise) over a long period of time.
Regarding your first point: Are you sure you are remembering this correctly and not confusing me with someone else? You and I had different opinions in the "Diversity, Equity etc." thread, and I recall that I found your attacks quite personal. But I just looked back over my posting history (and in fact searcherd it for "respect", and then again for your user name, going back two years), and did not find any statement along the lines you mention above.
As it happens, I do value your posts a lot, since you are obviously a bright person and get your thoughts across very well. (Except when you are wrong, of course. ;))
-
I'll say this much - I'm not certain if it's the scientific / technical affinity of folks contributing to the EEVblog forum or something else, but it's nice to see that here even subject matter that tends to push emotional boundaries at other forums, for the most part everyone is respectful. Too bad discussions like this aren't the norm.
-
atheism, but it's a religion for all practical purposes.
This is simply bollocks. :bullshit:
It's like saying that the absence of any ailment is an illness in itself.
Or (on the converse, to give a non-negative example) that the absence of any virtue is a virtue in itself.
But there are some atheistic religions, I'll concede that.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
-
The whole "woke" thing is a pet peeve of mine... Like so many other things, I don't believe it has any commonly understood definition other than trying to label someone/something as oppositional to the users conservative viewpoints. And I also find it ironic that people use a synonym of "conscious" as an insult, when the opposite meaning would align with "asleep" or "unconscious"...
woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
See the Wikipedia entry on "Woke": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke)
This is reasonably close to how I've seen the term evolve during the 21st century (I was unaware of it prior to the BLM era.) Certainly it has been applied by the "right" for their own purposes -- please show me a political term that hasn't been appropriated by the opposition -- but "Woke" has a history of usage, and "a synonym of conscious" may be the literal meaning but in practice, as used by the "left" it has intentionally implied much more than that .
-
Besides, the US political system is "far-right to right-wing" (Republican) or "right-wing to centre-right" (Democrat). There are very few mainstream left-wing politicians in the US, if we use the academic definition of left-wing. (You could apply some kind of political relativism if you want but I don't think it's really sensible because it makes it difficult to compare with other countries).
If the mainstream left wing politicians in the US are right to center right, then I'm frightened to see what counts as left wing to the rest of the world. Are Stalin and Marx left wing or just left of center? The progressive leftist idiots have gained enormous amounts of clout in recent years, one need only wander around a city like Seattle or Portland for a few hours to see the effect of their misguided policies.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.
-
A wall is to stop people illegally entering your country. "illegal immigration" is not the same as immigration. No sane immigration policy formally includes illegal immigration.
You'd think that wouldn't you? It's totally logical except there are large numbers of people, the ones that get called "far left" here in the USA, that either deliberately confuse illegal and legal immigration, or simply do not perceive any difference, I don't know which it is. If you say you want to secure the border and stop people from entering illegally you are racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant. It's totally illogical and stupid but that's the climate we are in these days. It may be a small percentage of the population but they are very, very loud and the rest are afraid of attracting their ire.
Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.
Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:
atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?
-
Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.
Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.
What bothers me is that's not the same argument that seems to get the loud voices going - we hear slurs against Mexicans specifically, brown skinned people of all races are yelled at in stores and told to "go back where you came from" (even when they're legal Americans) and told by right leaning media that the drug problem is a result of these people who are just looking to survive, when more Americans have likely died from greedy American opioid pharma companies. This is what we hear from the top and even our leaders. So it's no surprise to find supporters following suit.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.
Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:
atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?
Religion doesn't require a deity. Buddhists for example don't believe in god. What I think was meant by that comment is that some of the ideologies radical leftists believe in, are quasi-religious in nature. Many of the far-right in the US may be Christian fundamentalists, but the far-left have equally unscientific beliefs such as a person can simply say they're the opposite sex and it makes it true and that the US is run by white supremacists.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
To prove that a god (of any kind) exists you would need to prove in the positive - in other words, a claim like "prayer works" which could be falsified by testing e.g. if you could "prey the cancer away". You cannot rely on the argument of "you can't prove it's not true" as that's an unfalsifiable statement. As Einstein said, "Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?" Because that is the same logic.
Most religion is inherently based on faith as the adherents will claim you do not need proof of their god, just faith in their god's existence.
The vast majority of atheists accept that the observable universe is as observed by science and gathered evidence, they don't simply "believe" because they have faith.
-
Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.
What bothers me is that's not the same argument that seems to get the loud voices going - we hear slurs against Mexicans specifically, brown skinned people of all races are yelled at in stores and told to "go back where you came from" (even when they're legal Americans) and told by right leaning media that the drug problem is a result of these people who are just looking to survive, when more Americans have likely died from greedy American opioid pharma companies. This is what we hear from the top and even our leaders. So it's no surprise to find supporters following suit.
Well I personally disagree with the racists and other idiots that you mention, and I'm not going around blaming Mexico (or other places) for the drug problem, it's true that there are some countries where a large percentage of the illegal drugs here come from but they are simply meeting a demand, and that demand is created by the personal choices of individuals that choose to abuse drugs. The overprescription of opiates is also a problem, but not all of that is the doctor's fault, there are many, many people that engage in "doctor shopping" until they find one that buys into their claimed symptoms and prescribes the good stuff.
Anyway my point is there are perfectly valid reasons to desire secure borders and controlled immigration, and there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration does not make one racist or xenophobic. If legal immigration has shortfalls then the solution is to improve the process, not to bypass it and simply ignore people flooding over uncontrolled. Personally I think the population is too big already so we should be picky on who we let come here permanently, but that should be based on what they bring to the table, not where they are from or what they look like.
-
Are you sure you are remembering this correctly
No, not at all sure. It was an understanding I had, and having done the same research you did (looking at our posts), I can't find a basis for that understanding. I suppose it was a lingering feeling of unease at how the exchange went, and eventually merged with the negative real-world experiences I've had.
Apologies.
(Except when you are wrong, of course. ;))
Oh yeah, I am often wrong. I do appreciate whenever anyone bothers to explain how and why, because I can then do my own research to verify, and either confirm the error, or provide a counterargument.
-
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.
-
Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.
Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.
This is definitely the situation in Finland, too. People who are trying to separate illegal immigration from legal immigration are slammed with "no person is illegal".
Currently, it takes over two months to get an residence permit even when you already have work in Finland. Instead of actually fixing that, the government is working on how illegal immigrants (especially people who have been denied refugee status in EU) can stay in Finland and live off social security.
Except that instead of talking about illegal immigrants or non-refugee status asylum seekers, they just use the term "immigrant", and claim that anybody opposing their immigration policy is therefore against all kinds of immigration, and thus inhumane and racist.
It does not help that whenever a statistic shows negative effects or things that do not fit the government agenda, the Finnish solution is to stop gathering and publishing that statistic.
I do not know how to have a logical discussion on this in Finland at all, because of all the semantic and social manipulation going on. I have "leftist" friends and lots of such acquintances (academic folks), and although their opinions on these matters does not make me "unfriend" them at all and I'm interested in exactly why they have the views they do, I definitely need to completely avoid these topics or I risk them "unfriending" me.
(Among those living off the social security themselves, you do see the opposite view, labeling anyone with a different ethnicity as an illegal immigrant only here for the social security and committing crimes. Good luck trying to talk them out of that, either.)
-
Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).
It depends on who you talk to I guess. The most openly and unashamedly racist people I have ever encountered have been black. That is obviously not to say that all blacks are racist, not even close, but in some circles "racism" has been redefined so that only whites can be racist, I know, it makes no sense, but I have actually had people tell me on more than one occasion that "he can't be racist, he's black" :-// Meanwhile people of certain races get away with saying abhorrent things that would get someone of another race crucified and yet it is seen as acceptable.
Both can be true.
On the one hand, black Americans often are very overtly racist, but I feel it’s really mostly bark and no bite. While I don’t condone it, I do understand how and why it exists. And frankly, it’s easy for most white Americans to avoid. (For context, my experience comes from living in and around Baltimore for a decade.)
On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.
Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:
atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?
The dictionary? There is only one. Try a better dictionary. Most words around religious issues have very funky definitions in many places. Its almost like people's beliefs make them refuse to face concepts head on.
-
On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)
Where's the proof? Unequal outcome is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems to be the other way around in many respects.
Affirmative action puts whites and Asians with the same qualifications at a disadvantage to blacks. Harvard University is even being sued for discriminating against Asians. Black people in positions of power are allowed to discriminate against white people. For example Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has stated she won't talk to white journalists one on one (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/). When the number of interactions with the police is taken into account, black people are no more likely to be killed than whites, less if anything. The police are even more careful not to harm a black person, because they know it causes them more trouble. The mainstream media don't help. A gang of blacks beating up a white or Asian person hardly gets a mention in the news, whilst a white officer killing a black criminal makes national headlines.
There are inequalities in society and blacks more of often than not disproportionally worse off, but it's mostly due to other factors, than racism. Perhaps that was the case 60 years ago, but not now.
EDIT:
Oh and it clearly isn't discrimination against blacks. Nigerians do better in the US than whites. It's native blacks who are worse off.
https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832
-
More woke stuff, we were missing that, nice! :P
-
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.
No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."
-
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
I don't, nor do the kind of people I like to interact with.
The concept is complex, but at the core its use boils down to "what you are doing will not have the effect you hope it will, and will instead just make things worse"; and the reason that specific word is used is exactly because of the inherent irony.
(Just as important at the core is the concept of being offended on behalf of someone else they do not even know.)
I can kind of see how you would arrive at an interpretation like this if you tried to come up with a definition in good faith. But I do not think you can escape the fact that the pejorative use of the word was popularized by political pundits who do not have (or need) a consistent definition and care mostly about riling up their audience. As a result, to many people, it is vague and emotionally loaded. You can try to reclaim their language; I personally wouldn't, it is bound to lead to misunderstandings.
This is especially problematic with something like Twitter where someone who does not know you might not have any context beyond 280 characters. Frankly, if I read something like "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" from some random Twitter user, my best guess would be that their handle is something like @ownthelibs03657164 and they are probably not worth interacting with (no offense to Dave). Mind you that is no excuse at all to go after them (or their contacts) personally.
-
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.
No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."
It's odd how things can change ones perception of whether there's a god or not. I used to be strongly atheist, but am now more spiritual/agnostic. I'm still no fan of organised religion, although Christianity is probably one of the least worst ones and is the foundation for many of the good things in western society. I wonder if it was being hit by a car doing 60mph, whist cycling last year, which has affected my brain? I wasn't that badly injured, considering, just a broken radius and ulnar requiring surgery and a mild pneumothorax.
-
On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)
Chef Goes Nanners
-
The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me. I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.
I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population. Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.
Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general. As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others. With terrible consequences.
I'm not defending his opinion or quote, I have not heard that before, but I would bet money it's taken out of context.
As I've said, if you don't listen to his live shows then you don't undrestand what he's doing and how he explains things. He likes to put hyptotheticals out there and discuss them and a whole bunch of other techniques. This makes him incredibly easy to be taken out of context.
Also, his son in law was killed by fentanyl, and he spends a huge amount of energy trying to end it politically. He's now a single issue voter, the candidate with the best fentanyl plan gets his vote and public promotion.
My advice with anything involving Scott Adams is to not believe a word of it until you have watched the full live show context. And even have many episodes under your belt so you can get what he's doing.
-
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.
No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."
It's odd how things can change ones perception of whether there's a god or not. I used to be strongly atheist, but am now more spiritual/agnostic. I'm still no fan of organised religion, although Christianity is probably one of the least worst ones and is the foundation for many of the good things in western society. I wonder if it was being hit by a car doing 60mph, whist cycling last year, which has affected my brain? I wasn't that badly injured, considering, just a broken radius and ulnar requiring surgery and a mild pneumothorax.
To be clear, I've zero problem with anyone believing in whatever god, gods or spiritual entity that makes them happy and I respect their religion, or lack of religion. Organised religion is also fine within reason, provided it doesn't begin to corrupt the state or force itself upon others (most religions fail this test unfortunately, but some are fine.) I am just responding to the idea that atheism is a belief system. It isn't a belief system any more than the laws of physics are a belief system. It's the absence of belief.
-
The absence of a belief is not a belief.
True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.
That "belief" is based on not only the complete lack of evidence, but also the absurdity of the hundreds of contradictory religious beliefs.
Every athiest I know will change their mind in a second if you present some credible evidence.
-
The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me. I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.
I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population. Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.
Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general. As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others. With terrible consequences.
I'm not defending his opinion or quote, I have not heard that before, but I would bet money it's taken out of context.
As I've said, if you don't listen to his live shows then you don't undrestand what he's doing and how he explains things. He likes to put hyptotheticals out there and discuss them and a whole bunch of other techniques. This makes him incredibly easy to be taken out of context.
But who cares about context?
He has spoken bad keywords, so he shall be canceled.
-
But who cares about context?
He has spoken bad keywords, so he shall be canceled.
Curiously, the only people and organisations that have "cancelled" him are of the left and/or are political enemies of his (i.e. left leaning publications). Unfortunately they are the ones that matter, and put so much pressure on his syndication company that they had no choice but to drop him, hence Dilbert was "fully cancelled".
It's very interesting to note that:
a) The majority of black and conservative commentators seem to either support him or they at least understand the context and just shrugged their shoulders and say "ok, I get it".
b) He hasn't been cancelled from any social media platform. Not Youtube, not Facebook, not Instagram, not twitter. Nor has be been de-banked.
As for the future of Dilbert, I think he's tied so closely with the Locals platform that it doesn't seem like he'll be proactive in seeking out other ways to make it available. I think that's a bad move.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
When someone asks, I say I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I don't know for sure there are no gods. Atheist because I've seen no evidence for the existence of any god, so live my life as if there aren't any. The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
The Chicago Tribune organization is not known for its left-leaning tendencies, and they have cancelled Dilbert.
Unfortunately, they replaced it with a lame strip featuring bratty kids talking back to their parents, with little included humor.
In the US, newspapers are not required to print every letter to the editor, nor to print every commercially-available comic strip.
Personally, I understand why a corporation would not want to be identified with the absurd, ill-advised, and hurtful comments of a contributor, even though I often found Dilbert's view of the technical workplace to be quite accurate.
-
More woke stuff, we were missing that, nice! :P
I assume you don't approve of this taking up valuable EEVblog Forum bandwidth(?)
I guess this type of off-topic discussion isn't really welcomed here, but I for one appreciate having the opportunity to discuss political / social / human subjects here, with generally intelligent and rational people. Back when I was working as an engineer (I'm retired now) my co-workers and I would debate all sorts of topics -- which would probably get us fired now -- and we could still be friends afterwards. On the few non-engineering forums where I participate this type of discussion rapidly turns toxic and stupid.
-
a) The majority of black and conservative commentators seem to either support him or they at least understand the context and just shrugged their shoulders and say "ok, I get it".
b) He hasn't been cancelled from any social media platform. Not Youtube, not Facebook, not Instagram, not twitter. Nor has be been de-banked.
a) So what is the context that makes this ok? I have watched his whole rant and if anything, it seemed even more unhinged than I expected from the news article I read. On top of the segregation thing ("getting away from black people")... all that talk about him "(no longer) identifying as a black person" and how black people supposedly don't want to get an education. :-//
b) I think I am more or less ok with that. I am not advocating ostracizing him from society (although I would not be surprised if Youtube considered his video a TOS violation). But I find it hard to fault a publisher for not wanting to pay him to put his stuff (and name) on their website anymore.
-
More woke stuff, we were missing that, nice! :P
I assume you don't approve of this taking up valuable EEVblog Forum bandwidth(?)
I guess this type of off-topic discussion isn't really welcomed here, but I for one appreciate having the opportunity to discuss political / social / human subjects here, with generally intelligent and rational people. Back when I was working as an engineer (I'm retired now) my co-workers and I would debate all sorts of topics -- which would probably get us fired now -- and we could still be friends afterwards. On the few non-engineering forums where I participate this type of discussion rapidly turns toxic and stupid.
I don't mind this kind of discussions per se, and I'm not one who would want to ban anything as long as it doesn't get out of control.
If anything, I find it sad that a lot of the non-technical discussions these days tend to revolve around the same kind of topics, again and again, with pretty much the same kind of arguments almost every time. And while, I agree, usually not nearly as bad as one can find in other venues, even on here, they tend to be pretty polarizing, and we've definitely seen cases of people stopping to talk to one another or even ignore some others based on their opinions, which is not exactly like being 'still friends' as you describe in your case. But just a note, I'll be pointing this out occasionally, and I'll never ask for banning anything.
-
But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.
I don't, nor do the kind of people I like to interact with.
The concept is complex, but at the core its use boils down to "what you are doing will not have the effect you hope it will, and will instead just make things worse"; and the reason that specific word is used is exactly because of the inherent irony.
(Just as important at the core is the concept of being offended on behalf of someone else they do not even know.)
I can kind of see how you would arrive at an interpretation like this if you tried to come up with a definition in good faith.
No, I literally meant that that is the way I have used the term "woke", and how I have understood others' intentions/meaning/connotations from the context of the discussion, when using the term. The English term is used here in Finland as well.
In my case the discussions have involved either education (and how related ideological choices are driving changes that lead to worse outcomes for students, as seen in e.g. Finnish PISA scores plummeting), or specific types and instances of activism (especially being offended and enraged on behalf of someone else they don't even know).
If you know of a better term to describe this that others recognize and understand the same way, I'm all ears.
-
I don't mind this kind of discussions per se, [...] even on here, they tend to be pretty polarizing, and we've definitely seen cases of people stopping to talk to one another or even ignore some others based on their opinions
Why don't we condemn that –– stopping to talk to one another because of a non-technical opinion ––, then, instead?
Surely it makes more sense to have a discussion that interests members, than self-censoring just because someone might not have the self-control to not get too upset?
-
a) So what is the context that makes this ok? I have watched his whole rant and if anything, it seemed even more unhinged than I expected from the news article I read.
Have you watched the pinned interview on his Twitter account on the Hoptep Jesus podcast?
Have you watched any of his other lives shows since then?
Being able to understand the context and "what makes this ok" are two different things. You can both understand the context and still be completely against what he said (or the way he said it) at the same time.
-
Curiously, the only people and organisations that have "cancelled" him are of the left and/or are political enemies of his (i.e. left leaning publications). Unfortunately they are the ones that matter, and put so much pressure on his syndication company that they had no choice but to drop him, hence Dilbert was "fully cancelled".
It's very interesting to note that:
a) The majority of black and conservative commentators seem to either support him or they at least understand the context and just shrugged their shoulders and say "ok, I get it".
I see this happening a lot, people getting offended and outraged on behalf of someone else. A few years ago there were people telling me that the autistic news reporter on the satirical news site The Onion is offensive to autistic people. The fact that I'm on the autistic spectrum and think he's hilarious was apparently lost on them, they decided it's offensive to those like me so they were up in arms about it. Not only does it happen often, it seems to be the case in a majority of the cases where someone is highly offended by something. They're compelled to white-knight and "fix" things for others.
-
The dictionary? There is only one. Try a better dictionary. Most words around religious issues have very funky definitions in many places. Its almost like people's beliefs make them refuse to face concepts head on.
Which specific dictionaries do you approve of? This was dictionary.com, I don't think I own a paper dictionary.
-
even on here, they tend to be pretty polarizing, and we've definitely seen cases of people stopping to talk to one another or even ignore some others based on their opinions, which is not exactly like being 'still friends' as you describe in your case.
Perhaps my co-worker and I were just a friendly bunch. Or... It just might possibly have been because we were talking face-to-face, where most people can pick up on the critical nuances. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try here though.
-
That "belief" is based on not only the complete lack of evidence, but also the absurdity of the hundreds of contradictory religious beliefs.
Every athiest I know will change their mind in a second if you present some credible evidence.
Technically I would change my mind if presented with credible evidence, but the bar for what is "credible evidence" varies widely. Some will take anything they see as miraculous and can't see an obvious rational cause of as credible evidence of the supernatural. I would need to see overwhelmingly extraordinary evidence in order to concede that the supernatural exists, it's possible, but I'm always going to default to searching for a rational explanation. Failure to find a rational explanation does not mean that the explanation has to be irrational.
-
No, I literally meant that that is the way I have used the term "woke", and how I have understood others' intentions/meaning/connotations from the context of the discussion, when using the term. The English term is used here in Finland as well.
In my case the discussions have involved either education (and how related ideological choices are driving changes that lead to worse outcomes for students, as seen in e.g. Finnish PISA scores plummeting), or specific types and instances of activism (especially being offended and enraged on behalf of someone else they don't even know).
If you know of a better term to describe this that others recognize and understand the same way, I'm all ears.
It seems to have a lot of different aspects to you, maybe it is best to explain more explicitly instead of hoping to convey all of it with a single word? I think you are basically saying, it is about angrily complaining about something even though that does not help solving the underlying problem (?) But I can't really see how that relates PISA scores, so I think I still do not quite understand what you mean.
-
Technically I would change my mind if presented with credible evidence, but the bar for what is "credible evidence" varies widely. Some will take anything they see as miraculous and can't see an obvious rational cause of as credible evidence of the supernatural. I would need to see overwhelmingly extraordinary evidence in order to concede that the supernatural exists, it's possible, but I'm always going to default to searching for a rational explanation. Failure to find a rational explanation does not mean that the explanation has to be irrational.
Atheists are just more militant Agnostics who are willing to say "it's bullshit until proven otherwise". i.e. they are willing to rock to boat and potentially offend people. Agnostics usually think the same was as athiests, they just waren't willing to say it because they just don't want to get involved, don't want to offend etc.
-
Atheists are just more militant Agnostics who are willing to say "it's bullshit until proven otherwise". i.e. they are willing to rock to boat and potentially offend people. Agnostics usually think the same was as athiests, they just waren't willing to say it because they just don't want to get involved, don't want to offend etc.
I tend to keep it to myself unless it comes up in discussion. I don't care what others believe, so long as they don't try to push it on me.
-
I see this happening a lot, people getting offended and outraged on behalf of someone else. A few years ago there were people telling me that the autistic news reporter on the satirical news site The Onion is offensive to autistic people. The fact that I'm on the autistic spectrum and think he's hilarious was apparently lost on them, they decided it's offensive to those like me so they were up in arms about it. Not only does it happen often, it seems to be the case in a majority of the cases where someone is highly offended by something. They're compelled to white-knight and "fix" things for others.
I get emails and comments like this all the time (more so back in the height of the cancellation days).
"I have a family member with a retarded child who would find this word offensive"
"I have a trans friend who would find this offensive"
"I have a female collegue who would find this offensive"
etc, etc. ::)
-
Atheists are just more militant Agnostics who are willing to say "it's bullshit until proven otherwise". i.e. they are willing to rock to boat and potentially offend people. Agnostics usually think the same was as athiests, they just waren't willing to say it because they just don't want to get involved, don't want to offend etc.
I tend to keep it to myself unless it comes up in discussion. I don't care what others believe, so long as they don't try to push it on me.
It was funny working at Altium because there were a lot of religious people working there. I remember the shocked look when I would challenge someone at the lunch table. I'd get whispered to later "I can't believe you actually said something and took them on!") LOL.
-
Atheists are just more militant Agnostics who are willing to say "it's bullshit until proven otherwise". i.e. they are willing to rock to boat and potentially offend people. Agnostics usually think the same was as athiests, they just waren't willing to say it because they just don't want to get involved, don't want to offend etc.
I used to be like that and I'd be happy to logically, dispassionately and openly challenge someones belief in the big sky bully, but then I spent a couple of years in a paediatric oncology ward and met a *lot* of people who's only coping mechanism was their faith. I couldn't in good conscience tread on someone elses belief when they had nothing else to fall back on, and I just kinda stopped doing it. It also did make me wonder a bit about my own belief and I drifted towards agnostic.
-
It was funny working at Altium because there were a lot of religious people working there. I remember the shocked look when I would challenge someone at the lunch table. I'd get whispered to later "I can't believe you actually said something and took them on!") LOL.
There's nothing really gained by taking them on, logic and reason are useless against a belief that is not based in logic in the first place. All it will accomplish is upsetting them and/or making them think you're an idiot. I find it's easier to just let them be, unless they get pushy with it. Ultimately I don't really know either, indeed "agnostic atheist" may be the best description of myself. I've seen nothing compelling to suggest to me that there is any sort of supernatural existence in the universe but I could conceivably be wrong.
-
a) So what is the context that makes this ok? I have watched his whole rant and if anything, it seemed even more unhinged than I expected from the news article I read.
Have you watched the pinned interview on his Twitter account on the Hoptep Jesus podcast?
Have you watched any of his other lives shows since then?
Being able to understand the context and "what makes this ok" are two different things. You can both understand the context and still be completely against what he said (or the way he said it) at the same time.
I have unfortunately watched the "Episode 2034 EXCERPT" he has currently pinned on Twitter, more than half an hour of my life that I won't get back. I have no intention to watch any more.
Here is a summary so others can decide if it is worth their time.
He claims that people say that he went on a racist rant but they ignore the context. He repeats this a lot but the only time he actually substantiates this is when he gives examples for "supporting Black America for years" (supporting Colin Kaepernick, working with BLM, supporting prison reform, writing in favour of some kind of reparations). He spends a lot of time denouncing the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Washington Post, CNN, Jake Tapper and the New York Times as fake news. He insinuates that he was really cancelled because he has been one of their most powerful critics in the past. He says that conservative commentators have only criticised his choice of words but they get "the context". He accepts that the First Amendment doesn't legally apply to private companies but it's "the same" because they are gate keepers. He falsely claimed that Newsweek said it was racist to cancel him (they ran an opinion piece saying his video was racist but he should not be cancelled: https://www.newsweek.com/real-antiracism-would-mean-not-canceling-scott-adams-opinion-1784372 (https://www.newsweek.com/real-antiracism-would-mean-not-canceling-scott-adams-opinion-1784372)). He ends the video with some more advice/not advice/observations for black people/all people to "change their culture" (5 points on a white board).
I found his style to be extremely manipulative and condescending. For example, he kept making sweeping claims, then subtly walking them back. He also makes claims and then follows them up with arguments and examples that support a similar but different claim. He lied outright at least once.
Most of his case is about discrediting those who have cancelled or criticised him (labelling them as "Fake News" and questioning their motives). But he does not really address the question if they were justified in doing so, except for the following two points:
- his past support for Black America: the Newsweek piece buys into this, basically saying he should be given a second chance to change his mind (I doubt he would want to?)
- freedom of speech: He essentially suggests that the equivalent of First Amendment protections should apply to private companies if they are "gate keepers". This is not a completely outlandish idea in itself. But including publishers and newspapers in this (as opposed to e.g. large social media platforms), essentially forcing them to print things they do not want to, seems absurd.
Make of it what you want.
-
But I can't really see how that relates PISA scores, so I think I still do not quite understand what you mean.
Here, the "woke" activists include a lot of comprehensive school teachers and university humanities students (which happen to largely overlap), who insist on equal outcomes and social awareness, and recognition of racial privilege. Part of the Twitter mob which despairs that the Finnish language does not have gendered pronouns, so they can't really invent them either. (Instead, they list their English ones, even in purely Finnish-speaking contexts.)
(It does not matter that Finns have never imported slaves, we have only been exported as slaves. Finland has never had colonies, but we've been colonized by both the Swedes (1300-1809) and the Russians (1809-1917, although with autonomy). Peter the Great ordered (twice) everyone in Northern Ostrobothnia to be eradicated in early 1700s (see Great Wrath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wrath)). Finns did sell tar used in the slave ships, so we are just as guilty of slavery as everyone else with pale skin, I'm told.)
The current Minister of Education, for example, a few years ago said in a public panel discussion on TV that "leftist violence is different, as it targets societal structures", and is therefore acceptable unlike other forms of violence or political violence. She is also a vocal advocate of Antifa, and always refuses to condemn their violent attacks.
Finnish teachers have significant leeway to choose how they teach. As the teachers have become more and more "woke" in the last decade or so, implementing nice-sounding initiatives like inclusivity and equality of outcome, the PISA scores have plummeted.
Is it the only reason? Definitely not. There have been other changes, related to IT, that definitely have had a negative effect. But a major reason (that most teachers agree is a major cause of difficulties) is inclusivity, where students with behavioural problems are not separated from their classes, because they might feel singled out if they were moved to separate, special classes.
If it wasn't an ideological move, it would have been reversed years ago, its effects are so obviously negative. It's not like anyone would have to change jobs or anything, just make a decision at the Ministry of Education. They refuse to, because it would be admitting "wokeness" yields bad outcomes.
Do not forget: the current Finnish government has listed 'intersectionalism' as one of its core values/goals.
Or did you want me to list the ideological features that are closely associated and correlated with "wokeness" here?
-
Atheists are just more militant Agnostics who are willing to say "it's bullshit until proven otherwise". i.e. they are willing to rock to boat and potentially offend people. Agnostics usually think the same was as athiests, they just waren't willing to say it because they just don't want to get involved, don't want to offend etc.
I used to be like that and I'd be happy to logically, dispassionately and openly challenge someones belief in the big sky bully, but then I spent a couple of years in a paediatric oncology ward and met a *lot* of people who's only coping mechanism was their faith. I couldn't in good conscience tread on someone elses belief when they had nothing else to fall back on, and I just kinda stopped doing it. It also did make me wonder a bit about my own belief and I drifted towards agnostic.
Yeah, that's called not being a dick. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to go around actively shouting down any mention of a god or anything religious. But if asked, you don't sit in the fence you simply say, no it's bullshit.
-
Three zero value add link posts by Tomorokoshi have been deleted.
-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.
Atheism in itself, by definition, is an ism. It's not about just not believing in existence of gods; it's about making it a big deal. How big, it depends. I'm kind of atheist-lite myself too and don't consider myself acting in a religious way. But I know some atheists who behave quite religiously - for example, have a bureaucratic organizational model like in churches, wear symbols (of their organization), organize events, and have this preaching way of talking about their superior viewpoint.
-
The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me. I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.
I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population. Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.
Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general. As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others. With terrible consequences.
I'm not defending his opinion or quote, I have not heard that before, but I would bet money it's taken out of context.
As I've said, if you don't listen to his live shows then you don't undrestand what he's doing and how he explains things. He likes to put hyptotheticals out there and discuss them and a whole bunch of other techniques. This makes him incredibly easy to be taken out of context.
Also, his son in law was killed by fentanyl, and he spends a huge amount of energy trying to end it politically. He's now a single issue voter, the candidate with the best fentanyl plan gets his vote and public promotion.
My advice with anything involving Scott Adams is to not believe a word of it until you have watched the full live show context. And even have many episodes under your belt so you can get what he's doing.
I think I've found, at least part of his (Scott Adams), stuff that caused the outrage. Which is the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1544679512327081984?s=20
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
When a young male (let's say 14 to 19) is a danger to himself and others, society gives the supporting family two options:
1. Watch people die.
2. Kill your own son.
Those are your only options. I chose #1 and watched my stepson die. I was relieved he took no one else with him.
2:47 PM · Jul 6, 2022
Firstly, I concede I tried to find the relevant videos, that he (presumably made), to go with the subject area of that tweet. But didn't succeed. Also, I'm not sure I really want to watch them, either.
I still like his funny stuff, written or video (such as the animated series), but don't really want to watch his 'political' videos.
Secondly, I agree, that by just simply quoting that one tweet, that is potentially out of context, and potentially misleading.
But on the other hand, he does clearly seem to be breaching a red line and raising a red flag, in at least my book. Because of suggesting that (please see quote, above), rather than helped / treated / cold-turkey / locked-up / innocent-till-proven-guilty / given-a-chance etc, techniques.
-
..
Secondly, I agree, that by just simply quoting that one tweet, that is potentially out of context, and potentially misleading.
..
Btw., his 18 years old stepson died on an overdose of Fentanyl (a long term addiction)..
-
The current Minister of Education, for example, a few years ago said in a public panel discussion on TV that "leftist violence is different, as it targets societal structures", and is therefore acceptable unlike other forms of violence or political violence. She is also a vocal advocate of Antifa, and always refuses to condemn their violent attacks.
Antifa uses violence and intimidation against civilians in pursuit of a political agenda, they are by definition a terrorist organization. They claim to be anti-fascism and yet ironically they behave exactly like fascist thugs. They advocate anarchy and yet seem to ignore the fact that in the US the far right is vastly more heavily armed and would crush them in short order in the absence of the police and justice system that they are trying to take down. If they actually succeeded in achieving anarchy they would be obliterated. Unfortunately it is all too common for a group to do exactly what the other group does or is accused of doing except it's different when they do it because they're right and their cause is just, which of course is exactly what the other side believes about themselves.
-
Firstly, I concede I tried to find the relevant videos, that he (presumably made), to go with the subject area of that tweet. But didn't succeed. Also, I'm not sure I really want to watch them, either.
I still like his funny stuff, written or video (such as the animated series), but don't really want to watch his 'political' videos.
The video(s) will be one of his Real Coffee with Scott Adams live shows he does religiously every day for about an hour.
In these shows he mentions polls and other things he's going to publicly do (he lieks to "test" public responses), and then in the next show he analyses the responses.
His show is usually a mix of that stuff, analysis the daily world news and media stories, and life advice kinda stuff.
His paid Locals apparently has hundreds of short "Micro Lesson" whiteboard videos. Some are public and someone has a playlist here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L77bItYsT0c&list=PLrX-r4T2nUaxwI3a9ygchxsnJSl5qp49J (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L77bItYsT0c&list=PLrX-r4T2nUaxwI3a9ygchxsnJSl5qp49J)
It's actually a really interesting live show. You are never ever going to agree with everything he says, or the way he says things, but it's an interesting analysis of daily news if you are into that sort of thing.
I debunked his recent pinned tweet about the "octagon UFO" wheer he thought he had found the actual octagonal payload. He actually admitted he was wrong in the following days lives show as a result.
-
On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)
Where's the proof? Unequal outcome is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems to be the other way around in many respects.
Affirmative action puts whites and Asians with the same qualifications at a disadvantage to blacks. Harvard University is even being sued for discriminating against Asians. Black people in positions of power are allowed to discriminate against white people. For example Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has stated she won't talk to white journalists one on one (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/). When the number of interactions with the police is taken into account, black people are no more likely to be killed than whites, less if anything. The police are even more careful not to harm a black person, because they know it causes them more trouble. The mainstream media don't help. A gang of blacks beating up a white or Asian person hardly gets a mention in the news, whilst a white officer killing a black criminal makes national headlines.
There are inequalities in society and blacks more of often than not disproportionally worse off, but it's mostly due to other factors, than racism. Perhaps that was the case 60 years ago, but not now.
EDIT:
Oh and it clearly isn't discrimination against blacks. Nigerians do better in the US than whites. It's native blacks who are worse off.
https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832
You’re not wrong that racism isn’t behind much income inequality, but income inequality is but one small effect of systemic racism.
Anyhow, indulging this topic any more will just get the thread locked, but suffice it to say that I think that your cherry-picked examples and various, um, claims, do not in any way represent the overall reality.
-
..
Secondly, I agree, that by just simply quoting that one tweet, that is potentially out of context, and potentially misleading.
..
Btw., his 18 years old stepson died on an overdose of Fentanyl (a long term addiction)..
FWIW, in general, fentanyl overdosing as such is in no way indicative of long-term addiction. In USA, street drugs of all types are now often contaminated with fentanyl (often unintentionally; it’s so potent that even residues can be problematic), such that fentanyl causes overdose deaths even in people who had chosen non-opioid drugs, often on the first time. :(
-
Back on topic a bit, not sure if anyone heard the 'Today Explained' radio interview with WP reporter and syndicated cartoonist Michael Cavna yesterday, but - as was suggested in several posts here - Scott Adams pretty much purposefully made those statements on the Rasmussen poll (another topic altogether IMO) knowing full well the reaction he was going to get and basically planning on his strip being pulled. He additionally had commented beforehand that he knew the Rasmussen poll was questionable to say the least, and yet based his comments on it nonetheless.
To me, this reeks much more of a PR stunt intended to sow further division. So, it's not that he was 'cancelled' for expressing his actual opinion, more that it was a planned strategic action. And I find that despicable and emblematic of social media at large.
ADAMS: I would be surprised if I’m in business a few days from now. So here’s the things you can know isn’t: I wouldn’t do it just for laughs – it isn’t THAT funny, it’s pretty funny, but it isn’t that funny - I wouldn’t do it for money. I wouldn’t do it for reputation. Why would I do it?
ADAMS: There’s something that I call the linguistic kill shot. And what that is is a engineered set of words that essentially changes an argument or ends it so decisively, I call it a kill shot.
MICHAEL: Scott Adams has a YouTube show called Real Coffee with Scott Adams, where he lifts the mug and takes a simultaneous sip and speaks to thousands of viewers. And citing this Rasmussen poll – which I'll side note, even Scott Adams told me, he texted me last Saturday to say it was fair to question the data of the Rasmussen poll. So not even Scott Adams is attesting to the credibility of the poll he cited – but based on this poll, Scott said last week that that Black Americans are part of a hate group, quote unquote.
Also interesting, it seems much of Adam's interest in Trump was an admiration of Trump's power of persuasion and his ability to manipulate supporters more than any political ideology. Why anyone would want to appear supporting someone who you believe is manipulating others is beyond me.
ADAMS: What I saw in Trump was someone who was highly trained, and that a lot of the things that the media were reporting as sort of random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump looked to me like a lot of deep technique that I recognized from the fields of hypnosis and persuasion.
The interview goes on further discussing the Rasmussen poll, which turns out to be more of a social media talking point generator than a real 'poll' these days.
CHRIS: But, you know, I think they are into provocative questions that provoke controversy. I think that's part of the business model. And indeed, look, we're talking about Rasmussen research here today.
Podcast audio link: https://www.vox.com/today-explained-podcast (https://www.vox.com/today-explained-podcast)
Transcript (look for 3/2/23): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wF6KI0K--cJcWfmv5yny0SCONA-vXt2T (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wF6KI0K--cJcWfmv5yny0SCONA-vXt2T)
-
On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)
Where's the proof? Unequal outcome is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems to be the other way around in many respects.
Affirmative action puts whites and Asians with the same qualifications at a disadvantage to blacks. Harvard University is even being sued for discriminating against Asians. Black people in positions of power are allowed to discriminate against white people. For example Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has stated she won't talk to white journalists one on one (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/). When the number of interactions with the police is taken into account, black people are no more likely to be killed than whites, less if anything. The police are even more careful not to harm a black person, because they know it causes them more trouble. The mainstream media don't help. A gang of blacks beating up a white or Asian person hardly gets a mention in the news, whilst a white officer killing a black criminal makes national headlines.
There are inequalities in society and blacks more of often than not disproportionally worse off, but it's mostly due to other factors, than racism. Perhaps that was the case 60 years ago, but not now.
EDIT:
Oh and it clearly isn't discrimination against blacks. Nigerians do better in the US than whites. It's native blacks who are worse off.
https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832
You’re not wrong that racism isn’t behind much income inequality, but income inequality is but one small effect of systemic racism.
The problem is there's no objective proof on the matter of systemic racism. All the objective data I've seen, suggest other factors are responsible for inequalities. It's obviously true that racism exists, but that affects everyone, including whites, especially more so in recent years. I'd love to see what would happen if a white US politician said they wouldn't talk to blacks, or even more interesting a Russian politician saying the same thing is Lightfoot. Neither would get away with it.
Anyhow, indulging this topic any more will just get the thread locked, but suffice it to say that I think that your cherry-picked examples and various, um, claims, do not in any way represent the overall reality.
The other side guilty of cherry picking.
There are clearly vested interests. The left use reparations and affirmative action to buy votes, the mainstream media use racism because it stirs up emotions, drawing large audiences and advertising revenues. They of course say those who disagree with the idea that systemic racism exists, also have vested interests in keeping it going because it benefits them, yet I see no evidence of this.
The worst thing is one can't even mention certain possible contributory factors, without being accused of racism. The most taboo one is genetics and biology have an effect on outcomes. It's certainly true there's not much genetic difference between human populations, but call BS on the idea it's impossible for it to influence some outcomes. For example height is affected by genes, so one could argue sports such a basketball discriminate against shorter ethnic groups such as pygmies, in favour of taller ones such as the Tutsi.
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
-
..FWIW, in general, fentanyl overdosing as such is in no way indicative of long-term addiction..
Provided this info is valid he struggled (https://people.com/health/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-stepson-dead-fentanyl-overdose/) for a long time with it, compared to his young age.. That puts the tweet into a context, imho, when an empathetic reader can read between the lines too..
-
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
Here you touch on an area where it is extraordinarily hard to sort out "justified" discrimination from "practical" or "reasonable" discrimination. Sickle cell anemia is clearly genetically related. Only present in people of African descent. And only causes real problems when the gene presents from both sides of some ones heritage, so isn't an issue for most carriers of the gene. Because people of African descent are a minority in the US this disease is way down on the list of health issues in this country.
There are complaints that the disease doesn't receive enough attention from the research community, and that this lack of attention is another example of systematic racism. A practical person would say that a disease this far down on the problem list shouldn't be a priority until all higher problems are solved, and the list of higher problems is long including things like cancer, COVID, suicide, influenza and a long list of other things. But then why does Tay-Sachs disease, an even more minority tied disease get any attention.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion.
-
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
Here you touch on an area where it is extraordinarily hard to sort out "justified" discrimination from "practical" or "reasonable" discrimination. Sickle cell anemia is clearly genetically related. Only present in people of African descent. And only causes real problems when the gene presents from both sides of some ones heritage, so isn't an issue for most carriers of the gene. Because people of African descent are a minority in the US this disease is way down on the list of health issues in this country.
There are complaints that the disease doesn't receive enough attention from the research community, and that this lack of attention is another example of systematic racism. A practical person would say that a disease this far down on the problem list shouldn't be a priority until all higher problems are solved, and the list of higher problems is long including things like cancer, COVID, suicide, influenza and a long list of other things. But then why does Tay-Sachs disease, an even more minority tied disease get any attention.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion.
Just to be completely correct:
Sickle cell disease is not confined to people of African Decent.
It is prevalent in most parts of the world with high malaria incidence.
There is SS in India and Arabia.
The last I heard there was a trial to see if the Fetal Hgb gene could be turned on in people with SS Disease. This gene is present in all our DNA and shuts off.
If we could turn it on and replace the adult type Hgb, the sickleing would stop. Messing with DNA is scary but so is SS disease.
ON the original topic: I do not like Scott's little podcasts, they are too rambling.
I do like his comic strip.
-
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
Here you touch on an area where it is extraordinarily hard to sort out "justified" discrimination from "practical" or "reasonable" discrimination. Sickle cell anemia is clearly genetically related. Only present in people of African descent. And only causes real problems when the gene presents from both sides of some ones heritage, so isn't an issue for most carriers of the gene. Because people of African descent are a minority in the US this disease is way down on the list of health issues in this country.
There are complaints that the disease doesn't receive enough attention from the research community, and that this lack of attention is another example of systematic racism. A practical person would say that a disease this far down on the problem list shouldn't be a priority until all higher problems are solved, and the list of higher problems is long including things like cancer, COVID, suicide, influenza and a long list of other things. But then why does Tay-Sachs disease, an even more minority tied disease get any attention.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion.
I've never heard of Tay-Sachs disease, but am familiar with sickle cell, which I learned about in biology class when I was 14 years old.
Is it covered under health insurance? If not, then of course it should be.
It's a huge stretch citing the lack of attention to sickle cell as an example of systemic racism. The main treatment for it is a blood transfusion. I don't know about the US, but lack of minority blood is a big problem in the UK and I wouldn't be surprised if it's no better in the US. They should work on helping each other out, before making accusations of racism, but it's much easier to just complain. Note I'm talking about those who scream and, not most ordinary people, who are not race grifters.
-
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
In the1960s and 70s, when dark skinned people first appeared in significant numbers in Europe, the vitamin D problem was talked about a lot, as children, especially ones with muslim parents (i.e. ones who keep their skin covered a lot), started showing up at doctors appointments with rickets for the first time in decades. Now the medical profession seems so afraid to state simple realities that dark skin people aren't getting the advice they need for good health.
-
Three zero value add link posts by Tomorokoshi have been deleted.
Come on, Dave; if you're going to turn this into a political blog at least at least allow a modicum of relevant push-back and context.
Oh, and four posts were deleted.
-
Three zero value add link posts by Tomorokoshi have been deleted.
Come on, Dave; if you're going to turn this into a political blog at least at least allow a modicum of relevant push-back and context.
Oh, and four posts were deleted.
I agree, it was four, but it could look like three (because there were three, which seemed to stand out as not so well formed ones) to some people, in real terms, because of the way you created them.
It appeared to me, to be mainly one post for each link (with one exception), and you had the cheek to NOT even make comments (there were comments, but the comments came across as somewhat silly, and seemed to give no relevant details about the links), about the links, which seemed political and potentially not relevant, to the thread.
I'm pleased they got deleted (if they were reported, it wasn't by me).
There was one, with three links in it, followed by another 3, with one link each, if I remember right. They didn't appear, at a quick glance, to be relevant to this discussion, and your comments, was frustrating, to some, I suppose, and seemed to gave no information, as far as I could tell.
EDIT: It was NOT that bad!
But, there were a block of 4 posts, one after the other, with mainly just links in them, which should have all been put into ONE post, not four.
There should have been comments, to describe what each of the links was for, what you thought about it and how it relates to this thread.
Instead there seemed to be a generic message, saying something like "I pass no comment about this". Which could be seen as frustrating, by some users.
-
Come on, Dave; if you're going to turn this into a political blog at least at least allow a modicum of relevant push-back and context.
Oh, and four posts were deleted.
Politics are kept to a minimum for good reason, sometimes such as in the case of Dilbert there is a relevant topic that is to some degree inextricably linked to politics. I didn't see the post but the thread will need to remain civil and at least mostly on topic or it will get locked. Ultimately Dave decides what goes and if we don't like it we can go elsewhere.
-
Biological and genetic factors which disproportionately negatively affect whites are of course not contested, such as higher rates of skin cancer and spina bifida. On the other hand, those which might negatively affect blacks are contested and dismissed. It's well-known low vitamin D levels, are correlated with poorer outcomes from respiratory infections. Black people generally have lower vitamin D levels, as dark skin makes it less efficiently, so it's no surprise they had poorer outcomes when it came to COVID-19. Put that together with higher rates of obesity and higher levels of poverty and it's pretty obvious it would be the case. Nothing to do with the healthcare system discriminating against them.
Here you touch on an area where it is extraordinarily hard to sort out "justified" discrimination from "practical" or "reasonable" discrimination. Sickle cell anemia is clearly genetically related. Only present in people of African descent. And only causes real problems when the gene presents from both sides of some ones heritage, so isn't an issue for most carriers of the gene. Because people of African descent are a minority in the US this disease is way down on the list of health issues in this country.
There are complaints that the disease doesn't receive enough attention from the research community, and that this lack of attention is another example of systematic racism. A practical person would say that a disease this far down on the problem list shouldn't be a priority until all higher problems are solved, and the list of higher problems is long including things like cancer, COVID, suicide, influenza and a long list of other things. But then why does Tay-Sachs disease, an even more minority tied disease get any attention.
There are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion.
I've never heard of Tay-Sachs disease, but am familiar with sickle cell, which I learned about in biology class when I was 14 years old.
Is it covered under health insurance? If not, then of course it should be.
It's a huge stretch citing the lack of attention to sickle cell as an example of systemic racism. The main treatment for it is a blood transfusion. I don't know about the US, but lack of minority blood is a big problem in the UK and I wouldn't be surprised if it's no better in the US. They should work on helping each other out, before making accusations of racism, but it's much easier to just complain. Note I'm talking about those who scream and, not most ordinary people, who are not race grifters.
There is no such thing as "minority blood"---just the normal varieties, some of which are common, others rare.
Googling shows that blood transfusions should be watched carefully so that people with "Sickle cell trait" don't develop what is known as "iron overload" due to the amount of iron in normal blood.
Blood transfusions as a treatment are used if a patient develops severe anemia & are also used for other causes of this condition.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/facts.html#:~:text=HbSS,severe%20form%20of%20the%20disease. (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/facts.html#:~:text=HbSS,severe%20form%20of%20the%20disease.)
Skin cancer due to UV exposure for people of European decent is a problem in countries like Australia, where campaigns to reduce exposure, whilst fairly successful in their intended purpose, have led to a small, but real increase in the number of people presenting with low levels of vitamin D.
-
Three zero value add link posts by Tomorokoshi have been deleted.
Come on, Dave; if you're going to turn this into a political blog at least at least allow a modicum of relevant push-back and context.
Oh, and four posts were deleted.
Mk14 is correct.
Don't spam the forum with "presented without comment" and then link to FBI crime report, Texas replubian same sex act etc, and wikipedia articles about environmental racism and racial capitalism,
and do that 4 times in a row. You were not adding to the conversation, you were just adding off-topic debate flames. I told people I would deleting posts if you start a race debate.
If you have something to say about Dilbert and/or scott adams, then do so, otherwise, leave.
-
The current Minister of Education, for example, a few years ago said in a public panel discussion on TV that "leftist violence is different, as it targets societal structures", and is therefore acceptable unlike other forms of violence or political violence. She is also a vocal advocate of Antifa, and always refuses to condemn their violent attacks.
I guess the russian gulags were full of societal structures, and not people who were sent there by their own neighbors because they said the wrong things.
How can the west be so ignorant about the terror of communism, I will never understand.
-
People with SS gets lots of transfusions and because of that develop lots of antibodies to certain blood :P.
There it becomes harder to match them to a transfusion that will not cause a bad reaction.
This somewhat limits the donor blood more (not entirely) to certain ethnic groups of the population.
-
The current Minister of Education, for example, a few years ago said in a public panel discussion on TV that "leftist violence is different, as it targets societal structures", and is therefore acceptable unlike other forms of violence or political violence. She is also a vocal advocate of Antifa, and always refuses to condemn their violent attacks.
I guess the russian gulags were full of societal structures, and not people who were sent there by their own neighbors because they said the wrong things.
How can the west be so ignorant about the terror of communism, I will never understand.
She has said the Soviet Union wasn't genuine socialism or communism, but a twisted form of it; and that if her party was in charge, the outcomes would be different.
Now, I don't write this to show how detached from reality a politician can be. I don't think she's a bad person at all, just horribly, horribly misguided and in error about the results of her policies. (Definitely not 'evil'.) The true problem is that there is no discussion to be had with her, or even the Finnish PM about these things. They use language as a tool to avoid discussing the issues. If an interviewer dares – Finnish media generally doesn't – push them for an answer, other parts of the media field will attack them as "unprofessional" or "sexist" or with other labels. All discussion is about people and persons and what they feel. Things and decisions and results are secondary to who brings them up and makes the decisions.
In my view, Finns discuss things much less than they used to, and instead have learned to gossip about how others ostensibly feel. I belive (without any real proof) that is is related to moving from interactions to media consumerism, from daytime soap operas to incessant use of social media; and it is somehow affecting how Finnish peoples minds work. The difference between those active on social media and using instant messaging apps, to those who use neither, is that stark.
Even more interestingly, related to this thread at hand, we haven't had political satire that targeted both sides of the spectrum here since The Autocrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autocrats), a 3D animated series, two decades ago. Everything since then has been polarized, from a specific side, always predictably targeting the other, with easily predicted arguments having no new insight, just old mantras repeated.
-
(I noticed this shift first just before the turn of the century, in the University of Helsinki newssheet. Instead of describing research done at the university and elsewhere, as expected, in a couple of years it shifted into interviewing people about their opinions and experiences on the research. From things to peoples' feelings. To me, this is a huge, noticeable difference. Some see it, some say it does not matter, others don't see it all.)
-
She has said the Soviet Union wasn't genuine socialism or communism, but a twisted form of it; and that if her party was in charge, the outcomes would be different.
That's always how it is. It's like when I complain about the idiocy that comes with Agile and other management fads, people always jump in and tell me "that's not really Agile then" Ok perhaps not, but these are things that I've observed at every company I've worked for that claims to be "Agile".
I think it is impossible to implement socialism or communism in reasonably pure form without a powerful totalitarian dictator to keep everyone in line. These systems just don't scale, the concept can work among a small group of people such as a family, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, kids do chores around the house, adults have jobs, housing, food and other necessities are shared, that works. But as soon as you try to scale it beyond a small group of people that have each others best interests in mind it falls apart. Large numbers of people find ways to game the system, they don't care if they screw over somebody they don't know. There will always be people that are driven to achieve more, more stuff, more power, more influence, it's human nature.
-
She has said the Soviet Union wasn't genuine socialism or communism, but a twisted form of it; and that if her party was in charge, the outcomes would be different.
She says this because she has never met a genuine human being, only a twisted form of one, and has no idea how they behave.
-
I guess the russian gulags were full of societal structures, and not people who were sent there by their own neighbors because they said the wrong things.
How can the west be so ignorant about the terror of communism, I will never understand.
Because they weren't there, those horrible things happened to other people, not them. They never lived in a communist nation, their reference is a romanticized version of communism that exists only within their own head.
-
Adams just said that the new name for cancelled Dilbert will be Dilbert Reborn.
-
She has said the Soviet Union wasn't genuine socialism or communism, but a twisted form of it; and that if her party was in charge, the outcomes would be different.
That's always how it is. It's like when I complain about the idiocy that comes with Agile and other management fads, people always jump in and tell me "that's not really Agile then" Ok perhaps not, but these are things that I've observed at every company I've worked for that claims to be "Agile".
I think it is impossible to implement socialism or communism in reasonably pure form without a powerful totalitarian dictator to keep everyone in line. These systems just don't scale, the concept can work among a small group of people such as a family, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, kids do chores around the house, adults have jobs, housing, food and other necessities are shared, that works. But as soon as you try to scale it beyond a small group of people that have each others best interests in mind it falls apart. Large numbers of people find ways to game the system, they don't care if they screw over somebody they don't know. There will always be people that are driven to achieve more, more stuff, more power, more influence, it's human nature.
Capitalism on the other hand, is relatively apolitical, & can operate reasonably well under the most horrific regimes.
It is at its best in a egalitarian Democratic society, but unfortunately Capitalists, as distinct from the system, cannot always see that.
Socialists were around for years before the USSR, & indeed, before Marx.
The mainstream of what is popularly dubbed "Socialism" is Democratic Socialism, where many "bedrock" requirements of society are provided directly by taxpayer owned organisations, with the Private Sector providing all the others (& there are many).
The demise of the USSR was widely touted as "the triumph of Capitalism over Socialism", when it was Democracy which defeated Totalitarianism.
The result was worldwide, the dismantling of economic systems which had worked well for decades, in the rush to rely upon "market forces", as the "true believers" swept the board in both "old style" Conservative Parties, & "Socialist" ones.
Meanwhile, in Russia, those who were high up in the Communist Party hierarchy got "first dibs" on buying govt owned stuff at "fire sale prices" & became "born-again Capitalists"----the first generation of "Oligarchs".
The "large numbers of people" largely were just happy to get the KGB out of their lives, & to be able to buy Western stuff, it was a specific group of privileged opportunists that screwed people over.
Over time, Vlad & others buddied up to the Oligarchs, the people got screwed over, (as always) & Russia reverted to the same sort of rule as in Stalin's, & indeed, the Tsar's time.
A lot of people see "Socialism" in something they don't like & invoke "the slippery slope" fallacy :scared: :scared: :scared:, whereas Communism was, as far as I can ascertain, only ever imposed anywhere by force of arms.
Just guess who were on the next train to the Gulags?
Yep, the "Socialists".
-
Can we please stop with the off-topic socialism stuff.
-
Can we please stop with the off-topic socialism stuff.
Yes please. Looking back over the thread, it seems that less than half the posts say anything about Dilbert or Scott Adams.
On the other hand, regarding the actual Dilbert/Adams debate, Karl Valentin's quote applies: "Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone."
-
Well I just had some comments I wrote about why USSR wasn't strictly communist but yeah, it is off topic, so removed.
-
..FWIW, in general, fentanyl overdosing as such is in no way indicative of long-term addiction..
Provided this info is valid he struggled (https://people.com/health/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-stepson-dead-fentanyl-overdose/) for a long time with it, compared to his young age.. That puts the tweet into a context, imho, when an empathetic reader can read between the lines too..
Right. Which is why I sandwiched my comment with three things — “FWIW”, “in general”, and “as such”) indicating that it was a comment about fentanyl poisoning in general, not about this specific incident.
-
There is no such thing as "minority blood"---just the normal varieties, some of which are common, others rare.
Semantics. I should have said blood donors. Different blood and tissue types are more common in some ethnic groups than others. It's always better for someone to receive blood from someone more genetically to them, than not. There are campaigns encouraging ethnic minorities to give blood and donate their organs, because they're less likely to do so and higher rates of sickle cell mean they're more likely to require a blood transfusion. Some cultures have issues with blood and organ donation and appear to be less altruistic than others.
Can we please stop with the off-topic socialism stuff.
Yes please. Looking back over the thread, it seems that less than half the posts say anything about Dilbert or Scott Adams.
On the other hand, regarding the actual Dilbert/Adams debate, Karl Valentin's quote applies: "Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone."
I suppose it's inevitable threads will drift off topic, especially ones like this.
I never liked cancellation. The funny thing is there are people who have been cancelled, who's views I wouldn't have been aware of, or researched otherwise. This has pushed some of my opinions closer to the cancelled. I didn't think about gender, until J K Rowling and have become more gender critical as a result. I believe the first cancellation, in the modern sense of the word, was James Watson, for expressing pessimism for Africa's future and his opining genetics predispose the population to lower intelligence, compared to rest of the world. At first I thought that was a bit of an odd thing to say and could see why it caused so much trouble, so I looked into it. Intelligence does appear to be inheritable and IQs vary around the world, with East Asians at the top, Europeans South Asians and Middle Easterners in the middle and sub-Saharan Africans at the bottom. I accept there are many factors, other than genetics at play. If Watson is wrong, then why not simply debunk his statement? I can't help but feel as though he might have a point, because people called him evil and disassociated from him, rather than saying why he's wrong.
-
The problem is there's no objective proof on the matter of systemic racism. All the objective data I've seen, suggest other factors are responsible for inequalities.
I respectfully disagree.
I’m not saying that other factors don’t matter, but you’re looking at proximate causes, not root cause analysis. It’s really easy to cry “no racism here!” with numbers showing some superficially reasonable explanation for the difference in outcomes. But the real question is why the discrepancy exists.
And when you look into many of them, the root causes are appalling. For example, one reason for the ghettoization of blacks in US cities, and the deterioration of those neighborhoods, was a practice called “blockbusting”.
Leveraging racist sentiments among whites, landlords would “plant” a black family or two in an otherwise white neighborhood. (Remember that at the time, it was perfectly legal for landlords to refuse to rent to blacks, so blacks generally had a much smaller supply of homes to choose from. So it was easy for a landlord to “plant” a family.) Some whites in the neighborhood would move away because of this, and the developer would snap up their house and put another black family in it. As the ratio changed, it would eventually result in “white flight” from previously white neighborhoods, allowing the landlord to purchase large numbers of properties at low prices. In turn, they would rent them to black families at inflated rents, and typically performed only the minimum of maintenance, allowing them to deteriorate into slums. With most landlords at the time refusing to rent to blacks at all, these tenants’ hands were tied.
So why didn’t they just buy a house, maybe one of the ones becoming vacant, you ask? Good question. Well, in addition to earning less at the time, and having to spend more on rent, both making it harder to save up for a down payment, you of course needed a home loan. And so we get to “redlining”. A significant amount of homeownership in USA was facilitated by government-subsidized loans for first-time homeowners. But these loans (like most open-market loans) were not allowed to be written for just anywhere, and there were literally maps with the no-loan neighborhoods delineated in red. And almost invariably, those were the areas with significant black or immigrant populations, regardless of the actual condition of the neighborhood. This left blacks with few options for the low-cost loans whites enjoyed, and consequently, they were much less likely to be able to gain any equity, never mind pass it on to their kids. And in the meantime, the neighborhoods they could rent in deteriorated as slum landlords continued to let the properties go unmaintained.
(IIRC, insurance companies would also refuse to insure those homes, or would charge exorbitant premiums.)
Do that for decades and you end up with a significant disparity in financial stability both at individual, family, and community levels. And the aforementioned physical deterioration of the neighborhoods, which results in those properties being worth very little. The fact that these practices are now illegal doesn’t undo the damage that was already done.
Well, what else depends on property values? Property taxes. With the tax assessments in those neighborhoods dropping, there was less money with which to perform public maintenance like roadwork. But far more insidiously, property taxes are also how schools are funded in USA: the vast majority of their budgets come from property taxes. The taxes are applied extremely locally, which is how you end up with rich neighborhoods having excellent public schools and poor neighborhoods having bad public schools, despite being in the same city. And with that, you end up causing education disparities.
Etc. etc. etc. My point here isn’t to discuss the minutiae, but rather to elucidate that looking at numbers simply doesn’t tell you the whole story, and certainly not enough to conclude that systemic racism isn’t to blame. Because those supposedly neutral numbers may have a much more sinister back story that we cannot and must not ignore.
It's obviously true that racism exists, but that affects everyone, including whites, especially more so in recent years. I'd love to see what would happen if a white US politician said they wouldn't talk to blacks, or even more interesting a Russian politician saying the same thing is Lightfoot. Neither would get away with it.
And we should call out racism when we see it, regardless of who is using it. But the fact that blacks are sometimes given some leeway in this regard doesn’t negate the fact that black communities are still suffering the after effects of active discrimination in the past, as well as enduring ongoing systemic racism today.
-
The problem is there's no objective proof on the matter of systemic racism. All the objective data I've seen, suggest other factors are responsible for inequalities.
I respectfully disagree.
I’m not saying that other factors don’t matter, but you’re looking at proximate causes, not root cause analysis. It’s really easy to cry “no racism here!” with numbers showing some superficially reasonable explanation for the difference in outcomes. But the real question is why the discrepancy exists.
What I see a lot off is because disparity exists, it has to be due to racism. No other alternative explanation is acceptable.
And when you look into many of them, the root causes are appalling. For example, one reason for the ghettoization of blacks in US cities, and the deterioration of those neighborhoods, was a practice called “blockbusting”.
Leveraging racist sentiments among whites, landlords would “plant” a black family or two in an otherwise white neighborhood. (Remember that at the time, it was perfectly legal for landlords to refuse to rent to blacks, so blacks generally had a much smaller supply of homes to choose from. So it was easy for a landlord to “plant” a family.) Some whites in the neighborhood would move away because of this, and the developer would snap up their house and put another black family in it. As the ratio changed, it would eventually result in “white flight” from previously white neighborhoods, allowing the landlord to purchase large numbers of properties at low prices. In turn, they would rent them to black families at inflated rents, and typically performed only the minimum of maintenance, allowing them to deteriorate into slums. With most landlords at the time refusing to rent to blacks at all, these tenants’ hands were tied.
So why didn’t they just buy a house, maybe one of the ones becoming vacant, you ask? Good question. Well, in addition to earning less at the time, and having to spend more on rent, both making it harder to save up for a down payment, you of course needed a home loan. And so we get to “redlining”. A significant amount of homeownership in USA was facilitated by government-subsidized loans for first-time homeowners. But these loans (like most open-market loans) were not allowed to be written for just anywhere, and there were literally maps with the no-loan neighborhoods delineated in red. And almost invariably, those were the areas with significant black or immigrant populations, regardless of the actual condition of the neighborhood. This left blacks with few options for the low-cost loans whites enjoyed, and consequently, they were much less likely to be able to gain any equity, never mind pass it on to their kids. And in the meantime, the neighborhoods they could rent in deteriorated as slum landlords continued to let the properties go unmaintained.
(IIRC, insurance companies would also refuse to insure those homes, or would charge exorbitant premiums.)
Do that for decades and you end up with a significant disparity in financial stability both at individual, family, and community levels. And the aforementioned physical deterioration of the neighborhoods, which results in those properties being worth very little. The fact that these practices are now illegal doesn’t undo the damage that was already done.
Well, what else depends on property values? Property taxes. With the tax assessments in those neighborhoods dropping, there was less money with which to perform public maintenance like roadwork. But far more insidiously, property taxes are also how schools are funded in USA: the vast majority of their budgets come from property taxes. The taxes are applied extremely locally, which is how you end up with rich neighborhoods having excellent public schools and poor neighborhoods having bad public schools, despite being in the same city. And with that, you end up causing education disparities.
Etc. etc. etc. My point here isn’t to discuss the minutiae, but rather to elucidate that looking at numbers simply doesn’t tell you the whole story, and certainly not enough to conclude that systemic racism isn’t to blame. Because those supposedly neutral numbers may have a much more sinister back story that we cannot and must not ignore.
I'm aware of the history, but it's more nuanced than that.
Redlining wasn't necessarily purely about race, but avoiding investment in high risk areas, i.e. poor and high crime rates. It also affected poor white areas too. Yes, some areas were miscategorised as high risk, but it's not so clear-cut.
Black fight also occurs. Notice who much of the rich and powerful black people have moved to predominantly white areas, since getting rich? Again, a lot of it is escaping poor areas with high crime rates, rather than racism.
I admit, I've never heard of black bombing. I'll have to look into it, but there's probably some nuance there too.
Oh and just to be clear, I'm not saying there definitely was no racial element to the above, just that pinning them on racism is overly simplistic.
Anyway, that's history. You've completely missed the point. Saying the US is systemically racist against blacks in 2023, is like saying Germany is currently institutionally anti-Semitic. There is no objective evidence to suggest the US is systemically racist against blacks today. It certainly was in the past and the effects are long lived, but that's a completely different matter. Many of the policies introduced since, such as cutting law enforcement and activists pushing blame on whites, rather than discouraging things such as single parenthood and drug use have only made matters worse.
It's obviously true that racism exists, but that affects everyone, including whites, especially more so in recent years. I'd love to see what would happen if a white US politician said they wouldn't talk to blacks, or even more interesting a Russian politician saying the same thing is Lightfoot. Neither would get away with it.
And we should call out racism when we see it, regardless of who is using it. But the fact that blacks are sometimes given some leeway in this regard doesn’t negate the fact that black communities are still suffering the after effects of active discrimination in the past, as well as enduring ongoing systemic racism today.
In order for things to really improve, society needs to do better at dealing with so-called reverse racism. Lightfoot shouldn't be able to get away with racism. People like her and Biden are just as much to blame as Donald Trump.
-
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate, if that happens I will start deleting post without warning. I want this thread to stay open so people here can discuss Dilbert and the future of it.
-
More unsettling things are happening: Roald Dahl eBooks Reportedly Censored Remotely (https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/03/04/0521244/roald-dahl-ebooks-reportedly-censored-remotely). What's next? Painting garments over Rubens' big girls? Art is a form of free speech. And it can (or is deliberately meant to) hurt, rub salt into a wound or be politically incorect. Censoring/canceling art is just a small step away from Orwell's 1984.
-
PLEASE do not turn this thread into a political race debate, if that happens I will start deleting post without warning. I want this thread to stay open so people here can discuss Dilbert and the future of it.
Why do you feel the need to harp on it? Let Dave deal with it, if you don't see value in the thread then go find another thread to participate in.
-
Can we please stop with the off-topic socialism stuff.
Apologies for being a part of that. It was not my intent; my focus was on the lack of un-partisan criticism and satire, being an interesting (but very regrettable) facet of the culture that makes a single wrong opinion a person persona non grata. The same occurs here on all sides of the political arena, it was just such a clear example of the ones in power here currently.
I would be interested in how other technically-oriented people handle the situation when an acquintance or author that you like, has some inane/ugly/illogical/unfair opinions?
In the case of Scott Adams here: because I know they have all kinds of odd opinions, but I like the comic, I just ignore their non-comic-related opinions (and all opinions not related to their actual personal work experience) –– unless they would present an interesting opinion with a logical ground or based on personal experience, which I do not think they have yet. This lets me enjoy the comic but ignore the irrelevant stuff, unless and until the situation changes.
Because this logically leads to not reading news much –– that is, I tend to "graze" more, looking at the headlines from multiple sources, and skipping the parts where writers elaborate on what they think it means, how people feel about the situation and so on, concentrating on the snippets of ostensible facts and ignoring the rest –– my view of what is actually happening in the world is quite different to those who follow news. This in itself makes social discussions about current events quite .. well, not simple and easy.
If I've understood Dave correctly in previous threads, he's more like the proverbial duck who lets the water just flow off their back without any harm or effect; i.e., doesn't let an occasional weird opinion or belief rattle himself much, and just shrugs and laughs and goes on with life.
(If I've understood correctly, I'm somewhat jealous; I wish I could do the same. I have to try and employ conscious "countermeasures" myself, as above. That said, I am happy that many of my friends and even family members have quite different opinions that I do: it makes for much more interesting true honest discussions.)
-
Why do you feel the need to harp on it? Let Dave deal with it, if you don't see value in the thread then go find another thread to participate in.
Why do you feel the need to reprimand me? Let Dave deal with it. If you can't relate to my posts then go and find some other posts to reply to.
-
Firstly, I concede I tried to find the relevant videos, that he (presumably made), to go with the subject area of that tweet. But didn't succeed. Also, I'm not sure I really want to watch them, either.
I still like his funny stuff, written or video (such as the animated series), but don't really want to watch his 'political' videos.
The video(s) will be one of his Real Coffee with Scott Adams live shows he does religiously every day for about an hour.
In these shows he mentions polls and other things he's going to publicly do (he lieks to "test" public responses), and then in the next show he analyses the responses.
His show is usually a mix of that stuff, analysis the daily world news and media stories, and life advice kinda stuff.
His paid Locals apparently has hundreds of short "Micro Lesson" whiteboard videos. Some are public and someone has a playlist here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L77bItYsT0c&list=PLrX-r4T2nUaxwI3a9ygchxsnJSl5qp49J (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L77bItYsT0c&list=PLrX-r4T2nUaxwI3a9ygchxsnJSl5qp49J)
It's actually a really interesting live show. You are never ever going to agree with everything he says, or the way he says things, but it's an interesting analysis of daily news if you are into that sort of thing.
I debunked his recent pinned tweet about the "octagon UFO" wheer he thought he had found the actual octagonal payload. He actually admitted he was wrong in the following days lives show as a result.
It has proved rather hard to find the specific videos, but I still might find them, eventually. Youtubes, **great**, user interface improvements. So that the specific / exact date of the video is now seemingly hidden (it might say, 5 months old, but I would want 5th July 2029 etc), and it not being obvious to me how to find them.
On the other hand, I was expecting to not especially like his (non-funny or directly Dilbert related) videos, especially as I was expecting them to be way too political and opinionated.
But actually, I picked one, and watched it for around 5 or 10 minutes, and really enjoyed it. I learnt important and useful stuff for me. Because (I suspect). Him being semi-famous, and located in the US. Means he gets invited to all sorts of interesting places and meet all sorts of people. That most of us, never get to meet in person.
Also his bubbly / warm / funny (or whatever the right terms to describe it) personality, perhaps allow him to get the other people to relax, open-up and say nice and important things.
So, it (presumably), is people who have successfully created, run, managed etc, big (sometimes well known and famous) businesses and things, around the US and maybe other places. This can give him a huge, and very powerful knowledge base, of meeting very successful people. Especially in engineering fields, I would suspect.
Hence him being able to impart useful knowledge, in that part of the video, that I happened to select, as my 'opener' video.
I haven't yet seen his other videos, or the rest of that one, I started watching (in the past, I think I've taken the odd, tiny glimpses of his videos, perhaps because they were linked to, somewhere).
-
I would be interested in how other technically-oriented people handle the situation when an acquintance or author that you like, has some inane/ugly/illogical/unfair opinions?
In the case of Scott Adams here: because I know they have all kinds of odd opinions, but I like the comic, I just ignore their non-comic-related opinions (and all opinions not related to their actual personal work experience) –– unless they would present an interesting opinion with a logical ground or based on personal experience, which I do not think they have yet. This lets me enjoy the comic but ignore the irrelevant stuff, unless and until the situation changes.
That's precisely why I did this video.
It's rambling, and would have benefited with me actually writing it down first and polishing my thoughts before hitting record, but hopefully you hget the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEcyOENGfso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEcyOENGfso)
TLDR; If you easily dismiss everyone because of one opinion you didn't like, you'll fall down an opinion purity spiral and be left with nothing and risk never getting ahead in life.
-
But actually, I picked one, and watched it for around 5 or 10 minutes, and really enjoyed it. I learnt important and useful stuff for me. Because (I suspect). Him being semi-famous, and located in the US. Means he gets invited to all sorts of interesting places and meet all sorts of people. That most of us, never get to meet in person.
Also his bubbly / warm / funny (or whatever the right terms to describe it) personality, perhaps allow him to get the other people to relax, open-up and say nice and important things.
So, it (presumably), is people who have successfully created, run, managed etc, big (sometimes well known and famous) businesses and things, around the US and maybe other places. This can give him a huge, and very powerful knowledge base, of meeting very successful people. Especially in engineering fields, I would suspect.
Hence him being able to impart useful knowledge, in that part of the video, that I happened to select, as my 'opener' video.
Yes, if you get past some stuff you don't agree with (guaranteed), or his Devil's advocate style, then there is a ton of useful techniques on how to look at things and get ahead. Life advice if you will. That's his entire shtick. That's what his books are about too.
Avoid his recent shows since the incident if you don't want most of it to be him repeating the context over and over.
-
I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.
-
TLDR; If you easily dismiss everyone because of one opinion you didn't like, you'll fall down an opinion purity spiral and be left with nothing and risk never getting ahead in life.
Yep. Not only that, but fact is, many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others. Taking people's statements out of context is only part of the problem, or at least possibly more a consequence than a cause.
Do not cancel others based on their opinions, but in particular do not assume you really understood what their opinions were. Very frequently, you have not.
-
Do not cancel others based on their opinions, but in particular do not assume you really understood what their opinions were. Very frequently, you have not.
This is why Adam's hasn't been cancelled on social media platforms (hate speech is absolutely a cancellable offence on all platforms), and why a ton of people (including a LOT of black people) support him not being cancelled. Those that have taken the time to undertand the context go "oh ok, I get it". You don't have to like the approach of course, but understanding the context seems to lead to way less outrage.
But like usual, people will want to cancel me for supposedly supporting him and not "cancelling" him ::)
-
I've been archiving the cartoons for a day or two now with a script. The server doesn't like if you download it too fast, even with a 10s delay it kicks me out for some times. Kinda ridiculous, since all the images are like a few hundred megabytes. And every 7th image is somehow different after '95 that was crashing my python script, so I just jury rigged it to continue skipping the images.
-
many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others.
Exactly.
This is how I've been labeled as well. Not often by someone I'm directly discussing, but by people overhearing a snippet, taking it out of context, and labeling me a monster. I do not want it to happen to anyone, not even people I dislike.
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
Keeping silent is not an option: for evil to prevail, and so on.
The reason I am asking is curiosity. I do not need such advise, really, I am more interested in whether such approaches exist in the first place.
If not, then it also kinda explains Scott Adams' approach: making people think and discuss, even if it "cancels" him temporarily (as he does have fuck-you money and make his own platform).
-
If I've understood Dave correctly in previous threads, he's more like the proverbial duck who lets the water just flow off their back without any harm or effect; i.e., doesn't let an occasional weird opinion or belief rattle himself much, and just shrugs and laughs and goes on with life.
That's pretty much what I at least try to do. I divide things up between problems I can solve and problems I have no control over. If it's something I have no control over (earthquake, wind storm, something some other person says that irritates me, etc) I try not to waste any time thinking about it, if it happens it happens. People say stupid crap all the time, I try not to take it personally or let it get to me. I can't control what another person does and I'll rarely try, but I can control how I respond to it.
-
Yep. Not only that, but fact is, many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others. Taking people's statements out of context is only part of the problem, or at least possibly more a consequence than a cause.
Do not cancel others based on their opinions, but in particular do not assume you really understood what their opinions were. Very frequently, you have not.
I saw a documentary last night that touched on some of this. There was a guy scheduled to speak at a university campus several years ago and there was damn near a riot over it with students demanding he be uninvited and hurling all manner of hyperbolic insults his way. As it turned out he ended up speaking to a packed lecture hall and the part of his speech I saw in the documentary was very cordial, he was polite, friendly, well spoken and invited those that disagreed with him to come up and discuss it. I think it's perfectly find to disagree with somebody, there are many things I don't see eye to eye with, but I was struck by the hyperbole and hysteria over how dangerous, evil, fascist, etc this guy was and in his behavior I saw nothing of the sort. Ironically it was the people wanting to cancel him that were behaving in a dangerous, violent, unhinged mob mentality sort of way. As I see it, one of the most important parts of a university education is being exposed to ideas of all sorts and learning the ability to think critically, not to silence people and protect others from words that might make them uncomfortable.
-
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
All I can suggest is stand your ground. Do everything you can to remain rational and not give into emotion. Offer to discuss, be friendly, invite disagreement, refuse to be lectured in a one-sided "conversation", have a collection of responses formed that you can give in a rational manner. Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.
-
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
All I can suggest is stand your ground. Do everything you can to remain rational and not give into emotion. Offer to discuss, be friendly, invite disagreement, refuse to be lectured in a one-sided "conversation", have a collection of responses formed that you can give in a rational manner. Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.
It doesn't seem to operate on a rational level anymore. Some people have compared it to religions, some say it's epidemic hysteria. I've seen too many videos where the contradiction of their belief system is pointed out, and you can see when the cognitive dissonance kicks in and they usually start shouting and leave. This is not rational behavior.
As I see it, one of the most important parts of a university education is being exposed to ideas of all sorts and learning the ability to think critically, not to silence people and protect others from words that might make them uncomfortable.
I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. :-\
-
I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. :-\
There are some people that I myself blew off as nutters, which in retrospect I realized was entirely because I'd heard other people describe them as evil horrible <insert insult here> people and then at some point stumbled across a video of them speaking and realized they were actually very reasonable and nothing like I'd heard them described. Maybe I disagree with their point of view but they were certainly not monsters. Something similar happened with the drama around that former Google engineer James Damore. I'd heard all about the "sexist screed" he wrote that said this, that and the other thing, thought he sounded like a real jerk, then I sat down and read through the essay he wrote fully expecting to be offended and instead I discovered that it was not anything like it had been described and didn't say much of what people had claimed it said. I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.
I think you hit the nail on the head about the whole thing operating on an emotional level. There are people in this world that are driven predominantly by emotions and I have a very difficult time interacting with them because I am not very emotional at all and put a far greater emphasis on logic. How something makes me feel is largely irrelevant, I want to see the data.
-
Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.
True, absolutely; but dammit, I hate that.
Acknowledging an error or a slight I made, intentionally or not, is a core value for me. It is how I learn, and kill my ego with counterfire when it hinders my learning. I am extremely irritated by people who ignore or hide their own errors to maintain their "reputation", especially in technical matters; that kind of "reputation gaming" at sites like StackExchange is what drove me away from there. Even though it is a flaw that makes me vulnerable to that kind of an attack, I'm not sure I'm willing to change my behaviour in that direction. I suspect many members here are at least somewhat similar.
I would characterise this as the option to "gamify" the interaction, except that the way one wins, is by having the opponent reconsider their opinion by examining the target statements and concepts fully, instead of relying on second-hand emotive declarations about it. A honorable game of interaction, but a social game nevertheless.
-
many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others.
Exactly.
This is how I've been labeled as well. Not often by someone I'm directly discussing, but by people overhearing a snippet, taking it out of context, and labeling me a monster. I do not want it to happen to anyone, not even people I dislike.
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?
You take the same approach most have in the cancellation/covid era, say nothing and keep your mouth shut for fear of the mob. Fear works.
Sucky way to live your life though being afraid.
Some people have no choice though because they can't afford to lose their job or career or whatever.
-
I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. :-\
There are some people that I myself blew off as nutters, which in retrospect I realized was entirely because I'd heard other people describe them as evil horrible <insert insult here> people and then at some point stumbled across a video of them speaking and realized they were actually very reasonable and nothing like I'd heard them described. Maybe I disagree with their point of view but they were certainly not monsters. Something similar happened with the drama around that former Google engineer James Damore. I'd heard all about the "sexist screed" he wrote that said this, that and the other thing, thought he sounded like a real jerk, then I sat down and read through the essay he wrote fully expecting to be offended and instead I discovered that it was not anything like it had been described and didn't say much of what people had claimed it said. I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.
And that's how you fix this problem in society.
I think you hit the nail on the head about the whole thing operating on an emotional level. There are people in this world that are driven predominantly by emotions and I have a very difficult time interacting with them because I am not very emotional at all and put a far greater emphasis on logic. How something makes me feel is largely irrelevant, I want to see the data.
Fear is the most powerful emotion. And this is why people do not speak up or defend people or even try to inject some nuance into the discussion when people are being piled on. This is why cancellation and hate mobs work.
-
many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others.
Exactly.
This is how I've been labeled as well. Not often by someone I'm directly discussing, but by people overhearing a snippet, taking it out of context, and labeling me a monster. I do not want it to happen to anyone, not even people I dislike.
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?
You take the same approach most have in the cancellation/covid era, say nothing and keep your mouth shut for fear of the mob. Fear works.
Sucky way to live your life though being afraid.
Some people have no choice though because they can't afford to lose their job or career or whatever.
Yep, but they should realize that keeping one's mouth shut for too long often ends up destroying them one way or another, and losing one's job will pale in comparison.
-
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.
-
The guy was borderline amusing 30 years ago.
It got boring, repetitive, mean and just unfunny quite soon so I stopped following it, then, still many years ago, I happened to read some of the things he had written - what an entitled and self-righteous asshole.
He is free to spout his latest inflammatory bigotry, others are free to not want to listen or be involved with him.
Freedom of speech (https://xkcd.com/1357/) goes both ways, does not mean you are entitled to have a platform.
IMNSHO, YMMV.
Were I a moderator, I would probably lock this post - not technical, and quite prone to devolve in a shitfest.
I'll report myself.
EtA: Done.
Well this thread seems to have gone pretty much to script.
I hadn't read Dilbert for many years and was surprised to hear this news here. And not elsewhere first.
XKCD is at least clever. Dilbert seems to not even be funny or clever much anymore. Just based on a scan of recent strips I made. So whether it gets cancelled or not seems irrelevant I wouldn't read it anyway or miss it.
I wish Gary Larson never stopped creating the Far Side. There were some timeless classics I still remember decades later.
-
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
All I can suggest is stand your ground. Do everything you can to remain rational and not give into emotion. Offer to discuss, be friendly, invite disagreement, refuse to be lectured in a one-sided "conversation", have a collection of responses formed that you can give in a rational manner. Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.
Maybe not apologise, but certainly admit it if you are wrong, in a case where you have made an error in an observable fact.
As I have said many times, some things are worth "going to the barricades" over---many things are not.
-
People are much nicer in real life.
People are much nicer one on one. If they have an opportunity to grandstand they can be as deranged in real life as on line.
-
So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that? Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?
People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.
This is true. Whenever there is honest interaction, you can always find common ground; even when you disagree about some things. It isn't difficult to set aside differences when you talk about something else instead, that interests both.
That is also why "isms" require anybody criticizing them or pointing out errors in their logic to be inhumanized and labeled as the enemy, the monster that infects anyone who interacts with them; especially so for the "isms" that claim they are making the world a better place. Otherwise people would easily realize how thin and hollow such "isms" are, that the real world isn't so simple and uniform that one-sentence solutions can magically fix everything.
People are much nicer one on one. If they have an opportunity to grandstand they can be as deranged in real life as on line.
Humans behave differently when the size of the interacting group exceeds a limit. The exact limit varies depending on the situation and age and cultural background of the participants, but there is a definite difference in the behaviour. It is why I don't like "crowds": you no longer interact individual to individual, and have to deal with group dynamics instead.
-
I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.
Dave, invocation of the term "woke" by definition implies a discussion of racism. That being the case, what is the topic of this thread, then? Because (the topic that shall not be discussed) is related to what started all this. However, given that this forum is about, or related to, engineering, we can then apply a modicum of an engineering-based approach to this particular subject. A structure of topics regarding "Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website" could be:
1. Scott Adams
1.1. Dilbert comic strip as an engineered product
1.1.1. Figure of merit for humor
1.1.2. Figure of merit for relevance to corporations in general
1.1.3. Figure of merit for relevance to engineering in particular
1.2. Scott Adams as a public figure
1.2.1. Statements that exceed some threshold of acceptability (because otherwise this would have never come up)
1.2.1.1. Definitions, sources and citations
1.2.1.2. Counter-arguments would be made in response with definitions, sources, and citations
1.2.1.3. Context of statements that exceed some threshold of acceptability
2. Reaction of carrier media
2.1. Cessation of contracts
2.1.1. Is cessation allowed within the contract?
2.1.1.1. Compare to, for instance, Absolute Maximum Ratings of a component, rendering the application invalid
2.1.1.2. Cost / benefit analysis regarding continuing or ceasing the contract
3. Reaction of audience
3.1. In support of Scott Adams
3.1.1. Those who claim it was a "woke" reason
3.1.2. Those who claim it was a "cancel culture" reason
3.1.3. Those who claim it was a "racism" reason (against Mr. Adams)
3.1.4. Other reason
3.2. Not in support of Scott Adams
3.2.1. Those who claim it was a "racism" reason
3.2.2. Other reason
4. Other items
4.1. Definitions
4.1.1. Define "woke"
4.1.2. Define "cancel culture"
4.1.3. Define "racism"
4.2. Transitive rules
4.2.1. If one invokes a particular definition, does that allow continued discussion of topics related to that definition?
At this point the actual topic (or topics) is somewhat loosely-defined; as if one got some initial specifications from Marketing, then updates from Sales a while later, then still more from Accounting, Manufacturing, etc. You know the deal; something quite rather akin to, well, various editions of the Dilbert comic strip.
Within an engineering forum it should be possible to develop answers to these questions. After all, obviously this subject is important enough that it has now generated 13 pages of comments, a fair percentage of which are contributed by Dave, so it would seem that this subject is endorsed as being important. Therefore, an itemized understanding, or a revision of the outline that clearly specifies the boundary conditions would allow for a more optimized discussion.
Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!
-
Fear is the most powerful emotion. And this is why people do not speak up or defend people or even try to inject some nuance into the discussion when people are being piled on. This is why cancellation and hate mobs work.
That's certainly part of it, but I think it's more than just fear. Social media in its various forms seems to be particularly good at stirring up these shit-storms, and there are populations that enjoy rolling in the muck taking one position or the other, but I think there also is a significant silent majority that are just ok not needing to be "right on the internet" even if they don't agree.
-
Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!
Why not say your message out aloud? "Play by my rules or I'll deem you a hypocrite."
-
I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.
Dave, invocation of the term "woke" by definition implies a discussion of racism. That being the case, what is the topic of this thread, then?
*SNIP*
At this point the actual topic (or topics) is somewhat loosely-defined; as if one got some initial specifications from Marketing, then updates from Sales a while later, then still more from Accounting, Manufacturing, etc. You know the deal; something quite rather akin to, well, various editions of the Dilbert comic strip.
Within an engineering forum it should be possible to develop answers to these questions. After all, obviously this subject is important enough that it has now generated 13 pages of comments, a fair percentage of which are contributed by Dave, so it would seem that this subject is endorsed as being important. Therefore, an itemized understanding, or a revision of the outline that clearly specifies the boundary conditions would allow for a more optimized discussion.
Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!
It's easy, if you can't stop talking about race then just stay away from this thread. I will not lock it down because a huge percentage of the engineering audience loves Dilbert and it's a huge blow to have it effective vanish.
All your claptrap above to me indicates that you should well and truly stay away from this thread, because you won't be able to help yourself. Just put it on your ignore list.
-
It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven (https://youtu.be/1GoCW9ozQcM).
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so. Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?
:popcorn:
-
Gotta love cancel culture.
Problem I often see if that companies rush to distance themselves as they fear any slowness would be seen as agreeing with the content and if the court of social media gets wound up things can get out of hand rather quickly.
In the UK there has been some anger over attempts to re-write books by Rahl Dahl to make them a little more woke. This then escalated as people pointed out that he made antisemitic comments, in a interview back in 1990 not long before he died and he was an old man then and just voicing an opinion. People were suggesting that the books should be removed from print.
I just wonder if going down this road we could end up not having anything becuase it only takes some small effort to find somthing that can be taken out of context by an originator and it will be cancelled. Imagine all of Sean Connery films being removed because of his comments towards women. Dilbert was one of the first online comics, and one that a majority of it nerd types read. Shame to loose all of that due to comment from the author.
-
Dilbert was one of the first online comics, and one that a majority of it nerd types read. Shame to loose all of that due to comment from the author.
It's not because of the author's comment, it's some self-righteous mob bullying others as they are unable to understand the meaning of free speech and are also unable to accept that someone else might have a different opinion.
-
It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven (https://youtu.be/1GoCW9ozQcM).
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so. Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?
you haven't been paying attention, AvE has been labeled as all kinds of bad things
-
I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.
IMHO They don't have the experience and patience to feel the nuance. A lot of these people are getting their daily dose of dopamine from tiktok and twitter, where you have 120 characters or 45 seconds to convey a message. There is no time in that to explore an idea. So they will label someone "in group" or "out group", good or bad.
-
It's easy, if you can't stop talking about race then just stay away from this thread. I will not lock it down because a huge percentage of the engineering audience loves Dilbert and it's a huge blow to have it effective vanish.
All your claptrap above to me indicates that you should well and truly stay away from this thread, because you won't be able to help yourself. Just put it on your ignore list.
I accept you don't want this thread to turn into a general discussion about racism in society, but there is a racial element to this. Some consider Scott's comments to be racist, whilst others disagree. I think he wouldn't have been cancelled, if he were black. He probably would have been subject to a lot of abuse, but he would have kept most of his contracts and his publisher wouldn't have dropped him. I would argue he's the victim of racism here. I know my position is subjective and controversial and don't expect anyone change their mind.
This opens up the question of what views are acceptable to hold and what are not? I think most people would agree, it's clearly unacceptable for someone to believe a certain ethic group don't deserve the same human rights as everyone else, but quite often it's difficult to tell whether an individual hold such views.
-
People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.
I think it's the same sort of anonymity that people get behind the wheel of a car. Someone that cuts you off, flips you the bird and honks is likely to be far more timid and polite in a face to face interaction. The anonymity works both ways, on one side they feel shielded from their actions and less inclined to filter them the way they would in a face to face interaction, and in the other direction the person they are being a jerk to is words on a screen or a car rather than another person.
-
IMHO They don't have the experience and patience to feel the nuance. A lot of these people are getting their daily dose of dopamine from tiktok and twitter, where you have 120 characters or 45 seconds to convey a message. There is no time in that to explore an idea. So they will label someone "in group" or "out group", good or bad.
It's like we're creating a bunch of borderlines, with their black & white, all or nothing thinking. The behavior often imitates the "splitting" that people with BPD do too, where one day they see someone/something as all good and the next they might see the same person or thing as a horrible enemy.
-
It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven (https://youtu.be/1GoCW9ozQcM).
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so. Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?
He already has been for doing a video supporting the Canadian truckers protest.
-
I haven't watch all of it, but there was an interesting discussion on the Scott Adams situation with Viva Frei on Hotep Jesus' podcast. I won't link it, search for if you want it.
I'm still getting my emails with new Dilberts, but Adams said that will stop shortly as there is a production buffer.
I still have my hard copy 20 years of Dilbert collection. I'd better get a hard copy of the 30 years collection before it gets pulled.
-
Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?
-
Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?
Amazon itself does provide this kind of service, if I'm not mistaken. So it's a very simple matter if you have the books in digital form.
-
Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?
Amazon itself does provide this kind of service, if I'm not mistaken. So it's a very simple matter if you have the books in digital form.
Yes, I know the US does print on demand, but this one says that it ships from Amazon AU. So I'm wondering if they actually have a local book printer here?
-
Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?
It's interesting they've reduced the prices. I would have expect there would be an increased demand.
I've not read Dilbert before, but there were a few fans in the lab, where I did my apprenticeship, around 20 years ago as there were plenty of Dilbert posters and memes on the walls. Some of them were funny, but I never thought of buying it.
-
It's interesting they've reduced the prices. I would have expect there would be an increased demand.
Amazon are still taking pre-orders for a new Dilbert book. I thought I heard Amazon had "cancelled" him?
I've ordered it, will see if it turns up in April.
-
I just watched some The Onion videos on YT from around 2005, and realized that that kind of satire would just not fly today.
Those who get offended on behalf of others would have heart attacks.
-
I just watched some The Onion videos on YT from around 2005, and realized that that kind of satire would just not fly today.
Those who get offended on behalf of others would have heart attacks.
A friend of mind quipped that "we live in a post-joke world".
-
As a laugh, I thought I'd get ChatGPT's view on this. I'm quietly impressed with the results. Especially with the diagram at the end, which shows an interesting text / picture, at the top of the diagram. Possibly in an attempt to create AI Dilbert humor.
I asked:
What would Dilbert say, about him being 'cancelled'?
ChatGPT's response:
Dilbert is a fictional character created by Scott Adams, who is known for his satirical take on corporate culture and everyday office life. Given the nature of Dilbert's character and his creator's views on cancel culture, it is likely that he would have a strong opinion on being "cancelled."
If Dilbert were to be cancelled, he might respond with his trademark dry humor and sarcastic wit, suggesting that being cancelled is just another absurdity of modern society. He might also use the situation to make a commentary on the power dynamics at play in cancel culture and how they can be misused to silence dissenting voices.
Alternatively, Dilbert might view being cancelled as a serious threat to his livelihood and reputation. He might go into self-preservation mode, seeking legal recourse or attempting to salvage his public image. Regardless of his response, it is safe to say that Dilbert would have a lot to say on the topic of cancel culture, and his commentary would likely be both insightful and humorous.
I then asked:
Tell me more
ChatGPT's response:
Sure, I can expand on Dilbert's potential views on cancel culture.
Given Scott Adams' public commentary on cancel culture and his libertarian-leaning political views, it's likely that Dilbert would share similar views on the topic. Dilbert might view cancel culture as a form of censorship that stifles free speech and prevents open discussion and debate.
Dilbert might also argue that cancel culture often arises from a mob mentality, in which a vocal minority uses social media to exert power over others and punish those who hold different opinions or make mistakes. He might point out that this can be especially damaging in the workplace, where it can lead to a toxic and divisive environment.
However, it's worth noting that Dilbert's views on cancel culture would likely be nuanced and multifaceted. He might acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to hold people accountable for their actions, such as instances of hate speech, harassment, or abuse. But he might also argue that cancel culture has gone too far in many cases and is being used to silence dissent and enforce conformity.
Overall, Dilbert's commentary on cancel culture would likely be a mix of satire, humor, and social commentary, reflecting his creator's own views on the topic.
I then asked:
Please draw an ASCII art text diagram, with possible solutions.
ChatGPT's response:
_ _ _ _ _ _
| \ | | (_)| | (_) (_)
| \| | ___ _ | |_ _ ___ _ __ _ ___ _ __
| . ` | / _ \| || __| | | / _ \| '_ \ | |/ _ \| '__|
| |\ || __/| || |_ | || __/| | | || | (_) | |
|_| \_| \___||_| \__| |_| \___||_| |_||_|\___/|_|
Possible Solutions to a Problem:
- Brainstorming session
- Conducting research
- Seeking expert advice
- Collaboration with others
- Trying different approaches
- Taking a break and returning with a fresh perspective
- Reframing the problem from a different angle
- Implementing incremental changes
- Experimenting with new solutions
- Reevaluating priorities and goals
- Seeking feedback and input from stakeholders
- Learning from past successes and failures
-
I think what has happened, is quite ridiculous, really. Why some people get hit by it, while others seem to be immune from it ('cancel', woke).
So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog. Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff. A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.
No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats. As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly. It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Yet, there are people like Elon Musk. Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).
Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems. Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries. Bullet-proof, if you like.
I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.
Whose set of followers, seem to be a very powerful, anti-cancel mob, indeed. Who even might try to 'cancel' any apparent opposition, such as Thunderf00t (a youtube channel, which seems to love to hate, especially Elon Musk, amongst others).
Things get complicated though. As Elon Musk, seems to be a very big and active supporter, of Scott Adams. But I couldn't easily think of a valid alternative, except one which is probably best to leave out of this thread, as it can cause political tensions.
-
One set of rules for [you], and another set of rules for [us].
This is the key here, multi-rules-ism. (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)
Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group. The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.
I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future. Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.
It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives. We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.
-
One set of rules for [you], and another set of rules for [us].
This is the key here, multi-rules-ism. (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)
Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group. The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.
I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future. Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.
It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives. We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.
It is tricky to solve. Because, silencing and/or reining in, possible social media, dislike groups, who want to sometimes, 'cancel' others, in some cases. Are also, using their rights(s), to free speech. Which is fundamentally important.
In some cases, the other entity/party/person being 'cancelled', could actually be a bad entity. That really does need to be cancelled.
It's tricky to solve one problem, without possibly creating other problem(s), which could be considerably worse than the problem, attempting to be solved.
E.g. This highly annoying to some people, EU cookie nonsense. Which has partly ruined some peoples, internet experience, efficiency, speed and concentration on the internet. It is even rumored, now, that some companies still spy/monitor/record users activities, anyway. Despite so called claims, to the contrary.
-
This is the key here, multi-rules-ism. (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)
Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group. The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.
I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future. Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.
It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives. We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.
You're attempting to define Utopia. Which is famously a place that doesn't exist except in one's imagination.
How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic. Personally I'm with John Donne, "No man is an island.."
-
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Yet, there are people like Elon Musk. Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).
Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems. Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries. Bullet-proof, if you like.
I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.
It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.
Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.
And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me. They were so desperate because they couldn't really do anythhing, they had to go after my friends.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.
The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.
-
It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.
Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.
And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.
The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.
I see. I hadn't thought of it like that. So, that could be why they wanted to 'cancel' your friends, as it gives them, more of an attack surface, to concentrate on. To indirectly, try and get at you.
I suspect, that for each 1,000 subscribers, they manage to 'cancel' from your Twitter account. Another, approximately 1,000 new Twitter followers, may subscribe to you. Because the attempted 'cancel', was actually a free advert for your businesses and channels.
I.e. There is no such thing as bad publicity / news.
'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a self-publicist of the first order and never missed an opportunity to present his wares to the public. As with many other supposed quotations, there's no hard evidence to link the 'bad publicity' quotation to him.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity.html (https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity.html)
There shouldn't really be all this hate and stuff. I wonder if the modern, social media trends and that people often don't meet face to face (or even necessarily know peoples real life names), are a factor. On social media, forums, youtube comments, etc.
Although we are sometimes rude about social media, on this forum. To a debatable extent, this is a form of social media, for electronics people, and similar.
-
How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic.
Hardly. If I race against Usain Bolt in a sprint, he's going to come in first. Equal opportunity vs equal outcome. That's one of the big issues. But I think you know this already...
-
I see. I hadn't thought of it like that. So, that could be why they wanted to 'cancel' your friends, as it gives them, more of an attack surface, to concentrate on. To indirectly, try and get at you.
Yes, but it's also a show of force by way of intimidation, and an integral part of how the cancel culture woke mob keeps the power that it does. It shows to everyone that even if you are not involved, just being associated with this horrible cancelled person is enough to get you into trouble too. So the fear of having that happen to you puts pressure on you to also publicly pre-emptively denounce your friend or collegue in order to protect yourself. Also, this preys on the whole vitual signalling culture which people love to do these days.
If anyone thinks I'm being hyberbolic, you have no idea how cancel culture works.
I suspect, that for each 1,000 subscribers, they manage to 'cancel' from your Twitter account. Another, approximately 1,000 new Twitter followers, may subscribe to you. Because the attempted 'cancel', was actually a free advert for your businesses and channels.
Bingo.
As for Adams, he has gained a huge increase in new Locals members and Twitter followers.
-
Yes, but it's also a show of force by way of intimidation, and an integral part of how the cancel culture woke mob keeps the power that it does. It shows to everyone that even if you are not involved, just being associated with this horrible cancelled person is enough to get you into trouble too. So the fear of having that happen to you puts pressure on you to also publicly pre-emptively denounce your friend or collegue in order to protect yourself. Also, this preys on the whole vitual signalling culture which people love to do these days.
It's little more than good old fashioned schoolyard bullying, scaled up by way of the internet.
-
I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.
I don't think so - engineering instils many things that I consider virtues in judgement. If nothing else, it instils an appreciation for symmetry - which is the antithesis of the double standards we are experiencing these days. The same rules applied to all things. Symmetry of expectations of people, symmetry of dealing with people. I expect and need the best person available to be hired into the team, regardless of the candidates' race, gender or sexual preference. Instead there's talk of quotas or preferring members of 'underrepresented groups'. The same goes for communication - it's absolutely essential that people can give honest feedback on other people and their work without fear of being branded some kind of -ist.
And as far as I'm concerned, as engineers we have responsibilities to society, to our customers. I don't care if the bridge I walked over yesterday was designed by the most gender balanced and diverse team in Europe, I care whether it was designed by the best team available. If the team was everything-balanced, okay, good for them, but I don't care if it was. If skills take a second place in judging the worth or even expectations of an employee, then something is wrong with the hiring process and you're devaluing what it means to be an engineer or a scientist.
All of this can be applied to society at large as well.
So, yes, some concepts might be somewhat vague and have nuances, but that doesn't mean that you should turn off your engineer brain when judging them.
-
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Yet, there are people like Elon Musk. Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).
Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems. Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries. Bullet-proof, if you like.
I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.
It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.
Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.
And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me. They were so desperate because they couldn't really do anythhing, they had to go after my friends.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.
The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.
Where you fall on the intersectionality hierarchy appears to make a difference. Someone from the oppressed class can get away with more, than someone from the oppressor caste. Kanye West had to say some pretty spicy things before he got cancelled. A paler male wouldn't have been granted as much leeway.
-
Where you fall on the intersectionality hierarchy appears to make a difference. Someone from the oppressed class can get away with more, than someone from the oppressor caste. Kanye West had to say some pretty spicy things before he got cancelled. A paler male wouldn't have been granted as much leeway.
Absolutely. On the victim scale a straight white male is one step removed from Hitler. Again, not being hyperbolic. This is how these people think.
-
I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.
I don't think so ..
Hmm, discussing this kind of topics in this highly technical forum, where the vast majority of people are pretty technical, would always lead to the conclusion you've described nicely above as "the things you value". A seasoned politician would tell you - "you are young and naive".
Technical background is generally a handicap, indeed, as the people like you are looking for symmetries, they are searching for a root causes, call the issues straight by their names, try to be precise, value the validated results regardless who and how were achieved, do critical thinking and analysis, etc. etc.
The politics does not work that way, a pity.
Politics is more about MARKETING, where you sell the DREAMS.
That is what people (the masses) like and want - the dreams, the stories about a bright future, showing the root causes of problems which had nothing to do with THEM, showing the ways how to handle problems without to involve THEM in some painful effort, etc.
They do NOT want to listen to you while you are telling them the root cause of a vast majority of their own problems are their own lack of.. (a long list here)..
People/masses do not understand techies well, they do not want to listen to techies, (Germans have a special word for that - "ein Fachidiot", or "ein Fachtrottel" - there is nothing "bad" in the meaning of that word, btw., its a terminus technicus) and generally for that kind of people there is little place in the politics (even the techies believe they can do better politics - but they are usually mistaken in their belief).
-
I wish Gary Larson never stopped creating the Far Side. There were some timeless classics I still remember decades later.
He did stop, but he is starting again! New material is coming... Alongside Bill Watterson I don't think there is a better cartoonist alive. https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff (https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff)
-
Politics is more about MARKETING, where you sell the DREAMS.
That is what people (the masses) like and want - the dreams, the stories about a bright future, showing the root causes of problems which had nothing to do with THEM, showing the ways how to handle problems without to involve THEM in some painful effort, etc.
They do NOT want to listen to you while you are telling them the root cause of a vast majority of their own problems are their own lack of.. (a long list here)..
People/masses do not understand techies well, they do not want to listen to techies, (Germans have a special word for that - "ein Fachidiot", or "ein Fachtrottel" - there is nothing "bad" in the meaning of that word, btw., its a terminus technicus) and generally for that kind of people there is little place in the politics (even the techies believe they can do better politics - but they are usually mistaken in their belief).
I never claimed that engineers make great politicians in the current definition of the word. From what I observed of myself and many others in the field, we have trouble bullshiting our way through a conversation and instead of replying "Sure, can do and even more!" as a reflex, we generally ask follow up questions on the topic and promise a reply by the next week after carefully analysing the problem as much as we can, which instantly disqualifies you from any live political discussion.
I am not saying that we would make great politicians - my point was that for judging things, an engineering background offers a number of tools that allow us to see a problem/solution objectively.
-
So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog. Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff. A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.
No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats. As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly. It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Respectfully disagree.
If what you suggest was actually the case, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'. He admitted the Rasmussen poll results he pushed were questionable before he even taped the show. To me, that is not the same thing as just sitting around expressing your personal opinion.
With any freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely. IMO "he chose poorly".
-
He did stop, but he is starting again! New material is coming...
Don't hold your breath.
That page has been there since July 2020 (https://web.archive.org/web/20200707081714/https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff).
EtA:
Alongside Bill Watterson
Oh, and about Bill Watterson, this (https://youtu.be/fPahl9phavA) just was in my YT feed this morning.
What a difference with the professional troll we are discussing about.
-
So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog. Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff. A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.
No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats. As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly. It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.
So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.
Respectfully disagree.
If what you suggest was actually the case, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'. He admitted the Rasmussen poll results he pushed were questionable before he even taped the show. To me, that is not the same thing as just sitting around expressing your personal opinion.
With any freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely. IMO "he chose poorly".
Because of watching a little bit of Scott Adams videos, and reading some stuff. I think you may have partly got the wrong idea.
My understanding (or feeling about it, N.B./Disclaimer I've watched way, way too little of his stuff, for what I'm about to say, to have even a gentle level of guaranteed accuracy here), is what he (Scott Adams), meant. Was that he was going to say what he thought, and he doesn't care if the 'cancel' culture and things, get angry with it, and cancel him/Dilbert.
So, although it is still intentional, it is not so much, intentional, to gain extra free advertising and hence make more money. But intentional, so that they can have the freedom of speech rights, to put their point of view across.
Which is a subtle, but rather important distinction.
EDIT: His recognition of the poll result, being possibly misleading and/or partly or fully wrong. Could be him choosing, his favorite option, that the poll result was valid (just like a politician, typically would be expected to do), rather than meaning he caused this 'cancel' fracas, intentionally.
In fairness to your post. I'm NOT clear, how intentional or not, it has been. So I'm still open, to believe it either way (i.e. he did it intentionally, or he decided he just didn't care, they can cancel him if they want to).
-
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'.
Yeah, he was admitting in the interview that he expected to be cancelled. And he did it anyway, because opening a discussion about it is important. And he is right.
One of his example was in that specific interview: If you are getting hired because of DEI, then good for you, hoverer, a more qualified person (who doesn't get the job) will hate you for it. And you always will be labeled as the diversity hire, behind your back. Reasonable question, swept under the rug for now.
There was a bunch of other ones, but we were asked by Dave not to discuss it here.
-
How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic.
I've already mentioned how nonintact homes in early childhood (by age 8) is a very strong predictor of having a criminal record as an adult.
Thus, if you apply the law to all individuals equally, and there are cultural or sociological reasons why certain ethnicities or cultural backgrounds have statistically more nonintact homes in early childhood, for example single mothers, you will end up with them statistically overrepresented among those with a criminal background.
In other words, there is no reason a perfectly egalitarian law and culture would yield equal statistics among groups of people.
Equality of opportunity does not lead to equality of outcome, because individuals vary in their characteristics.
Personally I'm with John Donne, "No man is an island.."
And I refuse to be treated as a member or representative of any group, and insist on being treated as an individual, based on my own actions.
-
How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic.
I've already mentioned how nonintact homes in early childhood (by age 8) is a very strong predictor of having a criminal record as an adult.
I wish smileys were smarter and didn't do that. . .
It could be partly biological, although this is controversial and suggesting so is a cancellable offense:
- Higher levels of testosterone in some ethnic groups than others. This hormone has a strong positive correlation with sexual and violent crime.
- Genetic predisposition to higher/lower intelligence.
- Low levels of vitamin D can retard brain development, especially in the womb.
It's probably mostly social, but any of the above could be contributory factors.
-
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
-
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
I never liked that one (although I love many XKCD ones), because it conveniently avoids the entire issue: that it is not that people stop listening to you because they themselves don't like what you are saying, but because they fear repercussions by the agitators.
It's like having people discuss something around a nice round table, but having men with baseball bats stand behind each person ready to make sure they know the consequences if they discuss anything I don't like. They, too, are absolutely free to discuss anything at all.
-
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
I never liked that one (although I love many XKCD ones), because it conveniently avoids the entire issue: that it is not that people stop listening to you because they themselves don't like what you are saying, but because they fear repercussions by the agitators.
It's like having people discuss something around a nice round table, but having men with baseball bats stand behind each person ready to make sure they know the consequences if they discuss anything I don't like. They, too, are absolutely free to discuss anything at all.
Exactly. And when people talk about "free speech" they are not just talking about the First Amendment, which provides specific protections in a specific nation. The concept of free speech is something far larger than that.
-
It is difficult to perceive the whole situation, though, when you happen to agree with those doing the "enforcement".
It's just so easy to assume that the enforcers do represent everybody –– or "everybody with a modicum of sense" –– and are not really relevant.
I know I have had to learn to examine the situation and my own perceptions to detect when that happens, for sure.
-
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
I never liked that one (although I love many XKCD ones), because it conveniently avoids the entire issue: that it is not that people stop listening to you because they themselves don't like what you are saying, but because they fear repercussions by the agitators.
Yep, avoids the real problem.
And when the social media platforms are almost all either controlled by the left wing who like nothing more than taking an opportunity to virtue signal by taking pro-active measures themselves to censor one side (e.g. Patreon's "off platform" policy, and Twitters "Manifest observable behaviour" policy pre-Elon). Or they are so afraid of the mob that they will bow to any pressure from the woke mob.
It's no coincidence that practically all of the "cancellations" are on one side of politics.
-
Oh, and about Bill Watterson, this (https://youtu.be/fPahl9phavA) just was in my YT feed this morning.
What a difference with the professional troll we are discussing about.
He fought against his characters being used as a cheap stamp to sell crap, and won. And he hates Garfield. Great man!
-
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
I never liked that one (although I love many XKCD ones), because it conveniently avoids the entire issue: that it is not that people stop listening to you because they themselves don't like what you are saying, but because they fear repercussions by the agitators.
Yep, avoids the real problem.
And when the social media platforms are almost all either controlled by the left wing who like nothing more than taking an opportunity to virtue signal by taking pro-active measures themselves to censor one side (e.g. Patreon's "off platform" policy, and Twitters "Manifest observable behaviour" policy pre-Elon). Or they are so afraid of the mob that they will bow to any pressure from the woke mob.
It's no coincidence that practically all of the "cancellations" are on one side of politics.
Meanwhile, politics and society in the US grow more polarized, and both sides try to "cancel" that with which they disagree.
Why do you say "practically all", instead of "more"?
-
The "cancel" movement is 100% political. It's not about individual choices, it's all about choices made for a group of people, and the power of canceling is the power of the group and whoever directs it.
We more or less all have "canceled" others one way or another in our lives for various reasons - too strong divergence of opinions that just talking with them becomes impossible, people that get excessively annoying, whatever. But that's not the same thing. That's just individual choices we all make, and that's part of our basic freedoms. We just choose whoever we want to hang out with or not, and it can change over time.
The cancel movement we've been witnessing for a few years now is nothing like that. It's not about individual choice and our basic freedoms, it's all about the drive to make others share the same choices at all costs. It's the opposite of freedom, it's social control. It's all driven by the mob mentality and usually directed by political motives.
-
Meanwhile, politics and society in the US grow more polarized, and both sides try to "cancel" that with which they disagree.
Why do you say "practically all", instead of "more"?
Becaue I'm stating an observable fact.
Name a prominent left wing person who's been "cancelled" from platforms and social media and been debanked, etc in recent years. You'd be lucky to have the count exceed the fingers on your one hand.
Also name a "left wing" leaning platform that formed recently because of all of these "left wing" cancellations and those people needing a place to go.
Yet on the "right" you have Locals, Subscribestar, Bitchute, Rumble, Truth social, etc.
The only one I can think of that gained some "left momentum" is Mastodon. And that's not because they were cancelled from Twitter, it's because they all threw a hissyhit that their left leaning cancelling machine was taken over by Elon Musk who cleaned house and made it an even playing field, so they jumped ship.
-
Nobody should be trying to "cancel" anyone. There is a very important difference between not attending/watching/listening/purchasing to something or even speaking out against it, and trying to destroy/silence/shut down something you don't agree with or attack others for listening/watching or indirectly associated with or even just failing to speak out against something. It is an absolutely undeniable objective fact that people are regularly threatened, intimidated or otherwise bullied over something they may have said or an opinion they ostensibly hold or because they are somehow associated with someone. That is totally unacceptable in a free society.
If you don't like what somebody says, don't listen to them, don't follow them, don't attend their events, don't like them, tell everyone that will listen how you think so and so is wrong/misguided/stupid/etc. If you feel strongly enough about it, speak up with a counterpoint, that's freedom. Cancelling is something else entirely, and I'm not sure if people actually can't see this distinction, or willfully ignore it
-
I don't follow social media.
In regular politics, the main cancellation going on is to keep unfavorable ideas (as seen by either side) away from schools and colleges.
-
I don't follow social media.
And that's why you have no idea what's been happing over the last decade.
-
I don't follow social media.
In regular politics, the main cancellation going on is to keep unfavorable ideas (as seen by either side) away from schools and colleges.
Dave's question still applies. How many people with far left wing views have been uninvited from speaking at universities? How many cases have there been of students rioting or shouting down someone with far left views? How many people have been fired from their job for expressing a far left opinion? I can't think of a single one, however I'm more than willing to accept any cases you can point out. As someone who is neither particularly left or right I notice this, and I notice the glaring double standards.
-
I don't follow social media.
And that's why you have no idea what's been happing over the last decade.
I do not find social media relevant to my continuing needs.
-
I don't follow social media.
In regular politics, the main cancellation going on is to keep unfavorable ideas (as seen by either side) away from schools and colleges.
Dave's question still applies. How many people with far left wing views have been uninvited from speaking at universities? How many cases have there been of students rioting or shouting down someone with far left views? How many people have been fired from their job for expressing a far left opinion? I can't think of a single one, however I'm more than willing to accept any cases you can point out. As someone who is neither particularly left or right I notice this, and I notice the glaring double standards.
The egregious examples of "shouting down" tend to come from students and similar left-leaning groups (a phenomenon that predates this century).
The political examples tend to come from the other side of the polarization.
-
I don't follow social media.
Neither do I, but some of the people I'd like (or need) to interact with, use social media as the source for adopting opinions wholesale. That's why and how social media affects me too.
-
The egregious examples of "shouting down" tend to come from students and similar left-leaning groups (a phenomenon that predates this century).
The political examples tend to come from the other side of the polarization.
That doesn't answer the question. What examples do you know of where right wing students have shouted down or threatened a speaker with far left views?
Same with the political examples, can you list one? As much as I disagree with Trump supporters I was appalled at the case where a child wearing a red MAGA hat was assaulted by someone that stole his hat. In another case an elderly couple was attacked and harassed upon exiting a Trump speech. There was an unarmed man marching with a pro Trump group in Oregon that was gunned down in cold blood by a self described "antifa" leftist. Ironically the victim was openly gay, and yet those that would normally be screaming hate crime were nowhere to be found. There were multiple cases over the past few years where right wing groups staged a peaceful event somewhere and lefists showed up uninvited and attacked them trashing the event. I'm embarrassed by this behavior, aren't you? I am very much NOT a Trump supporter so I hate being forced to defend him or his followers by the behavior of the deranged far left.
-
I do not find social media relevant to my continuing needs.
Then why are you commenting on something that is primarily occurring via social media? You effectively state that something is not happening, then when pressed for examples you essentially say you don't know because you don't follow. If you don't follow and don't know then how can you claim it isn't happening or isn't an issue?
-
I don't follow social media.
And that's why you have no idea what's been happing over the last decade.
I do not find social media relevant to my continuing needs.
And that's fine. But don't go around claiming you know about cancel culture politics on platforms and social media when you clearly don't.
It has been blindingly obvious to everyone for the last decade that practically all the social media and platform "cancellations" happen to those on the "right" leaning side of politics.
Countless innocent creators like myself have been caught up in this, for example when Patreon had it's big purge of "right leaning" or "conservative" or "anti-SJW" creators if you will, we ended up losing a ton of Patrons as collateral damage as people left the platform in droves.
Literally the US president was de-platformed from Twitter under this mad cancellation craze.
Then you had the covid craze and that led to countless cancellations and de-platformings, once again of people of conservative shall we say "pro-freedom" nature.
-
The egregious examples of "shouting down" tend to come from students and similar left-leaning groups (a phenomenon that predates this century).
The political examples tend to come from the other side of the polarization.
That doesn't answer the question. What examples do you know of where right wing students have shouted down or threatened a speaker with far left views?
Same with the political examples, can you list one? As much as I disagree with Trump supporters I was appalled at the case where a child wearing a red MAGA hat was assaulted by someone that stole his hat. In another case an elderly couple was attacked and harassed upon exiting a Trump speech. There was an unarmed man marching with a pro Trump group in Oregon that was gunned down in cold blood by a self described "antifa" leftist. There were multiple cases over the past few years where right wing groups staged a peaceful event somewhere and lefists showed up uninvited and attacked them trashing the event. I'm embarrassed by this behavior, aren't you? I am very much NOT a Trump supporter so I hate being forced to defend him or his followers by the behavior of the deranged far left.
I admitted that most "shouting down" events recently have been by left-leaning student types.
With regard to Trump political events, are you unaware of violence, often suggested by the speaker, against press and protesters by the "right wing"?
A biased summary, from a quick Google search: https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech (https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech)
-
I do not find social media relevant to my continuing needs.
Then why are you commenting on something that is primarily occurring via social media? You effectively state that something is not happening, then when pressed for examples you essentially say you don't know because you don't follow. If you don't follow and don't know then how can you claim it isn't happening or isn't an issue?
I do not believe that "cancel culture" is limited to social media, and I commented on my perceptions of "cancellation" in the larger culture and society.
There are more things on heaven and earth than are found on social media.
-
I admitted that most "shouting down" events recently have been by left-leaning student types.
With regard to Trump political events, are you unaware of violence, often suggested by the speaker, against press and protesters by the "right wing"?
A biased summary, from a quick Google search: https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech (https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech)
Violence that is suggested or violence that is/was happening? I'm far more concerned about the violence that is happening. Did you not notice the months of violent "protests" that took place in Portland OR for example? The federal courthouse was attacked with explosives and firebombs and it went on almost nightly for months, that is nothing less than a violent attack on the US government. The president offered to send in the national guard to maintain order but local leaders fought tooth and nail against that due to who the president happened to be at the time. Numerous police officers and civilians around the nation were murdered, thousands injured, many seriously. Billions of dollars in property damage. The vast, VAST majority of that committed by left wing groups. And you're worried about tweets you don't follow?
-
Not sure whether on-topic posts are still on topic in this thread, but here goes...
What I will actually miss if and when dilbert.com goes offline is the functionality to search for older strips. I don't look at the more recent strips regularly, but every now and then come across a situation where I remember that there was exactly the right Dilbert strip, years or decades ago, and want to retrieve that strip.
There once was the independent, fan-operated "Dilbert Strip Finder" at bfmartin.ca, but that seems to have been discontinued after dilbert.com launched its own decent search function. But I assume that the latter will go away when Andrews McMeel end their syndication and publishing deal with Scott Adams.
Is there any alternative search engine for old strips? Doesn't have to serve the actual strips; a reference to the publication date or to the book and page (like the bfmartin.ca finder provided) would be fine. Thanks for any pointers!
-
I do not believe that "cancel culture" is limited to social media, and I commented on my perceptions of "cancellation" in the larger culture and society.
There are more things on heaven and earth than are found on social media.
Ok then forget social media for a moment. Find an example of a lefty that has been cancelled. This could be someone that tried to speak at a conservative university, or that tried to speak anywhere and got shouted down by right wingers. Find a case of someone that got fired from their job or demonetized on youtube for expressing left wing views. Even just one example would be a good start.
-
Not sure whether on-topic posts are still on topic in this thread, but here goes...
What I will actually miss if and when dilbert.com goes offline is the functionality to search for older strips. I don't look at the more recent strips regularly, but every now and then come across a situation where I remember that there was exactly the right Dilbert strip, years or decades ago, and want to retrieve that strip.
There once was the independent, fan-operated "Dilbert Strip Finder" at bfmartin.ca, but that seems to have been discontinued after dilbert.com launched its own decent search function. But I assume that the latter will go away when Andrews McMeel end their syndication and publishing deal with Scott Adams.
Is there any alternative search engine for old strips? Doesn't have to serve the actual strips; a reference to the publication date or to the book and page (like the bfmartin.ca finder provided) would be fine. Thanks for any pointers!
Wayback appears to have archived the site, but I don't know if the search will work.
-
What I will actually miss if and when dilbert.com goes offline is the functionality to search for older strips. I don't look at the more recent strips regularly, but every now and then come across a situation where I remember that there was exactly the right Dilbert strip, years or decades ago, and want to retrieve that strip.
I have not heard Adam's say anything about a new website or making old material available. He seems entirely fixated on new strips and making them available on his Locals platform.
I think this is a huge mistake.
Surely he still holds all the copyright on the old strips and could probably even negotiate getting the website. "Hey, give me the website and user database back and I'll go quietly and not make a fuss".
I noticed the "Follow" link on the website is now disabled, so it's certainly being shut down.
-
I do not believe that "cancel culture" is limited to social media, and I commented on my perceptions of "cancellation" in the larger culture and society.
There are more things on heaven and earth than are found on social media.
Ok then forget social media for a moment. Find an example of a lefty that has been cancelled. This could be someone that tried to speak at a conservative university, or that tried to speak anywhere and got shouted down by right wingers. Find a case of someone that got fired from their job or demonetized on youtube for expressing left wing views. Even just one example would be a good start.
How about the mainstream media overall? How many times do you hear non-mainstream views being labelled as alt/far-right, rather than far-left? I hear far-right this and that all the time. There was recently a protest in Liverpool, the most lefty, Labour voting city there is, against illegal immigrants sexually harassing under-aged school girls, which was labelled as far-right by the BBC. I only occasionally hear far-left/socialist/Marxist on blatant right-wing channels such as GB/Fox News and Sky News Australia.
-
The left and right extremes both try to cancel stuff--it is difficult to be quantitative.
Recently, leftists trying to cancel speakers, etc. have received much attention, while rightists seem to spend their time cancelling topics and books.
A good example of the latter is the effort to ban "The 1619 Project" about the history of slavery in the US.
A more absurd example is the exaggerated danger of drag shows.
I sit here in the center, deploring both activities, while each extreme blames the other for their sins.
-
I stand with Dilbert. :-+
-
The left and right extremes both try to cancel stuff--it is difficult to be quantitative.
Recently, leftists trying to cancel speakers, etc. have received much attention, while rightists seem to spend their time cancelling topics and books.
A good example of the latter is the effort to ban "The 1619 Project" about the history of slavery in the US.
A more absurd example is the exaggerated danger of drag shows.
I sit here in the center, deploring both activities, while each extreme blames the other for their sins.
No it's really not difficult to be quantitative. Nobody is trying to cancel the 1619 project, it is still out there and you are free to read/watch it if you wish, people speak out against it and call it BS and don't want it taught in public schools which is their right but nobody will attack you for it, you will not get fired from your job for commenting about it in a positive light. Nobody is trying to cancel drag shows and nobody will threaten you for attending one, there are people that have a problem with drag shows for young children in school but that seems reasonable to me, drag shows have always been for adults. I don't really see any reason to have them in schools.
You still have not come up with a single example of anyone on the left that has been cancelled. Not a single person that has been fired, not a single person that has been deplatformed, not a single book that has been cancelled (bullied out of print), nothing. Just some nebulous claims of things that people are "trying to cancel" and some "I don't know, I don't follow". Sorry but this is just reinforcing what has been said. "Cancel culture" is real and it is nearly exclusively a tactic of the far left.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling
Although... well, she's left-leaning having contributed to Labour and told off the Tories. But gets cancelled because of her alleged anti-trans things, so perhaps those are far, far left.
-
Ok then forget social media for a moment. Find an example of a lefty that has been cancelled. This could be someone that tried to speak at a conservative university, or that tried to speak anywhere and got shouted down by right wingers. Find a case of someone that got fired from their job or demonetized on youtube for expressing left wing views. Even just one example would be a good start.
JK Rowling. The irony is that she is cancelled by left.
Meanwhile, I fall back to xkcd for my comics:
https://xkcd.com/1357
I never liked that one (although I love many XKCD ones), because it conveniently avoids the entire issue: that it is not that people stop listening to you because they themselves don't like what you are saying, but because they fear repercussions by the agitators.
Yep, avoids the real problem.
And when the social media platforms are almost all either controlled by the left wing who like nothing more than taking an opportunity to virtue signal by taking pro-active measures themselves to censor one side (e.g. Patreon's "off platform" policy, and Twitters "Manifest observable behaviour" policy pre-Elon). Or they are so afraid of the mob that they will bow to any pressure from the woke mob.
It's no coincidence that practically all of the "cancellations" are on one side of politics.
It's also an 8 year old comic strip, when the situation wasn't as extreme as now.
How about the mainstream media overall? How many times do you hear non-mainstream views being labelled as alt/far-right, rather than far-left? I hear far-right this and that all the time. There was recently a protest in Liverpool, the most lefty, Labour voting city there is, against illegal immigrants sexually harassing under-aged school girls, which was labelled as far-right by the BBC. I only occasionally hear far-left/socialist/Marxist on blatant right-wing channels such as GB/Fox News and Sky News Australia.
I've read that the NYT has increased the mentions of nazis and white supremacist in their articles from some 700 a year to 7500 times a year. For a quick foofle-fu, here is some statistics:
(https://tablet-mag-images.b-cdn.net/production/63bf7b34e55490d4c18114d2bd0ce159c6a5a28f-2202x1174.png?w=1200&q=70&auto=format&dpr=1)
But it was also jarring, that every TV show when Trump was elected changed it's main topic to: These are the steps to impeach the president.
Then there are the Twitter files (FBI using twitter algo to suppress information bad for the left)
Or you know, they actually banned a sitting president
You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist, because they don't even hide their meddling anymore.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling
Attempted cancelled by (her fellow) left because she has a view that is considerd "right wing" or "alt-right".
This is the left "pruity spiral" I've mentioned. They will eat their own if you don't 100% comply with the narrative. No nuanced opinion allowed.
-
The left and right extremes both try to cancel stuff--it is difficult to be quantitative.
Recently, leftists trying to cancel speakers, etc. have received much attention, while rightists seem to spend their time cancelling topics and books.
A good example of the latter is the effort to ban "The 1619 Project" about the history of slavery in the US.
A more absurd example is the exaggerated danger of drag shows.
I sit here in the center, deploring both activities, while each extreme blames the other for their sins.
No it's really not difficult to be quantitative. Nobody is trying to cancel the 1619 project, it is still out there and you are free to read/watch it if you wish, people speak out against it and call it BS and don't want it taught in public schools which is their right but nobody will attack you for it, you will not get fired from your job for commenting about it in a positive light. Nobody is trying to cancel drag shows and nobody will threaten you for attending one, there are people that have a problem with drag shows for young children in school but that seems reasonable to me, drag shows have always been for adults. I don't really see any reason to have them in schools.
You still have not come up with a single example of anyone on the left that has been cancelled. Not a single person that has been fired, not a single person that has been deplatformed, not a single book that has been cancelled (bullied out of print), nothing. Just some nebulous claims of things that people are "trying to cancel" and some "I don't know, I don't follow". Sorry but this is just reinforcing what has been said. "Cancel culture" is real and it is nearly exclusively a tactic of the far left.
I was challenged to "name one".
From a post by Ian Storey, an Associate Fellow at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics & Humanities at Bard College:
"The canary in the coal mine was the firing last year of liberal adjunct professor and media commentator Lisa Durden from Essex County College, after her appearance on Fox News defending Black Lives Matter. In a truly Kafkaesque statement, the college’s president Anthony Munroe managed to simultaneously trumpet that “Essex County College deeply values free speech and academic freedom” and the “open exchange of ideas and perspectives,” yet still terminate Durden’s employment for her statements.
As grounds for Durden’s firing, the College’s administration claimed that they had been inundated with calls and emails from concerned parents and students. That would itself be questionable grounds for firing a professor over their political speech, but when FIRE sued Essex County for the records of this alleged wave of concern, they found that the claim was entirely manufactured. No such pressure campaign existed."
[continuing]
"Over the last two years, the number of dismissals on speech grounds has more than quadrupled (up 433%). There is a stark divide along partisan lines: while the terminations of conservative professors have doubled, the number of firings of liberals has boomed by no less than 950%. Of the 45 cases of faculty firings determined to be unambiguously related to speech, 26 of them occur in 2017 alone (compared to 6 in 2015), “the clear majority (19) being over liberal speech”. Even after adjusting the data by imposing a more strict, legalistic definition of political speech, the pattern remains extraordinary."
[continuing]
"Yet it would be an error for progressives to use Sachs’ data as a justification for ignoring excesses of those on the left (because the real problem is on the right), and ignoring or minimizing the concerns of conservative, religious, or other scholars who feel their freedom of expression, conscience or inquiry is being threatened or undermined."
-
Bret Weinstein is an example of the left wing eating their own. He is a progressive liberal and he got "cancelled", threatened with violence and effectively forced out of his career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
At least in his case he and his wife were able to sue the university and won $500,000 which I think was a bit low relative to what they went through but it's something.
-
I was challenged to "name one".
From a post by Ian Storey, an Associate Fellow at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics & Humanities at Bard College:
"The canary in the coal mine was the firing last year of liberal adjunct professor and media commentator Lisa Durden from Essex County College, after her appearance on Fox News defending Black Lives Matter. In a truly Kafkaesque statement, the college’s president Anthony Munroe managed to simultaneously trumpet that “Essex County College deeply values free speech and academic freedom” and the “open exchange of ideas and perspectives,” yet still terminate Durden’s employment for her statements.
As grounds for Durden’s firing, the College’s administration claimed that they had been inundated with calls and emails from concerned parents and students. That would itself be questionable grounds for firing a professor over their political speech, but when FIRE sued Essex County for the records of this alleged wave of concern, they found that the claim was entirely manufactured. No such pressure campaign existed."
[continuing]
"Over the last two years, the number of dismissals on speech grounds has more than quadrupled (up 433%). There is a stark divide along partisan lines: while the terminations of conservative professors have doubled, the number of firings of liberals has boomed by no less than 950%. Of the 45 cases of faculty firings determined to be unambiguously related to speech, 26 of them occur in 2017 alone (compared to 6 in 2015), “the clear majority (19) being over liberal speech”. Even after adjusting the data by imposing a more strict, legalistic definition of political speech, the pattern remains extraordinary."
[continuing]
"Yet it would be an error for progressives to use Sachs’ data as a justification for ignoring excesses of those on the left (because the real problem is on the right), and ignoring or minimizing the concerns of conservative, religious, or other scholars who feel their freedom of expression, conscience or inquiry is being threatened or undermined."
Well that's something quantifiable at least. I would say she was unjustly fired and discriminated against. I wish they had more information there about the firings of liberals, who fired them and for what reason. I wonder how many of those were like the Weinstein case where they were liberals fired by other liberals for failing some purity test. This behavior is very worrying regardless of who is doing it.
-
Bret Weinstein is an example of the left wing eating their own. He is a progressive liberal and he got "cancelled", threatened with violence and effectively forced out of his career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
At least in his case he and his wife were able to sue the university and won $500,000 which I think was a bit low relative to what they went through but it's something.
According to your wikipedia link, Weinstein is mainly known for his covid-19 views, including the use of ivermectin.
On campus, he disagreed with the left-wing consensus on racial issues.
Why do you call him "a progressive liberal", although that may be his self-description.
-
I was challenged to "name one".
From a post by Ian Storey, an Associate Fellow at the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics & Humanities at Bard College:
"The canary in the coal mine was the firing last year of liberal adjunct professor and media commentator Lisa Durden from Essex County College, after her appearance on Fox News defending Black Lives Matter. In a truly Kafkaesque statement, the college’s president Anthony Munroe managed to simultaneously trumpet that “Essex County College deeply values free speech and academic freedom” and the “open exchange of ideas and perspectives,” yet still terminate Durden’s employment for her statements.
As grounds for Durden’s firing, the College’s administration claimed that they had been inundated with calls and emails from concerned parents and students. That would itself be questionable grounds for firing a professor over their political speech, but when FIRE sued Essex County for the records of this alleged wave of concern, they found that the claim was entirely manufactured. No such pressure campaign existed."
Literally not a mob cancellation. Try again.
-
Bret Weinstein is an example of the left wing eating their own. He is a progressive liberal and he got "cancelled", threatened with violence and effectively forced out of his career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
At least in his case he and his wife were able to sue the university and won $500,000 which I think was a bit low relative to what they went through but it's something.
According to your wikipedia link, Weinstein is mainly known for his covid-19 views, including the use of ivermectin.
On campus, he disagreed with the left-wing consensus on racial issues.
Why do you call him "a progressive liberal", although that may be his self-description.
All that covid stuff happened after the infamous Evergreen incident.
Tim, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about what's been going on in the culture wars the last decade.
The Evergreen incident with Weinstein is one of the pivitol points in the culture war. It's so well know he's been on the Joe Rogan podcast multiple times and countless other shows talking about it.
-
Perhaps the other "mob cancellations" are also false?
I was challenged to name one lefty who had been fired (among other things).
The tactics on the left and right may differ, and do not exonerate the other.
I am aware of the culture wars, but do not rely on social media for my information.
Mainly, I read newspapers and news magazines, trying to balance them (specifically, the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, New Yorker, and Economist).
Since I retired, I have avidly read history in books, which I avoided during my university education.
Please avoid absolute statements such as "you don't know the first thing..." when disagreeing with me.
-
According to your wikipedia link, Weinstein is mainly known for his covid-19 views, including the use of ivermectin.
If you are going to use material from Wikipedia in an argument you are truly lost.
-
Please avoid absolute statements such as "you don't know the first thing..." when disagreeing with me.
I'm not going to argue any more, it's clear to me based on your responses that you don't really know what's been happening. I'm out.
-
According to your wikipedia link, Weinstein is mainly known for his covid-19 views, including the use of ivermectin.
On campus, he disagreed with the left-wing consensus on racial issues.
Why do you call him "a progressive liberal", although that may be his self-description.
He taught at one of the most liberal universities in the area, he lived in Portland, OR which is an extremely liberal city (also where I'm from and have family so I know a thing or two about it), he taught evolutionary biology which is hardly something associated with the far right. I don't think it's fair to say he was "mainly known" for some strange view on Covid-19 since the incident in question occurred well before the pandemic happened and Wikipedia is known have a left leaning bias, I hardly blame him for having formed more right-leaning views following his horrendously awful experience. The campus incident that occurred happened when he chose not to participate in a racist and "voluntary" event where all white people were asked to stay home that day and he chose not to, and apparently that was a serious enough offense to riot and demand he be fired? Can you honestly say that if black people were told to stay home for a day and a black professor chose to ignore it and came in, and was harassed, intimidated, threatened and ultimately forced out of his or her job that it would be ok?
-
I'm asked Adams on Twitter what the deal is with the Dilbert website. Give it a like or retweet if you want him to see it.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1632882828663996417
He has answered my tweets before, but he gets bombarded with them, so it needs visibility.
-
I do not believe that "cancel culture" is limited to social media, and I commented on my perceptions of "cancellation" in the larger culture and society.
There are more things on heaven and earth than are found on social media.
Ok then forget social media for a moment. Find an example of a lefty that has been cancelled. This could be someone that tried to speak at a conservative university, or that tried to speak anywhere and got shouted down by right wingers. Find a case of someone that got fired from their job or demonetized on youtube for expressing left wing views. Even just one example would be a good start.
How about the mainstream media overall? How many times do you hear non-mainstream views being labelled as alt/far-right, rather than far-left? I hear far-right this and that all the time. There was recently a protest in Liverpool, the most lefty, Labour voting city there is, against illegal immigrants sexually harassing under-aged school girls, which was labelled as far-right by the BBC. I only occasionally hear far-left/socialist/Marxist on blatant right-wing channels such as GB/Fox News and Sky News Australia.
If you can find "far-left/socialist/Marxist" content on Sky News Australia, your definition of such content is well out of whack with anybody else, even that of Sky.
If you mean the actual words, Sky throws them around quite liberally, although they are also very fond of "woke".
Some of their commentators are "defrocked" Liberal Party of Australia or National Party members, with plenty of sitting members of those Parties as guests.
Their "Hosts" (notice they don't call them journalists) are mostly fringe figures from the right of politics or ex-journos who couldn't make it in the real world of Network television.
I don't watch them "real time", but just catch up on their latest stuff on the MSN/Edge pages.
The downside of this are the comments, which are in the majority right wing stuff----not normal "righties" who just support a different Party to me, but fairly extreme people who pretty much speak in slogans.
They also pop up on pages belonging to other News/opinion entities, often repeating in its entirety, a comment they had posted on the Sky page.
If you point out a factual error, they either ignore you, or go straight into abuse mode.
One of the more minor epithets is "Latte drinking, Chardonnay sipping, smashed avocado eating inner city elitist."
"There must be a lot of "elitists" at MacDonald's, or shopping at my local Woolies & the Liquorland grog store," is all I can say!
Just yesterday, I encountered three comments advocating the overthrow of the government by illegal means.
The resident Antisemite pops up from time to time, as well as supporters of Vlad Putin.
The "lefties" by and large are quite sensible, but mostly give up & let the others enjoy their echo chamber in Sky comments.
Certainly in comments on that platform, Whirlpool, & Facebook, it would be easy to think that there is an overwhelming move to the right in the voting population, but that is not borne out by the voting figures from recent elections, where the minor parties from that political persuasion have been pretty much smashed, & even the "Moderate to fringe right" Liberal Party of Australia has done a lot worse than historically---badly enough for the coalition to lose power.
I think the fairly much "fringe right" people who comment on these pages look at all the comments & assume they are the "silent Majority", when in fact, they are a very loud minority.
When they don't win power, they either abuse the hapless Libs for being too "woke", want to change the electoral system, or (some) advocate outright revolution.
-
Certainly in comments on that platform, Whirlpool, & Facebook, it would be easy to think that there is an overwhelming move to the right in the voting population, but that is not borne out by the voting figures from recent elections, where the minor parties from that political persuasion have been pretty much smashed, & even the "Moderate to fringe right" Liberal Party of Australia has done a lot worse than historically---badly enough for the coalition to lose power.
People are tribal creatures and most don't move. Here the D's almost always vote for the D candidate and the Rs almost always vote for the R candidate, it doesn't matter who the candidate is or what they're actually like, the thinking is that no matter how bad they are they must be better than the other party. The elections are typically decided by a handful of independents and swing voters, hence it's almost always a close race. I'd expect it works similarly in other places.
-
Literally not a mob cancellation. Try again.
The Dixie chicks criticized George Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and conservatives immediately canceled them for it.
Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem at NFL game and was removed from his team after that season, and no other NFL team would take him.
No openly atheist or agnostic president would get elected in the USA, because he is cancelled before he even gets started.
Birth control and abortions have been cancelled in many places.. Same with gay stuff... Anything the church doesn't like in countries where they hold sway.
Just recently, Tennessee has criminalized drag performances that occur in public.
But maybe we should be asking why is the "right" being canceled more than the left in 1st world countries? Could it be that they do more stupidly outrageous stuff than their counterparts do? Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
-
Certainly in comments on that platform, Whirlpool, & Facebook, it would be easy to think that there is an overwhelming move to the right in the voting population, but that is not borne out by the voting figures from recent elections, where the minor parties from that political persuasion have been pretty much smashed, & even the "Moderate to fringe right" Liberal Party of Australia has done a lot worse than historically---badly enough for the coalition to lose power.
People are tribal creatures and most don't move. Here the D's almost always vote for the D candidate and the Rs almost always vote for the R candidate, it doesn't matter who the candidate is or what they're actually like, the thinking is that no matter how bad they are they must be better than the other party. The elections are typically decided by a handful of independents and swing voters, hence it's almost always a close race. I'd expect it works similarly in other places.
In Oz, we have compulsory voting, so you have to attend a polling place & either vote, or if you have some sort of "conscientious objection" to doing so, you can just get your name marked as attending & place the unmarked ballot paper in the box.
As a "secret vote", nobody knows you have made a "informal vote", nor cares.
These days, you are automatically enrolled if you are a citizen, & of voting age, so some of the things that are "a big deal" in other countries like "getting out the vote" are quite meaningless.
Unfortunately, some people try to appeal to an extreme fringe of the population by "appealing to their base", but such are by definition, a minority group, & their support is minimal.
Another thing, in Australia, you don't register as a voter of any political party, so nobody knows who you vote for, unless you tell them.
The downside is that you don't have the element of "grassroots democracy" in the choice of candidates, offered by the US "Primary" system.
That said, "swing voters" who are more likely to be centrist, have determined many elections.
Independents have, on some occasions had the "balance of power" in the H.O.R, but much more commonly in the Senate, but the latter case is after a govt has been elected.
-
The problem with "canceling" is that, if you look hard enough, you'll eventually find some offensive behaviour or statement from just about everyone, effectively cutting you off from a wide range of people and ideas unrelated to the offensive item. And finding offense is a major occupation these days, especially with hot trends like "anti-racism" and "allyship" encouraging people to take offense at things that aren't even directed at them.
I'm permanently banned from NextDoor (a "hyper-local" US-based message board service organized by geographic area) because I called gypsies "gypsies" in a thread and refused to adopt the mandated (by whom?) "Roma" or "Romani". I had been a major contributor to my community's board over the years, with many posts that neighbors had found interesting and helpful. Over the years I've helped reunite a neighbor with a lost pet, directed them to the appropriate government agency to resolve a problem, provided advice on various topics where I have expertise, posted little-known information about local history - all of which were appreciated. But now, thanks to one complaint - undoubtedly from a non-gypsy - all of that is gone. It really doesn't hurt me - it's the community that loses out.
-
Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!
Why not say your message out aloud? "Play by my rules or I'll deem you a hypocrite."
Wow, way to completely miss the point.
-
Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
Again you don't get what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob, if not being already part of the mob. In this case, circumstances have changed in very recent times. Adams would have been booted from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram a year ago, and also from Patreon if he was on there instead of locals. Even Youtube has recently mellowed out on the cancellations.
You can feel the tide changing, which is my Adam's only cancellation came from the newspapers and his syndication company. He wasn't cancelled anywhere else.
-
I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.
Dave, invocation of the term "woke" by definition implies a discussion of racism. That being the case, what is the topic of this thread, then?
*SNIP*
At this point the actual topic (or topics) is somewhat loosely-defined; as if one got some initial specifications from Marketing, then updates from Sales a while later, then still more from Accounting, Manufacturing, etc. You know the deal; something quite rather akin to, well, various editions of the Dilbert comic strip.
Within an engineering forum it should be possible to develop answers to these questions. After all, obviously this subject is important enough that it has now generated 13 pages of comments, a fair percentage of which are contributed by Dave, so it would seem that this subject is endorsed as being important. Therefore, an itemized understanding, or a revision of the outline that clearly specifies the boundary conditions would allow for a more optimized discussion.
Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!
It's easy, if you can't stop talking about race then just stay away from this thread. I will not lock it down because a huge percentage of the engineering audience loves Dilbert and it's a huge blow to have it effective vanish.
All your claptrap above to me indicates that you should well and truly stay away from this thread, because you won't be able to help yourself. Just put it on your ignore list.
Dave, that was actually an honest attempt to try to define the complexities of this issue. I've used a similar approach for when a project encounters difficulties where the various groups have different understandings of a project, such as what functions are included, costs, schedules, allocation of personnel, etc. I get that you are not enthusiastic about it and I will leave it be. Therefore, rather than trying to work through that outline, I would only ask one thing: apply your admonition fairly and squarely to all the posts and perspectives.
-
The Dixie chicks criticized George Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and conservatives immediately canceled them for it.
Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem at NFL game and was removed from his team after that season, and no other NFL team would take him.
No openly atheist or agnostic president would get elected in the USA, because he is cancelled before he even gets started.
Birth control and abortions have been cancelled in many places.. Same with gay stuff... Anything the church doesn't like in countries where they hold sway.
Just recently, Tennessee has criminalized drag performances that occur in public.
The Dixie Chicks got a lot of unfair criticism over that, I do agree there, but were they "cancelled" in the modern sense of the word? I don't actually know, I was not paying a lot of attention at the time. Did they get threatened with violence? Were their friends threatened for associating with them? Was anyone attacked or intimidated for going to one of their concerts for for speaking about them in a positive way? Did anyone bully venues into cancelling their shows? I don't have a problem with people deciding they don't want to support somebody and not buying whatever they're selling, that is not the same as cancelling them.
The Kaepernik thing I didn't really follow either, but wasn't he told not to take a knee (thus using his employment as a political platform) and he refused? If that's the case that is also not the same as being cancelled, if I spoke on behalf of my employer on some political cause it is likely I would be fired too. If he had used his own time and his own platform to send his message I doubt anyone would really have cared.
I would vote for an openly atheist presidential candidate so long as I liked what they had to offer as president, in fact I would prefer them to be openly atheist, but I don't think anyone is going to try to destroy a candidate for being atheist, they might not vote for them but again that is not the same thing.
The gay stuff, I don't really understand the conservative obsession with gays but it seems to have subsided some lately as other things have taken precedence, in general though I don't think gay people have reason to fear for their safety, even in deeply conservative areas people mostly mind their own business. There are exceptions of course, but I can't think of any cases where someone was bullied out of the public and silenced over being gay.
"Cancelling" is specifically the coordinated use of bullying tactics to harm, threaten, intimidate, harass, destroy or otherwise silence somebody and others associated with them by a mob of people.
-
Again you don't get what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob, if not being already part of the mob. In this case, circumstances have changed in very recent times. Adams would have been booted from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram a year ago, and also from Patreon if he was on there instead of locals. Even Youtube has recently mellowed out on the cancellations.
You can feel the tide changing, which is my Adam's only cancellation came from the newspapers and his syndication company. He wasn't cancelled anywhere else.
I would actually love to see some data on how big "the mob" is, however I'm not sure how it could be measured, maybe statistics pulled from Twitter would be the best source? My wild assed guess is that these rabid activists make up 5, maybe 10% max of the population of the USA, which I focus on because it's where I happen to live. They have a vastly outsized voice and influence. It's possible that fewer than 1% are responsible for 90% of the noise, but that is purely a guess.
-
But maybe we should be asking why is the "right" being canceled more than the left in 1st world countries? Could it be that they do more stupidly outrageous stuff than their counterparts do?
Could it be they on average have more compassion and better self-control, so they simply use social cancellation tactics less often than the left does?
-
I would actually love to see some data on how big "the mob" is, however I'm not sure how it could be measured, maybe statistics pulled from Twitter would be the best source? My wild assed guess is that these rabid activists make up 5, maybe 10% max of the population of the USA, which I focus on because it's where I happen to live. They have a vastly outsized voice and influence. It's possible that fewer than 1% are responsible for 90% of the noise, but that is purely a guess.
I can give you a real world example. One person, literally just ONE person in Sydney complained about a Bluey Episode where they used the term "Ooga-booga". Said it was a racial slur in western Sydney. The company paniced and actually redid that entire episode to change the words used.
I'm from western Sydney and I can assure you that the term is not a racial slur, as even the aboriginal kids used to use it to tease other kids.
And this is not uncommon, it's fear of a potential mob rather than the actual size of hte mob itself that dictates response from companies and people. Add a pinch of virtue signalling and it doesn't take many to get someone or something "cancelled".
-
The Dixie Chicks got a lot of unfair criticism over that, I do agree there, but were they "cancelled" in the modern sense of the word?
The Dixie Chicks were canceled by many country radio stations. A Colorado radio station even suspended two DJs for playing their music. So this is pretty similar to Adam's case, except it's radio vs newspaper.
Did they get threatened with violence? Were their friends threatened for associating with them? Was anyone attacked or intimidated for going to one of their concerts for for speaking about them in a positive way? Did anyone bully venues into cancelling their shows?
They got death threats. In Dallas they had to be escorted by police to and from the airport. Trash was dumped outside Strayer's home, etc...
I would vote for an openly atheist presidential candidate so long as I liked what they had to offer as president, in fact I would prefer them to be openly atheist, but I don't think anyone is going to try to destroy a candidate for being atheist, they might not vote for them but again that is not the same thing.
It IS like that in the USA though.
There are exceptions of course, but I can't think of any cases where someone was bullied out of the public and silenced over being gay.
Surely you jest. It is only recently (2011) that gays were allowed to serve in the US military. Canada, New Zealand and Australia started allowing it in the 90's...
"Cancelling" is specifically the coordinated use of bullying tactics to harm, threaten, intimidate, harass, destroy or otherwise silence somebody and others associated with them by a mob of people.
That's defines pretty much every Trump speech.
-
Bret Weinstein is an example of the left wing eating their own. He is a progressive liberal and he got "cancelled", threatened with violence and effectively forced out of his career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
At least in his case he and his wife were able to sue the university and won $500,000 which I think was a bit low relative to what they went through but it's something.
Ok, although the original idea may be open to question, it probably did work, & was a "wake up call" that the minority people in the Uni were valuable contributors, even if it was "Gee----- Fred, the old Inuit guy from stores, actually does stuff".
Enter the "Administrator", who, in typical elephantine management manner, got the nuance of the thing all wrong.
Instead of being a day to ponder on the contribution of a particular group, it became "a day off", with the silly idea of a voluntary off campus program------ how many would attend, I wonder?
Why didn't Weinstein just point out that the idea completely "watered down" the original intent of the day, instead of using an argument which could be shot down by saying it wasn't compulsory?
The first argument would have still held water, even in the face of such a statement.
The article is a bit sloppy, as it doesn't tell us whether Rashida Love was the "Administrator", the organiser of the original day off for minorities, or of the "off campus program".
It sounds like "the mob" in this case were just students who, as is their wont, "got the bull by the horns".
I think campus police may rightly be wary of "quelling student rioters"----"Kent State" casts a long shadow!
In any case, it is something that in earlier times, nobody outside the USA , or even, the State of Washington, would have known, or cared about----we definitely heard about things like the aforementioned "Kent State" incident.
-
Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
Again you don't get what the problem actually is.
What do you mean by "again"? This was my very 1st comment on this thread.
I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
I enjoyed his comics and am sad to see them gone from my local paper. But after listening to what he said, and trying to see his side, I can't really support it. I have a strong dislike for the woke nonsense, but as Adam himself admits, he was deliberately poking the bear. So why be outraged or surprised when the bear takes a swipe?
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob, if not being already part of the mob.
Well yea, because its just business and they decided that keeping Dilbert was going to cost them more in revenue than cutting him loose would.
You call it "the mob" whereas I call it "the filter"... We are bombarded daily with a ton of information. To deal with this we need to categorize our sources into trusted and untrusted sources.
For example, if I have excellent knowledge on subject X and I see person Y blatantly lying about X then I'm not going to trust them about subject Z which I might have limited knowledge of. Not worth my time to listen. And this is what the "right" has done. They have blown their credibility by throwing in with the WEF, Soros, Elite, Pizza-Gate, and other conspiracies. It used to be that conservatives were about balanced budgets, pro business, and small governments, but now they cater to the crazy extremists. Yes, the left sufferers from the same to a certain extent, but generally doesn't outright deny science based evidence.
-
Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
Again you don't get what the problem actually is.
What do you mean by "again"? This was my very 1st comment on this thread.
Didn't mean you specifically, but that I've covered this same thing before in the thread.
-
Yes, the left sufferers from the same to a certain extent, but generally doesn't outright deny science based evidence.
The left has its own special relationship with science. The right ignores and denies science based evidence, but the left puts the science label on stuff and calls it fact, no matter what the state of science there is behind it. Science has become a cult like religion for all those who found math difficult from the time the classes moved from counting to arithmetic.
A relatively benign example is when reports of record dollar losses from storm damage come out after a hurricane. The left will immediately trot this out as evidence of climate change. There is an element of truth in this, but by far the bigger part of it is the incredible amount of investment in buildings, houses and businesses in areas that have always been subject to storm damage. Throw in inflation and these record dollar amounts would be happening even if climate change reduced the number and intensity of storms. Note that I am not saying that climate change is not real, or that it doesn't increase the number and intensity of storms. On this forum I shouldn't have to add that last statement, but the insanity has struck even here, fortunately rarely.
-
Throw in inflation and these record dollar amounts would be happening even if climate change reduced the number and intensity of storms.
Headlines are rarely nuanced but an honest report will state the facts in the body of the article. I don't think this a left/right thing but more of a click-bait attention grabber technique that most media organizations use. A proper study/article would use inflation adjusted figures.
I'm sure the insurance industry has run the real numbers and are acting accordingly.
-
Literally not a mob cancellation. Try again.
The Dixie chicks criticized George Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and conservatives immediately canceled them for it.
Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem at NFL game and was removed from his team after that season, and no other NFL team would take him.
No openly atheist or agnostic president would get elected in the USA, because he is cancelled before he even gets started.
Birth control and abortions have been cancelled in many places.. Same with gay stuff... Anything the church doesn't like in countries where they hold sway.
Just recently, Tennessee has criminalized drag performances that occur in public.
But maybe we should be asking why is the "right" being canceled more than the left in 1st world countries? Could it be that they do more stupidly outrageous stuff than their counterparts do? Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
Can it be the "right" want to clamp down on things because some on the left have pushed them so hard, to the point they're causing problems?
I see plenty of stupidly outrageous stuff from the left. The gender stuff is the worst, especially irreversible treatments on children and men in women's prisons.
A couple of examples:
Most people are pro-choice, but when the extreme-left allow abortion right up to 9 months including eugenics, it goes against the principles of most sensible people.
The majority have no problem with drag, but when the far-left start involving children in the business, it makes people uncomfortable.
This enables those who are extremely anti-abortion/drag to cite the above in order to get support from ordinary people on the centre.
-
Can it be the "right" want to clamp down on things because some on the left have pushed them so hard, to the point they're causing problems?
Heh, I guess I know where you are coming from.
The "alt-right" branding of that boring mainstream liberal shrink from Canada is one of the more entertaining things to come from cancel culture.
(In an ironic twist, the guy himself is recently ranting about Internet anonymity and begging to have his "cowardly troll demons" removed by Twitter. Messianic complex is a hell of a drug - works both ways in this case.)
Perhaps related to thread topic:
Somebody is currently releasing a series of podcasts about all the drama surrounding Joanne Rowling. Starts with accusations of unironic witchcraft all the way back to the '90s (a pet peeve of the author for personal reasons) and the latter parts progress towards you-know-what.
https://www.thefp.com/witchtrials (https://www.thefp.com/witchtrials)
Can't help but notice that all those problems, no matter how diverse, somehow originated from one problematic continent :P
-
Can't help but notice that all those problems, no matter how diverse, somehow originated from one problematic continent :P
Europe, most notably Germany.
-
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'.
Yeah, he was admitting in the interview that he expected to be cancelled. And he did it anyway, because opening a discussion about it is important. And he is right.
One of his example was in that specific interview: If you are getting hired because of DEI, then good for you, hoverer, a more qualified person (who doesn't get the job) will hate you for it. And you always will be labeled as the diversity hire, behind your back. Reasonable question, swept under the rug for now.
There was a bunch of other ones, but we were asked by Dave not to discuss it here.
I get your point, but to base such an 'important discussion' upon a poll he admittedly questioned the validity of seems a rather poor way to go about it.
If you're going to have such an 'important discussion', even going so far as to intentionally get 'cancelled' to prove a point, wouldn't it be better to base that discussion around something honest or factual?
EDIT - I find it somewhat amusing that Florida is now considering a law that would require non-'professional' bloggers to register with the state before they wrote about any politician... What happened to the grand 'Freedom of Speech'? Doesn't 'prohibition' go beyond 'cancellation'? I mention this because it seems to me that in America, many Adams supporters fall into the more conservative camp that Florida represents.
-
But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'.
Yeah, he was admitting in the interview that he expected to be cancelled. And he did it anyway, because opening a discussion about it is important. And he is right.
One of his example was in that specific interview: If you are getting hired because of DEI, then good for you, hoverer, a more qualified person (who doesn't get the job) will hate you for it. And you always will be labeled as the diversity hire, behind your back. Reasonable question, swept under the rug for now.
There was a bunch of other ones, but we were asked by Dave not to discuss it here.
I get your point, but to base such an 'important discussion' upon a poll he admittedly questioned the validity of seems a rather poor way to go about it.
If you're going to have such an 'important discussion', even going so far as to intentionally get 'cancelled' to prove a point, wouldn't it be better to base that discussion around something honest or factual?
EDIT - I find it somewhat amusing that Florida is now considering a law that would require non-'professional' bloggers to register with the state before they wrote about any politician... What happened to the grand 'Freedom of Speech'? Doesn't 'prohibition' go beyond 'cancellation'? I mention this because it seems to me that in America, many Adams supporters fall into the more conservative camp that Florida represents.
He also made the point, that it doesn't really matter if the results are 47% or 25% or 65%. What matter is that it's a significant amount and it should be talked about. And it's hard to get concrete data, because even asking the question would get you cancelled.
I don't think you really get the issue. Scientists, who were following the scientific method, and producing data were silenced, because the left didn't like the outcome.
About that Florida law: I agree, sounds like overreach, and they shouldn't make it law.
Ultimately, whataboutism isn't really helpful. There will be countless examples where people do bad things, but that doesn't give us the right to do bad things.
It's fundamentally wrong to collectively silence someone.
If what they are saying is wrong, there are courts to decide on that, and laws that say what can and cannot be said.
-
He also made the point, that it doesn't really matter if the results are 47% or 25% or 65%. What matter is that it's a significant amount and it should be talked about. And it's hard to get concrete data, because even asking the question would get you cancelled.
I don't think you really get the issue. Scientists, who were following the scientific method, and producing data were silenced, because the left didn't like the outcome.
Are we talking about the same Rasmussen poll? Because I've not seen ONE professional opinion suggesting that poll was 'scientific' or accurate in any way... And Adams seems like a smart enough guy to know that results don't matter if the poll is flawed to begin with (which is what he told a colleague). And putting aside the loaded phrasing of the question, out of the meager 1K polled only 13% of those were black. Hardly 'scientific'. And certainly not worthy of the foundation of an intentionally career ending 'important discussion'.
I won't disagree that in these times any racial discussion can be a sensitive issue, but certainly an actual scientific based poll would be preferable to a "poll" produced by a biased company that appears more intent on creating confrontational memes than anything else.
EDIT - If this decision process is indicative of Adam's engineering abilities, I'd be calling his credentials into question. He really ought to know better. And I suspect he does.
EDIT 2 - I see that Adams is following the conservative mantra of 'doubling down' on the issue. He needs a bigger shovel.
-
He also made the point, that it doesn't really matter if the results are 47% or 25% or 65%. What matter is that it's a significant amount and it should be talked about. And it's hard to get concrete data, because even asking the question would get you cancelled.
I don't think you really get the issue. Scientists, who were following the scientific method, and producing data were silenced, because the left didn't like the outcome.
Are we talking about the same Rasmussen poll? Because I've not seen ONE professional opinion suggesting that poll was 'scientific' or accurate in any way... And Adams seems like a smart enough guy to know that results don't matter if the poll is flawed to begin with (which is what he told a colleague). And putting aside the loaded phrasing of the question, out of the meager 1K polled only 13% of those were black. Hardly 'scientific'. And certainly not worthy of the foundation of an intentionally career ending 'important discussion'.
I won't disagree that in these times any racial discussion can be a sensitive issue, but certainly an actual scientific based poll would be preferable to a "poll" produced by a biased company that appears more intent on creating confrontational memes than anything else.
EDIT - If this decision process is indicative of Adam's engineering abilities, I'd be calling his credentials into question. He really ought to know better. And I suspect he does.
EDIT 2 - I see that Adams is following the conservative mantra of 'doubling down' on the issue. He needs a bigger shovel.
Does anyone care about actual science when it comes to emotional topics such as race? There was a lot of race baiting by activists and the mainstream media recently because a dodgy study showed black people are more likely to die in police custody, which is complete misinformation. The disparity goes away once the fact that blacks are more likely to commit crime and be in police custody, is taken into account. If you mention that, they either call or racist, or start making excuses about poverty and systemic racism, despite the fact there are poor people from other ethnic minorities who don't commit the same level of crime.
-
Does anyone care about actual science when it comes to emotional topics such as race?
So is the issue now that Adams is being persecuted simply for claiming that white people should get the f--- away from blacks and the whole thing of working together is a lost cause? I mean, if you disregard the poll because nobody cares about the poll anyway?
In that case, I guess he's just being a straight up racist who deserves what he got.
EDIT - also, not trying to minimize your point but it's virtually impossible IMO to separate race and poverty issues, especially in urban areas.
-
Does anyone care about actual science when it comes to emotional topics such as race?
So is the issue now that Adams is being persecuted simply for claiming that white people should get the f--- away from blacks and the whole thing of working together is a lost cause? I mean, if you disregard the poll because nobody cares about the poll anyway?
In that case, I guess he's just being a straight up racist who deserves what he got.
No of course not. After all, race baiting activists pretty much do the same thing, without being cancelled.
-
Does anyone care about actual science when it comes to emotional topics such as race?
So is the issue now that Adams is being persecuted simply for claiming that white people should get the f--- away from blacks and the whole thing of working together is a lost cause? I mean, if you disregard the poll because nobody cares about the poll anyway?
In that case, I guess he's just being a straight up racist who deserves what he got.
No of course not. After all, race baiting activists pretty much do the same thing, without being cancelled.
Just curious if you can provide an example of someone publishing a similar but opposite view that didn't get cancelled? I looked but could not find any person or group suggesting that blacks should write off whites and just get the heck away from them and were not held accountable in some way... Even the BLM movement does not suggest that.
-
To give an example that's been bugging me for a while now: if you say that all women should wear dresses, you're a misogynist. But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
It's not about the content of the message (both of these examples reinforce gender roles, which society has been fighting against for decades) -- it's about who says it and how much of a stink they'll raise if they don't get their way.
-
It's fundamentally wrong to collectively silence someone.
If what they are saying is wrong, there are courts to decide on that, and laws that say what can and cannot be said.
This is another point I take issue with. Show me where Adams has been 'silenced'. Because as far as I can see he's still publishing material and right now more in the news than he's been for a while (coincidence?). And he can still say whatever he wants.
There's nothing associated with Freedom of Speech that guarantees you a megaphone to say it.
-
But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
Um... Not sure everyone would agree with that. I, for one, wouldn't think that's OK to remark to someone in public. I might think that to myself, but it wouldn't be appropriate to tell that to a guy wearing a dress.
-
Um... Not sure everyone would agree with that. I, for one, wouldn't think that's OK to remark to someone in public.
Of course most reasonable people would disagree. But this is literally what people are saying (usually not as direct) and they're not getting immediate backlash for it.
(Not to say that the backlash doesn't exist, but just look at how many attempts there were to cancel Kiwifarms and how lauded those were on Twitter)
-
Kind of hard to get cancelled when the majority of the population supports you.
Again you don't get what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob, if not being already part of the mob. In this case, circumstances have changed in very recent times. Adams would have been booted from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram a year ago, and also from Patreon if he was on there instead of locals. Even Youtube has recently mellowed out on the cancellations.
You can feel the tide changing, which is my Adam's only cancellation came from the newspapers and his syndication company. He wasn't cancelled anywhere else.
If half the population support Adams then presumably the other half don't. Then a population sized mob would be evenly matched. What pressure would the mob apply to the platforms? Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
I think the pressure is more likely to come from advertisers and they themselves are vulnerable to financial pressure from the mob.
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
-
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
I agree with that and really believe that has been his intention the entire time. I think the whole thing is a PR stunt designed to transition his work to new mediums.
And that's what makes it so sad - people using divisive content to pursue personal ambitions at the expense of others. Because if one thing has been scientifically proven, it's that divisive content drives involvement, which drives income - just look at the participation of this thread as an example.
-
Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
A good example of disproportionate representation is this very forum. Someone says something and, typically, only those who disagree will comment. Thus the majority of responses will be disagreement, and it's quite likely that the original commenter will be shut down by just a small number of users.
The cancel mob are typically vocal. The other mob (that is, those not cancelling) are typically not, thus only the cancellers are heard and, overall, the sound is "CANCEL".
-
Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
A good example of disproportionate representation is this very forum. Someone says something and, typically, only those who disagree will comment.
True, but it's pretty obvious a comment is widely supported because it will receive many likes.
-
He also made the point, that it doesn't really matter if the results are 47% or 25% or 65%. What matter is that it's a significant amount and it should be talked about. And it's hard to get concrete data, because even asking the question would get you cancelled.
I don't think you really get the issue. Scientists, who were following the scientific method, and producing data were silenced, because the left didn't like the outcome.
Are we talking about the same Rasmussen poll? Because I've not seen ONE professional opinion suggesting that poll was 'scientific' or accurate in any way... And Adams seems like a smart enough guy to know that results don't matter if the poll is flawed to begin with (which is what he told a colleague). And putting aside the loaded phrasing of the question, out of the meager 1K polled only 13% of those were black. Hardly 'scientific'. And certainly not worthy of the foundation of an intentionally career ending 'important discussion'.
I won't disagree that in these times any racial discussion can be a sensitive issue, but certainly an actual scientific based poll would be preferable to a "poll" produced by a biased company that appears more intent on creating confrontational memes than anything else.
EDIT - If this decision process is indicative of Adam's engineering abilities, I'd be calling his credentials into question. He really ought to know better. And I suspect he does.
EDIT 2 - I see that Adams is following the conservative mantra of 'doubling down' on the issue. He needs a bigger shovel.
If 13% of the responders were black, that's actually a representative poll, considering they are 12% of the US population based on the latest census.
I probably didn't made myself clear, but when I talked about scientists being silenced, I wasn't talking about Scott, or this poll specifically, but the scope of the general issue. Social scientist, psychologists, biologists.
It's fundamentally wrong to collectively silence someone.
If what they are saying is wrong, there are courts to decide on that, and laws that say what can and cannot be said.
This is another point I take issue with. Show me where Adams has been 'silenced'. Because as far as I can see he's still publishing material and right now more in the news than he's been for a while (coincidence?). And he can still say whatever he wants.
There's nothing associated with Freedom of Speech that guarantees you a megaphone to say it.
So the guy said something in a youtube video, and the next day newspapers that were paying him cancelled their contract. His patreon gone. Income gone. Luckily he will survive, but not everyone can afford it, so they stay silent.
Canadian truckers when that protest was ongoing. They had their bank account shut down. People tried donating them money, and their bank refused to run the transaction. Tell me, that you are not OK with this please.
-
Canadian truckers when that protest was ongoing. They had their bank account shut down. People tried donating them money, and their bank refused to run the transaction. Tell me, that you are not OK with this please.
I think a problem is that so many forms of 'communicating opinion' are sometimes mixed together and equalized, where in reality they are often quite different.
The trucker protests were not simply expressions of opinion - they had real world impacts such as blockades, occupations and convoys that led to supply chain disruptions and tangible negative impacts to society. Protests often end up restricting the rights of others to some degree.
In any event, I do not consider the Canadian trucker protests to be the same 'cancel culture' issue as the Scott Adams example. I doubt that banks would have restricted donation processing if those people simply had a webpage and a few YouTube videos.
EDIT - Also, I wonder how much of an issue the whole vaccination thing would have been if biased misinformation had not been as prevalent as it turned out to be... I am continually amazed how people are drawn into conspiracy theories despite access to nearly unlimited information. Though there is some commonality when it comes down to someone benefitting financially...
If 13% of the responders were black, that's actually a representative poll, considering they are 12% of the US population based on the latest census.
I probably didn't made myself clear, but when I talked about scientists being silenced, I wasn't talking about Scott, or this poll specifically, but the scope of the general issue. Social scientist, psychologists, biologists.
The polling pool does matter. Even if you equate the 13% poll participation with the overall black population in the US, small sampling inevitably leads to inaccurate results. Basing such an argument on the opinions of 50-60 black people should hardly be sufficient to drive a career ending decision (biased poll question not withstanding). A good engineer would know better. Which is why I think Adams pulled a PR stunt more than any attempt to create a 'discussion' or legitimate example case.
EDIT - OT, I find it amusing how Adams claimed to 'identify as black'... Reminds me of a real word Clayton Bigsby.
-
Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
A good example of disproportionate representation is this very forum. Someone says something and, typically, only those who disagree will comment.
True, but it's pretty obvious a comment is widely supported because it will receive many likes.
JOOI, how many likes did that post get? In fact, did any post in this thread get any likes at all?
Edit: I think you mean social media posts get likes? If that's the case (that is, that's what you meant rather than that they do have likes) then I am not fully convinced - if there are no dislikes then the likes are just random noise since you don't know what proportion of viewers gave them. Even with dislikes available they're not that important - actual text saying something carries far more weight than a heart with a 3-digit number, if only because the text can be quoted elsewhere and the hearts can't.
Further, to get a like someone has to post something, and we already know they liklihood that a zillion people will post "yes, I agree" is a lot lower that someone posting a disagreement.
-
In his first tv appearance following his YouTube debacle, Scott doubled down justifying his remarks. Though he did offer this tidbit:
“What I want your audience to know is that when I complained about Black people having a bad attitude about White people, that was me saying nothing about Black people,” he said. “It was saying, ‘I don’t want to be around people who have a bad feeling about me.'”
Is that how any of you perceived his original comments? Because I don't recall any disclaimer when he suggested "the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people… because there is no fixing this.”
Now we find that some people just don't want to be around him. You'd think he'd be fine with that.
Abrams, who founded Mediaite, said he initially assumed Adams was being unfairly maligned before he listened to what he actually said.
“Then I went and listened to the entirety of what he said, all the context,” Abrams told Cuomo. “And it sounds to me from your interview like he’s saying on the one hand, it was taken out of context. And then on the other hand, he’s saying it was intentional hyperbole. Those two things are at odds with one another. Either it was taken out of context, or he knew exactly what he was saying and he was trying to get things going. And it seems to me like it’s the latter. It wasn’t taken out of context.”
EDIT - Scott Adams interview with Chris Cuomo: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-adams-claims-black-america-is-actually-completely-fine-with-his-racist-comments/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-adams-claims-black-america-is-actually-completely-fine-with-his-racist-comments/)
Chris Cuomo's argument for 'uncancelling' Adams: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-cuomo-calls-for-scott-adams-to-be-uncanceled-after-racist-comments-spars-with-dan-abrams/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-cuomo-calls-for-scott-adams-to-be-uncanceled-after-racist-comments-spars-with-dan-abrams/)
“It’s almost entirely white people that canceled me, it might be entirely, because they’re the ones that own the publishing companies and the newspapers,” he told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo in an interview Monday.
So.. I guess you need to be Jewish to hold someone to account for claiming the Holocaust never happened?
-
Does anyone care about actual science when it comes to emotional topics such as race?
So is the issue now that Adams is being persecuted simply for claiming that white people should get the f--- away from blacks and the whole thing of working together is a lost cause? I mean, if you disregard the poll because nobody cares about the poll anyway?
In that case, I guess he's just being a straight up racist who deserves what he got.
No of course not. After all, race baiting activists pretty much do the same thing, without being cancelled.
Just curious if you can provide an example of someone publishing a similar but opposite view that didn't get cancelled? I looked but could not find any person or group suggesting that blacks should write off whites and just get the heck away from them and were not held accountable in some way... Even the BLM movement does not suggest that.
They say worse things than Scott (https://tinyurl.com/3prhs6m8) and don't get cancelled. She appears to be a diversity hire, given how inarticulate she is.
In his first tv appearance following his YouTube debacle, Scott doubled down justifying his remarks. Though he did offer this tidbit:
“What I want your audience to know is that when I complained about Black people having a bad attitude about White people, that was me saying nothing about Black people,” he said. “It was saying, ‘I don’t want to be around people who have a bad feeling about me.'”
Is that how any of you perceived his original comments?
Yes, that's how his comments are perceived by many people, especially on the right.
https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic?t=377
EDIT: I posted the wrong video.
-
I can give you a real world example. One person, literally just ONE person in Sydney complained about a Bluey Episode where they used the term "Ooga-booga". Said it was a racial slur in western Sydney. The company paniced and actually redid that entire episode to change the words used.
I'm from western Sydney and I can assure you that the term is not a racial slur, as even the aboriginal kids used to use it to tease other kids.
And this is not uncommon, it's fear of a potential mob rather than the actual size of hte mob itself that dictates response from companies and people. Add a pinch of virtue signalling and it doesn't take many to get someone or something "cancelled".
It would be an interesting experiment to pick some totally innocuous word and file a complaint that it is a slur and see if the same thing happens again. >:D
-
Just curious if you can provide an example of someone publishing a similar but opposite view that didn't get cancelled? I looked but could not find any person or group suggesting that blacks should write off whites and just get the heck away from them and were not held accountable in some way... Even the BLM movement does not suggest that.
They worse things than Scott (https://tinyurl.com/3prhs6m8) and don't get cancelled. She appears to be a diversity hire, given how inarticulate she is.
Touché. Agreed. She makes an excellent case for 'cancellation'. It's not about color - it's about content. And when I say 'cancellation', I don't mean stripping away free speech - I mean taking away the megaphone that allows people to push those opinions further than they would naturally go on their own, because sensible individuals would limit it's dispersion.
I think the 'cancel culture' debate is certainly worthy of discussion, and I would agree it's biased to favor liberal ideology. But if you're going to have that discussion, have that discussion. IMO it seems like Adams and many of his supporters are claiming that was the intent here, but I don't buy it.
-
The Dixie Chicks got a lot of unfair criticism over that, I do agree there, but were they "cancelled" in the modern sense of the word?
The Dixie Chicks were canceled by many country radio stations. A Colorado radio station even suspended two DJs for playing their music. So this is pretty similar to Adam's case, except it's radio vs newspaper.
Did they get threatened with violence? Were their friends threatened for associating with them? Was anyone attacked or intimidated for going to one of their concerts for for speaking about them in a positive way? Did anyone bully venues into cancelling their shows?
They got death threats. In Dallas they had to be escorted by police to and from the airport. Trash was dumped outside Strayer's home, etc...
I would vote for an openly atheist presidential candidate so long as I liked what they had to offer as president, in fact I would prefer them to be openly atheist, but I don't think anyone is going to try to destroy a candidate for being atheist, they might not vote for them but again that is not the same thing.
It IS like that in the USA though.
There are exceptions of course, but I can't think of any cases where someone was bullied out of the public and silenced over being gay.
Surely you jest. It is only recently (2011) that gays were allowed to serve in the US military. Canada, New Zealand and Australia started allowing it in the 90's...
"Cancelling" is specifically the coordinated use of bullying tactics to harm, threaten, intimidate, harass, destroy or otherwise silence somebody and others associated with them by a mob of people.
That's defines pretty much every Trump speech.
Radio stations stopping playing something isn't cancellation, unless they did so out of fear because of bullying by the public. Radio stations firing DJs over playing their songs is absolutely wrong in my opinion but once again it is not the same, there is no outrage mob demanding they be fired, so this is still not being cancelled. Death threats are something that should be taken very seriously and anyone making such threats should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, not simply allowed to continue or even openly supported as occurs with the leftist mobs.
No I'm not kidding at all, not allowing them to serve in the military was wrong and I disagree with it but it isn't bullying and it isn't a threat of harm, it's just an outdated rule that was changed. Gays have faced some absolutely atrocious treatment in the past and they still do in some parts of the world, but not in developed nations. But that has nothing to do with the cancel mob, it's just a deflection.
Trump is a bully and I can't stand the guy, never could, but that isn't cancelling, and it isn't anything related to any sort of mob, it's just one jerk.
So either you just don't get it, or you are grasping at straws trying to find something, anything equivalent to the leftist cancel mob and you are coming up empty handed and deflecting with unrelated or slightly related things that still aren't the same, not even close.
-
Touché. Agreed. She makes an excellent case for 'cancellation'. It's not about color - it's about content. And when I say 'cancellation', I don't mean stripping away free speech - I mean taking away the megaphone that allows people to push those opinions further than they would naturally go on their own, because sensible individuals would limit it's dispersion.
I think the 'cancel culture' debate is certainly worthy of discussion, and I would agree it's biased to favor liberal ideology. But if you're going to have that discussion, have that discussion. IMO it seems like Adams and many of his supporters are claiming that was the intent here, but I don't buy it.
If we wanted to be fair, there would be an angry mob forcing their way into the university where she teaches and demanding she be fired immediately. They would threaten her with violence, threaten and harass her family and friends, she would be kicked off of social media, blacklisted from jobs and subject to a hyperbolic smear campaign. Retracting her statement or apologizing for offending would result in accelerating the frenzied attack. I would never actually advocate for this sort of behavior, but like the riot that occurred on Jan 6 it might similarly force people to finally acknowledge that rioting is a serious problem that should be stopped immediately.
-
If half the population support Adams then presumably the other half don't. Then a population sized mob would be evenly matched. What pressure would the mob apply to the platforms? Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
I think the pressure is more likely to come from advertisers and they themselves are vulnerable to financial pressure from the mob.
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
Because those of us that support Adam' right to say something controversial are not the mob types, we believe that ganging up and bullying a person is fundamentally wrong. We believe in laws, and applying those laws equally across all citizens. We don't behave like spoiled brat children and throw a tantrum every time we don't get our way. "The mob" is only a very small portion of the population, it is an extremely loud minority that actively engage in bullying, primarily via social media.
-
Touché. Agreed. She makes an excellent case for 'cancellation'. It's not about color - it's about content. And when I say 'cancellation', I don't mean stripping away free speech - I mean taking away the megaphone that allows people to push those opinions further than they would naturally go on their own, because sensible individuals would limit it's dispersion.
I think the 'cancel culture' debate is certainly worthy of discussion, and I would agree it's biased to favor liberal ideology. But if you're going to have that discussion, have that discussion. IMO it seems like Adams and many of his supporters are claiming that was the intent here, but I don't buy it.
If we wanted to be fair, there would be an angry mob forcing their way into the university where she teaches and demanding she be fired immediately. They would threaten her with violence, threaten and harass her family and friends, she would be kicked off of social media, blacklisted from jobs and subject to a hyperbolic smear campaign. Retracting her statement or apologizing for offending would result in accelerating the frenzied attack. I would never actually advocate for this sort of behavior, but like the riot that occurred on Jan 6 it might similarly force people to finally acknowledge that rioting is a serious problem that should be stopped immediately.
I'm guessing the Charlottesville torch group would volunteer for that assignment. And while there may be a bias towards liberalism regarding cancellation, the violent rhetoric response is most assuredly associated with the conservative groups.
PS - I think you should pass your message on to the people pulling books out of public libraries, or those who threatening election polling workers.
-
To give an example that's been bugging me for a while now: if you say that all women should wear dresses, you're a misogynist. But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
It's not about the content of the message (both of these examples reinforce gender roles, which society has been fighting against for decades) -- it's about who says it and how much of a stink they'll raise if they don't get their way.
Citation needed. Who says this? And who takes those people seriously?
Drag queens are not necessarily transwomen and no one would look at a character like Lord Flasheart and say he's a closeted woman... ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfbSHW9uGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfbSHW9uGA)
-
I'm guessing the Charlottesville torch group would volunteer for that assignment. And while there may be a bias towards liberalism regarding cancellation, the violent rhetoric response is most assuredly associated with the conservative groups.
I don't know who that group is, but what's stopping them? They could volunteer right now, but they haven't, and neither has anyone else. For all the talk about violent right wingers there doesn't appear to be any action taking place.
The cancel mob is a product of social media, and social media has largely been under the control of the far left so I suspect that is largely the reason for the fact that the cancel mob is almost entirely on the left. If there was a popular right wing social media service the landscape might be different. Plenty of people are jerks, and being a jerk is not a partisan trait. My issue is that there is a massive double standard on who is allowed to be a jerk, and what they are allowed to do. I have a high tolerance for speech and a very low tolerance for actual physical violence and threats.
-
I'm guessing the Charlottesville torch group would volunteer for that assignment. And while there may be a bias towards liberalism regarding cancellation, the violent rhetoric response is most assuredly associated with the conservative groups.
I don't know who that group is, but what's stopping them? They could volunteer right now, but they haven't, and neither has anyone else. For all the talk about violent right wingers there doesn't appear to be any action taking place.
Uhhhhhhh...........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
-
If there was a popular right wing social media service the landscape might be different.
I guess you haven't heard of AM radio? Rush may be gone, but the right wing thrives on Amplitude Modulation.
I don't know who that group is, but what's stopping them? They could volunteer right now, but they haven't, and neither has anyone else. For all the talk about violent right wingers there doesn't appear to be any action taking place.
I guess it's going to surprise you to learn that the #1 domestic threat to our nation is Right Wing Extremism (https://www.cfr.org/blog/violent-far-right-terrorist-threat-american-law-enforcement)...
-
Since it looks like nobody caught my point, I'll have to reply to myself.
But maybe we should be asking why is the "right" being canceled more than the left in 1st world countries? Could it be that they do more stupidly outrageous stuff than their counterparts do?
Could it be they on average have more compassion and better self-control, so they simply use social cancellation tactics less often than the left does?
The answer to all three questions is the same, No.
This is a key part of the mechanisms discussed here: By defining the intent negative, the message does not need to be considered.
You can see this in several posts before this one. Scott Adams' cancellation is considered "just" by those who "do not buy he had an innocuous motive".
Cancellation by a vocal but powerful minority is always reprehensible, regardless who does it. (It also looks like there is quite a lot of variance as to who gets targeted, politically, depending on geography and local culture or political landscape.)
It is perfectly okay to say you ignore someone and why, but when you start demanding others do so too –– or else –– you go over the line. It is that simple. Persuasion via argument is okay, but demanding, especially demanding based on emotive reasons or "I cannot believe you can defend them" -type of emotional manipulation, is never okay.
If we put emotions and beliefs above logic, we should just go back to tribal warfare, before we nuke the entire planet to hell.
-
If there was a popular right wing social media service the landscape might be different.
I guess you haven't heard of AM radio? Rush may be gone, but the right wing thrives on Amplitude Modulation.
Yea its a laughable fiction that, somehow, right wing media doesn't reach a wide audience.
Talk Radio, FOX, New York Post, the DailyMail.
Let's also not forget Sinclair Broadcast Group which controls a vast number of local news outlets in the US (up to 40% coverage):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
-
Uhhhhhhh...........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
That's totally unrelated to the topic at hand, and that was one riot which unlike the many months of violent and destructive politically motivated riots leading up to it, that one was dealt with swiftly as all of them should have been. It was shut down in hours, and hundreds of people have been arrested and charged, that is exactly how all of the riots should have been handled but weren't. Also it was not particularly violent, as far as I know there was not a shot fired by any of the rioters, they were just a bunch of ignorant goobers that got out of hand and they have been punished accordingly. The only good to come from that is it finally exposed a glaring double standard in that some groups are allowed to riot and destroy with impunity while others are swiftly crushed. I do fine it interesting how much people use that event as a deflection when anyone mentions the scores of larger and more violent riots that took place leading up to it.
-
It is perfectly okay to say you ignore someone and why, but when you start demanding others do so too –– or else –– you go over the line. It is that simple. Persuasion via argument is okay, but demanding, especially demanding based on emotive reasons or "I cannot believe you can defend them" -type of emotional manipulation, is never okay.
If we put emotions and beliefs above logic, we should just go back to tribal warfare, before we nuke the entire planet to hell.
I think part of that is what you define as 'cancellation'.
Have any of those examples been explicitly prevented from making their opinions known to the public?
No. They might have their megaphones take away, but none have had their freedom of speech curtailed.
-
Uhhhhhhh...........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
That's totally unrelated to the topic at hand, and that was one riot which unlike the many months of violent and destructive politically motivated riots leading up to it, that one was dealt with swiftly as all of them should have been. It was shut down in hours, and hundreds of people have been arrested and charged, that is exactly how all of the riots should have been handled but weren't. Also it was not particularly violent, as far as I know there was not a shot fired by any of the rioters, they were just a bunch of ignorant goobers that got out of hand and they have been punished accordingly. The only good to come from that is it finally exposed a glaring double standard in that some groups are allowed to riot and destroy with impunity while others are swiftly crushed. I do fine it interesting how much people use that event as a deflection when anyone mentions the scores of larger and more violent riots that took place leading up to it.
Not to go too far off tangent, but there is a decisive difference between a riot and an intent to overthrow a federal government. And that was the intention of the majority involved on Jan 6, even if they were too unorganized to achieve it.
-
If there was a popular right wing social media service the landscape might be different.
I guess you haven't heard of AM radio? Rush may be gone, but the right wing thrives on Amplitude Modulation.
I don't know who that group is, but what's stopping them? They could volunteer right now, but they haven't, and neither has anyone else. For all the talk about violent right wingers there doesn't appear to be any action taking place.
I guess it's going to surprise you to learn that the #1 domestic threat to our nation is Right Wing Extremism (https://www.cfr.org/blog/violent-far-right-terrorist-threat-american-law-enforcement)...
Hang on, you're calling AM radio social media? Really? Twitter had better look out, 710 AM is taking over :-DD
And you're using a blog post to prove that far right extremism is the #1 domestic threat? Seriously? :palm:
I've been liberal all my life but it's getting really hard these days, the left is moving further and further to the left and the right is seeming a lot less threatening. The massive and highly destructive and deadly riots that raged on throughout much of 2020 made a big impression on me, and what was really shocking is the way politicians and leaders not only turned a blind eye to it but in many cases endorsed or actually participated, I remember being shocked and in disbelief, it was eye opening.
-
Not to go too far off tangent, but there is a decisive difference between a riot and an intent to overthrow a federal government. And that was the intention of the majority involved on Jan 6, even if they were too unorganized to achieve it.
I don't know that I buy that. They're a bunch of idiots, did they really, genuinely think they were going to overthrow the government? Wouldn't they have come armed and gone in guns blazing if that was what they intended to do? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe a shot was fired by any of the rioters and I don't remember seeing any of them with guns, despite the fact that anyone that would show up at such an event almost certainly owns a few. And is it really fair to say that the other riots were not similar attempts to overthrow the government? In Portland where I'm originally from rioters attacked the *federal* courthouse almost nightly for over a month. They used explosives that caused damage to the building and attempted to firebomb it. There were multiple police precincts in cities around the nation that were burned to the ground. In at least one incident rioters tried to seal the doors and set the building on fire with officers inside. Numerous police officers were murdered, thousands more injured, many of them seriously, and the leadership was just allowing it to happen. To me that was far, far more scary and serious than a bunch of morons that got out of hand at the capitol. Obviously what happened at the capitol was bad, but it was dealt with as such things should be dealt with. Arrest participants, charge them, and sentence them, shouldn't matter what their politics are, the law is the law.
-
And you're using a blog post to prove that far right extremism is the #1 domestic threat? Seriously? :palm:
My bad. I guess I could have done better than the Council on Foreign Relations summary. Perhaps something simple like the Dept of Homeland Security (https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-november-30-2022) is a better example.
-
The massive and highly destructive and deadly riots that raged on throughout much of 2020 made a big impression on me, and what was really shocking is the way politicians and leaders not only turned a blind eye to it but in many cases endorsed or actually participated, I remember being shocked and in disbelief, it was eye opening.
2020 was a picnic compared to the Long Hot Summer of 1967. I don't know how old you might be but even people I know who lived through it are unaware of how totally insane that was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967)
19 people died in the 2020 riots. 85 died in 1967. Whole neighborhoods were utterly destroyed in 1967 - there was nowhere near that level of damage in 2020.
And the fundamental root causes of both riots were the same - police brutality, systemic racism, and economic inequality.
You can read MLK's thoughts on those riots here. His essay could've been written in 2021.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/martin-luther-king-jr-the-crisis-in-americas-cities/552536/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/martin-luther-king-jr-the-crisis-in-americas-cities/552536/)
The left isn't more radical than it was 60 years ago... it's just that the same bullshit exists today as existed 60 years ago. Plus, in 2020, we were all forced to deal with the additional pressure of being cooped up in our homes for months on end.
It's amazing that the 2020 riots weren't MORE explosive than they were. But make no mistake - it was over the same issues as 1967.
PS
Link to the Atlantic article without the paywall. I think it's BS to hide a historical document behind a paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fmagazine%2Farchive%2F2018%2F02%2Fmartin-luther-king-jr-the-crisis-in-americas-cities%2F552536%2F (https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fmagazine%2Farchive%2F2018%2F02%2Fmartin-luther-king-jr-the-crisis-in-americas-cities%2F552536%2F)
-
And you're using a blog post to prove that far right extremism is the #1 domestic threat? Seriously? :palm:
My bad. I guess I could have done better than the Council on Foreign Relations summary. Perhaps something simple like the Dept of Homeland Security (https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-november-30-2022) is a better example.
I still don't buy that it's the #1 threat. I agree it's a threat, I agree it should be monitored closely, I agree it absolutely should not be tolerated, but #1 threat? I'm sorry but it's just really difficult to take that seriously after 3 years of watching actual violence, actual destruction, actual rioting, arson, vandalism, actual murders and death taking place, and I struggle to think of any examples in recent times that were committed by right wing nuts. Timothy McVey was a notable one, but that happened decades ago. There was that case of the guy that blew up his RV downtown somewhere with him in it that could arguably be called terrorism so that could be one. But these are minor compared to what has actually been unfolding. I'm hopeful that the government does their job and prevents ANY terrorist threats.
-
Radio stations stopping playing something isn't cancellation, unless they did so out of fear because of bullying by the public. Radio stations firing DJs over playing their songs is absolutely wrong in my opinion but once again it is not the same, there is no outrage mob demanding they be fired, so this is still not being cancelled.
So what you're saying is that Scott Adams wasn't cancelled at all.
-
and I struggle to think of any examples in recent times that were committed by right wing nuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dallas_courthouse_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsey_Hanukkah_stabbing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atomwaffen_Division_members_in_the_United_States_who_faced_criminal_charges#Timothy_Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Pe%C3%B1a#Shootings
Not an exhaustive list.
You seriously missed all of this? ???
-
2020 was a picnic compared to the Long Hot Summer of 1967. I don't know how old you might be but even people I know who lived through it are unaware of how totally insane that was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967)
19 people died in the 2020 riots. 85 died in 1967. Whole neighborhoods were utterly destroyed in 1967 - there was nowhere near that level of damage in 2020.
And the fundamental root causes of both riots were the same - police brutality, systemic racism, and economic inequality.
I wasn't alive in 1967, my parents were teenagers and not even dating yet at the time so it's not particularly relevant to me but I am aware of it.
I do know that the event was catastrophic though, many of those neighborhoods never recovered from the destruction while others took decades to recover and the people that suffered the most from it are the same ones that did the rioting. It is very likely responsible for the election of Nixon and a large push for law & order. It was counterproductive and made the problem worse, not better, exactly as the 2020 riots have done. We haven't fixed police brutality, we've demonized the entire career, caused large numbers of the best officers to leave and more of those remaining are the ones that either like the power or can't find a job doing something else, the Tyre Nichols incident is a shining example of this. Homicide rates have skyrocketed, again disproportionately affecting the groups we're supposedly trying to help. Inner city minority owned businesses were disproportionately destroyed, again affecting the people we're supposedly trying to help. Violence, crime and drugs have decimated low income urban populations. These riots are catastrophic events that don't help anybody, they make things much worse. If anything the long hot summer should be a warning of how absolutely disastrous it is to allow rioting to happen.
-
and I struggle to think of any examples in recent times that were committed by right wing nuts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dallas_courthouse_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsey_Hanukkah_stabbing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atomwaffen_Division_members_in_the_United_States_who_faced_criminal_charges#Timothy_Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Pe%C3%B1a#Shootings
Not an exhaustive list.
You seriously missed all of this? ???
More off topic whatabaoutism?
Actually, do you have this list compiled ready to go?
-
Those are isolated cases of nutjobs, I spot checked a few and in the cases I checked the perpetrators were either arrested and charged or killed. Tragic as they are, they are still not something that feels nearly as threatening to me as violent riots, especially violent riots where most of the people involved are not punished. Or the exploding crime, homicides and drug deaths due to policies that allow people to get away with it cumulatively kill far more people than a few nuts, and unlike those nuts, nobody seems to be held accountable. This is getting really far off topic though, and I really don't think anyone is going to have their mind changed either way. I think we can make a lot of improvements by simply not tolerating crime or violence from anybody, and by making an effort to maintain a culture where people can agree to disagree without it turning into a fight, without anyone having to worry about their safety or their livelihood, and where mob behavior and bullying is not tolerated, by anyone towards anyone, "but this person/group did that!" is not an excuse. It's not that hard.
-
We haven't fixed police brutality, we've demonized the entire career, caused large numbers of the best officers to leave and more of those remaining are the ones that either like the power or can't find a job doing something else, the Tyre Nichols incident is a shining example of this. Homicide rates have skyrocketed, again disproportionately affecting the groups we're supposedly trying to help. Inner city minority owned businesses were disproportionately destroyed, again affecting the people we're supposedly trying to help. Violence, crime and drugs have decimated low income urban populations. These riots are catastrophic events that don't help anybody, they make things much worse. If anything the long hot summer should be a warning of how absolutely disastrous it is to allow rioting to happen.
The riots are a natural consequence of years of systemic oppression. To stop the riots from happening again after they end, you have to fix the issues. That was the point MLK was trying to make if you read his article. We (as a country) didn't do a whole lot to fix many of these issues and so everything rather predictably blew up again. Many of the issues regarding individual freedom and addressing systemic racism are the same today as they were in 1967 - and as you've pointed out, quite possibly worse. So, is the left-wing more radical today than it was in 1967? I don't think so - except maybe more people can openly talk about these issues and directly view evidence of the problems (like all the videos of police brutality that can be widely shared instantly).
About policing, the career and purpose of it needs reform. For one thing, police have NO obligation to actually protect anyone from anything:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
The purpose of most police departments is revenue collection (typically targeting poor people who don't have the resources to dispute the tickets). They're tax collectors in disguise:
https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/when-police-become-tax-collectors (https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/when-police-become-tax-collectors)
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/YOU_policing.pdf (https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/YOU_policing.pdf)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-ticket-quotas-money-funding.html)
Maybe reform is a good idea? We have precedent for it. Police used to be the department solely responsible for emergency medical service.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/03/01/389798498/how-pittsburghs-freedom-house-pioneered-paramedic-treatment (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/03/01/389798498/how-pittsburghs-freedom-house-pioneered-paramedic-treatment)
Freedom House pioneered the model for dedicated emergency medical personnel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House_Ambulance_Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House_Ambulance_Service)
In a sense you could say... the Pittsburgh police were defunded and resources allocated towards specialized non-police service providers. ::)
-
It is perfectly okay to say you ignore someone and why, but when you start demanding others do so too –– or else –– you go over the line. It is that simple. Persuasion via argument is okay, but demanding, especially demanding based on emotive reasons or "I cannot believe you can defend them" -type of emotional manipulation, is never okay.
If we put emotions and beliefs above logic, we should just go back to tribal warfare, before we nuke the entire planet to hell.
I think part of that is what you define as 'cancellation'.
Demanding others for specific behaviour under the threat of retaliation, yes. It is as close to 'evil' as I can think of.
Have any of those examples been explicitly prevented from making their opinions known to the public?
You seriously believe there is a difference in stopping someone, and having someone stand behind that person with a proverbial baseball bat saying that you're free to say whatever you want, but here's the consequences if you don't know what is good for you?
I do not see a meaningful difference between the two.
I do see you are very emotionally defending behaviour that you would not accept if it was targeted towards yourself, simply because you dislike the current target. This is unfair, and leads to social dysfunction.
The main effect of cancellation is not that some celebrity figures have to look for different channels to push their jobs. It is the fear factor, making ordinary people believe there is that proverbial baseball-bat wielding person behind them, watching what they utter. This control is purely evil. Why do you defend it? Don't you see how damaging it is to everyone, regardless who does it and who is targeted?
-
More whatabaoutism?
No, just that when someone says "I care about left-wing violence because I can't think of any right-wing violence" then it deserves to be pointed out how many people have been murdered by right-wing nutters.
And one of the speakers at CPAC straight up said they want to 'eradicate transgenderism in public life.'
Of course, they tried to say they don't mean to eradicate transgender people...
But that's about as believable as someone saying "I want to eradicate Judaism but I don't mean eradicate Jews..."
And at some point another nutter is going to walk into a nightclub and murder a bunch of friends of my friends...
PS
But I think it's too offtopic now. I'll stop. Carry on.
PPS
Actually, do you have this list compiled ready to go?
No, I remembered the Colorado Shooting (because I was acquainted with people who knew some of the victims) and the Buffalo Shooting because I have a friend in upstate New York who lives near that store and the Poway Synagogue Stabbing because I have Jewish friends in San Diego whose safety I was concerned for.
But, very helpfully, Wikipedia does have a compiled list ready to go which reminded me of a bunch of incidents I did recall upon seeing them listed when I went to go pull references to the previous three rather major attacks that, aside from personally affecting me, were national headlines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks
So, there ya go.
-
Can't help but notice that all those problems, no matter how diverse, somehow originated from one problematic continent :P
Europe, most notably Germany.
Arguably both Christian extremists and LGB++ can trace their roots to Europe, but it was somewhere else where they really got a chance to flourish. If Australia was a penal colony, America was the crank colony through all that time and it shows.
I looked but could not find any person or group suggesting that blacks should write off whites and just get the heck away from them and were not held accountable in some way... Even the BLM movement does not suggest that.
I don't know how long you looked for it but there is apparently a Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaxit
I don't see it happening at any serious scale. But to say that blacks would be "held accountable" for encouraging it is just :wtf:
But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
Um... Not sure everyone would agree with that. I, for one, wouldn't think that's OK to remark to someone in public. I might think that to myself, but it wouldn't be appropriate to tell that to a guy wearing a dress.
You would be thrilled to know that there are pervs walking around places like reddit and convincing teenagers with weird fetishes that they are trannies in denial and need to go on estrogen.
-
Canadian truckers when that protest was ongoing. They had their bank account shut down. People tried donating them money, and their bank refused to run the transaction. Tell me, that you are not OK with this please.
As a Canadian I am 100% in favor of that. The leaders of the Convoy had a manifesto for overthrowing the federal government and putting themselves in charge of the nation. When I first heard about it, I thought it couldn't be true, so I went on their website and sure enough, there it was spelled out in black and white. The website was eventually amended to remove that incriminating evidence.
They were the most misinformed protest group. When the leaders (Tamara Lich and husband) were hauled in front of a Canadian judge, they quoted the US constitution and that they were exercising their "First amendment rights". Several times the judge had to remind them that the American constitution does not apply in Canada.
What was particularly silly about the so called "Trucker" protest, was they were complaining about having to be vaccinated to enter the USA... But it wasn't the Canadian government preventing them, but US law. So even if the Canadian government had given in to their demands, they still wouldn't be able to across the border into the USA. In the end, the protest became more about overthrowing the government rather than anything else.
-
(Not to say that the backlash doesn't exist, but just look at how many attempts there were to cancel Kiwifarms and how lauded those were on Twitter)
The farmers are special kind of scumbags though, at least some of them. Besides what they say (which is probably what most Twitter crowd hates them for already) there is a second controversy about what they do, which is pretty serious stalking of some of their "cows" and being dicks to them to provoke reaction. I would feel uneasy banning them, but this means throwing under the bus the wellbeing and sporadically lives of some (arguably too self-obsessed for their own good) people.
-
The main effect of cancellation is not that some celebrity figures have to look for different channels to push their jobs. It is the fear factor, making ordinary people believe there is that proverbial baseball-bat wielding person behind them, watching what they utter. This control is purely evil.
Yep. This is entirely political again, and the main goal is not to target individual celebrities in itself (which has virtually no large-scale impact per se), but to use it as examples to control the rest of the people.
This is the modern equivalent of the roman decimation (which I have no doubt was a concept used way before the Romans already.) The concept is probably almost as old as humanity, at least when we started living in large groups.
-
(Not to say that the backlash doesn't exist, but just look at how many attempts there were to cancel Kiwifarms and how lauded those were on Twitter)
The farmers are special kind of scumbags though, at least some of them. Besides what they say (which is probably what most Twitter crowd hates them for already) there is a second controversy about what they do, which is pretty serious stalking of some of their "cows" and being dicks to them to provoke reaction. I would feel uneasy banning them, but this means throwing under the bus the wellbeing and sporadically lives of some (arguably too self-obsessed for their own good) people.
Kiwifarmers are a mixed bunch and there's definitely some that touch the poop too much. But the actions of certain individuals don't remove their human rights to express themselves and mock people for being stupid.
-
In some cases, this 'cancellation' culture, seems to became wildly over-sensitive, and unreasonably nasty.
Typical examples, are where a prominently successful, publicly well known (in at least some circles, such as sports, music or films etc), is perhaps 32 years old now, and doing really, really well.
Then someone brings up a tweet (or similar), that person made when they were aged around 17 (and perhaps still drunk, after a long late night out), and it was only between their couple of hundred (or thousand, perhaps), followers, a long, long time before they were famous. Where they said something, somewhat racist (or breaking some other, modern day rules).
It then gets published and complained about on the news and / or social media and / or somewhere, and they end up cancelled and / or forced to resign and apologize.
It just seems so unfair, unreasonable and crazy. What use to be called a witch-hunt, perhaps.
-
Hang on, you're calling AM radio social media? Really? Twitter had better look out, 710 AM is taking over :-DD
The way it's going under Musk, 710 AM has a better than even chance.
-
Kiwifarmers are a mixed bunch and there's definitely some that touch the poop too much. But the actions of certain individuals don't remove their human rights to express themselves and mock people for being stupid.
Yet I can't help but feel that KF would have less troubles if they put more effort into at least pretending that they are about mocking stupidity and not actively provoking it. There is obviously nothing stopping any member from choosing to stir shit up, but forum posts encouraging such activities are rather bad taste and maybe not a brilliant idea.
I'm just saying that if Null tolerates this shit and later cries about free speech when his forum is dropped by one ISP after another, doesn't it perhaps make him a lolcow too? :-//
-
This is the modern equivalent of the roman decimation (which I have no doubt was a concept used way before the Romans already.) The concept is probably almost as old as humanity, at least when we started living in large groups.
Yes. Collective punishment is used to remind the cohort that they themselves must police their own. A core part of that was that they were divided in groups of ten, and each group would draw lots to see who would be killed. The other nine had to kill the unlucky one.
This kind of in-group policing occurs in other social species as well, because it assists in survival in dangerous environments.
It is the same mechanism that kept people paying their dues to their churches in Europe for centuries. Not the fear of the Spanish Inquisition (outside Spain in 1500-1800), but the fear of being excommunicated; canceled.
-
More whatabaoutism?
No, just that when someone says "I care about left-wing violence because I can't think of any right-wing violence" then it deserves to be pointed out how many people have been murdered by right-wing nutters.
At this point I'm just going to disengage with the discussion with you and I encourage others to not feed the troll
You don't lke what we are talking about here, so you repeatedly go off topic just to get the thread locked.
Reminds me about that leaked reddit moderator manifesto (leftist, if you are wondering) where they were intentionally posting CP images to spaces that they found going against the message just to get them locked.
-
More whatabaoutism?
No, just that when someone says "I care about left-wing violence because I can't think of any right-wing violence" then it deserves to be pointed out how many people have been murdered by right-wing nutters.
At this point I'm just going to disengage with the discussion with you and I encourage others to not feed the troll
You don't lke what we are talking about here, so you repeatedly go off topic just to get the thread locked.
Reminds me about that leaked reddit moderator manifesto (leftist, if you are wondering) where they were intentionally posting CP images to spaces that they found going against the message just to get them locked.
You should pay more attention. I was commenting on this particular remark,
For all the talk about violent right wingers there doesn't appear to be any action taking place.
It is categorically NOT true that there is no action from violent right wingers and there is tons of evidence to back that up - in fact way more evidence than would be appropriate to get into here so I just shared links for people to do their own research. Stating this fact doesn't excuse or diminish left-wing violence... why would anyone think it does?
I will say its incredibly weird you associate sharing this data at a relevant point in a discussion to be equivalent to posting CP to get a thread locked. That's trollish behavior and poisoning of wells if I ever saw it. >:(
-
With respect to "left-wing" and "right-wing" violence, I invoke a plague on both their houses.
-
With respect to "left-wing" and "right-wing" violence, I invoke a plague on both their houses.
We had a real plague on everybody's houses, but halfwits chose to pretend it didn't exist.
-
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
I agree with that and really believe that has been his intention the entire time. I think the whole thing is a PR stunt designed to transition his work to new mediums.
Simply not true and against everything he has said publicly and done for years, and has also said about this specific issue. I know because I actually listen to the daily live shows.
-
I got my Dilbert book from Amazon, so it seems they are still selling them. This is contrary to what Adams said. Maybe it's different in the US?
-
With respect to "left-wing" and "right-wing" violence, I invoke a plague on both their houses.
Those not willing to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live :P
It's true simply because it can be made true by anyone wishing so.
Romans believed in Si vis pacem, para bellum and Americans believe in Age of Aquarius.
This is the reason for SJWs being SJWs. If you exist in a socially constructed reality where everybody loves everybody except for the fascists, then anyone showing you anything less than total admiration is, of course, a fascist. Once this is established, there is no shortage of mental gymnastic tricks available to "deconstruct" and "reconstruct" anything anyone says as aggression. Normal people call such behavior "paranoid delusion", but Americans have been calling it "brave and powerful" for so long that there are now entire generations which have never experienced any other way of thinking. The process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.
This logic finds its way even to everyday non-political life. An American recently came to this forum for advice without giving much context and explanation what he wants to achieve. Several people asked for clarification, somebody wrote a long "brain dump" on the topic prefixed with "you probably won't even bother reading it" and got called "gatekeeper" and "kinda fashy" by the OP. Similar attitude was expressed by that "Sherlock" guy, may he rest in peace; everybody criticizing anything about his project was "obviously there only to discourage him from working on it and ruin the thread for everyone".
This is what happens when you fail to distinguish between being your true self and runaway narcissism for a few successive generations.
To complete the American genocide, I hereby invoke plague on all the passive centrists who tolerated nonsense and drama brewing up around them for so long.
No survivors >:D
-
But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
Nobody says this.
What people are saying is that others don’t have the right to tell someone what they do or don’t identify as.
-
But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
Nobody says this.
What people are saying is that others don’t have the right to tell someone what they do or don’t identify as.
People are absolutely saying that. It's extremely common nowadays.
Sure, nobody can tell you what to identify as. But just as nobody can tell you what to identify as, nobody can tell me what to identify you as. Society has no duty to accept anyone's live action roleplay as fact (and when someone doesn't even make an attempt to pass, or claims they're a woman one day and a man the next day-- that's LARPing.)
Even more: If you're on the internet, I do not care about what you are physically or what you identify as. You're just words on a screen. But once people start to brandish their gender as an identity, use it to deflect criticism, or use it as an excuse to harass others, that's too much.
And before you go again with "this doesn't happen!!" -- look around. People severely harassing streamers for playing the new Harry Potter game. Get into any discussion online with someone that has buzzwords or gender identities in their bio, and chances are as soon they'll disagree with you they'll just call you racist or transphobic or whatever and throw a shitfit.
It's all just attention-seeking and/or making others miserable. To look at it form another perspective: if you're truly feeling like you have the wrong sex, why would you make being "trans" your identity? It'd be the unfortunate reality that you're trying to move away from. Why highlight it? Especially on the internet, where in most cases no one will ever know?
-
Can't help but notice that all those problems, no matter how diverse, somehow originated from one problematic continent :P
Europe, most notably Germany.
Arguably both Christian extremists and LGB++ can trace their roots to Europe, but it was somewhere else where they really got a chance to flourish. If Australia was a penal colony, America was the crank colony through all that time and it shows.
First of all, LGBT+ isn’t a religion, never mind extremism, and it’s outrageous and offensive for you to equate them.
Second, LGBT+ doesn’t “trace its roots to Europe”. It’s not a movement. It’s something that exists in humanity, and always has. The only thing that varies by culture is acceptance. Acceptance is something that varies cyclically throughout time and culture. (It’s a complete myth that it’s anything new, that it was always decried in the past, etc.)
What we LGBT+ people do have the right to, and will fight to defend, is our right to exist and enjoy the same rights as our non-LGBT+ equals. Don’t expect us to just be quiet as you silence and abuse us.
And no, you don’t get to whine that we’re making a fuss just because we will no longer tolerate your abuse. When we are treated as equals, when we stop being attacked legally, verbally and physically, then we’ll shut up.
-
But it's ok for people to say that if you're a man that likes to wear dresses, you're actually a woman and just don't know it yet.
Nobody says this.
What people are saying is that others don’t have the right to tell someone what they do or don’t identify as.
People are absolutely saying that. It's extremely common nowadays.
No it isn’t, and the examples you provided aren’t examples of it.
Sure, nobody can tell you what to identify as. But just as nobody can tell you what to identify as, nobody can tell me what to identify you as.
Forget about trans issues: if you’re a cisgender man, and someone keeps referring to you as “miss”, do you not have the right to tell them “uh, sorry, it’s actually “mister””? Respecting someone’s identity is one of the most fundamental types of basic respect, which is why forms of address are so important in so many cultures.
It's all just attention-seeking and/or making others miserable. To look at it form another perspective: if you're truly feeling like you have the wrong sex, why would you make being "trans" your identity? It'd be the unfortunate reality that you're trying to move away from. Why highlight it? Especially on the internet, where in most cases no one will ever know?
I guess you don’t actually know any trans people, or you’d know what you’re saying here is complete bullshit.
Most trans people want nothing more than to blend in. Being trans (=being born in the body of the opposite gender) is a circumstance over which they had no control. The goal in transitioning is to align the outward gender with their “own” gender. If they’re lucky, it goes so well that nobody even notices. If they’re not so lucky (like with trans women who transition later in life) it’s often very hard to “pass as female”, and they have no choice but to be obviously trans.
Now, you’re gonna say “but all these kids with trans flags on their insta profiles!” Well, newsflash, some people are comfortable enough to share such things, so that others know they’re not alone. Some are activists who see the injustice and act to fight it.
What you don’t see is all the trans people who simply don’t state they’re trans, and who pass well enough that you didn’t even notice. But of course that means is that you assumed they’re not trans. Point is, you don’t always know, and you can’t say “because every trans person who advertises their being trans advertises being trans, every trans person advertises being trans.”
-
It is categorically NOT true that there is no action from violent right wingers and there is tons of evidence to back that up - in fact way more evidence than would be appropriate to get into here so I just shared links for people to do their own research. Stating this fact doesn't excuse or diminish left-wing violence... why would anyone think it does?
I will say its incredibly weird you associate sharing this data at a relevant point in a discussion to be equivalent to posting CP to get a thread locked. That's trollish behavior and poisoning of wells if I ever saw it. >:(
Yep. It’s the typical right-winger projection: accuse the left of doing the same things they do constantly, while pretending they never do it. Then they attempt to gaslight us by fighting not against what the left actually says and does, but on the exaggerated or fictitious things the right claims the left says and does. (Like the claim earlier in this thread about the left pushing for 9th-month abortions.)
-
Tooki + others, all this talk ends now or I'm deleting your posts. Do not derail this thread any further.
-
I figured out what's wrong with the download script I've been using. Every Sunday comic is jpeg instead of gif after 2000, so that's why it wasn't downloading it well. I had to fix it a few places, but it seems to work now. When I have some time I'll make it available on github.
https://gist.github.com/tszaboo/fb9aaff88f802c3a1de961faddc60fbc (https://gist.github.com/tszaboo/fb9aaff88f802c3a1de961faddc60fbc)
Forked from BaloneyGeek. It seems to work ok now, but the script is not near perfect. Hacked exceptions and stuff like that. If someone has more patience for programming pls fix.
-
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
I agree with that and really believe that has been his intention the entire time. I think the whole thing is a PR stunt designed to transition his work to new mediums.
Simply not true and against everything he has said publicly and done for years, and has also said about this specific issue. I know because I actually listen to the daily live shows.
No disrespect, but if we could take everyone at their word we wouldn't need much of a court system and politicians would be unemployed. Actions speak louder than words. And if you look through his history, this is hardly the first time he has skirted with controversy on these issues. So he knew what the outcome was going to be, and did it anyway.
We only know Adams through what he says and does - nobody other than himself, his family and possibly close friends really know Adams. I find it interesting that even many of his acquaintances appear to have been shocked by this incident - they say that is not the man they (thought they) knew.
No matter how you slice it, Adams knowingly based his comments on a dubious 'poll'. Although he now appears to be trying to walk back his comments as to suggest he didn't mean "all blacks", that is not what he said. Neither did he publicly express any of the concern over the poll results that he expressed to a few associates. If he is trying to portray this incident as some kind of 'shock awakening' to further discussion in order to resolve things, he failed. I may not be a genius, but I think I'm astute enough to discern some clever ploy towards discourse upon social issues requiring resolution. And if somehow that is the case, I wonder how he anticipated his actions working towards that goal when the setup was so convoluted as to be misunderstood by so many listeners.
Certainly there is room for debate on the topic of whether 'cancellation' was appropriate, or whether it ever is. But it will take a lot more explaining from him to persuade me he had any other motivation than to rile things up for his own sake somehow.
EDIT - Dave, as much as I like and respect you and watched years of video footage I obviously do not 'know' you. As Linus once commented, "for all you know I kill baby bunnies for a hobby" (I'm assuming that you do not lol). Neither do I "know" any of the many posters here in the forums for whom I have developed some respect. Likewise, for all you know I drink the blood of infants in the basement of a Wash DC pizza parlor (I don't - I hate pizza).
-
Have any of those examples been explicitly prevented from making their opinions known to the public?
You seriously believe there is a difference in stopping someone, and having someone stand behind that person with a proverbial baseball bat saying that you're free to say whatever you want, but here's the consequences if you don't know what is good for you?
I do not see a meaningful difference between the two.
I do see you are very emotionally defending behaviour that you would not accept if it was targeted towards yourself, simply because you dislike the current target. This is unfair, and leads to social dysfunction.
The main effect of cancellation is not that some celebrity figures have to look for different channels to push their jobs. It is the fear factor, making ordinary people believe there is that proverbial baseball-bat wielding person behind them, watching what they utter. This control is purely evil. Why do you defend it? Don't you see how damaging it is to everyone, regardless who does it and who is targeted?
Life has consequences. Everything you do has consequences. Social peer pressure is nothing new, and I think motivated just as much good as it has been possibly abused for evil. The only people who speak their mind with no filter in place whatsoever are people we call mentally ill along the lines of Aspergers. Society is founded on more unwritten laws as there are written ones.
Sorry, but I can't imagine that because someone like Alex Jones is 'cancelled' for spewing lies, conspiracy theories and other random filth that results in some kind of social grievance because others are now afraid to speak their views. If a person believes their opinions are important enough, they will bear that weight. And even for the Alex Jones example, his 'cancellation' has not resulted in him being 'silenced'. Similarly, Scott Adams has not been 'silenced' despite newspaper outlets dropping his Dilbert strip - even if you believe his 'cancellation' is wrong supporters can still view his material online or through book purchases. Likewise, although there may exist examples of people with opposite beliefs "getting away with it", that doesn't excuse what is considered socially "wrong".
I also think it is a bit naive to overlook the opposite force in today's world - that a constant bombardment of opinions and suggestions can manipulate others into beliefs they might not otherwise have had. Adams is on record admiring Trump for his ability to manipulate an audience. The premise is also demonstrated by the irony that despite living in a world where information and facts are more immediately available to everyone, gaslighting, conspiracy theories and social manipulation are at all time highs as people gravitate towards the echo chamber that aligns with their personal bias. Granted, this is a dangerous issue and I don't know what a good answer is. But I do not believe that simply ignoring it by thinking that everyone will be able to identify truth on their own is the best answer either - somewhere there needs to be some social pushback against what society believes is wrong. And if you truly believe that social 'fear' factors are evil, I hope you are protesting against every organized religion known to man.
-
I must say that I gave up my life in the corporate cubicle a long time ago now.
Must be a bad place for millennials and junior genzeds that, if Dilbert is anything to go by, absolutely nothing has changed in the world of softwierd engineering. Okay, today they're all using Apple products and spending their ten minute lunch breaks trawling insta-media, maintaining their LinkedIn profile up to the day, ordering Dilbert 2023 Calendars online and, wishing they could land that magic job in San Fran writing crypto scripts for the next big digital voodoo. But in their heart-of-hearts they know the option is simply, either go live broke on a beach for next decade or, spend their life in one long eat-sleep-code-repeat loop, interspersed with days stuck in traffic on the beltway. Plus ca change.
Long live life's Dilberts.
EDIT: I've spent a lot of time on beaches.
-
I must say that I gave up my life in the corporate cubicle a long time ago now.
Must be a bad place for millennials and junior genzeds that, if Dilbert is anything to go by, absolutely nothing has changed in the world of softwierd engineering. Okay, today they're all using Apple products and spending their ten minute lunch breaks trawling insta-media, maintaining their LinkedIn profile up to the day, ordering Dilbert 2023 Calendars online and, wishing they could land that magic job in San Fran writing crypto scripts for the next big digital voodoo. But in their heart-of-hearts they know the option is simply, either go live broke on a beach for next decade or, spend their life in one long eat-sleep-code-repeat loop, interspersed with days stuck in traffic on the beltway. Plus ca change.
Long live life's Dilberts.
As someone who was the OP of this thread and this is my second reply here, this is probably the most sensible and down to earth post of all this thread.
[RANT]
And was what I expected to turn into, not what it turned to. But again I should know that I SHOULDN'T POST TOPICS AS THIS...
They always turn into the same thing over and over again.
Same as that Keysight new bench PSU - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-keysight-dc-power-supply-announced!/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-keysight-dc-power-supply-announced!/)
I was interested in knowing more about it, what kind of uses, design choices, heck even see a teardown of it. Specially with how knowledgeable most users are here, way above my knowledge level, it is always a joy to learn.
What did we got, a big conversation how the brand doesn't support hobbyists and stopped with someone asking for their posts to be moved elsewhere.
While I still wanted to geek out about a equipment that I KNOW I DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR OR I'M NOT THE MARKET TARGET.
[/RANT]
That's why I take, sometimes months, of away time from this forum and other types of media as reddit. When things start to turn into more noise than things I enjoy to learn and see, then it is time for me to do a break. And I think that again I'm almost at the time I need another break from here...
I start to understand what the user ataradov said once:
The thing is, I don't want cooking, so don't subscribe to cooking forums. I like electronics, so I subscribe to electronics forum.
If following the forum becomes too much work, I abandon the forum. I know, most people won't care. But if forum becomes too noisy to be useful, and more people leave or don't stick around, then you get a dead forum.
-
[RANT] [...] [/RANT]
All good points, and I, too have abandoned other forums when the SNR got too annoying.
But remember that you (or I) do not own a thread. It goes where people take it. Hey, that reminds me...
-
All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.
And this is the 'general chat' group after all...
-
All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.
And this is the 'general chat' group after all...
I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all. I have seen piss poor moderation totally ruin a forum. Like cases where some threads are allowed to rage on full of off topic noise while others get shut down for the most minor things. The most irritating thing I've seen is where the moderator just has to get in the last word so they will post a reply that is criticizing someone and then lock the thread so that person can't defend themselves. Here people are generally allowed to chat IF they remain respectful, and stay off of a few certain really hot button topics that inevitably get people riled up.
-
That's why I take, sometimes months, of away time from this forum and other types of media as reddit. When things start to turn into more noise than things I enjoy to learn and see, then it is time for me to do a break. And I think that again I'm almost at the time I need another break from here...
I start to understand what the user ataradov said once:
The thing is, I don't want cooking, so don't subscribe to cooking forums. I like electronics, so I subscribe to electronics forum.
If following the forum becomes too much work, I abandon the forum. I know, most people won't care. But if forum becomes too noisy to be useful, and more people leave or don't stick around, then you get a dead forum.
I see no need to take a break from here. It's a large forum. You don't have to follow the parts which don't interest or annoy you. If a thread starts to drift off topic and you lose interest, just ignore it and move on. Yes, it can be a little frustrating if it was your thread, but going off-topic is normal, you could have simply had no replies at all. The original poster has no rights or ownership of a thread, just because they started it.
All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.
And this is the 'general chat' group after all...
I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all. I have seen piss poor moderation totally ruin a forum. Like cases where some threads are allowed to rage on full of off topic noise while others get shut down for the most minor things. The most irritating thing I've seen is where the moderator just has to get in the last word so they will post a reply that is criticizing someone and then lock the thread so that person can't defend themselves. Here people are generally allowed to chat IF they remain respectful, and stay off of a few certain really hot button topics that inevitably get people riled up.
I put it down to the people, more than anything else. There are some interesting points, as well as things I either disagree with or regard to be complete misinformation in this thread, but I see no point in responding to it, because it will just stir the pot more. I suspect there are others who feel the same and are also exercising self-control.
-
Life has consequences. Everything you do has consequences.
I hope you remember that when the balance swings the other way, and you yourself get canceled for holding the attitudes you hold today with pride.
At least today, you just lose your job prospects and social contact with acquintances, and are not burned on a pyre.
Do note that I myself am condemning the action, and even more so those who accept it, like yourself. I understand your viewpoint, but I believe you do not see how damaging it is to society, and how horrible the actions considered much later on. It saddens me immensely that you and those agreeing with you do not see the immense damage and danger your attitude causes.
(Edited to add: , because I like your (plural!) output and value your contributions and insight. If my opinion of you was low, I wouldn't care.)
Silencing a few nutjobs just isn't worth the secondary effects it has on speech, specifically self-censoring and having lying become an accepted practice to avoid social pushback. I've already tried to show how that will always –– has always in historical record –– lead to social unrest and even atrocities, even though they are almost always committed by people with as pure and positive intent as yourself.
I cannot condemn someone for making a mistake for the first time, but I can for sure condemn someone repeating a mistake, ignoring all historical precedents.
(Edited to add: But I cannot really condemn someone who does not see, either; only if they refused to learn from history. It takes time and effort to learn, too.)
And if you truly believe that social 'fear' factors are evil, I hope you are protesting against every organized religion known to man.
Protesting is not the right word, but describing their failures –– and I do mean the failures of every organized religion known to man, without exception ––, yes.
I do not agree with any organized religion, nor do I belong to any. I am not strictly speaking an atheist, because I do not make any claims about divinity or godhood (except for my own relationship, which is best described as agnostic), and I see the mental value of personal belief systems: for some humans, they are necessary to help them overcome and thrive. Simply put, I do not condemn personal beliefs at all, but I do condemn all religious organizations (collecting or spending resources).
Like I wrote above, social pressure is natural and healthy when it involves the interactions between the participants. Whenever it tries to govern third-party interactions that do not affect others –– like whether someone reads Scott Adams' comics regardless of his speech elsewhere ––, it crosses the line into evil. The intent does not matter, because it is the long-term consequences that always yield more negative outcomes than they do positive; and we know this from history, so we have no excuse either.
All of this is well modeled by game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory?useskin=vector), down to statistical expectations of outcomes, but only if we assume rational participants. Whenever people move from logic and rational thinking to belief and instinctual gut reactions –– truthiness ––, the results vary from bad to worse: never good, always lots of suffering.
Emotive people are much easier to manipulate and control than logical or rational ones, so those who want power over others, also want people feeling strongly and not thinking clearly. (This is not a conspiracy theory either, it is just a clear, well-known fact about human behaviour. Bread and circuses.)
-
No disrespect, but if we could take everyone at their word we wouldn't need much of a court system and politicians would be unemployed. Actions speak louder than words. And if you look through his history, this is hardly the first time he has skirted with controversy on these issues. So he knew what the outcome was going to be, and did it anyway.
We only know Adams through what he says and does - nobody other than himself, his family and possibly close friends really know Adams.
How many hours of his talks have you watched?
I'm willing to bet I beat you by 100-1 or even 1000-1
So forgive me if I just ignore your comments.
-
All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.
And this is the 'general chat' group after all...
I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all.
I'm trying to keep this under control, because I know that the race aspect of it will get out of hand, guaranteed.
We've already seen it devolve into a a trans debate, religion, and a crap ton of politics.
I'm only keeping the thread open because Dilbert is huge in the engineering community, and also it's a good place to talk about "cancel culture" which impacts us all also.
If we can try to keep it to those two topic it would be appreciated.
-
The thing is, I don't want cooking, so don't subscribe to cooking forums. I like electronics, so I subscribe to electronics forum.
If following the forum becomes too much work, I abandon the forum. I know, most people won't care. But if forum becomes too noisy to be useful, and more people leave or don't stick around, then you get a dead forum.
You can add topics and threads to your ignore list so you won't see them.
-
No disrespect, but if we could take everyone at their word we wouldn't need much of a court system and politicians would be unemployed. Actions speak louder than words. And if you look through his history, this is hardly the first time he has skirted with controversy on these issues. So he knew what the outcome was going to be, and did it anyway.
We only know Adams through what he says and does - nobody other than himself, his family and possibly close friends really know Adams.
How many hours of his talks have you watched?
I'm willing to bet I beat you by 100-1 or even 1000-1
So forgive me if I just ignore your comments.
Is it worth watching his videos? I'm kinda looking for something to listen to in the background.
-
All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.
And this is the 'general chat' group after all...
I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all.
I'm trying to keep this under control, because I know that the race aspect of it will get out of hand, guaranteed.
We've already seen it devolve into a a trans debate, religion, and a crap ton of politics.
I'm only keeping the thread open because Dilbert is huge in the engineering community, and also it's a good place to talk about "cancel culture" which impacts us all also.
If we can try to keep it to those two topic it would be appreciated.
Dave, so you want to discuss "cancel culture", without any aspect of race or politics? Please define "cancel culture".
-
Dave, so you want to discuss "cancel culture", without any aspect of race or politics?
Yes. If you think you can't do that, then don't.
-
Is it worth watching his videos? I'm kinda looking for something to listen to in the background.
If you are after life advice with analysis of daily news filtered through the lens of a hypnotist persuasion expert, then yes, worth it. Or if you just like sarcasm and trolling, also worth it.
The latest ones have of course been majority about the incident, so listen to older ones if you want to avoid that.
He does whiteboard stuff occasionally, but easily audio podcastable in the background.
-
If half the population support Adams then presumably the other half don't. Then a population sized mob would be evenly matched. What pressure would the mob apply to the platforms? Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
I think the pressure is more likely to come from advertisers and they themselves are vulnerable to financial pressure from the mob.
Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.
Because those of us that support Adam' right to say something controversial are not the mob types, we believe that ganging up and bullying a person is fundamentally wrong. We believe in laws, and applying those laws equally across all citizens. We don't behave like spoiled brat children and throw a tantrum every time we don't get our way. "The mob" is only a very small portion of the population, it is an extremely loud minority that actively engage in bullying, primarily via social media.
Well that is what I was saying. Dave said "Again you don't get what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob,"
How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams? Which is why I said even if a mob comprising the other half of the population try to cancel him there is and evenly balanced situation for and against.
Hence I came to the conclusion that Dave was incorrect in saying "Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob,"
They actually bend to the will of the advertisers with money who in turn bend to the will of the mob ie. their customers.
A small vocal mob does not have the volume to harm Adams as long as he stays true to what he believes is right. This is revealed in the case of the lawsuit by Dominion against Fox News. If there were no revealing admissions from Fox insiders that they knew all along the election was fair but lied for profit anyway they might have toughed it out.
-
How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams?
Because those who support Adams are not willing to fight against the small mob.
Here, the small mob is the small group of young, liberal sociopolitical activists, who have close ties with Finnish media. For example, the subset of "experts" the Finnish public broadcast company Yle uses, is about 75% the same as the "progressivist activist group" trying to keep everyone towing to the same line in social media and elsewhere. (About 85% of reporters here self-describe leftist political views.) Anyone speaking against them, is a transphobic racist Putinist, regardless of the actual topic.
The rest of the people do not see the issues worth starting a fight with the activist group. They disagree, but will say so only when they know they won't be targeted, because they'd rather not fight with them.
Again, the tactic by the small mob is universal. It is not to win every battle, but to make fighting against them too risky and expensive –– socially speaking, in this case –– so that they win by default.
Sure, you can just say that "that's their choice; if they wanted to really support, they'd speak against the mob". The issue with that is in psychology. The Overton window is moving exactly because the sides are not equally willing to use the same tactics to force their views on others. It is exactly those who are willing to use the nastiest social weaponry (excommunication/labeling/cancellation, historically speaking) and manipulation, that are making headway in moving the Overton window the way they want; and that indeed seems to vary both geographically and in time. Fifty years ago, it was the status quo conservatives here, now it is the far left globalist liberals. I'm trying to denounce the entire tactic, because it never makes things better.
-
Yes, that. The mob is almost entirely on social media, social media is very heavily biased toward young and left to far left leaning people, that's just who is statistically using it. I disagree strongly with this mob, but I have no interest in forming my own mob of online bullies and I have no interest in tangling myself up in that drama. This is exactly why there is not an evenly split mob. It is one certain type of person that is attracted to that behavior, young, arrogant, SJW types, the bullying is a part of their culture, not mine. I don't even use social media unless you count this forum.
-
I figured out what's wrong with the download script I've been using. Every Sunday comic is jpeg instead of gif after 2000, so that's why it wasn't downloading it well. I had to fix it a few places, but it seems to work now. When I have some time I'll make it available on github.
https://gist.github.com/tszaboo/fb9aaff88f802c3a1de961faddc60fbc (https://gist.github.com/tszaboo/fb9aaff88f802c3a1de961faddc60fbc)
Forked from BaloneyGeek. It seems to work ok now, but the script is not near perfect. Hacked exceptions and stuff like that. If someone has more patience for programming pls fix.
I had to run the script a few times, but it was able to download all the comics in the end, so I'm calling it good enough.
-
Here, the small mob is the small group of young, liberal sociopolitical activists, who have close ties with Finnish media. For example, the subset of "experts" the Finnish public broadcast company Yle uses, is about 75% the same as the "progressivist activist group" trying to keep everyone towing to the same line in social media and elsewhere. (About 85% of reporters here self-describe leftist political views.) Anyone speaking against them, is a transphobic racist Putinist, regardless of the actual topic.
I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists. But there are definitely people in politics spanning from left to right on the scale here. About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish". Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters. The last thing is so definitely condemned by the majority in this country and the group is so small that I don't see this as a big issue. This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...
-
How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams?
Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart. It works because people are fearful the mob will come for them if they try and defend you, so almost everyone just stays silent.
A small vocal mob does not have the volume to harm Adams as long as he stays true to what he believes is right.
They did, his syndication company dropped him under the pressure. Not even Adams blames them for doing that.
-
How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams? Which is why I said even if a mob comprising the other half of the population try to cancel him there is and evenly balanced situation for and against.
Cowards are easy to bully. It just takes a few people amplified by social media and the cowards comply, ignoring their own conscience and sometimes even committing offences. A coward publisher is more concerned about possibly losing some money than defending free speech.
-
Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart.
Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something? It quickly turns into blaming an "other" group in society and here we are again. Where the minority could be gender/ethnicity/religion whatever in society. Which is easily felt as discriminatory or racist behavior. It wasn't such a problem in the past because many of these minority groups were in hiding due to fear of society. Today many of them are publicly demanding their right to exist and equality. Which I think is natural and is their right as humans. Of course there will be some people in the minority groups that will over-reach and do stupid things. You still can't blame a whole group. But its a fact that some people are afraid and feel threatened by minorities and actively tries to prevent them from gaining equal status in society. I have no idea if Rowling or Adams deserved their "treatment" or not, but if they speak stupid things, it's on them to bear the consequences. Humans are still not adapted to the fast flow of information on the Internet and social media so there will of course be some that will be hanged out publicly without deserving it. It sucks, but what can you do. Maybe in the future people will behave better (the ancient Greeks might have an opinion).
-
Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart.
Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something?
Because they have some crazy ideas which would be dangerous for society if implemented, such as allowing males in women's prisons, to compete against women in sports and experimental, irreversible medical treatment on children. Anyone who cares about fairness and women's rights should speak up against their mad ideas. Note this is not about discriminating against trans people, but eradicating gender ideology.
It quickly turns into blaming an "other" group in society and here we are again. Where the minority could be gender/ethnicity/religion whatever in society. Which is easily felt as discriminatory or racist behavior. It wasn't such a problem in the past because many of these minority groups were in hiding due to fear of society. Today many of them are publicly demanding their right to exist and equality. Which I think is natural and is their right as humans. Of course there will be some people in the minority groups that will over-reach and do stupid things. You still can't blame a whole group. But its a fact that some people are afraid and feel threatened by minorities and actively tries to prevent them from gaining equal status in society. I have no idea if Rowling or Adams deserved their "treatment" or not, but if they speak stupid things, it's on them to bear the consequences. Humans are still not adapted to the fast flow of information on the Internet and social media so there will of course be some that will be hanged out publicly without deserving it. It sucks, but what can you do. Maybe in the future people will behave better (the ancient Greeks might have an opinion).
It's those who over-reach and do stupid things who are the problem, rather than minority groups as a whole. They claim to speak for everyone in said minority. People such as JK Rowling have been cancelled for speaking out against trans activists who advocate dangerous policies. For them it's not about equal rights, but special privileges. They stir up resentment in society, resulting in more discrimination against trans people. Around 8 years ago, hardly anyone cared if a man wore a dress and wanted to be treated like a woman. Now people are much more wary because of the craziness mentioned above.
-
This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...
The problem is social media... I don't mean forums like this one, but ones like Facebook that use algorithms to customize what the user sees.
These algorithms will feed you info that engages you. So if something makes you angry, and you comment on it, the Facebook algorithm will feed you more of the same. Soon you start to believe that the entire world has gone crazy because of what you're seeing on social media. But it's all an illusion.
The problem comes when people start acting out in the real world based upon what they believe is happening in their own personalized "social media reality"...
-
I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists. But there are definitely people in politics spanning from left to right on the scale here. About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish". Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters. The last thing is so definitely condemned by the majority in this country and the group is so small that I don't see this as a big issue. This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...
Are you active on Twitter? Do you attend or work at a university? Are you a public figure? If none of these then you are considerably less likely to find yourself the target of the cancel mob.
-
Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something?
The definition of "speak out" can be rather loose. In some cases just questioning something they say, making a casual comment or being associated with someone who does. There are people with a hair trigger just looking around for something to be outraged or offended over.
-
Going back to the original topic.
There's a range of views about what Scott said and what, if any consequences he should face:
- Scott said something extremely racist and deserves to lose everything.
- What he said was a little bit racist, but he shouldn't have to lose his source of income.
- I don't think he said anything too bad, even though I disagree with most of it. He certainly doesn't deserve any repercussions.
- Scott said nothing wrong. He was right and doesn't deserve to be cancelled.
- He is definitely right and he is the victim of racism. It wouldn't have been as bad for him, had he been black.
Regarding cancel culture in general. The subject is complex and somewhat nuanced. Would you to employ someone who is genuinely racist? If not then, why? If so, then why? My own personal view is, it depends on the job. If the role involves working with others, especially if they're in a position of power, then no. On the other hand, if they're working on their own, then yes, it wouldn't bother me, so long as they don't have a problem with my ethnicity of course. Also note that everyone has their prejudices and biases. I remember not too long ago, those who refused to have a certain injection were subject to discrimination and still are in some jurisdictions. It's questionable whether doctors and nurses, who are extremely pro-prick to the point of believing those who've not had it, should be denied care, should be allowed to treat patients.
-
I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists.
Indeed. Hbl (the largest Swedish-speaking newspaper in Finland) is one of the less biased newspapers here, and my former Swedish-speaking colleagues at the Uni tended to have very similar views to myself.
You most likely live outside the metropolitan Helsinki-Espoo-Vantaa region, or outside the largest cities; and do not read Helsingin Sanomat, or watch or listen to Finnish-speaking news. Here in Helsinki, the police doesn't even investigate things like storage burglaries, because their time is taken with more important things, like hate speech on the net. Perhaps you agree with such priorities, but fact is, it reduces the cohesion and feeling of security in the population. Perhaps that is exactly why they decided to stop recording and publishing statistics on how secure people actually do feel?
Ordinary working Finns do not see what is happening, because they only get one view from their news, and the majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not fight about politics, until it bites them in the ass.
About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish".
Really? You don't remember Li Andersson claiming that leftist violence is different? You forgot the new law that states anyone can change their gender once a year simply by reporting it? Or how very recently a highschooler got absolutely railroaded on Twitter, because he dared ask a Finnish gender expert at UN headquarters if she could define a woman? Or how Misha Dillinger (a leftist activist) gets to issue direct death threats with police deeming it not worthy of investigation, but when someone else quotes the bible, they're dragged in court five times? That our own government has declared itself intersectional, even though it is clearly in opposition to our constitution, which states that everyone is equal in front of the law –– not that every group is entitled to equal outcomes. Or how our government promised to shorten the immigration proceedings to those who come to Finland to work, but failed (it's still two months, twice the targeted "within one month"); and instead have spent countless hours to try and make it possible for illegal immigrants to stay in Finland living off social security with no requirements to work, unlike Finnish citizens. By insisting on calling illegal immigrants just immigrants, they can say that anybody against letting illegal immigrants are against immigration –– which none of the parties in the parliament currently are, not even True Finns –– and avoid discussing the entire matter.
Hell, our PM recently declared all supporters of True Finns, about 20% of voters, as racists, and basically no reporter put her to task about that. For one, there are quite a few different ethnicities within that party, and they're against illegal immigration, not legal immigration. No reaction, even if it is clear case of defamation (incitement for hatred against a group based on their political views, very illegal in Finland). While I don't agree with many of their goals, at least they are trying to fix things locally here in Finland, before trying to be a "model for the rest of the world to follow" like the other parties say is most important.
When you go with the flow, you see things as quiet and comfortable, even though you're part of a raging torrent.
Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters.
They are nutjobs, really. That is why it is so effective to just claim anybody who disagrees with you, one.
I've been called all those, several times, and I'm definitely not any of those, dammit!
This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...
Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland. Or anything against the prevailing Twitter ideology, really. In particular, go visit the faculty of educational sciences (pedagogiska fakulteten) in Helsinki or Tampere, to see the world the students, and your kids (or grandkids) teachers live in, and ask honest questions about the effects of inclusivity and multiculturalism in the classroom, and how they hope to fix the issues (and get Finnish PISA scores back up).
Do not be surprised when someone in alert colors yells at you and throws something at you, because in their view, you are a monster, defined so by the questions you ask.
-
Really? You don't remember Li Andersson claiming that leftist violence is different? You forgot the new law that states anyone can change their gender once a year simply by reporting it? Or how very recently a highschooler got absolutely railroaded on Twitter, because he dared ask a Finnish gender expert at UN headquarters if she could define a woman? Or how Misha Dillinger (a leftist activist) gets to issue direct death threats with police deeming it not worthy of investigation, but when someone else quotes the bible, they're dragged in court five times? That our own government has declared itself intersectional, even though it is clearly in opposition to our constitution, which states that everyone is equal in front of the law –– not that every group is entitled to equal outcomes. Or how our government promised to shorten the immigration proceedings to those who come to Finland to work, but failed (it's still two months, twice the targeted "within one month"); and instead have spent countless hours to try and make it possible for illegal immigrants to stay in Finland living off social security with no requirements to work, unlike Finnish citizens. By insisting on calling illegal immigrants just immigrants, they can say that anybody against letting illegal immigrants are against immigration –– which none of the parties in the parliament currently are, not even True Finns –– and avoid discussing the entire matter.
You clearly have a different view of things. I don't see it that way.
Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.
I don't have a problem with people that want to define their gender, so I'm not interested in asking such questions.
But I do agree that we have to watch closely the matter of integration and education. Still, it's better to give people a chance than to build walls around ourselves.
-
You clearly have a different view of things. I don't see it that way.
That is fine; some of my friends don't see it the way I do either.
Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.
I don't have a problem with people that want to define their gender, so I'm not interested in asking such questions.
Problem? Asking questions? :o
I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation. For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically. They certainly believe it is their right to do so.
I told you that, because I do not want you to simply believe me, and I think it is a very simple way you can verify this for yourself.
I do not have any problem with any gender, cis or trans or anything else. I am perfectly happy to interact with anyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, orientation, species, or phylum. The one problem I have with gender is that I often miss cues that others consider clear and obvious; to some those are important to acknowledge, and I sometimes fail to do so, unintentionally. (It is why I use predominantly "they" in English, too: that way I don't need to worry about it.)
I brought up self-defining gender, because it will lead to misuse, and I am interested in ideas on how to curb/avoid those, without making things harder to those whose life is improved via legal assertion of their self-defined gender. The law has been set, but there is no discussion about that, because it has devolved into a shouting match between "it won't happen" and "it will happen all the time". We still have many gender quotas in statutes, too; are they still valid, and do they achieve the purpose they were created for?
I am interested in such things, because I am interested in all ways we could make our societies better, at the individual level. It is how I care, through discussions as if these things were solvable problems, being a thing-oriented person.
I very rarely have any problems with those I am talking with face-to-face, even if the disagreement is deep. Many seem to find me easy to open up to, because I am easy to "read", and I truly listen to what they are saying. It is those who take offense on behalf of someone else who isn't there when hearing triggering words or concepts being mentioned, regardless of the context, that have attacked me –– and I've only found out afterwards, when the damage is done, I'm labeled, and there is nothing I can do about it. A big part of this is that when having a technical or political discussion, I do not mind playing the devil's advocate, in order to draw out the underlying reasons behind opinions and approaches. (Simply put, I do not care about opinions per se, but I care and highly value hearing the reasoning behind said opinions.)
Still, it's better to give people a chance than to build walls around ourselves.
Exactly, I agree 100%. My point is that the actions taken now, the enforcement of politically correct and socially just speech, in fact builds those walls.
Even moreso intersectionalism and multiculturalism (or, more correctly, cultural relativism), because it requires individuals to recognize other and actively acknowledge them as other by adjusting their behaviour and expectations based on who they interact with. It does not work, and never has.
I do not want monoculturalism either, just cohesion by treating every individual equally: equality in face of law, equality of opportunity, no discrimination; not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.
-
I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation. For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically. They certainly believe it is their right to do so.
That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.
-
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.
-
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.
In what way, specifically?
-
I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation. For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically. They certainly believe it is their right to do so.
That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.
Nobody has an issue with people asking questions. The problem is that they don’t actually listen to the answer. I mean, yes, they perceive that an answer was given, but if it disagrees with their extant opinion, then they disregard it and attack or vilify the respondent. What we need is for people to ask questions and really listen to the answer, to try and actually understand the other position.
What I see instead is not questions, but simple accusations. Back and forth.
-
not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.
Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.
-
I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation. For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically. They certainly believe it is their right to do so.
That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.
Nobody has an issue with people asking questions. The problem is that they don’t actually listen to the answer. I mean, yes, they perceive that an answer was given, but if it disagrees with their extant opinion, then they disregard it and attack or vilify the respondent. What we need is for people to ask questions and really listen to the answer, to try and actually understand the other position.
What I see instead is not questions, but simple accusations. Back and forth.
Certain questions do invoke hostile responses and accusations of hate. They also more often than not yield logically inconsistent, or nonsensical answers. This is especially true when it comes to gender and to some extent race and religion too.
-
not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.
Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.
No, it does not work that way in real life, because humans are individuals, and not collectives or group intelligences.
What actually happens, is that individuals who lose opportunities to positive discrimination, will feel they are discriminated against. This is not something you can train away, because it is fundamentally about fairness, which is deeper in humans than sentience (and is famously observed in many other species, especially primates and monkeys). In essence, you just shift the discrimination into new people, you never reduce it. In fact, you just increase the amount of discrimination experienced by individual humans.
Equality of opportunity is the only way to actually reduce the amount of discrimination.
The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.
No. That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies). It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science. The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.
This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.
-
No. That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies). It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science. The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.
This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.
I don't believe it to be that simple. In the social democratic model of the Nordic societies (and also in the EU at large) society supports different needs on different levels (not necessarily by minority boundaries). So the support isn't necessarily directly to these groups, but on other levels, based e.g. on individual needs.
I agree with you that fundamentally, there should be fairness and equal rights for humans. But people are different and how you select to give different support to different people must come from some policy. These are very big questions and how that is implemented I'm not competent to comment on, neither do I have the resources or influence to impact on it, other than on lower municipality level, where I've been involved a bit politically. Because I'm not an expert in these matters, ultimately I, like many other people, might not care in the long run, or might follow some party political line and be content with that.
-
The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.
No. That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies). It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science. The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.
This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.
Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.
-
The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.
No. That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies). It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science. The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.
This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.
Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.
I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.
-
The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally.
No. That is purely a philosophical model initially created by Hegel (as dominant-dominated analysis), then fully fleshed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (as oppressor-oppressed model of societies). It is purely a Marxist philosophical model, not based on real-world evidence or any kind of science. The only research that actually supports this are ones based on self-reporting of perception of oppression, which are way less reliable than even the Rasmussen poll that lead to this thread.
This statement is one that has been repeated incessantly in Finland for the last 30 years, and only a few seem to realize it is not a fact or an understanding based on statistics, research, or science; it is just a sociopolitical/philosophical model underlying Marxist communism.
Data from many countries such as the USA and UK show that's obviously not true. There are plenty examples of minorities who do better than the majority. Chinese and Korean Americans consistently outperform the majority, both academically and financially, yet they came to the US with nothing. In the UK Hindus do better than white British, yet again came here with nothing. The success of Jews, compared to the majority, stirred up a lot of jealousy in a certain country, leading to disastrous consequences. I can't see any good coming from Marxist policies of positive discrimination/affirmative action and ideologies such as critical race theory.
In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.
-
These are very big questions and how that is implemented I'm not competent to comment on, neither do I have the resources or influence to impact on it, other than on lower municipality level, where I've been involved a bit politically.
They are big questions, and I definitely do not claim to have any answers. I only want – no, demand! – the ability to discuss them without being labeled or punished for my current opinions.
Many of my current opinions are wrong, but because I can and want to learn, I want to find out which ones and why.
I may not be competent myself, but I refuse to leave such discussions to ideologically driven university students and activists alone.
I fully accept that whatever I discuss with someone may sour their opinion of me, and cause them to stop interacting with me. This is acceptable, because all interaction has its risks and rewards. (It is rare, though. I do make an occasional blunder, especially linguistically, so I do worry a bit about that, about effects of miscommunication.)
What I do not accept, is when someone demands others to not interact with me, or else, especially if it is because of something they heard from some another person attributed to myself. And especially if they do so by labeling me as something I am clearly and demonstrably not.
(Obviously, I am projecting myself in Scott Adams' situation here, but that's just how I relate to other people: I imagine myself in their situation, reflecting their reactions on what I imagine (or know from experience) mine would be, and draw parallels to my own experiences. I seek common ground, and try to build deeper understanding based on the commonalities. I do fear I sound very self-centered, but this is just the way I've found I can effectively relate to anyone, regardless of their background or characteristics.)
-
I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.
Why?
I'm serious, I'm asking it in the very philosophical sense, why? There will be always be people who are the last. They picked some arbitrary measure and that's the most important today. You can pick infinite different criteria, and the outcome will be different. You can pick IQ. Shall we have equal outcome for IQ? Hire board members from the bottom 5% of the distribution and force companies to do so? How about baldness? Or height? Or people with a stub toe? Or brown haired woman? People not living in the capital? How about fixing gender disparity on offshore oilrigs? Why not me, I'm from abroad, why am I not a CTO yet? Do we really want to reward someone based on their birth characteristics instead of their effort, merit and talent?
We put it into law, everyone is equal, discrimination isn't allowed. And then they flip it, and they call it progress.
I cannot wait, when 20 years from now we will be -ist, because we weren't picking some other characteristics that is the most important at that time. Or hopefully we move past woke by then. They are cancelling dead people, because they didn't follow the today's trend. There is now trigger warning placed on Shakespeare, because apparently he wasn't progressive enough. And we are burning books again. Did we learn nothing?
-
Why?
I'm serious, I'm asking it in the very philosophical sense, why? There will be always be people who are the last. They picked some arbitrary measure and that's the most important today. You can pick infinite different criteria, and the outcome will be different. You can pick IQ. Shall we have equal outcome for IQ? Hire board members from the bottom 5% of the distribution and force companies to do so? How about baldness? Or height? Or people with a stub toe? Or brown haired woman? People not living in the capital? How about fixing gender disparity on offshore oilrigs? Why not me, I'm from abroad, why am I not a CTO yet? Do we really want to reward someone based on their birth characteristics instead of their effort, merit and talent?
We put it into law, everyone is equal, discrimination isn't allowed. And then they flip it, and they call it progress.
I cannot wait, when 20 years from now we will be -ist, because we weren't picking some other characteristics that is the most important at that time. Or hopefully we move past woke by then. They are cancelling dead people, because they didn't follow the today's trend. There is now trigger warning placed on Shakespeare, because apparently he wasn't progressive enough. And we are burning books again. Did we learn nothing?
It sounds like you are exaggerating a lot of confusing things. Like someone is triggered by a lot of hyped up things spread by social media. Whereas things to be demanded is basic human rights as per the UN declaration. For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.
-
I might be wrong in my statement. That doesn't change the fact that many minority groups are suppressed/live in worse conditions than majority/whatever. To improve their conditions, it doesn't help to show to them that on paper, they have equal rights. So society needs to do something to help them. That's not wrong in my opinion. But all of this is outside my expertise, so I'd rather not comment on it further.
No society really knows how to help people. Society is a complex dynamic system, and any engineer should realise that a system like that is impossible to analyse effectively. Engineers should be very conservative in their outlook, as they realise there are only a few ways to improve something, a myriad ways to screw it up more, and its hard to know which camp any change will fall in without long term evaluation. That said, so much of what passes for "help" is clearly harming people. Things like affirmative action as practised in the US, for example. There is an honest form of affirmative action. You try to identify capable people held back by their circumstances. You provide resources, like summer schools, to help them catch up to others of their capability. Then those people can run with their peers. Then there is the US system. Take people scoring poorly; don't look at the individual's capabilities or circumstances; feed them into things they are unprepared for, without an effective means to catch up; watch them fail. From figures I've seen there are a lot of people from minority groups in the US saddled with college debt for degrees they could never complete, due to this kind of mismatch. Having no degree they have a poor chance of achieving the kind of income needed to pay off that debt.
-
It sounds like you are exaggerating a lot of confusing things. Like someone is triggered by a lot of hyped up things spread by social media. Whereas things to be demanded is basic human rights as per the UN declaration. For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.
Hence, I wrote it as a philosophical question.
"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general. So what is your suggestion, let's go around like Bush senior, and try to export our values abroad, because that worked out fine the last time.
By the way, if we are talking about basic human rights, what happened to "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". All. Positive, negative. This was 1965, they were smarter than today.
Then there is the US system. Take people scoring poorly; don't look at the individual's capabilities or circumstances; feed them into things they are unprepared for, without an effective means to catch up; watch them fail.
Or even worse, where the most of stimulation package ended up with people overdosing on their choice of sedative.
mod: Johan, you are probably right, I've worked myself up in the past few days. Kinda reached my breaking point where I had enough bs.
Im giving myself a timeout.
-
"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general.
I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.
-
For instance rights for women are still not equal everywhere, even though it has been fought for, for a very long time.
What do you mean by women?
"women are still not equal everywhere" surely you are not talking about Europe or the West in general.
I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.
So what, women are not equal? We know that. There are innate differences between the sexes, which have nothing to do with society and law.
The statistics you cite, don't prove women, don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who are much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.
-
So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.
The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.
With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.
-
So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.
The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.
With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.
How exactly?
Inequality is not evidence of discrimination. If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.
Inequality is essential in a free and fair society. The best we can do is ensure procedural fairness, by having a society which doesn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.
-
How exactly?
Inequality is not evidence of discrimination. If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.
Inequality is essential in a free and fair society. The best we can do is ensure procedural fairness, by having a society which doesn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.
I don't think I'm able to answer, I haven't studied these things enough. I reacted to your comment because to me it looked like you showed some kind of contempt for the achievements of equality for women. I.e. so women shouldn't deserve having e.g. voting rights? The same arguments against them were presented in the past, i.e. their physical and "emotional" inferiority. I'm not sure if it should be called equality, justice, fairness or what. These are just words and need better definitions for me to fathom (there's also the language barrier).
<sarcasm>
I thought it was the Soviets that mastered procedural fairness. They sent any random person to Gulag to fulfill the procedures that circumstances demanded. If it was the person that deserved it, had less importance. </sarcasm>
-
I reacted to your comment because to me it looked like you showed some kind of contempt for the achievements of equality for women. I.e. so women shouldn't deserve having e.g. voting rights? The same arguments against them were presented in the past, i.e. their physical and "emotional" inferiority. I'm not sure if it should be called equality, justice, fairness or what. These are just words and need better definitions for me to fathom (there's also the language barrier).
Where did I say that? It was your misinterpretation. One could have easily assumed my post painted men in a bad light, more than women. I merely stated facts. Always assume, the person you're debating, is well-intentioned.
The best thing for society is to interfere as little as possible. This will ensure maximum wealth and prosperity for all. History has shown mass social engineering projects have a tendency to go badly.
-
The best thing for society is to interfere as little as possible. This will ensure maximum wealth and prosperity for all. History has shown mass social engineering projects have a tendency to go badly.
I'm not sure "maximum wealth and prosperity for all" is possible in our life time. Something has to change radically for that, i.e. free energy or something. What we have for now, though, is many factors that contribute to happiness and a good life. The Nordic countries have many of these factors. It's a fact that the society's interference has contributed a lot to this. On the contrast, in the US, from what I've heard, they've tried to have the society interfere as little as possible. What has it done? Yes, "maximum wealth and prosperity" for very few people. Still, they need tax money for their roads.
-
America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it. I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.
-
If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.
Pro Tip: When arguing a subject that has nothing to do with communism, a sure way to lose any headway with us lefties is to keep bringing up communism.
-
America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it. I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.
I'm all for correcting economic inequalities that result from disparity of opportunity. But I also think that those who excel in creativity, effort or effectiveness should be rewarded for their efforts, and that those who put less into society should not get equal rewards. That set of beliefs makes me a pariah in both left and right oriented groups.
Part of the problem is that there is little agreement anywhere on what disparity of opportunity is, and also on what constitutes a contribution.
-
America has a horrible phobia of anything with the phrasing 'socialis..' in it. I think there's a better chance we'll divvy out guns to everyone before we'll get to equalizing economic inequalities.
I'm all for correcting economic inequalities that result from disparity of opportunity. But I also think that those who excel in creativity, effort or effectiveness should be rewarded for their efforts, and that those who put less into society should not get equal rewards. That set of beliefs makes me a pariah in both left and right oriented groups.
Part of the problem is that there is little agreement anywhere on what disparity of opportunity is, and also on what constitutes a contribution.
It is also difficult for one (especially one with good opportunities) to estimate the level of opportunity for other people in different circumstances.
-
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.
In what way, specifically?
In lots of ways.
Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/ (https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/)
I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.
-
In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.
I suspect that's because immigrating here, especially doing so legally requires significant effort, so you automatically get a bias toward people that are motivated self-starters that want a piece of the "American dream". They come here looking to make a better life for themselves and their families, they come here by choice because they believe in what we as a nation have to offer. Those that have been here for generations have usually never known real hardship, they don't know how good they have it here, they take it for granted and squander their opportunity.
-
Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", it is discrimination, period, and in most civilized nations it is blatantly illegal. It seems to be acceptable to break the law these days though.
-
So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.
The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.
With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.
Huh? Twisted? Everything he said is objectively true, what part do you disagree with?
-
I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.
This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.
-
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.
In what way, specifically?
In lots of ways.
Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/ (https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/)
I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.
With respect to "classic" James Bond novels:
Long before the current bowdlerization, the original Fleming novels were replaced with novelizations of the film scripts.
This was done strictly for commercial reasons by the capitalist owners of the copyrights.
I'm not sure which versions are currently available.
-
If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.
Pro Tip: When arguing a subject that has nothing to do with communism, a sure way to lose any headway with us lefties is to keep bringing up communism.
Lol. I've voted for Labour and Liberal Democrat in the past. I've only drifted rightwards, after the left went out of control.
He should have known better than to have accused me of wanting to go back to the Middle Ages, which I did no do. :palm:
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa (https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa) Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.
This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.
Being culturally homogenous has helped. Unfortunately Sweden has ruined it by allowing mass immigration.
So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.
The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.
With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.
Huh? Twisted? Everything he said is objectively true, what part do you disagree with?
The bit where I said women are not equal probably triggered him, even though I continued by describing how morally inferior men are, in terms of committing violent crime. Incidentally men are also more likely to be killed by other men, than women are.
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.
In what way, specifically?
In lots of ways.
Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/ (https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/)
I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.
Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide)
-
Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide)
Not living in the UK or really that familiar with this issue, but a few Googles and my impression is that claim is biased and a politically charged interpretation of a law that simply tries to protect people seeking those services from harassment by others in that vicinity. Harassment doesn't have to be physical or even verbal - I'm quite sure the people the law is trying to keep out of that buffer zone aren't just standing there in a silent meditative trance like the Dali Llama or something.
So, nobody is monitoring for 'thought crimes' or preventing them from praying. I have no experience with it, but I suspect if prayers work they likely have more range than a Bluetooth signal, so those people don't have to get into the face of those attempting to receive services at that facility. Trying to turn things into a religious fight like that only makes things worse. If Christians want to really feel persecuted, they ought to transition to Muslim, Judaism or some religion that's really pushed around.
-
This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.
I've heard that this is called whataboutism.
-
Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide (https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide)
Not living in the UK or really that familiar with this issue, but a few Googles and my impression is that claim is biased and a politically charged interpretation of a law that simply tries to protect people seeking those services from harassment by others in that vicinity. Harassment doesn't have to be physical or even verbal - I'm quite sure the people the law is trying to keep out of that buffer zone aren't just standing there in a silent meditative trance like the Dali Llama or something.
So, nobody is monitoring for 'thought crimes' or preventing them from praying. I have no experience with it, but I suspect if prayers work they likely have more range than a Bluetooth signal, so those people don't have to get into the face of those attempting to receive services at that facility. Trying to turn things into a religious fight like that only makes things worse. If Christians want to really feel persecuted, they ought to transition to Muslim, Judaism or some religion that's really pushed around.
The law is unnecessary because there are already laws in place which prohibit harassment. Silent prayer is not harassment.
Islam certainly does have special privileges in the UK, but that's another matter.
-
I've heard that this is called whataboutism.
I think that generally when people bring up "whataboutism" it is just a way of saying something along the lines of "You have brought up a valid point that goes against my view and the cognitive dissonance that creates makes me uncomfortable so I don't want to discuss it." It is a way of shutting down discussion of the bigger picture in order to focus on the cherry picked data in isolation.
Notice that you did not offer anything to counter my points at all, you simply shut down the discussion.
-
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
-
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector
Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.
-
I can't locate the book on my shelves right now, but a good history of political philosophy (starting with Aristotle and Plato and continuing to the present) that I read over ten years ago started its discussion of Marxism by stating that one must disentangle Marx's own political philosophy from the version after he was canonized by the Soviet government.
-
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector
This ended in 1937.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector#End_of_korenizatsiia). Maybe you should have read more than just the first half of that Wiki link.
Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.
Then you should have used the correct word (Marxism) in the first place. Communism as practiced by the USSR was not the same as the Marxism envisioned by the German philosopher Karl. Russia was under communist rule for far longer than the short period of idealized Marxism that it started out as.
-
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.
-
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again :palm:
-
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again :palm:
But it's polite, and I personally find it interesting. One of the reasons I frequent EEVBlog is for the social interaction and wide-ranging discussions among smart people. I come for the technology, but I stay for the people. FWIW.
-
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again :palm:
Maybe you should write a satirical cartoon strip about it... wcpgw?
-
In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.
I suspect that's because immigrating here, especially doing so legally requires significant effort, so you automatically get a bias toward people that are motivated self-starters that want a piece of the "American dream". They come here looking to make a better life for themselves and their families, they come here by choice because they believe in what we as a nation have to offer. Those that have been here for generations have usually never known real hardship, they don't know how good they have it here, they take it for granted and squander their opportunity.
That is the usual claim made, but there doesn't seem much hard research to see what the real issue is. In the US both African and Carribean immigrants do well. In the UK African immigrants do much better than Carribean immigrants. That doesn't seem to fit your model.
-
I still try not to discuss specifically prohibited topics, I appreciate that some off topic discussion is allowed, I don't think it's good to push the boundaries.
-
That is the usual claim made, but there doesn't seem much hard research to see what the real issue is. In the US both African and Carribean immigrants do well. In the UK African immigrants do much better than Carribean immigrants. That doesn't seem to fit your model.
There are probably additional factors involved. It would be nice if we could study this sort of thing without people immediately flipping out and attacking the motivation behind the study.
Perhaps it there are additional reasons behind why some people from a particular country would choose the UK vs the USA. I doubt the average US or UK citizen would be able to look at someone from Africa or the Carribean and tell which place they're from, so I think the discrepancy is unlikely to be caused by prejudice.
-
Perhaps it there are additional reasons behind why some people from a particular country would choose the UK vs the USA. I doubt the average US or UK citizen would be able to look at someone from Africa or the Carribean and tell which place they're from, so I think the discrepancy is unlikely to be caused by prejudice.
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.
-
Frankly, it sounds funny to me when the people call today everything "progressive", or "woke", or "somehow left" marxistic. They have a little understanding of history, imho. Marxism has been created around 1850. The russian bolsheviks in 1917 (~70 years after marxism has been created) were looking for a "new" philosophy, easily applicable into the ecosystem of the russian feudalism, helping them jumping over the stage of a "capitalism" straight into a "new bolsheviks socialism", backing their bolsheviks politics in russia - and they chose marxism (being almost unknown at that time, forgotten and gathering dust, being the best fit for Lenin at that time, perhaps because he was infiltrated by Germans - btw. the vast majority of russian bolsheviks were quite surprised with that theory Lenin and Co. started to mess with and afaik they considered it strange and were not happy with it). And soon they started to interpret all that marxistic stuff at their will, making "world" politics, and export it as the tool for their imperialistic efforts.. Calling anything to be "marxistic" these days is a BS.. With no bolsheviks like Lenin and Co. in 1917 the "marxism" will be an unknown category today..
-
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.
I wouldn't know, I don't know the first thing about Africa or the Caribbean other than they are both predominantly dark skinned people. Africa is an entire continent consisting of dozens of countries, the Caribbean is also a large and diverse region. I expect both have widely varying cultures and physical appearances. I'm not sure how I would know which one a person is from.
-
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.
I wouldn't know, I don't know the first thing about Africa or the Caribbean other than they are both predominantly dark skinned people. Africa is an entire continent consisting of dozens of countries, the Caribbean is also a large and diverse region. I expect both have widely varying cultures and physical appearances. I'm not sure how I would know which one a person is from.
True, but most of the emigrants come from one of a few locations, so the people who have migrated to America and Europe are much less diverse than Africa.
-
True, but most of the emigrants come from one of a few locations, so the people who have migrated to America and Europe are much less diverse than Africa.
That may be, but I couldn't tell you which locations they come from. I've never met anyone that I know of from the Caribbean, I've met two people that immigrated here from Africa, I never asked what particular countr(ies). Both of them were very nice friendly people that had successful careers.
-
The idea of majority oppressing minorities, and that a society can be modeled as oppressed/oppressor groups vying for power, was first described by Hegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel) in 1802. Later, in 1848, Marx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) and Engels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) published the Communist Manifesto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
The underlying concept of defining societies and societal change via class conflict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_conflict) is a central tenet in Marxism.
As philosophies go, they are quite interesting, and if compared to feudal systems, even the Communist Manifesto is progressive and preferable. I do warmly recommend anyone to look up on the aforementioned people, even if you completely disagree with their conclusions, because there is a lot of thought in there. Even if faulty, there is a lot of good in there. (Just another example of why it is important to not reject the entire thing or person, just because of a few problematic/faulty/disagreeable parts.)
But the point here is not that this or that is Marxist or socialist or communist. Not at all.
The point we should understand is that the idea of majority always oppressing minority, or even modeling human societies using the oppressor-oppressed model, is an ideology and a philosophy, not a fact, theory, or even a scientific model that can be made to fit real world statistics.
Some people choose to believe it axiomatically, and many (at least in Finland) have been and are taught to believe so without questioning it, just like some choose to believe in a supreme being, or the cycle of rebirth, or that humans are fundamentally different from all other animal life on this planet, and so on.
Whether you believe it or not is not the question; what matters is that we recognize it as just a belief, an ideology, a philosophy, not a fact.
And that alternatives, much better rational/logical models for human social organization do exist.
A core part of cancellation (or shunning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning), as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning. This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions. This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.
It is important to understand that even in the middle ages, when they killed people as witches (more men than women, and usually by hanging, here in Finland, oddly enough), those who accused and were the first to lit the fires, truly believed they were protecting their own society, and were being good people. They were the "woke", the righteous, of their own time. Belief and hope and feelings do not suffice, if we are really interested in better outcomes for all.
Now, apply this to how Scott Adams and others are being treated, and how you yourself treat others based on their occasionally weird/bad/disagreeable opinions, and the questions they may ask.
End Rant.
-
I believe *nothing* is beyond questioning. Gravity can be questioned, morality can be questioned, the laws of physics can be questioned, you better have some damn good evidence if you expect me to change my view on something like the laws of physics but I encourage people to question none the less.
-
Frankly, it sounds funny to me when the people call today everything "progressive", or "woke", or "somehow left" marxistic.
Interesting to note that the founders of BLM have described themselves publicly as "trained Marxists"
-
A core part of cancellation (or shunning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning), as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning. This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions. This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.
Is it though?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.
-
Adams again reiterated today that the only way to get Dilbert from now on will be via locals. And that he is relieved that he now no longer has the pressure of what he can and can't say in the comic.
-
Is it though?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.
You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder, you cannot incite violence, you cannot make direct threats, you cannot slander an individual, but it is by no means a banned idea. You are free to write a book or essay about murder, you can discuss murder, you can stage a pretend murder mystery for entertainment, there are movies about murder.
Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.
-
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.
It is possible to talk about and have different opinions on the two things at the same things.
For example, you can support someone being booted from a social media patform for some view, but not being de-banked or denied another service like Uber for just their views. Or denined some fundemental service.
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".
-
You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder,
You contradict yourself right there.
-
Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.
Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here? There seems to be some unstated assumption that Scott Adams is *entitled* to have his comic strip run in these newspapers because he is rich, famous, and has done so for decades regardless of whatever stuff he says that offends the editorial boards of these newspapers.
But in reality, it's really the opinions of these editors and corporate managers that matter. They're not on Twitter bullying Adams. They may just straight up disagree with him and say "ya know what? We don't want you on our platform anymore." And that's that. Indeed, it's been pointed out here that half the country probably finds Dilbert mildly amusing - or doesn't give two-damns about what he said.
So by laissez-faire libertarian ideology... they, the editors, have every right to pull his strips from their platforms. Regardless if even the majority of the country wants Adams to continue to be published in their newspapers. In fact, this is how ALL mass media works - right-wing, left-wing, doesn't matter. Rupert Murdoch, for example, does not give a shit about your free speech or mine - only the agenda they care about. This is the exact opposite of a mob. It's a very, very small contingent of corporate leaders who make these decisions.
This goes back to what I said much, much earlier in this thread. Corporations are people (so a single CEO can wield a HUGE amount of power to ensure someone they don't like never works again). Money is speech. The more money you have, the more speech you have. And these corporations control the algorithms that show you the media you get exposed to.
This is why I'm not persuaded by appeals to the irrationality of mob bullying - or even that it actually exists. The mob doesn't even know what is happening unless the algorithm shows it to them... and this is exactly the kind of discourse our technocracy has created. In some ways, we asked for this because we asked for media feeds to be built customized to our desires, beliefs, and interests.
-
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".
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
-
A core part of cancellation (or shunning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning), as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning. This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions. This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.
Is it though?
Yes, I truly believe so, based on everything I've read about human history and human societies.
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
Advocate ≠ question. We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
(Although, it is a pet peeve of mine that such laws are very selectively enforced here in Finland right now.)
For example, I do believe we should ask questions on whether death penalty is necessary, and why; exactly what constitutes rape; and so on.
I would definitely allow someone to "advocate" murder by publicly advocating death penalty for certain crimes, for example. (The last capital punishment in peacetime in Finland was in 1825, by the way.)
I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil.
I do believe it would be.
First, exposing bad ideas for what they are works much better than hiding or banning them.
Second, any boundary you set for things beyond questioning, will be exploited, by silencing those who pose a political risk to those in control of the position of the boundary. It has always been, and such things always will be, because we are humans: there are always those who look for personal gain.
Third, speech and communication is rife with errors. For example, when I happen to say I believe we should emphasize therapy and mental health approaches over gender affirming surgeries, especially so for anyone under 25, am I being compassionate or transphobic? I believe so based on what I know about "temporary" gender dysphoria being common in adolescents (part of growing up, really), and I want us to support every individual in a way that gives the best chance for each individual to be happy. There is absolutely no transphobia or anything like that in my opinion: it is based purely on compassion.
Let's say you disagree, and truly believe that I am anti-trans and blocking people from their happiness. Who gets to decide what my utterance means? Who gets to decide whether regardless of my intent, my utterances are worthy of cancellation?
I could maybe accept a panel, including psychologists and linguists, discussing each case at length, and then making a decision –– somewhat similar to a court of law ––; but I for sure will not accept mob rule on this.
Based on individual human psychology, and proper models of rational human behaviour (for example, game theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory)), I have no option but consider shunning/cancellation much, much worse, than its apparent benefits.
-
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
I honestly thought we discussed this already.
The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.
The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority. It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.
-
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
Advocate ≠ question. We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
-
Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.
Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.
His syndication company parted ways with him. That instantly gets the strip pulled from everything everywhere, and books deal gone, the whole shebang.
-
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".
While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality. Likewise I would prioritize a liver transplant to someone that had cancer over someone that damaged their liver by a lifetime of heavy drinking.
-
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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.
-
Adams again reiterated today that the only way to get Dilbert from now on will be via locals. And that he is relieved that he now no longer has the pressure of what he can and can't say in the comic.
I went to find what "locals" is. In the process I saw this come up in the search results on a website called Politico.
"The editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, which dumped “Dilbert” last year, said the comic strip “went from being hilarious to being hurtful and mean.” The Los Angeles Times, which joined dozens of other newspapers in dropping the comic following last week’s remarks, had quietly replaced four of Adams’ strips last year.
“He kind of ran out of office jokes and started integrating all this other stuff so after a while, it became hard to distinguish between Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert,’” said Mike Peterson, columnist for the industry blog The Daily Cartoonist."
It was here https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/27/dilbert-demise-scott-adams-00084665 (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/27/dilbert-demise-scott-adams-00084665)
It's been ages since I lost interest in Dilbert but when this all blew up I went and looked at more recent strips and it didn't have the same "vibe" in poking fun at the absurdities of cubicle life. But that was only a few dozen strips.
But I did see Adams say he knew the risk he was taking and has no regrets. He also tried to explain it in terms of a "real world" made up of the "nice" people he actually meets and the "screen world" defined by a broader cast of characters with a variety of individual motives. Apparently the screen world spilled over into the real world via some form of hell portal (?). I didn't think this real world view made up of only nice people you meet (edit: and a Karen) was very convincing. The real world is made up of more than just people you meet in person and they also share their own motives. I think the screen world is just a bit more anonymous and immediate and amplified. Or maybe a lot more.
I wonder what Dilbert will have to say now. I wonder if Adams should have created a new comic strip and left Dilbert to carry on as I remember him from 20 years ago. If Dilbert does morph into an angrier version I don't think it will really be Dilbert. The one thing I never associated with Dilbert was anger. I wonder if Scott Adams is angrier these days and he couldn't do the "old" Dilbert even if he tried. Or he doesn't want to try hard enough so he lit the fuse.
-
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/
-
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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.
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
-
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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.
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
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. :-//
-
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
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. :-//
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.
-
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
Advocate ≠ question. We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
-
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".
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
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
-
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/
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.
-
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".
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
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
Quoting an article in a right leaning paper that's behind a paywall is kind of disingenuous.
-
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".
While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality.
Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.
-
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
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. :-//
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.
No it is not at all.
I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.
I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.
-
Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.
Keep in mind my view is skewed by the system we have here, in which the taxpayers DO NOT fund healthcare. I get my insurance through my employer, it is a part of my compensation, if I didn't have that I would have to pay for it, and the amount I would pay monthly depends on my lifestyle. I get a significant discount for stating that I do not consume tobacco. I get another significant discount for getting an annual physical. Under this system I think it is totally fair for insurance companies to charge substantially more for someone that is unvaccinated, or to prioritize care to those who are.
The problem of course is in the circumstance where we are resource constrained. Say there are 6 hospital beds and 10 people that need them, all of those 10 people paid into the system and are entitled to care, but not all of them can get it due to reality of available resources. What information do we consider when triaging them? Is it fair to let someone die who took all the best steps they could to reduce their risk, in order to provide treatment to someone that refused to get vaccinated and went out to gatherings thus greatly increasing their risk? I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
-
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
-
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
Advocate ≠ question. We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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.
Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
But that's not what I'm talking about. You're not advocating for the blackhat, you're trying to understand the blackhat so you can defend against him. You're not saying that hacking should be legal and the internet should be a free for all.
Ever heard of the term "dog whistle"? It's these seemingly innocent phrases that have a double meaning.
Classic example is the old Mafia movie scene where the thug goes into a local shop and says, "Nice shop, it'd be a shame if something happened to it." while he waits for the shopkeeper to clue in and pay up.
This is basically what Adams is accused of doing. Using a "dog whistle" to signal to the rightwing crowd where he stands. Now, whether that was his actual intent I don't really know. (I personally wasn't familiar with the "It's Ok to be white" double meaning) But once the controversy came to light, he didn't deny it.
Trump did the same kind of stuff when asked what he thought about white supremacists. Instead of doing the logical thing and saying they were bad and he didn't agree with that ideology, he basically said they weren't all bad and must have their reasons.
-
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
I honestly thought we discussed this already.
The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.
The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority. It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
-
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.
No it is not at all.
I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.
I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.
No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more.
Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda.
-
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
It's absolutely not binary, many factors must be taken into consideration, but the bottom line is in such a situation not everyone is going to get the care they need, hard decisions have to be made, vaccination status is only one of many factors, and arguably not the most important one, which in my opinion would be the likelihood of a person making a full recovery and/or the amount of healthy lifespan they likely have ahead of them after recovery. Second (again in my opinion) would be the extent of treatment they're likely to require. If someone could be estimated to be out of the hospital in a week it may make sense to prioritize them over someone likely to require 3 weeks of treatment, if it's even possible to estimate.
-
Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it. If something can't be question that means it is absolute, it is cast in stone, it is not up for discussion. That frankly is bullshit, nothing in the world is absolute, there are degrees to everything, there are circumstances, there are new ideas, new technologies, and new knowledge that comes into play.
Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.
-
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.
Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.
He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.
-
No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more.
Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda.
Which experts are those? Taking the cocaine example, are you actually saying that possession being illegal is absolutely beyond question, that it has been discussed and studied to the greatest extent possible, there is absolutely no other way of looking at it and that is final? Really?
I personally question whether possession being a crime is the best approach. You are saying that means I am advocating that people should all be encouraged to carry cocaine around which of course is absolute nonsense. I don't want that at all, cocaine is a dangerous drug, use can have serious consequences, but I am not convinced that throwing people in jail for possessing it is the most effective approach. I think that perhaps a combination of education and treatment, along with enforcing existing laws against distributing it, producing it, and being under the influence in public. You on the other hand are suggesting I should not be able to even suggest this, that the way we handle it is settled and that is that. This is a very rigid and inflexible outlook that is exactly the opposite of science.
Climate change, abortion, vaccines and economics are great examples of other things that are not settled at all, we should always be questioning, always studying and always trying to further our understanding.
I think it's obvious that humans activity has contributed to climate change, scientists are pretty much in agreement but there is still some debate over how much and what can be done about it, and it's worth remembering that these same scientists in the 70s were fretting that the earth was going to enter another ice age. We learned more and determined that was in fact not likely to happen and now it is pretty clear there is a warming trend and it's pretty clear why. It is naive though to think it is impossible that we will learn something new at some point in the future that will change the outlook. That's how science works.
Same deal with abortion, some people very strongly that it is murder and should be illegal, in their mind that is beyond question. I on the other hand question that approach, I am staunchly pro-choice, as well as anti-abortion. Paradox? Absolutely not. I believe there are things that can be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal, that will have a better outcome for all involved. I think abortion should be legal, accessible, safe and rare. I support family planning, "free" taxpayer funded birth control and accurate sex education (not ideology, just simply the facts, risks and methods to mitigate the risks). Maybe it will turn out my ideas don't work, if that turns out the case then we change course when presented with new information, it's never settled and absolute.
Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.
Economics I'm not going to discuss because Dave has made it clear he doesn't want that discussed here but there is absolutely room to question economic theories, there are many of them, many are in contradiction and their proponents all believe they are absolutely right and there is no room for questioning, but there absolutely is.
It is absolutely always ok to question something, always, period. Any theory that cannot stand up to questioning is a gigantic red flag. Free energy nuts have been questioning the laws of physics intently for far longer than the laws were defined in scientific terms, yet they are still holding up just fine because despite intense questioning, nobody has yet found a situation under which they do not hold up.
-
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.
Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.
He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.
Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening?
Legitimate to who? Today we know he was right but at the time many people didn't think his proof was legitimate. Are you so arrogant as to think that you are immune to believing something, anything, so firmly that you blow off legitimate proof that what you believe is false as some kind of conspiracy theory? You are totally and completely confident that everything you believe to be true is, and you are not interested in hearing any alternate theories that eventually come to light? And you believe this so strongly that you think anyone that does question your belief should be silenced? Think about that carefully.
-
Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.
No. I questioned the law to examine it. Whether I actually agree with the law, is irrelevant.
By "question", I do mean "to challenge", "to cast doubt on". To undermine it to my fullest ability, without holding back; to test its mettle.
-
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".
Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.
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
That was never an official position, it was a claim by the AMA, who are the "Doctor's Union", & have their own agenda.
In the real world, such decisions were made by the Specialist who would perform the operation.
In that regard, a major consideration would be that transplant patents are the very definition of "vulnerable people".
Treating them in hospitals which have substantial numbers of Covid 19 patients is exposing them to worse risks than delaying their treatment until, hopefully the number of Covid cases fell a lot.
A kidney patient, for instance, can survive a long time on Dialysis, but if they contracted Covid following their transplant, their likelihood of recovery would be low in any case, & very slim for an unvaccinated person.
Even for fairly routine examinations of much lower risk, operations were put back months.
My fully vaccinated wife was scheduled to have a procedure done, & it was delayed in the latter years of the Pandemic.
Another point is that Covid patients required a lot of staff to treat them, so that surgical staff could be, & were, called upon to do that work as well as their normal occupations.
They couldn't be in two places at the same time.
Doctors are more than ordinarily cautious in any case--when I had my left knee replacement well before Covid appeared on the horizon, I was found to have group A Streptococcus bacteria in my nose (yep, they stuck a long swab up my nose just like the Covid test).
I had to insert antibacterial cream into my nose every day, & shower using an antibacterial bodywash.
Had I still had the bacteria present after a week of doing this, I would have almost certainly had my operation delayed.
Of course, those who think that Covid was "just a sniffle" would probably "pooh hoo" Strep as well, as Type II Necrotizing Fasciitis only effects a few people.
-
Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.
Yet that is precisely what happened during the covid hysteria. People were deplatformed, cancelled, lost their jobs etc etc for even dare trying to question "the science".
Now it's all blown up in everyones face who supported those canellations, huge backflips everywhere.
Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.
-
But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.
I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.
Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.
He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.
Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening?
No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.
Are you so arrogant as to think that you are immune to believing something, anything, so firmly that you blow off legitimate proof that what you believe is false as some kind of conspiracy theory? You are totally and completely confident that everything you believe to be true is, and you are not interested in hearing any alternate theories that eventually come to light? And you believe this so strongly that you think anyone that does question your belief should be silenced? Think about that carefully.
No. I just have a very sensitive bullshit detector. It is especially alert when the party asking the "question" stands to gain from doubt being sown about the subject at hand.
-
No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.
No, that's not what you said. You said "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
I presented at least a couple of examples where that is most certainly not the case.
"Making a statement that I do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand"
Yes I might disagree, or I might not, and I might trust, to some degree but not completely. It is arrogant and foolish to trust completely, I've been burned in the past by blindly trusting what someone says, so now I tend to trust to a degree and then verify based on how much trust there is. It is not binary, almost nothing is binary. If somebody tells me their account of an event and something sounds a bit off I might question it and explore alternate possibilities but that doesn't mean I don't believe them, I just understand that perception and memory is not as absolute as we like to think.
I think we have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the holocaust happened, I mean there's kind of actual, physical evidence, a LOT of it, that a person can go see to this day,. That's a pretty extreme example that I don't think is really related to anything else being discussed here. It's not a scientific theory, it's not something we are still studying, it's not something that there has ever been any credible alternate theories, it's an actual event that millions of people witnessed first hand and documented, to fake it would have been an absolutely monumental undertaking like nothing mankind has ever seen, and to what end? It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology. Holocaust deniers can scream their theories until they're blue in the face and no reasonable person will believe them.
-
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
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.
I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.
I think others have already made the point, but sure, here goes:
I question a law that bans [marijuana use]. I hardly advocate for marijuana use (I've seen too many people waste their lives by being wasted), but I am also not generally in favor of prohibition laws. How can you not see this? It's just basic logic.
-
It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology.
They shouldn't be surprised when they are attacked though.
If you asked your wife if she had been unfaithful, it would have an effect on your relationship. Most likely only temporary for a single instance. But if you repeatedly asked this question over and over it would eventually break the relationship.
This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.
That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
-
This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.
That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."
Then rephrase your statement.
And do you really think that we should just shut up when sensitive topics affect us (or those around us)? Here in the USA, in the elementary and high school grades we are seeing advanced placement, and even some basic courses being eliminated or dumbed-down because of "equity". This is an extremely sensitive topic, but people are vigorously questioning these policies. Others vigorously defend them. People's children and grandchildren are being affected -- should the parents just quietly accept it?
-
Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.
Gosh, wish I could be cancelled like that! Who do I have to piss off? 8)
-
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Maybe you have fuck-you money. I don't. It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.
-
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability), is at the very core of the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
-
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability), is at the very core of the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
John Stuart Mill
-
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Maybe you have fuck-you money. I don't. It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.
I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.
-
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability), is at the very core of the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
-
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
I honestly thought we discussed this already.
The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.
The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority. It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.
-
I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.
Yes, many people suffer from this simplistic way of thinking:
"I mean well, therefore I do good, therefore I am good.
If you oppose me, you do not mean well & cannot be good."
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.
-
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.
Does it have to be huge numbers? Here on this forum I often don't make a comment (and often do, but...) because I know that will associate me with a particular view even if that isn't my view. It is very common for someone querying some point to be assumed to be 'that' side merely by raising that issue. And that's on this forum with mostly rational and intelligent members.
Being one of the crowd is important to us, apparently. And, perhaps more important, is not being outside the crowd. That's how influencers get to be celebs with huge numbers of followers and likes. And how cancelling works: just a couple of influencing people (whether they be tiktok celebs or experts with a contrary view that panders to one's own desires) can carry a crowd that's big enough to... well, cancel. The lack of a similar anti-cancel crowd just magnifies it.
-
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.
It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector
This ended in 1937.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector#End_of_korenizatsiia). Maybe you should have read more than just the first half of that Wiki link.
Oh, I've read quite a lot more than that about the Soviet Union and China, not just that link. The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity. I merely pointed out a policy they had which was. I could have picked China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China?useskin=vector) and is probably a better example, since it's still somewhat in effect today.
Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.
Then you should have used the correct word (Marxism) in the first place. Communism as practiced by the USSR was not the same as the Marxism envisioned by the German philosopher Karl. Russia was under communist rule for far longer than the short period of idealized Marxism that it started out as.
I did say Marxism. You were the one who brought up communism.
It's true that what was practised in the USSR and China is not what Marx envisioned, but is still the logical conclusion of following Marxist ideology. Humans are individualistic and nature. It's not possible to get everyone to own the means of production and redistribute wealth in equitable manner. Vested interests soon get in the way and the ideology soon becomes corrupted in order for those who gain power to maintain it. We're not an ant or bee colony.
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability), is at the very core of the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
Trumps comments regarding antiseptic were absurd, but the whole pandemic has not been handled in a scientific manner. Some things pushed by the authorities had the same level of scientific evidence to support them, as those dismissed as dangerous or ineffective. I've completely lost trust in many public health authorities, especially in the UK, US, Canada, Australia etc. I now look towards Sweden and Denmark, who've been more sane.
Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.
The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual. Whilst some vaccines there's definitely a positive risk vs benefit analyses in children such as polio, others are less clear-cut.
I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?
"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
-
The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity.
The policy didn't last long. Korenizatsiia was forgotten in the later 1930's and every different ethnicity from white ethnic Russian speaking Russian was treated as non-equal. Even when they were "integrated" and started speaking Russian and eradicated their own culture, they were still treated as they were from the colonies, which they were (I've read what some Kazaks have written). But Russia has a good history of erasing and totally destroying other cultures. For instance, already in the 1700, Russians tried to commit genocide on the Circassian people. This continued in Soviet times and today's Russia still has these imperialistic and colonialist ideas. Just look at Georgia and Ukraine. I'm not saying other nations haven't done similar things. Just that the Soviet system didn't help, and today's Russia has learnt nothing from history (they deny it) and continues as usual, where at least western nations have learnt something and in many cases apologized for colonialism.
-
The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity.
The type of affirmative action being referenced here is essentially a war on competence. A disdain for competence was behind most of the mass bloodshed in the 20th century.
-
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
The idea everyone needed to have it was based on the scientific evidence available at the time.
Taking the vaccine after natural immunity has mostly worn off is effective and has been proven to work.
The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual.
True. And that's why in my country older people were prioritized when the vaccine was first rolled out.
But there is still a positive benefit vs risk for all adults, but it just isn't as large. So to refuse the vaccine as an adult is just foolishness, paranoia, or the inability to understand statistics.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority. The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot. Without a reference (= a panel of experts backed by scientific data), you can't say which opinion is closest to the truth. Absolute truth doesn't even exist.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority. The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot. Without a reference (= a panel of experts backed by scientific data), you can't say which opinion is closest to the truth. Absolute truth doesn't even exist.
When the single expert is quoting peer reviewed studies and giving his opinion based on that, and the idiot is just making stuff up as he goes along, it's pretty obvious who you should listen to.
What you tout is the typical false equivalency that the "right" relies upon all the time.
As an example, I'm going to place WAY more weight on what Zero999 has to say about an electronics fault than I would on the opinion of someone who doesn't even know what ohms law is.
-
the opinion of someone who doesn't even know what ohms law is
What is there to know? You turn it off and on again, and if that doesn't work you bang it with a hammer. I don't think Ohm covered that with his laws.
-
Science is truth by majority.
And just how do you think this majority came to its conclusions? The scientific process, I'd say.
The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot.
If I had to put you in one of the above categories I would lean towards the latter.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority.
No. Science is not truth, science is a method.
The second you start defining science as an "accepted truth", you completely miss what science is.
-
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Maybe you have fuck-you money. I don't. It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.
I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.
It doesn't take huge numbers of people, it takes just a few, that's part of the problem. Pretty much no matter what you say risks somebody somewhere getting a bee in their bonnet over it. If not now then 20 years later when societal norms have shifted.
-
..Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for...
So an alcoholic who requires a liver transplant but refuses to give up drinking should have the same right to an organ as someone who does not engage in behavoir that will likely reduce the value of that organ? Or a smoker? Being unvaccinated isn't a "health issue" as that implies that it is some kind of disease, or something that is out of ones control - it is a choice, and one proven to improve health outcomes.
I am not suggesting that all unvaccinated people should have had all operations or treatments denied, but you specifically said organ transplants - where organs are in short supply, and all transplants carry with them a lifelong obligation to specific behavoir and habits (as well as lifelong immunosuppressants). Vaccination is especially important for organ recipients because of this - the risk/benefit equation is very much skewed. The waiting lists for organs are long and must be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit. Whilst there are myriad reasons for a person to move up/down the lists - actively refusing to fulfill an obligation that improves the outcome or increases the success of the operation will likely put you down the list.
In a society with a national health service, there is an obligation to provide the best "bang for your buck" - and that includes not wasting extremely valuable/scarce resources on those who refuse treaments on ideological grounds. That isn't all treaments, just those that are the most expensive/valuable.
-
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
Interesting examples of this in our domain were the Electroboom vs Dr Lewin KVL debate. Mehdi didn't overturn the science, but damn it was an interesting practical vs theoretical debate.
The Veritasium transmission line debate was similar.
And Thunderf00t's research on why sodium explodes. That was as solid a known scientific concept as it gets, taught in science classes everywhere, but he turned that concept on it's head.
Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.
-
Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.
What things are medical experts and scientists apologizing for in droves? Who are these apologists?
-
I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
I honestly thought we discussed this already.
The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.
The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority. It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.
You must really talk to a lot of weirdos.
-
What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.
I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth. Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it. Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability), is at the very core of the scientific method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties. (I myself recommend Popperian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego. I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs. We got here by questioning. If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.
I had a discussion with a friend a while ago and he put it pretty well (paraphrased):
'Millenials always want to be on "the right side" and never on "the wrong side" so they don't feel insecure. They don't want things to be better, they just don't want to be wrong.'
The modern person is so afraid of being wrong that the act of questioning itself is anathema.
-
I am greatly disappointed in the "scientific" community
I have two advanced degrees and did work in research for a short time.
It does not seem that they are adhering to the scientific method. Which is really logic.
The scientific method is limited by our knowledge, which changes as we discover more things, so the conclusions can change.
Also, the statistical results they show are not valid much of the time, many times the wrong statistical approach is taken.
Besides that they are back walking many things that they told us to believe and follow under penalty of law.
Even just disagreeing with them could have serious repercussions, both socially and financially.
Now they are disagreeing with what they themselves put out there as ultimate "truth"
If there was any reasonable cause for "cancellation" .......
I really do not trust anyone anymore on the veracity of their conclusions.
It is really unfortunate. These folks are supposed to be there to inform us, not give us false information and false conclusions.
The validity of "science" and the current practice of medicine is being questioned more and more by the regular people.
You can fool most of the people most of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.
All it takes is a couple of obvious lies from the spokes people to make us seriously doubt their sincerity.
-
I had a discussion with a friend a while ago and he put it pretty well (paraphrased):
'Millenials always want to be on "the right side" and never on "the wrong side" so they don't feel insecure. They don't want things to be better, they just don't want to be wrong.'
The modern person is so afraid of being wrong that the act of questioning itself is anathema.
Why is this I wonder? Surely it must be something about one's upbringing that causes this trait. Is it the way so many people grow up completely sheltered from injury and argument? I have a serious worry that social media creates huge echo chambers exactly tailored to a person's views and opinions. This causes people to feel that whatever their views are represent the majority and that anyone who disagrees or sees things differently is a fringe outlier.
-
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
I understand, but still disagree.
He was still "musing" or "asking questions", not suggesting people actually do so. "It would be interesting to check that. It sounds interesting to me." (Followed by a shrug. I just reviewed the YT video.)
I do the same all the time, in physics subjects –– regardless of my own current understanding in the matter –– and everywhere else. Things like capital punishment: since it hasn't been a law in two centuries, why even bring it up? Because discussing the subject clears it for everyone (except those whose emotions are hurt by the discussion). It would be nice if the truly evil people would just go away –– which is the underlying reason people advocate for capital punishment –– but the fact is, such things work differently in real life. Truly examining it, questioning whether it would work or not, and what the real life effects would be, is what reveals such.
In Finnish politics, quite a few "social justice" laws have been enacted recently. Their true effects have not been investigated or even discussed, exactly because the vocal minority and the politicians who rely on them for their agitation and support have silenced the discussion as "racist" and "sexist" and "transphobic". It does not matter to me whether I agree or disagree with the laws myself; I wholeheartedly object to the lack of serious questioning and discussion. This isn't rational, it's purely emotive; and history tells us this will backfire.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved.
When one quarter to three quarters of accepted peer-reviewed publications end up being retracted or unreproducible or heavily revised, I'm not sure scientists' opinions should be considered to have much more weight; especially if they control any kind of research funding. Money talks, and publishing is necessary for continued grants.
-
Ohh, I'm so terrified! ;D
Maybe you have fuck-you money. I don't. It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.
I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.
Well, I can tell you the situation is definitely not that in the academia, or any field related to research (because researchers social connections to people in academia).
Sure, if I switched to potato farming anywhere in Finland, my own neighbors would consider me as a "leftie", even if right now in academia I'd be "right-wing", or worse, "alt-right". (I left academia. I like potatoes, specifically Puikula and Annabella varieties. Could eat them every day, and have for years.)
I don't know about electrical engineering and that sort of a businesses, or manufacturing and design of products; I just don't have the experience to have any kind of an opinion. But I think in those fields as well, there'd be no offense taken at anything I might say or question, even if I was drugged up or drunk.
So, yes, I do see why you think it was over the top. In some circumstances, locales, contexts, it is; in others, it isn't. It depends on who you need to interact with to go on with your own life. A couple of college/university-age kids among the families is easy to deal with, they're still growing up (even at mid-twenties; at least I was). But when you have to deal with politically-driven adults (and their plans that really affect your life), and people just out of Uni, it's a different thing. Here in Helsinki, this context definitely applies. In a small town or village anywhere in Finland with less than say 5000 people, definitely not.
-
Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.
What things are medical experts and scientists apologizing for in droves? Who are these apologists?
Yes, I want to know too.
And poor/bad reporting/reporters/government propaganda and bad media misrepresenting the actual true words of the true medical professionals and scientists do not count.
(If you cant tell your source of new is garbage and incomplete, in today's world, this is on you. I do not count their voices.)
-
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.
At least we not being arrested for hate speech, or the cops knocking on the door to "check your thinking" because you insulted someone :P
It's correct that we don't have constitutionally protected free speech (or a bill of rights), we do have actually have free speech:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression (https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression)
But yeah, but we do have some really shitty laws, like being able to lock up journalists, and the whole covid thing, amoung others. But overall, "free speech" is pretty decent here.
-
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Bringing it back to Adams, he has a famous list of hoaxes:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1631295633138016259
-
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.
At least we not being arrested for hate speech, or the cops knocking on the door to "check your thinking" because you insulted someone :P
It's correct that we don't have constitutionally protected free speech (or a bill of rights), we do have actually have free speech:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression (https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression)
But yeah, but we do have some really shitty laws, like being able to lock up journalists, and the whole covid thing, amoung others. But overall, "free speech" is pretty decent here.
I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
-
Well, at least in Australia, you can quote the bible without getting prosecuted. Not so here in Finland (see Päivi Räsänen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4ivi_R%C3%A4s%C3%A4nen)). She was one of the original proponents of the hate speech laws now being applied against her, repeatedly.
(I don't particularly like her, but it does take quite a weird worldview to interpret her words as 'incitement' to anything. She always says that Christians/Lutherans especially should be compassionate and accepting towards every individual, and not judge them, since everyone has their own flaws.)
It is quite funny that even though we just set a law that lets everyone change their gender just by self-reporting (at most once per year), and we still have various gender quotas in statutes, asking the question "what is a woman" –– especially in the sense that what is the legal definition of female, since Finnish language has only one word for "sex" and "gender": "sukupuoli" –– is considered deplorable far-right/alt-right trolling.
There is only one use of "sukupuoli" in the Finnish law, encompassing all four aspects: legal sex/gender ("juridinen sukupuoli"), biological sex ("biologinen sukupuoli") dictated by genetics, gender ("sosiaalinen sukupuoli"), and gender identity ("sukupuoli-identiteetti"). I'd like to know –– and also discuss/debate, because I only really know how to learn by asking questions, because otherwise I can only parrot statements given to me axiomatically instead of integrating them into my understanding –– how all of this is supposed to work, both legally, and socially. No can do: I'm told I'm a right-wing troll by even suggesting such a discussion. Dammit!
-
Bringing it back to Adams, he has a famous list of hoaxes:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1631295633138016259
The fact that Scott Adams frames all of these as "hoaxes", despite the fact that many of them are well-documented to be true (including proper context), is bad, but unfortunately what I expect of Adams these days.
The fact that you buy into this, and repeat the "hoax" framing, is disappointing. You are using this forum to push your own opinions and agenda. Not what I would expect from a good host -- and specifically a host who has the power to determine which threads get locked, which posts deleted, which users banned.
-
I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
Your citations for this blatantly ridiculous claim?
-
Bringing it back to Adams, he has a famous list of hoaxes:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1631295633138016259
The fact that Scott Adams frames all of these as "hoaxes", despite the fact that many of them are well-documented to be true (including proper context), is bad, but unfortunately what I expect of Adams these days.
Yes, a few of them are well 'videoed' as they were news broadcasted live and and available on youtube.
For example, yes, Trump on live TV did suggest and tell a medical professional that maybe we should inject bleach to get rid of covid.
And I did think that Dave was referring to some more important credible scientific errors in news past, not these BS politically charged mumbo jumbo issued listed in his attached link. Trying to defend or acknowledge that junk shouldn't be worth anyone's time.
-
For example, yes, Trump on live TV did suggest and tell a medical professional that maybe we should inject bleach to get rid of covid.
I could not find any clips where he suggested anyone do that, only clips where he suggested that doing something like that should be looked into.
Are you sure you remember the clip right, and are not just parroting a statement oft repeated you like? Again, to make sure your emotions don't color your view, consider reviewing the clip again, but imagining the speaker is someone else; and see if you still truly believe in the above statement you made.
Besides, if adults are so stupid that when they hear someone talk about injecting disinfectant, go and kill themselves with bleach, I consider it a win for the species: Darwin award worthy. Same goes with cats in microwave ovens, repeated strain injury warnings on keyboards, and so on.
-
The fact that you buy into this, and repeat the "hoax" framing, is disappointing.
I'm at least somewhat trying to keep this thread Scott Adams focussed, unlike most here it seems.
You are using this forum to push your own opinions and agenda. Not what I would expect from a good host -- and specifically a host who has the power to determine which threads get locked, which posts deleted, which users banned.
I'm a user like anyone else. I have opinion like anyone else. But not once, in 12 years have I ever banned anyone from this forum for having an opinion I don't like.
And do you really think I'm pushing "opinions and agenda" here? Really? You have absolutely no clue how restrained I am on here, nor do you have a clue what my "agenda" is.
Someone has to keep this forum from turning into shit, because I can assure you if there weren't a few mods here trying to at least keep the wheels from falling off the billy cart, then it would have died long ago.
How about you actually post something on topic in this thread instead of mind reading me. Another thing Adams teaches BTW, brining it back on topic again. Let's see you actually try...
-
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
I understand, but still disagree.
He was still "musing" or "asking questions", not suggesting people actually do so. "It would be interesting to check that. It sounds interesting to me." (Followed by a shrug. I just reviewed the YT video.)
That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it. He did it then to a) bring his idea forward where it couldn't be dismissed, and b) make sure everyone knew he owned it. But, again, he gave himself an out, just in case.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
-
That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
This is what I call "social games" (or word games), trying to manipulate others, and I hate it.
In my opinion, the correct response is "Who are those smart people?" and "Why do you think it could be possible there's something in it?".
If they are not able to make a coherent argument as to the latter, I do love to restate the question, replacing the asker in it, and follow up with a reference to psychological projection – because it surprisingly often is. You know, make them define their question precisely, since they are asking it; and not let them get away with fuzzy emotive insinuations.
If the question itself has merit, it can be defended –– but only if someone challenges the question, instead of just canceling the asker.
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it.
Sure; those speaking to millions do need to be held to a higher standard than those who just talk amongst friends/colleagues.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
Just like leading questions –– "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" ––, there are insinuations that are technically phrased as questions, that either cannot be answered, or are not intended to be answered. They do need to be challenged; but I still insist that shunning or cancellation is always the wrong solution, evil.
However, the exact line between genuine and non-genuine questions is very difficult to draw.
I would prefer that anyone asking questions that can be interpreted as non-genuine, were challenged directly: pressed to precisely define or rephrase the question to make it unambiguous and answerable, with a basis as to why the question should be considered in the first place.
For example, in my hypotethical capital punishment law case, I would simply answer that there being currently more than one repeated murderer who have killed again soon after being released, some people see capital punishment as the most efficient way to stop them from repeating their offenses, but I believe they forget the practicalities of such a punishment as evidenced by the statistics in other countries that do apply capital punishment.
In the case of politicians talking bullshit –– which happens fairly often at least here, on all sides of the political spectrum ––, I would like for the reporters to confront them about it, and let the people decide for themselves. What I do not want, is for reporters to decide not to publish it because they do not think people should hear it (either because it is embarrassing to the politician that many reporters support, or because it is an insinuation by a snide/annoying politician and reporters don't want people to mistakenly believe it has merit).
No "cancellation" by any news media or reporter, in other words, no matter how inane their utterances.
Long ago, "news" referred to events, with reporters seeking them out. Nowadays, "news" refers to emotions celebrities have to events that are happening or have happened, with reporters considering themselves as the filters, the gatekeepers of knowledge, protecting the public from Misinformation and Disinformation. At least here in Finland, that is. Hopefully you have better reporters wherever you are...
(As I mentioned to JohanH, Hbl (https://www.hbl.fi/) is still pretty good; comparing to Hesari (https://www.hs.fi/) shows rather interesting skew in the latter... Similarly for Swedish vs. Finnish-language news reports on Yle, the national broadcaster.)
-
Trump's quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE)
Sounds to me he was talking about lung lavage not "injection"
That is IF he knew what he was talking about, I don't know.
Did not mention bleach.
-
The fact that you buy into this, and repeat the "hoax" framing, is disappointing.
I'm at least somewhat trying to keep this thread Scott Adams focussed, unlike most here it seems.
Talking about Scott Adams is fine, of course. What I find disappointing is that you parroted his "hoax" framing and made it your own that way.
But not once, in 12 years have I ever banned anyone from this forum for having an opinion I don't like.
And do you really think I'm pushing "opinions and agenda" here? Really? You have absolutely no clue how restrained I am on here, nor do you have a clue what my "agenda" is.
Agree, I do not recall a user being banned for the wrong opinions, only for breaking the forum rules. But I find it notable that threads where certain political opinions are dominant will remain open, while others (with opinions you seem to care less about) get locked. The "diversity, equity and inclusion" thread comes to mind, and this one of course.
How about you actually post something on topic in this thread instead of mind reading me. Another thing Adams teaches BTW, brining it back on topic again. Let's see you actually try...
You mean, like here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4739705/#msg4739705)? You will also find that all my earlier posts in this thread were on topic.
-
Besides, if adults are so stupid that when they hear someone talk about injecting disinfectant, go and kill themselves with bleach, I consider it a win for the species: Darwin award worthy. Same goes with cats in microwave ovens, repeated strain injury warnings on keyboards, and so on.
Around here all moose warning traffic signs were earlier placed after an incident.
If oven maker has bought a dead cat you can bet the warning will appear.
Can't verify that old Honda motorcycle mirror had a behind you text but I've seen one once, maybe it was a prank.
One must wonder how much bias is affecting reading.
Is the word changing, longer text clearly is.
Is the non biasing part blurring away.
What should happen to those who are sentenced to be in prison for possessing marijuana in free marijuana state?
Is it same with the "not really questioning" one with substance amount of cargo ship load?
How much more criminal is a slower marijuana possessing runner who couldn't escape to free marijuana state?
-
Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.
At least we not being arrested for hate speech, or the cops knocking on the door to "check your thinking" because you insulted someone :P
It's correct that we don't have constitutionally protected free speech (or a bill of rights), we do have actually have free speech:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression (https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression)
But yeah, but we do have some really shitty laws, like being able to lock up journalists, and the whole covid thing, amoung others. But overall, "free speech" is pretty decent here.
I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
The problem is, several so-called news outlets are happy to "lie in their teeth", if they can get people with very little knowledge of the country referred to to click onto their page.
-
Trump's quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE)
Sounds to me he was talking about lung lavage not "injection"
That is IF he knew what he was talking about, I don't know.
Did not mention bleach.
Ok,"bleach" is a bridge too far, but none of the other common externally used disinfectants are safe to use internally, as most people know by the time they are around 7 years old.
(Ok, mercury was used internally for various conditions in the past, but it has very dangerous side effects.)
An adult man making such a suggestion casts severe doubt on his intelligence.
If the things Mr Trump suggested were possible, they would have been used in the past against other quite dangerous lung infections.
-
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Bringing it back to Adams, he has a famous list of hoaxes:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1631295633138016259
Well, at least Adams provided a tick-box for "Hoax Quiz" as the first selection... :-DD
-
effects.)
An adult man making such a suggestion casts severe doubt on his intelligence.
If the things Mr Trump suggested were possible, they would have been used in the past against other quite dangerous lung infections.
I've asked a few extreme right-wing friends I know about remarks like that from Trump (I usually know better than to expect anything rational from them about him). They say "Oh come on! He was joking to troll the media! (or insert some other group _______").
That's their answer to anything stupid he says - he's just joking. :-\
-
An adult man making such a suggestion casts severe doubt on his intelligence. [(Trump video)]
IMO there is no debate when it comes to Trump's intelligence. He has very little, at least not how we would measure it here. He does have other skills though.
But Scott Adams is correct when he includes the "bleach" thing in his list of hoaxes. Trump said something stupid (which was not surprising), but he didn't say what has been claimed, and not just in this particular case.
-
But Scott Adams is correct when he includes the "bleach" thing in his list of hoaxes.
Pedantically, yes. But bleach is often shorthand for disinfectant (fewer syllables, easier to remember, etc) and for 'cleaning material' which Trump obviously means (and he does say 'cleaning'). I wouldn't call that misquote a hoax in the accepted sense. In fact, I would say that trying to pass it off as a hoax is actually the kind of straw-clutching that conspiracy theorists like to zoom in on.
-
Besides, if adults are so stupid that when they hear someone talk about injecting disinfectant, go and kill themselves with bleach, I consider it a win for the species: Darwin award worthy. Same goes with cats in microwave ovens, repeated strain injury warnings on keyboards, and so on.
Somehow I don't think the cat chose to be microwaved... So Darwin doesn't really apply there. :(
But, there are lots of people like that and they vote too. And then there are those who get caught preying on gullible people... (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/florida-family-indicted-selling-toxic-bleach-fake-miracle-cure-covid-19-and-other)
When one quarter to three quarters of accepted peer-reviewed publications end up being retracted or unreproducible or heavily revised, I'm not sure scientists' opinions should be considered to have much more weight; especially if they control any kind of research funding. Money talks, and publishing is necessary for continued grants.
I would like to see a legitimate, non-Fox Newsish, source for this info please.
-
Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.
Gosh, wish I could be cancelled like that! Who do I have to piss off?
As many talk show hosts have discovered, being rude and offensive to a certain group, will endear you with opposing groups. Financial success follows.
Of course…There are limits to this, as Alex Jones has found out.
-
I'll be careful to bail at $2m.
OK, $5m just to be comfortable.
Perhaps $10m would be a nice round figure though.
-
Somehow I don't think the cat chose to be microwaved...
:palm: Cats also don't get awarded Darwin awards.
I would like to see a legitimate, non-Fox Newsish, source for this info please.
Demanding for sources when you yourself haven't provided a single one for your own assertions is a well-known extreme-left trolling pattern.
So, you first. I'll do that right after you provide sources for the assertions you've made in all your preceding posts in this thread. Just to make sure you're not just trolling me.
Sniping aside, here you go:
For an example of 60% of articles failing reproducibility test, look at psychology (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248) (Nature, 2015, cited 56 times). (And that's not all crappy papers, only the ones whose results cannot be reproduced.)
In preclinical cancer research, 89% of articles failed reproducibility testing (https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a), ie. their results could not be reproduced. Also note that this Nature article has been cited 1851 times, so it is definitely main-stream science, not some lone goofball spouting nonsense.
Or you could go read about the survey of 1576 scientists Nature did in May 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a). The initial numbers often cited from that are fractions of scientists having had issues with reproducibility, not fractions of articles, so don't just skim it. Over half of those reported they believed there was a "reproducibility crisis" going on even then.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority. The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot. Without a reference (= a panel of experts backed by scientific data), you can't say which opinion is closest to the truth. Absolute truth doesn't even exist.
When the single expert is quoting peer reviewed studies and giving his opinion based on that, and the idiot is just making stuff up as he goes along, it's pretty obvious who you should listen to.
But how do you know that from just watching TV? People like a president are supposed to know what is wise to do and what is not (even if they don't know themselves, they are expected to have knowledgable advisors backed by a team of scientists).
Good information has become a very scarse commodity in today's world. I just read an article that Fox News is being sued for parrotting Trump because it made them more money. The companies that build voting machines are claiming damages worth 3.5 billion US dollars. The presenters knew very well that what they where telling on TV was an outright lie.
And even peer reviewed reports can be completely wrong. Think about the 'study' that claimed measles vaccine caused autism. Turned out to be completely made up by the author but it has done a lot of damage (including deaths).
-
Or you could go read about the survey of 1576 scientists Nature did in May 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a). The initial numbers often cited from that are fractions of scientists having had issues with reproducibility, not fractions of articles, so don't just skim it. Over half of those reported they believed there was a "reproducibility crisis" going on even then.
Not a single mention of "peer review" in that article.
Nice little quote from your article:
The survey — which was e-mailed to Nature readers and advertised on affiliated websites and social-media outlets as being 'about reproducibility
For an example of 60% of articles failing reproducibility test, look at psychology (Nature, 2015, cited 56 times). (And that's not all crappy papers, only the ones whose results cannot be reproduced.)
In preclinical cancer research, 89% of articles failed reproducibility testing, ie. their results could not be reproduced. Also note that this Nature article has been cited 1851 times, so it is definitely main-stream science, not some lone goofball spouting nonsense.
Even if I accept these findings as 100% accurate, psychology (A very weak science) and "preclinical cancer research" don't make up anything near "one quarter to three quarters of accepted peer-reviewed publications"
-
Even if I accept these findings as 100% accurate
I'm sure you wouldn't accept anything that is contrary to your current beliefs anyway.
Besides, I'm not here to convince you. I'm just showing my current understanding, and trying to show what it is based on, through examples and references.
Neither of which you have provided for any of your own assertions.
-
I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
Your citations for this blatantly ridiculous claim?
It was posted earlier in this thread, I have not read the entire law and I'm not very familiar with UK law in general but the part that was quoted by tszaboo said
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” which could apply to any one of us, "cause annoyance" is extremely broad and vague.
tom66 responded saying "It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK."
And langwadt posted this video link which is what I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk)
So perhaps you could clarify which part(s) of all this are "blatantly ridiculous".
-
I was really shocked to learn the UK had arrested several times more people for speech violations than Russia, that's truly terrifying that a modern, civilized nation would be doing that. The law is so broad and vague that any one of us could be charged.
Your citations for this blatantly ridiculous claim?
It was posted earlier in this thread, I have not read the entire law and I'm not very familiar with UK law in general but the part that was quoted by tszaboo said
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” which could apply to any one of us, "cause annoyance" is extremely broad and vague.
tom66 responded saying "It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret. The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children". See also: Internet safety bill in the UK."
And langwadt posted this video link which is what I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk)
So perhaps you could clarify which part(s) of all this are "blatantly ridiculous".
There's nothing obscure or secret about that information. Its well known in the UK. You don't even need to break a law to get on the kind of police register that will exclude you from various jobs. There are "non crime hate incident" reports which get you onto those registers, just because someone didn't like what you said.
-
That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it. He did it then to a) bring his idea forward where it couldn't be dismissed, and b) make sure everyone knew he owned it. But, again, he gave himself an out, just in case.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
Trump is a blathering idiot, that much has been obvious for as long as he has been involved in politics. I really hate being forced to defend the guy because I absolutely cannot stand him and cringe whenever he flaps his gums, but he did not suggest anyone inject themselves with bleach. He was pondering whether it is possible to inject something that would disinfect a person and kill the virus, it's an idiotic thing to ponder if one knows anything about medicine but he's an idiot and doesn't know anything about medicine. If somebody is stupid enough to take that idle speculation as an instruction to actually inject themselves with disinfectant then they win the Darwin award.
I don't really see it much differently than someone with a poor understanding of engineering and physics pondering if we can "just do xyz" to fix a free energy machine so that it achieves over unity. People speculate about things they don't understand all the time.
-
Neither of which you have provided for any of your own assertions.
Quote one of those assertions that you want me to verify.
Even if I accept these findings as 100% accurate
I'm sure you wouldn't accept anything that is contrary to your current beliefs anyway. assertions.
Nice Ad Hominem attack with zero evidence.
-
Neither of which you have provided for any of your own assertions.
Quote one of those assertions that you want me to verify.
Nope. I'm not here to be your research assistant.
If you wanted to have even a shred of credibility, you would have shown at least one sub-field of science with similar significance or volume as psychology or pre-clinical cancer research with reproducibility above 90% (i.e., in less than 10% of articles, findings are found to be unreproducable) in a peer-reviewed article in a journal with the kind of reputation Nature has. You haven't. (There aren't any. They don't call it a "reproducibility crisis" just because it sounds catchy. There are smaller subfields like algorithms in ACM, which don't have reproducibility issues; but then again, they describe discovered methods and algorithms, and do not rely on data at all.)
Thus, the belief you asserted is completely unfounded. Not only that, but you used word games to entice me to spend time and effort to prove mine, even though your counterargument was simply "I don't believe you", without a shred of support for it.
Using your own definitions, you're delegitimizing me for absolutely no reason except your own emotions, lowering yourself to the same level as Trump. Using your own criteria, you should be therefore cancelled, and banned from here. I disagree.
By my definitions, you're asking for proof without reciprocality, which means I must question the reasoning behind your questions, i.e. push back, just like I described I wished reporters did when encountering political blathering. I definitely do not want you to be banned, and none of this will affect my attitude towards you in other threads. (If there is something I can help you with, I will.)
-
Neither of which you have provided for any of your own assertions.
Quote one of those assertions that you want me to verify.
Nope. I'm not here to be your research assistant.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. (That would be you)
-
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Prove it, and I'll reconsider.
-
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Prove it, and I'll reconsider.
Is this for real?
-
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Prove it, and I'll reconsider.
:-DD
This entire thread has descended into juvenile arguments... I'm still unsure why people get so passionate about Scott Adams, the guy is just a cartoonist who likes to be controversial. He's said some obviously dumb things, and now its got a 28 page thread about fears of so-called "cancellation". We've had communism, antivax flirtations and very questionable links/citations. Might be time to lock it eh?
-
Bringing it back to Adams, he has a famous list of hoaxes:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1631295633138016259
The fact that Scott Adams frames all of these as "hoaxes", despite the fact that many of them are well-documented to be true (including proper context), is bad, but unfortunately what I expect of Adams these days.
Yes, a few of them are well 'videoed' as they were news broadcasted live and and available on youtube.
For example, yes, Trump on live TV did suggest and tell a medical professional that maybe we should inject bleach to get rid of covid.
And I did think that Dave was referring to some more important credible scientific errors in news past, not these BS politically charged mumbo jumbo issued listed in his attached link. Trying to defend or acknowledge that junk shouldn't be worth anyone's time.
Thanks to the attached video clips, I was mistaken to say 'Bleach', it was 'Disinfectant'.
-
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
But we know the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity, because those who've had it clearly continue to get infected. It was pretty obvious fairly early on, it wasn't going to stop the pandemic. When Alpha hit, we knew it was mutating to become more infectious, then Delta had sufficient immune escape to ensure it would slowly spread, even if everyone were vaccinated overnight and Omicron just spread like wildfire.
The idea everyone needed to have it was based on the scientific evidence available at the time.
Taking the vaccine after natural immunity has mostly worn off is effective and has been proven to work.
No it was not based on any credible scientific evidence. The vaccine may boost antibody titres, but that doesn't last long and there's no evidence it offers any additional benefit, in terms of protection against severe disease and death. The body produces memory T-cells which provide long lived protection against severe disease and death. Don't forget, getting infected isn't a problem, so long as it's mild.
There has been no randomised, placebo-controlled trial into whether vaccines provide any benefit in those who have natural immunity. None whatsoever. The evidence to support it is no greater than that for ivermectin. Now I wouldn't listen to anyone advising me to take that either, unless I had worms.
The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual.
True. And that's why in my country older people were prioritized when the vaccine was first rolled out.
But there is still a positive benefit vs risk for all adults, but it just isn't as large. So to refuse the vaccine as an adult is just foolishness, paranoia, or the inability to understand statistics.
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity? It didn't make sense to vaccinate a 60 year old who had the disease a few weeks ago, before a 50 year old with no prior infection. :palm:
There clearly is not a positive risk-vs-benefit for all adults. Suggesting everyone take this vaccine, irrespective of health and natural immunity, is just as illogical as someone refusing it, when the data suggests they would benefit. There's no reason why a healthy 18 year old man, with natural immunity should take this vaccine. None at all. If he's already survived the disease, there's absolutely no plausible reason why it would be more severe when he catches it again. None at all. Even the tiniest risk of adverse events is unacceptable.
Fortunately there are some sane doctors around. My bother had a bad case of COVID-19, back in summer 2021, when unvaccinated. No he didn't refuse, he had physical trauma and was advised to delay vaccination for a couple of weeks. He was only 37 and the virus got into his heart, triggering two big heart attacks. He had to have a stent put in and will be on medication for the rest of his life. His cardiologist told him not to take any of the COVID-19 vaccines, because there no proof of any benefit has he has natural immunity and the vaccine has a significant, risk of giving him myocarditis or pericarditis. I don't think for a second his doctor is an anti-vaxer, just looked at the evidence available and came to a rational decision. Anyway, my brother got COVID-19 again a year later, had a stinking flu-like illness and recovered with no long term effects.
I have no problem with vaccines. They have saved millions of lives, but as with every other intervention, there needs to be strong evidence to support it and in this case many health authorities have badly let us down.
..Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for...
So an alcoholic who requires a liver transplant but refuses to give up drinking should have the same right to an organ as someone who does not engage in behavoir that will likely reduce the value of that organ? Or a smoker? Being unvaccinated isn't a "health issue" as that implies that it is some kind of disease, or something that is out of ones control - it is a choice, and one proven to improve health outcomes.
I am not suggesting that all unvaccinated people should have had all operations or treatments denied, but you specifically said organ transplants - where organs are in short supply, and all transplants carry with them a lifelong obligation to specific behavoir and habits (as well as lifelong immunosuppressants). Vaccination is especially important for organ recipients because of this - the risk/benefit equation is very much skewed. The waiting lists for organs are long and must be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit. Whilst there are myriad reasons for a person to move up/down the lists - actively refusing to fulfill an obligation that improves the outcome or increases the success of the operation will likely put you down the list.
In a society with a national health service, there is an obligation to provide the best "bang for your buck" - and that includes not wasting extremely valuable/scarce resources on those who refuse treaments on ideological grounds. That isn't all treaments, just those that are the most expensive/valuable.
There was also the madness of people refusing blood from those who had been vaccinated. You couldn't make it up. :palm:
-
This entire thread has descended into juvenile arguments... I'm still unsure why people get so passionate about Scott Adams, the guy is just a cartoonist who likes to be controversial. He's said some obviously dumb things, and now its got a 28 page thread about fears of so-called "cancellation". We've had communism, antivax flirtations and very questionable links/citations. Might be time to lock it eh?
It's not passion about Scott Adams, the whole cancel mob thing is much, much bigger than him. And despite it being blatantly obvious that it happens, there are still people that somehow insist that it isn't real.
-
There was also the madness of people refusing blood from those who had been vaccinated. You couldn't make it up. :palm:
That is truly bizarre, though if somebody requires blood and they choose to refuse it for that or any other reason I really don't have a problem with that, it's their life and if they die because of the choice they made that is their problem, not mine.
Similarly I read someone is trying to make a law in some state that vaccinated people can't donate blood, that is insanity in my mind, but when they have a massive shortage of blood it will be clear very quickly that the law and the legislator that created it are responsible.
-
It's not passion about Scott Adams, the whole cancel mob thing is much, much bigger than him. And despite it being blatantly obvious that it happens, there are still people that somehow insist that it isn't real.
The same people who insist it's not real, also support the case that it's good.
I'm fine with double standards, actually, we all are more or less susceptible of letting something "slip" when done by our favorites; but intellectual dishonesty and outright sociopathic lying I hate.
-
This entire thread has descended into juvenile arguments...
Yes, apparently my links to Nature and peer-reviewed articles on the unreproducibility of psychology and cancer research aren't up to par against Very Solid Beliefs stated as facts.
very questionable links/citations
Yes, Nature is such an alt-right publication, very Fox News -like. They haven't even put Greta on the front page yet! How dare they!
Might be time to lock it eh?
"Please shut down this discussion. It is hurting my emotions."
I haven't yet seen a single credible post defending cancellation, or showing any other than emotive basis for why treating anyone like Scott Adams was treated should be acceptable. Is that the real reason you want this thread to be locked down? Because it makes you question your beliefs?
-
Might be time to lock it eh?
"Please shut down this discussion. It is hurting my emotions."
I indeed find this thread painful. A 28-page circle jerk, with 95% of posters in vehement agreement and the remaining 5% getting shot down or insulted when they speak up.
Being part of this back-patting circle may be comforting for your emotions, but I don't think it does much good for your intellect. I recommend the regulars' table at the bar for this type of discussion. Cheers.
-
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
But we know the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity, because those who've had it clearly continue to get infected. It was pretty obvious fairly early on, it wasn't going to stop the pandemic. When Alpha hit, we knew it was mutating to become more infectious, then Delta had sufficient immune escape to ensure it would slowly spread, even if everyone were vaccinated overnight and Omicron just spread like wildfire.
I only mentioned "sterilising immunity" because the person I was replying to brought it up. During the pandemic there were many antivaxxers claiming they weren't actually antivaxxers because they had been the recipients of other vaccines. When it became clear that the covid vax didn't provide sterilizing immunity, the antivaxxers felt vindicated while trying to claim that it was useless.
But that's the thing about "sterilizing immunity", while it is easy to prove that a vaccine doesn't provide sterilizing immunity, it is much more difficult to prove when it does. Many other vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity but are still useful to administer.
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity?
Because it was very early in the pandemic. There was no widespread easy way to test people the entire population for natural immunity. Logistically, it was simply easier to base it on age and overall health status than trying to triage people of unknown status.
There has been no randomised, placebo-controlled trial into whether vaccines provide any benefit in those who have natural immunity. None whatsoever.
Not sure how you would slip an antivaxxer a "placebo" but here you go:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497)
-
There was also the madness of people refusing blood from those who had been vaccinated. You couldn't make it up. :palm:
That is truly bizarre, though if somebody requires blood and they choose to refuse it for that or any other reason I really don't have a problem with that, it's their life and if they die because of the choice they made that is their problem, not mine.
Its not that bizarre. Studies have shown the key components of the vaccine in some people's blood and organs for considerable periods after it was administered. If you don't trust the vaccine, why would trust blood that might contain it going straight into your own blood stream?
-
A 28-page circle jerk
Hmm. You considering posts referencing research published in Nature a 'circle jerk' explains a lot.
5% getting shot down or insulted when they speak up
Well, if they are wrong, they deserve to be shot down. None of the 5% you refer to have backed up their opinions with anything (except their own beliefs).
Insulted, no. But when they start demanding evidence without providing any themselves, they do deserve to be insulted. Not cancelled, mind you, but definitely insulted.
Being part of this back-patting circle may be comforting
I don't care. I want a rational discussion, not one where your objection is "I don't think so" or "I don't believe you" or "you need to prove yourself if you dare disagree with me". I've provided the basis (not complete, but via examples) for all the statements I've made in this thread. Yes, you disagree. That is not sufficient to demand that the discussion is stopped or "moved to a regular's table at the bar".
I hope you see the irony in your own response.
-
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity?
Because it was very early in the pandemic. There was no widespread easy way to test people for natural immunity. Logistically, it was simply easier to base it on age and overall health status than trying to triage people of unknown status.
There were plenty of people who had already been tested and known to to have previously had the infection, yet were still vaccinated before those who hadn't, simply because they were a bit older.
There has been no randomised, placebo-controlled trial into whether vaccines provide any benefit in those who have natural immunity. None whatsoever.
Not sure how you would slip an antivaxxer a "placebo" but here you go:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497)
Of course an anti-vaxer wouldn't enrol in a vaccine trial, so I don't see how that comment is relevant. There would have been plenty of people who would have enrolled in such a trial. I believe I probably had it in March 2020 and if an antibody test proved it, would have precipitated in a vaccine trial, given the chance.
Even taking it at face value proves the Canadian policy of giving everyone two doses is retarded, as there was no difference between one vs two doses. Those wasted doses could have been used for those who needed them.
But, that study still doesn't prove a positive risk-vs-benefit.
It's not a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. More importantly, it just looks at re-infection, rather than severe disease and death and doesn't even deal with adverse events. So what if the second infection just causes a cold? What if the rate of myocarditis is higher from post-infection vaccination, than reinfection? Remember Moderna was proven to have higher rates of myocarditis and AstraZeneca and J&J had a greater risk of blood clots under 40s, so one can't assume the vaccine is always safer.
Not taking natural immunity into account is stupid and has no doubt cost many lives. There will have been many who needed the vaccine but didn't get it who've died and a some who didn't need it, yet suffered injury or death.
-
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity?
Because it was very early in the pandemic. There was no widespread easy way to test people for natural immunity. Logistically, it was simply easier to base it on age and overall health status than trying to triage people of unknown status.
There were plenty of people who had already been tested and known to to have previously had the infection, yet were still vaccinated before those who hadn't, simply because they were a bit older.
I agree with Kim here: Given the number of people that needed to be vaccinated, you need to streamline the process and base it on simple rules. As older people are more vulnerable, they where called in first.
Also, protection against flu like virusses (Rhino, Influenza, Corona, etc) wears off pretty quickly (*) and these group of virusses mutate a lot as well. So there is an additional benefit of vaccinating people with a vaccine that targets a wider range of mutations compared to the (single) mutation they have already been subjected to.
* I don't know how things are at your end, but over here there has been quite a big flu pandemic because people didn't got the flu for a while due to all the Covid restrictions and their immunity declined. That is also why older & vulnerable people get a flu vaccination every year. Having read a bit into it, I strongly doubt there ever will be a vaccine that cures the flu 100%. The best is to get infected a couple of times per year so your immune system remains up to date and well trained.
-
Everything else aside, i never understood the apeal of Dilbert cartoons. They always seemed to me stating the obvious and often being silly and borderline stupid. Kind of same as Mr Bin, never found him funny, just plain idiotic. Wish the author the best though, as he did/does have his audience.
-
Thanks to the attached video clips, I was mistaken to say 'Bleach', it was 'Disinfectant'.
Injecting a person with a "disinfectant" is not an entirely idiotic thing to speculate, at least on the surface if we assume they lack medical expertise. By "disinfectant" I am assuming they mean a substance that kills the virus but somehow doesn't harm the host, not an off the shelf disinfecting cleaner such as Lysol. Now I'm not suggesting this is actually possible, but in the right context is is far from the dumbest thing I've heard a person say, and I still don't think it was a suggestion of something a person should go out and do.
-
There were plenty of people who had already been tested and known to to have previously had the infection, yet were still vaccinated before those who hadn't, simply because they were a bit older.
There has been no randomised, placebo-controlled trial into whether vaccines provide any benefit in those who have natural immunity. None whatsoever.
Not sure how you would slip an antivaxxer a "placebo" but here you go:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119497)
Of course an anti-vaxer wouldn't enrol in a vaccine trial, so I don't see how that comment is relevant. There would have been plenty of people who would have enrolled in such a trial. I believe I probably had it in March 2020 and if an antibody test proved it, would have precipitated in a vaccine trial, given the chance.
Even taking it at face value proves the Canadian policy of giving everyone two doses is retarded, as there was no difference between one vs two doses. Those wasted doses could have been used for those who needed them.
But, that study still doesn't prove a positive risk-vs-benefit.
It's not a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. More importantly, it just looks at re-infection, rather than severe disease and death and doesn't even deal with adverse events. So what if the
Ok. I give up.
Maybe you can tell me this: "How do I unsubscribe to this thread? I'm too dumb to figure it out myself."
-
Everything else aside, i never understood the apeal of Dilbert cartoons. They always seemed to me stating the obvious and often being silly and borderline stupid. Kind of same as Mr Bin, never found him funny, just plain idiotic. Wish the author the best though, as he did/does have his audience.
Well as I think has been mentioned before, humor is very subjective. Personally I think Dilbert is funny, it's not the most hilarious thing I've ever seen and it's not always great, but I laugh whenever I see one that relates to a situation I've been part of or observed during my career. I'm not going to fault you for not finding it funny, there's lots of humor out there that some people think is hilarious that I either don't get or don't find to be funny. My sense of humor has changed somewhat as I've aged too, some movies I thought were absolutely hilarious when I was a teenager have not held up well. Others I didn't get at all at the time are funny now.
-
Maybe you can tell me this: "How do I unsubscribe to this thread? I'm too dumb to figure it out myself."
On the list of threads, click the checkbox next to this thread to select it, then click the Ignore Threads button on the top-right.
-
The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
But we know the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity, because those who've had it clearly continue to get infected. It was pretty obvious fairly early on, it wasn't going to stop the pandemic. When Alpha hit, we knew it was mutating to become more infectious, then Delta had sufficient immune escape to ensure it would slowly spread, even if everyone were vaccinated overnight and Omicron just spread like wildfire.
I only mentioned "sterilising immunity" because the person I was replying to brought it up. During the pandemic there were many antivaxxers claiming they weren't actually antivaxxers because they had been the recipients of other vaccines. When it became clear that the covid vax didn't provide sterilizing immunity, the antivaxxers felt vindicated while trying to claim that it was useless.
But that's the thing about "sterilizing immunity", while it is easy to prove that a vaccine doesn't provide sterilizing immunity, it is much more difficult to prove when it does. Many other vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity but are still useful to administer.
I apologise for overlooking this.
Yes of course just because it's non sterilising, it doesn't mean it's no good. I didn't mean to suggest that. My point was making a non-sterilising vaccine a condition of work, or to go to public events was the issue. The vaccine is very good at preventing severe disease and death. People get infected, but it's much milder, than it would've been had they not had the disease or vaccine, so it's definitely useful. It's just questionable whether it's beneficial for all.
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity?
Because it was very early in the pandemic. There was no widespread easy way to test people for natural immunity. Logistically, it was simply easier to base it on age and overall health status than trying to triage people of unknown status.
There were plenty of people who had already been tested and known to to have previously had the infection, yet were still vaccinated before those who hadn't, simply because they were a bit older.
I agree with Kim here: Given the number of people that needed to be vaccinated, you need to streamline the process and base it on simple rules. As older people are more vulnerable, they where called in first.
Also, protection against flu like virusses (Rhino, Influenza, Corona, etc) wears off pretty quickly (*) and these group of virusses mutate a lot as well. So there is an additional benefit of vaccinating people with a vaccine that targets a wider range of mutations compared to the (single) mutation they have already been subjected to.
I don't know about Canada, but testing became widespread by the time we started vaccinating in the UK.
At the very start, reinfection was comparatively rare. It's only when the virus mutated and started to infect the upper airway, did immunity become more short-lived. This is probably because antibodies linger for longer in the blood, than the mucus membranes and earlier variants caused more systemic infection. The later variants starting with Delta and especially Omicron caused more upper airway infection, which is what made Omicron much less pathogenic, was well as more transmissible. People often attribute the reduction in pathogenicity in the virus not wanting to kill its host, but I suspect it's more to do with the fact infecting the nose and mouth, rather than the lungs causes drastically increased transmissibility, with reduced pathogenicity being a good side-effect. Remember, most fatalities occurred due to the body's inflammatory response, after the virus had already been eliminated.
I find this topic fascinating. I do my best to listen to both sides of the augment and have changed my opinion on many things over the last three years. I focus more on what doctors are saying, rather than politicians. I do admit I pay more attention to those who question the authorities and mainstream media, because I believe there are many more who have been afraid to speak up and others who never question anything. I hope the authorities have learned, but the fact that some have been so slow to change their policy, when new evidence comes to light, doesn't give me much confidence.
* I don't know how things are at your end, but over here there has been quite a big flu pandemic because people didn't got the flu for a while due to all the Covid restrictions and their immunity declined. That is also why older & vulnerable people get a flu vaccination every year. Having read a bit into it, I strongly doubt there ever will be a vaccine that cures the flu 100%. The best is to get infected a couple of times per year so your immune system remains up to date and well trained.
We've had huge problems with strep A infection, especially in children over the Christmas and New Year period. Another side effect of the response. Whether the risk-benefit was positive or not, is still an ongoing question.
Thanks to the attached video clips, I was mistaken to say 'Bleach', it was 'Disinfectant'.
Injecting a person with a "disinfectant" is not an entirely idiotic thing to speculate, at least on the surface if we assume they lack medical expertise. By "disinfectant" I am assuming they mean a substance that kills the virus but somehow doesn't harm the host, not an off the shelf disinfecting cleaner such as Lysol. Now I'm not suggesting this is actually possible, but in the right context is is far from the dumbest thing I've heard a person say, and I still don't think it was a suggestion of something a person should go out and do.
I think Trump's biggest weakness is not thinking things through before he opens his mouth. It's also a strength because he doesn't hide his true personality, like other politicians do. I sit on the fence as far as Trump is concerned. All politicians are A-holes, but Trump doesn't bother to hide it.
-
I'm fine with double standards, actually, we all are more or less susceptible of letting something "slip" when done by our favorites; but intellectual dishonesty and outright sociopathic lying I hate.
I think everybody has double standards, everybody has biases, it's perfectly normal. What bothers me is when people with a blatant double standard claim they don't.
As somebody with no particular political affiliation and views that are all over the map from far left to far right depending on the topic, I constantly see groups engaging in exactly the same behavior they accuse groups they are strongly opposed to of doing, "but it's not the same" when they do it, or if you point out that they are also doing it they deflect with an accusation of "whataboutism". :palm:
-
The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity.
The policy didn't last long. Korenizatsiia was forgotten in the later 1930's and every different ethnicity from white ethnic Russian speaking Russian was treated as non-equal. Even when they were "integrated" and started speaking Russian and eradicated their own culture, they were still treated as they were from the colonies, which they were (I've read what some Kazaks have written). But Russia has a good history of erasing and totally destroying other cultures. For instance, already in the 1700, Russians tried to commit genocide on the Circassian people. This continued in Soviet times and today's Russia still has these imperialistic and colonialist ideas. Just look at Georgia and Ukraine. I'm not saying other nations haven't done similar things. Just that the Soviet system didn't help, and today's Russia has learnt nothing from history (they deny it) and continues as usual, where at least western nations have learnt something and in many cases apologized for colonialism.
China has been doing it for longer. I could have also mentioned Zimbabwe, or South Africa. It's not worked there either.
Anyway, you're just proving my point. The kind of affirmative action carried out in the US and parts of Europe will also harm minorities. As I said, universities in the US have already faced legal action from Asians who have no doubt been discriminated against. It's also anti-Semitic because Jews generally do better academically, than other ethnic groups.
And who would you rather receive treatment from: a doctor who got there because she's a woman, from X minority, or a man who's there purely on merit?
-
]I think Trump's biggest weakness is not thinking things through before he opens his mouth. It's also a strength because he doesn't hide his true personality, like other politicians do. I sit on the fence as far as Trump is concerned. All politicians are A-holes, but Trump doesn't bother to hide it.
I do think he is his own worst enemy. He simply has no filter, at all. He runs his mouth, insults people, makes an ass of himself, when called out on it he doubles down, he just can't shut up, never could, never will. When he finds himself in a hole he can't stop digging. Some people love him for that, he speaks his mind, he's transparent, in a sense that's true, but I would call it belligerent. He behaves similarly to a person that has had too much to drink. It's not against the law to be a belligerent asshole and he's certainly far from the only businessman with that personality, but as an American it was embarrassing to have a person like that holding the most prestigious job in the land. The president is, among other things, the main spokesman, the face of the nation. Personality and diplomacy are not everything, but they are very, very important, and they are areas where he just utterly failed. Another trait of great leaders which he has totally lacked is humility and the ability and willingness to take responsibility when something goes wrong, even when it is not their fault, again Mr Trump utterly fails at that in every situation, his is simply incapable of being humble or ever admitting fault for anything.
-
My point was making a non-sterilising vaccine a condition of work, or to go to public events was the issue. The vaccine is very good at preventing severe disease and death. People get infected, but it's much milder, than it would've been had they not had the disease or vaccine, so it's definitely useful. It's just questionable whether it's beneficial for all.
If it wasn't mandatory, the uptake would have been too low to keep the hospitals from collapse (which did happen in the UK and some other countries). Pretty much all the public health measures were just to balance hospital capacity and continues today. Isolation and/or Vaccination, one of those is much easier to sell politically.
You're communicating your position much better than Dave (who dropped some barely coherent "point" and walked away), and there is considerable evidence that natural immunity is as good (or probably stronger) than the vaccines available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02465-5
So here in Australia the current recommendation is 6 monthly jab or infection, treated interchangeably that we'll probably agree is a reasonable balance on the known data. Now that there is enough protection within the community almost all mandates for workplaces are lifted/gone (healthcare remains, due to high interaction and with vulnerable groups).
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity? It didn't make sense to vaccinate a 60 year old who had the disease a few weeks ago, before a 50 year old with no prior infection. :palm:
I was disappointed that Australia being 6-12 months "behind" the UK didn't take more from their experience and data showing the effectiveness of single doses (instead holding rigidly to the manufacturer trials). Same thing here with a rigid short interval double dose working from old people to young despite it being pretty clear by that point the population would have been better off (and the old people slightly worse off) if they had prioritised first doses and a longer interval to the second.
-
That is Trump's MO, presumably used to prevent any negative comeback. "Some smart people have said he fiddles with kids. Maybe he does - I don't know." Of course, he says that kind of thing not because anyone has actually said what he purports but to plant the idea, and then reiterates that he's not saying that "but maybe there's something in it".
Specifically to the bleach thing, there is surely a time and place to ask things and suggest things, and when speaking as The Official Word in front of the entire world is surely not it. He did it then to a) bring his idea forward where it couldn't be dismissed, and b) make sure everyone knew he owned it. But, again, he gave himself an out, just in case.
Trump is actually a great example of how 'just asking' is really not that at all.
Trump is a blathering idiot, that much has been obvious for as long as he has been involved in politics. I really hate being forced to defend the guy because I absolutely cannot stand him and cringe whenever he flaps his gums, but he did not suggest anyone inject themselves with bleach. He was pondering whether it is possible to inject something that would disinfect a person and kill the virus, it's an idiotic thing to ponder if one knows anything about medicine but he's an idiot and doesn't know anything about medicine. If somebody is stupid enough to take that idle speculation as an instruction to actually inject themselves with disinfectant then they win the Darwin award.
I don't really see it much differently than someone with a poor understanding of engineering and physics pondering if we can "just do xyz" to fix a free energy machine so that it achieves over unity. People speculate about things they don't understand all the time.
Normally, people in such positions as the one Mr Trump occupied have learnt to not "run off at the mouth" about things they not only don't know anything about but have not done even a minimal amount of research about.
Amongst his supporters, his comments have much more influence than if he was just the "dumbo down the road."
We may say "more fool them", but do they deserve to die for their mistake?
-
Can we please stop the Trump stuff.
The last Dilbert was just published on the website. From today (13th Mar) Dilbert Reborn will only be available on the Locals platform.
I want Dilbert, but not at US$70/year. And I don't use Locals for anything else.
-
Can we please stop the Trump stuff.
The last Dilbert was just published on the website. From today (13th Mar) Dilbert Reborn will only be available on the Locals platform.
I want Dilbert, but not at US$70/year. And I don't use Locals for anything else.
Dave, the Adams' "hoax" list you linked to was almost all about Mr Trump.
-
Can we please stop the Trump stuff.
The last Dilbert was just published on the website. From today (13th Mar) Dilbert Reborn will only be available on the Locals platform.
I want Dilbert, but not at US$70/year. And I don't use Locals for anything else.
Dave, the Adams' "hoax" list you linked to was almost all about Mr Trump.
And it was several pages back. And at least was technically on-topic because it was about Adams.
-
And it was several pages back. And at least was technically on-topic because it was about Adams.
And this is the General Technical Chat board of the forum so that's technically correct.
-
And it was several pages back. And at least was technically on-topic because it was about Adams.
For some it can be just a moment ago.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority.
No. Science is not truth, science is a method.
The second you start defining science as an "accepted truth", you completely miss what science is.
Quoting for truth, because this cannot be repeated enough!!!
-
For an example of 60% of articles failing reproducibility test, look at psychology (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248) (Nature, 2015, cited 56 times). (And that's not all crappy papers, only the ones whose results cannot be reproduced.)
In preclinical cancer research, 89% of articles failed reproducibility testing (https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a), ie. their results could not be reproduced. Also note that this Nature article has been cited 1851 times, so it is definitely main-stream science, not some lone goofball spouting nonsense.
Which is in no way indicative of the scientific process failing. It's literally just the process working exactly as it is supposed to. One of the core purposes of academic publishing is to say "hey everybody, we did this, but we need for others to replicate the experiment to either confirm or refute its findings". Academic publishing isn't intended to mean "we did this novel experiment and it proves this and that". When you have several replicated experiments that all confirm the findings, then you can start to take it to mean that something is proven.
Of course, most people don't know any of this, since they're scientifically illiterate and rely on the often wildly distorted misinterpretations of scientific papers by scientifically illiterate journalists.
The biggest actual issue with academic publishing is that failed experiments are rarely published (that is, they're rarely ever submitted for publishing). So there's a lot of studies we don't know about at all. That and the paywalling of the results of publicly funded research in privately-published journals that add very little value to the entire process.
-
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
-
I'm OK with the theory that everything consists of Earth, Wind, Fire and Water. (although you can get a really good rock group with just three of these elements)
It's the Aether that I am not so sure of.
I dislike these newfangled ideas.
-
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true. Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough. If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right! Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
Add that relying solely on placebo controlled double blind studies - without looking at important things like, you know, plausbility, or whether theres even a possible mechanism at work - means that the biases/flaws that can never be removed from said studies end up creating false positives. For example P<0.05 thresholds - 5% of studies will be "positive" by pure chance, but are seen as showing something meaningful if one only considers the results from the test and nothing else like context.
-
My point was making a non-sterilising vaccine a condition of work, or to go to public events was the issue. The vaccine is very good at preventing severe disease and death. People get infected, but it's much milder, than it would've been had they not had the disease or vaccine, so it's definitely useful. It's just questionable whether it's beneficial for all.
If it wasn't mandatory, the uptake would have been too low to keep the hospitals from collapse (which did happen in the UK and some other countries). Pretty much all the public health measures were just to balance hospital capacity and continues today. Isolation and/or Vaccination, one of those is much easier to sell politically.
The fact it wasn't mandatory had nothing to do with the UK's hospitals being over-crowded. Most of the pressure on the NHS occurred at a time (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190451/covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-in-the-uk/), before the vaccine was approved (Spring 2020) and during the point people were queuing up to take it (winter 2020/2021) and it had to be given to those who were deemed to be more vulnerable. Uptake amongst the vulnerable was more than high enough to ensure the NHS could cope. This was one of the reasons why the Delta and Omicron waves didn't cause as much of a problem as the previous ones.
Vaccine mandates would have made the situation far worse, not better. At the end of 2021, just as Omicron hit, if I remember rightly, the government mandated all care home workers take the vaccine, but it resulted in staff shortages. They were going to do the same for NHS staff in early 2022, but dropped the requirement, as the numbers didn't add up. A fraction of the population equal to 1-1/R need to have sterilising immunity in order to stop the spread, yet Omicron has an R0 of 18, the vaccine only reduces transmission by 30% and is short-lived. Avoiding a small number of infections, which are unlikely to be severe in the vaccinated, didn't outweigh the poorer care which would have resulted from understaffing, which is already bad enough as it is.
You're communicating your position much better than Dave (who dropped some barely coherent "point" and walked away), and there is considerable evidence that natural immunity is as good (or probably stronger) than the vaccines available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02465-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02465-5)
Exactly. More importantly, protection against mild or asymptomatic disease is unimportant. Getting a cold is part of every day life. The vaccines were approved because they have been proven to be highly effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. The risk vs benefit for the first two doses was definitely worth it for most adults, who lacked immunity, especially given the more pathogenic variants in circulation. The boosters are much more questionable, but even though I find it interesting, I won't get into it again.
I've noticed many people appear to be unable to look at this rationally. There are those who will never trust the vaccine, whatever the evidence says and there are those who appear to be completely blinkered to the fact it does have some risks. Some authorities got it right, others messed up. I do my very best to look at it from both sides, but it's difficult given the lack of data.
So here in Australia the current recommendation is 6 monthly jab or infection, treated interchangeably that we'll probably agree is a reasonable balance on the known data. Now that there is enough protection within the community almost all mandates for workplaces are lifted/gone (healthcare remains, due to high interaction and with vulnerable groups).
Good. They shouldn't have been any in the first place. Plenty of other countries managed fine without them. There are no mandates for flu vaccination and now this not much different, certainly not at this stage.
I didn't want to get into a debate on vaccines. My point was the pandemic response of most governments was not evidence based. I could have talked about keeping 2m distance, facemasks, school closures etc. Some of it can be put down to inexperience but a lot of it was negligent. Governments will try to make excuses for the madness, some of them have some merit, others are completely false. Getting unbiased data on which measures proved beneficial long term and which did more harm than good is difficult. I think most of them resulted in net harm. It's often better to do nothing, than harm, but that's pure speculation.
-
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true. Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough. If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right! Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
Add that relying solely on placebo controlled double blind studies - without looking at important things like, you know, plausbility, or whether theres even a possible mechanism at work - means that the biases/flaws that can never be removed from said studies end up creating false positives. For example P<0.05 thresholds - 5% of studies will be "positive" by pure chance, but are seen as showing something meaningful if one only considers the results from the test and nothing else like context.
I don't see your point about placebo controlled studies. If there's sufficient randomisation in the participants and the study is large enough, there shouldn't be any bias. Interestingly many interventions lack a plausible mechanism, or one was presumed, yet later turned out to be false: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is a classic example.
-
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
N95 masks? Or cloth masks? Or both?
I never really understood why wearing one or not was such a big politicized deal, but I'd be surprised if properly worn N95 masks were not effective, especially at capturing particiles if you are infected. Doctors and other staff have worn masks in operating rooms and such for many decades and it's not for decoration.
-
But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.
It kind of is. Science is truth by majority.
No. Science is not truth, science is a method.
The second you start defining science as an "accepted truth", you completely miss what science is.
Maybe truth isn't the right word here and my wording could be better. So excuse the semantics. Still for all intends and purposes, the broadly accepted (scientifically established) theory that explains a certain phenomenon is treated as being true / the truth until the theory has been disproven c.q. replaced by a new, better theory. 'Truth of the day' could be a better term.
-
Doctors and other staff have worn masks in operating rooms and such for many decades and it's not for decoration.
Yes, but they were never meant to block viruses. It's usually even marked clearly on the boxes.
-
Doctors and other staff have worn masks in operating rooms and such for many decades and it's not for decoration.
Yes, but they were never meant to block viruses. It's usually even marked clearly on the boxes.
Most simple masks catch aerosol spray from the mouth of the wearer quite well. That has always been the goal. Droplets of a surgeon's saliva on a wound could be devastating. They do little for something truly airborne. So, you need to see if your virus of interest mostly floats freely in the air, or is mostly carried in water droplets. Even N95 masks aren't much good against free floating virii.
-
Can we please stop the Trump stuff.
That wasn't an invitation to start with the covid stuff.
-
Surgical masks are meant to prevent bacteria from entering surgical wounds, not viruses. And incidentally to prevent medical staff from inhaling/swallowing patients' blood or anything else nasty that could come out. ::)
-
Looks like he has 109k followers on Locals. Don't know how many paid though.
Following (unpaid) with my existing Locals account I can see his first Dilbert Reborn strip.
He recently gave permission for people to use but but not actively republish the strip, so here is the first strip, 1 of 3, I'll just post the first one. Dilbert dies and was cremated.
You guessed it, in the next one he's reborn from the dumpster.
(https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/59082/59082_xuuifnc9gha3cvn_full.jpeg)
-
My point was making a non-sterilising vaccine a condition of work, or to go to public events was the issue. The vaccine is very good at preventing severe disease and death. People get infected, but it's much milder, than it would've been had they not had the disease or vaccine, so it's definitely useful. It's just questionable whether it's beneficial for all.
If it [the vaccine in Australia] wasn't mandatory, the uptake would have been too low to keep the hospitals from collapse (which did happen in the UK and some other countries). Pretty much all the public health measures were just to balance hospital capacity and continues today. Isolation and/or Vaccination, one of those is much easier to sell politically.
The fact it wasn't mandatory had nothing to do with the UK's hospitals being over-crowded. Most of the pressure on the NHS occurred at a time (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190451/covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-in-the-uk/), before the vaccine was approved (Spring 2020) and during the point people were queuing up to take it (winter 2020/2021) and it had to be given to those who were deemed to be more vulnerable. Uptake amongst the vulnerable was more than high enough to ensure the NHS could cope. This was one of the reasons why the Delta and Omicron waves didn't cause as much of a problem as the previous ones.
I've added the situational clarification to the above. Many people will get the vaccine only when they feel it will immediately help them which is a rational position for them to take individually, but people tend to be very bad as assessing risks so rational does not equal effective/efficient for the population. Had there been no vaccine mandate in Australia the hospitals would have fallen over like they did in the UK (or other measures would have been needed like longer and harsher isolation/lockdown) as the uptake was very slow.
The UK didn't have the luxury of deciding how/when to roll out the vaccine as the virus was already running wild, but Australia ran a "zero" transmission effort/regime during that same period. Lockdowns couldn't run indefinitely (political or financial) and the vaccine uptake wasn't moving fast enough (for the suggested modelling) without a mandate. Even with all that fiddling and pulling of levers, the hospitals in Australia squeaked through by pushing back "elective" procedures and things like cancer screening. Overall effects are a hard thing to measure, the health care that hasn't been provided because of dealing with covid patients (even without attention grabbing hospital collapse) is a huge and growing cost that could have been lessened with more aggressive vaccination (the health system has been publicising heavily on the ratio of unvaccinated people hospitalised for covid) and/or isolation and/or [insert you choice of control method here].
As we're both in agreement on, keep people informed of the moving data is important. But most of the public can't ingest this sort of complexity and need/want a simple "rule".
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Painful visions of being in the EMC lab trying to pass 61000-4-6 by clamping ferrites on cables.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
I'm the OP but as someone said correctly I'm not the owner of it and can't decide how it develops.
Dilbert for free in a easy way to be accessible is no more, fork $70/Year for a daily strip or wait for paying people to set a website who rips the strips daily and publishes in the dark Web for free.
I'm not implying that the creator should work for free, but all this situation was blown out of water when other public figures do worse and nothing happen to them.
No one is coming back what was said, and newspapers, publishers and other deal holders are also not gonna change their decision. So close it, burned it to the ground and bury the ashes.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Maybe you should be able to set up a different sort of thread, like some forums have, where you can have a whinge about something "close to your heart" & be able to disable comments.
That way, we won't be wasting your, (& our time) discussing what seem to us to be associated issues.
I know you have always wanted this forum to be as open as possible, but perhaps it is time to have a "special place", other than your videos where you can "tack your colours to the mast."
As it is, you know that not everyone will agree with you, others won't agree with them, in turn, & both sides will bring up "side issues" to seemingly bolster their case.
-
Hopefully the Dilbert collection will end up on a torrent somewhere, I'm not going to subscribe to some service I've never heard of just to read that.
-
Dilbert for free in a easy way to be accessible is no more, fork $70/Year for a daily strip or wait for paying people to set a website who rips the strips daily and publishes in the dark Web for free.
In researching (? ? ?) what was behind the story I watched about 30 minutes of a Youtube video of Scott Adams in his own words saying why he did what he did. I went back to find what I thought was the vital part where he explains it. I'll link the YT video keyed to the exact time. You only have to watch for about a minute.
But basically he says the he has gained massive notoriety as a voice to speak about things he feels need to be said. So it was calculated and the risk was in his favour. If you look at the titles of his YT channel "Real Coffee with Scott Adams" you will see a pretty good cross-section of topics. I expect these will fairly heavily feature in future Dilbert cartoons.
If it pans out that way I don't think the new "paying" Dilbert audience will intersect greatly with the old one because cubicle culture will be greatly diminished.
https://www.youtube.com/live/RiNVN6c9E9g?feature=share&t=3570 (https://www.youtube.com/live/RiNVN6c9E9g?feature=share&t=3570)
-
If it pans out that way I don't think the new "paying" Dilbert audience will intersect greatly with the old one because cubicle culture will be greatly diminished.
Dilbert has always been about all sorts of current business and social issues and events, and just general human traits etc. It's trivial to map almost anything into the context of the cubicle world, the jokes still remain the same, just the setting might be different. So nothing changes.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Maybe you should be able to set up a different sort of thread, like some forums have, where you can have a whinge about something "close to your heart" & be able to disable comments.
That has been repeatedly voted down by the community many times over the years.
-
As it is, you know that not everyone will agree with you, others won't agree with them, in turn, & both sides will bring up "side issues" to seemingly bolster their case.
The disadvantage of these topics for me is that they diminish the forum as an electronics forum. I usually just look at the list of recent posts and if it is heavily populated with topics like this one and bank collapses (and yes I know banks use ATM's and they are electronic and therefore on-topic) then I see fewer thread titles that are interesting electronics ones.
Having said that I have posted a handful of time here and I hope they were more topical than this one.
However to try to shoe-horn this one back to Dilbert I will say that if engineers like Dilbert and Dilbert is poking fun at office and cubical life then engineers are dealing with the real world and so spillover discussion here about real world issues that also affect engineers may be justified.
But if the forum is to be seen as predominantly electronics related and non-electronics off topic threads likely to drift in off-topic hot-button areas are tolerated for any length of time then is seems like you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
-
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
That's exactly right. This forum board wasn't retitled from "General Chat" to "General Technical Chat" for no reason.
Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Maybe you should be able to set up a different sort of thread, like some forums have, where you can have a whinge about something "close to your heart" & be able to disable comments.
That has been repeatedly voted down by the community many times over the years.
Sorry, Dave, I had quite forgotten that Black Phoenix was the OP (yep! I'm a senile old git!), & as you had a flurry of posts some time back, I somehow got the idea you started it.
Obviously, even if my suggestion was palatable, it wouldn't apply in this case, anyway.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Maybe you should be able to set up a different sort of thread, like some forums have, where you can have a whinge about something "close to your heart" & be able to disable comments.
That has been repeatedly voted down by the community many times over the years.
Yeah that sounds terrible. No point in posting a thread that nobody is allowed to comment on, that defeats the purpose of a forum.
-
Yeah that sounds terrible. No point in posting a thread that nobody is allowed to comment on, that defeats the purpose of a forum.
Sounds to me like some are suggesting that threads like this one defeat the purpose of an electronics forum. I'm leaning that way too.
-
Yeah that sounds terrible. No point in posting a thread that nobody is allowed to comment on, that defeats the purpose of a forum.
Sounds to me like some are suggesting that threads like this one defeat the purpose of an electronics forum. I'm leaning that way too.
You may be right, but I think any cure would be worse than the disease. If I am not interested in a thread, or get bored with one I've posted to, I just tick the "ignore topic" box. Works like a charm.
-
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
Please define "cancel culture".
-
Simple: "cancel culture" is what they call it when one of their own experiences consequences. "f*** around and find out" is what they call it when someone else experiences consequences.
-
Please define "cancel culture".
Why don't you just read through the thread and see where it has been defined multiple times? Or you could google it.
It's pretty simple really, "cancelling" is when a mob, usually online on Twitter or other social media uses bullying tactics to attempt to force entities associated with a person who said something they find offensive to cut ties with that person. Entities can include corporations the person works for or is otherwise associated with, friends, family, or other associates. The primary goal is to silence a person, then to punish/harass/destroy them to the greatest extent possible. The "cancellers" are bullies, plain and simple, just like the bullies commonly found on school playgrounds. Like any bully, they use tactics including threats, harassment, intimidation, and sometimes physical violence. They're not interested in a debate, they're not interested in a conversation, and they're not interested in educating, all they are interested in is the use of force or coercion.
You've made it abundantly clear that you support this behavior, but just you wait, if it continues sooner or later they will come after you. Very few individuals can pass all of the purity tests, especially since they change over time and you can be punished for something you said or a photo that turns up from 20-30 years ago that has retroactively been deemed offensive.
I don't think you're actually interested in learning anything about it, but if you are, look up Bret Weinstein since that was one of the early victims. He and his wife sued Evergreen University and won half a million dollars, a bit low given what they went through and were accused of for the great sin of declining to participate in an "optional" and blatantly racist event but at least it's something.
If you still don't get it, then you are willfully ignorant.
-
Sounds to me like some are suggesting that threads like this one defeat the purpose of an electronics forum. I'm leaning that way too.
Then why are you here? There are hundreds of other threads, lots of them don't interest me, I ignore those, are you familiar with the ignore thread feature? Nobody is forcing you to participate in this thread if you're not getting anything out of it. This isn't an electronics forum, it's an electrical engineering forum, Dilbert and office/corporate politics are very much a part of engineering.
-
Please define "cancel culture".
If you have to ask that then I'd prefer that you not particiate in this thread. You are clearly not here to talk about Dilbert and Adams.
-
Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.
-
You can widen the cooking stylish approach.
No idea though what would be a good framing.
TEA is not an example.
-
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
It's clearly justified by the size, a very little amount of total collective.
Obviously being private can't be it so not much else left.
Then totally accepted level of cancel is ignore.
So somewhere is a limit where acceptance changes.
Are we now around a peak of recoil of a no voice for minority.
My guess is no, there are still room for upping it.
Woke seems to be a continuity of tractor feminism where equal rights have turned to special privileges, no real personal examples here so just personal feelings then.
General USA can be different than my general reality, but maybe it has always been, more or less, fundamentalists vs. others, it really seems to be so from news feeds and popular history.
It's also clear that since USA can put sanctions around the globe it's pretty much vital that general local consumer audience is not going to change their view.
We'll see shortly what happens if/when Faux News has to deal with it.
But more importantly, Lineker is back.
-
Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.
It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.
You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.
You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.
-
It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.
You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.
You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.
And it'll either turn into a free-for-all, or there are dozen reports every day because someone hurt someone's feelings. And then that animosity spreads into other areas of the forum.
People have voted no many times before, and it remains no.
-
Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.
It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.
You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.
You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.
One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members. Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.
It can also attract, the wrong sort of members. Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.
-
One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members. Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.
It can also attract, the wrong sort of members. Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.
Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the thread is on the forum now anyway. If the wrong sort of member can post in section A then they can post in section B. I don't see how the section the thread/topic resides in changes anything. Except that those who think it doesn't belong in a technical electronics section won't have anything to complain about.
-
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
I see the line of your thinking.
The way I see it, the core concept in the "cancellation" is what used to be called shunning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning).
Online, that requires some kind of banning. Even at Twitter, when a specific person blocks you from following them, it is not called "cancelling", it's just blocking.
I can understand how this all might be considered a continuous spectrum of actions, though. I personally believe there is a clear line when it includes demanding others to ignore the target too. I find boycotting or ignoring the target yourself, and mentioning you do so without telling others to follow suit, acceptable. Saying "I ignore them, because they're always wrong. If you intend to interact with me, you will be ignoring them too." is going over the line to unacceptable, and saying "If you are a good human, you will ignore them" is blatantly evil. Spectrum, yes, but with a very specific line that should not be crossed.
Others disagree, of course, and that is absolutely fine. What matters is the reason behind the opinion, because we can evaluate those reasons, and see if they matter to ourselves.
In my case, the reason for placing that line right there is history and psychology. As a political tool, it has never worked. As a social tool, it compels specific behaviour. I do not see either having any positive effects, but plenty of negative effects, in current peace-time Western societies.
I do not believe in ignoring someone just because of a silly/bad opinion, either. I only ignore people when I feel I cannot interact with them in a mutually beneficial manner. In social and psychological terms, ignoring someone is quite a negative act by itself; definitely not a neutral one that should be done on a whim. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Dave even made a video about this, and how ignoring people willy-nilly is counterproductive.
But more importantly, Lineker is back.
Who? Oh. Not my cuppa tea.
Well, my opinion is that if his political views doesn't show up in his sports commentary, why should his politics affect his career?
Exactly like why should the political views of a cartoonist affect the publication of that cartoon, if those views do not show up in the cartoon.
One thing here that I absolutely love, is that I can argue about one thing in a given thread with some member or members, and in an unrelated thread interact with them positively without that other argument affecting it. It is important to me. It is useful, because even with the disagreement, we can still interact in a mutually positive manner. And I do believe that if more people were capable of that, also in real life, it would help make the world a better place.
Of course, this is completely opposite to the current cancel culture in social media.
-
One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members. Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.
It can also attract, the wrong sort of members. Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.
Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the thread is on the forum now anyway. If the wrong sort of member can post in section A then they can post in section B. I don't see how the section the thread/topic resides in changes anything. Except that those who think it doesn't belong in a technical electronics section won't have anything to complain about.
Let's put it another way. It can be done, and there are example(s), where other forums have done it. But, they seem to (in my, limited experience of it), lay down very strict rules, and have lots and lots of moderators and administrators on hand, to deal with any difficulties.
But, we don't have lots of moderators / administrators here, and from what I've seen, the admin team, became or was already, very, very heavy handed, to keep it in touch (on other forum(s) ).
Despite all those things I just said. Many of the posts (in the political section), are of rather poor quality (and I'm being nice, here). I.e. Most or many of the posts, are noise.
Also, it does seem to attract, trolls and other types of rather annoying posters.
Part of the reason, it can work, on other forums. Is because, if there are a large number of administrators and moderators. There can be a big mixture of political leanings / opinions / knowledge, between them. Which can allow them to more effectively, handle such things.
Also, at least one of those forums (probably others, as well), will (or can be perceived as doing) temporary-ban / vacation, members, for the tiniest / slightest of infractions. Which also, can create tensions.
-
Let's put it another way. It can be done, and there are example(s), where other forums have done it. But, they seem to (in my, limited experience of it), lay down very strict rules, and have lots and lots of moderators and administrators on hand, to deal with any difficulties.
I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.
-
The subject was last put to bed six months ago and the last poll had 88 against, 70 for it and 22 couldn't give a toss either way. :-\
I enjoy a good waffle as much as anyone but I don't think this is the place for it. :-X
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/)
-
I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.
I'm happy for our opinions on the matter to differ. I'm not 100% either way, myself. But on overall balance, I think it would change this forum, for the worse.
-
Including the original post:
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
Please define "cancel culture".
Please define "cancel culture".
If you have to ask that then I'd prefer that you not particiate in this thread. You are clearly not here to talk about Dilbert and Adams.
So Dave, here is the problem. You want to talk about Dilbert and Scott Adams. You do not want to talk about politics, Covid, etc. However, the term "cancel culture" is inherently political. So is "woke" for that matter. Both are tied up in the subject that shall not be talked about.
Now, if one were to review this outline:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4736891/#msg4736891 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4736891/#msg4736891)
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
There are very good reasons for asking for a definition, particularly with a contentious topic like... grounding. Diodes. Approvals. All of which can get expensively derailed when someone in, let's say, a project management role thinks they understand something, dictates the design because of schedule or budget reasons, and then encounters a continuing series of engineering and implementation problems because the fundamental concept was not understood.
As such I am still interested in a definition of "cancel culture" from you. And, being good engineering practice, a few more questions:
- Is "cancel culture" a politically-topical term?
- Is "woke" a politically-topical term?
-
The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."
For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.
If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:
There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
-
Back to Dilbert itself:
At the end of the previous millennium, there was a short-lived (two seasons) animated version of Dilbert on US television.
I noticed that it was actually more bitter than the newspaper version at that time.
Nevertheless, my favorite was the ninth episode of the first series, on the topic of Y2K, as Dilbert's workplace faces the problem of an obsolescent IT system.
It traced the problem back to 1975, when Wally was a fresh young engineer, not yet broken.
When he started there, the senior staff showed him around and pointed out that they used two places to indicate the year (i.e. "87", not "1987").
He asked, "won't that be a problem in 25 years?", to which the staff laughed.
-
The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."
For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.
If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:
There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
I’m glad you said all of the above. It’s exactly how I feel, but I was afraid to say it, lest it just look like whining from someone who he’d already told off in this thread.
I, too, am perplexed at the “discuss ‘cancel culture’ and ‘wokeness’ without discussing politics” decree, as they’re completely political terms (at least nowadays, if there even was ever a time when they weren’t). It’s as preposterous as saying “discuss racism without mentioning race”.
As for solutions: 20 years ago, I was a mod/admin of a large Mac forum that at the time had similar active membership as this one. We tried keeping politics out and it just didn’t work. The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion. It allowed us to easily keep the entire rest of the forum politics-free. I literally never looked at the political lounge (I was younger and had zero interest in politics at the time) and could focus on the subforums that covered my areas of expertise.
I use the past tense but that forum actually still exists, though traffic has dwindled to almost zero. :(
-
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
It's clearly justified by the size, a very little amount of total collective.
Obviously being private can't be it so not much else left.
I don't like community moderation either, it tends to turn things into a toxic cesspool and echo chamber. I much prefer to have a handful of moderators that at least try to be balanced.
-
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
Well the alternative would be to lock the whole thread, which I suppose may be your goal? Personally I don't see why people that are not interested in the thread don't just exit and ignore it? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to some degree it is impossible to completely and totally separate politics from everything else. Corporate politics are a real thing we all have to deal with, politics are everywhere.
Dave can do whatever he wants, it has been stated in the past this is his sandbox and it isn't a democracy.
-
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true. Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough. If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right! Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all. Sources?
-
The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all. Sources?
Just a friendly reminder, as to what has previously been said:
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
-
And it'll either turn into a free-for-all, or there are dozen reports every day because someone hurt someone's feelings. And then that animosity spreads into other areas of the forum.
People have voted no many times before, and it remains no.
Isn't that why Reddit exists though, so best to do there, though currently looks like some snowflake is doing a DDOS on it currently.
-
The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion.
This is what was done on the "Sailing Anarchy" forum where I occasionally hang out. "Political Anarchy" is generally considered to be a toxic waste dump, but there are actually serious and interesting discussions going on there, and the sub-forum keeps most of the crap out of the sailing-related forums. If someone gets too political and nasty we just tell them "Take it to PA" (Political Anarchy) and that usually works.
But I'm happy with the arrangement here. Just don't follow the discussion if it holds no interest for you.
And Cancel Culture is a thing. It seems to be an extension of the unhinged over-reactions that are so common now. I'm not likely to find myself "cancelled", but I do avoid voicing my opinion where doing so would be like stirring up a hornet's nest. We used to be able to have a civil discussion among friends, but that has become increasingly difficult. The hornets anger so easily now...
-
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
Well the alternative would be to lock the whole thread, which I suppose may be your goal? Personally I don't see why people that are not interested in the thread don't just exit and ignore it? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to some degree it is impossible to completely and totally separate politics from everything else. Corporate politics are a real thing we all have to deal with, politics are everywhere.
Dave can do whatever he wants, it has been stated in the past this is his sandbox and it isn't a democracy.
Either enforce the rule as written (which would be to stop it), or leave it open and allow both sides to express their opinions. What isn't acceptable is the status quo, which is to harshly castigate those few of us who disagree with his opinion but turn a blind eye to (or at minimum, be more lenient with) those who agree with his opinion.
-
Both sides have expressed their opinions, what more is there to express? Some people acknowledge that "cancel culture" is a real thing and a problematic trend where people are bullied into silence, even if all they are doing is questioning a prevailing narrative or wanting to discuss other ideas, not necessarily even attacking anyone. The other side seems to be people that either flatly deny this is even happening at all, or they try to justify the bullying. All of these things have been brought up and discussed, and as long as it hasn't gone off onto other political tangents such as socialism, communism, specific politicians, covid, etc it has been tolerated. I don't think it's that hard to discuss a concept like cancel culture as it applies to the Scott Adams saga and other aspects of engineering without drifting off into general politics. There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.
The way I look at it, allowing threads like this to exist at all involves bending the rules, and I appreciate that it has been allowed in moderation because the topic is interesting and relevant, but it has to remain civil, and it's nice that it's contained in one or two threads which are easily avoided for those not interested. It would totally ruin the forum if it spread everywhere and took over.
-
There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.
Are you doing this for manipulative purpose or due to a cognitive limitation?
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
-
There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.
Are you doing this for manipulative purpose or due to a cognitive limitation?
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
Doing what? Remembering the specific line incorrectly and leaving out the word "law"? Does that really matter?
Cognitive limitation? Why not just skip the euphemism and say what you mean, which is that you think I'm stupid?
"Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X" is a truly bizarre logical conclusion in my mind, correcting the quote doesn't really change what I said at all. I was genuinely surprised to learn that an otherwise apparently rational person thinks this way.
-
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?
Edit, to elaborate:
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."
See?
-
Looks like he has 109k followers on Locals. Don't know how many paid though.
Following (unpaid) with my existing Locals account I can see his first Dilbert Reborn strip.
He recently gave permission for people to use but but not actively republish the strip, so here is the first strip, 1 of 3, I'll just post the first one. Dilbert dies and was cremated.
You guessed it, in the next one he's reborn from the dumpster.
(https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/59082/59082_xuuifnc9gha3cvn_full.jpeg)
Dave, thanks for giving some continuity about the comic strip, post attack. I dislike seeing Dilbert go behind a paywall and think it's not practical.
I've enjoyed Dilbert for decades, many good laughs and I don't have to agree with all of Mr. Adams personal politics, like water off a duck's back. More important is social media distorting what he says and his cheeseball one man syndication, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_McMeel_Syndication) Wiki deleting Dilbert references to cover their ass.
Today, the utterance of one single word can destroy your career, reputation, image - poof just like that. At least Chris Rock can still do standup, offend many people for the laughs.
There is a new mental illness where people feel powerful being politically correct, and thrive on policing others, calling up the social media brigade and cancelling them.
It's amazing how little it takes to derail a thread, trash the S/N ratio, and then it falls to "cancel the thread" about being cancelled :-DD
-
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?
Edit, to elaborate:
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."
See?
No I don't see. That is a logical fallacy, it isn't the way I think at all. I had no idea that some people actually thought that way, it has been eye opening.
Somebody else posted a great example, marijuana. I question whether a law banning marijuana should exist, in my case I do actually think marijuana should be legal, but I absolutely am not advocating for it.
Same with cigarettes, I hate cigarettes, I think they're disgusting, I absolutely do not think anyone should smoke cigarettes and most certainly am not advocating for them, I still don't think cigarettes should be illegal. It's a personal choice, if someone wishes to make that choice I'm not going to try to force them.
Same with junkfood. I think people should try to eat healthy, I don't think they should over-indulge in fast food and other junk, but I certainly don't think McDonalds should be outlawed.
There are many, many, many things that I dislike, disagree with, would never do, think should be broadly discouraged etc that I don't think should be against the law. What part of this do you not understand?
Some laws that I question I don't necessarily think shouldn't exist, I just question them, I think it should be discussed to see if maybe there is a more effective alternative. I listed a few examples earlier in this thread if you care to look. There seems to be an inability to see the difference between questioning (testing, discussing) something and having a firm opinion that it is false. That is difficult for me to comprehend because it is so counter to how I think, and the difference is so obvious and clear cut. I think this is perhaps a significant part of the root of this whole culture war, people who have these drastically different logical short circuits. If in their mind questioning something is literally equal to advocating for its opposite then I can see where some of these battles come from. Hopefully you can accept that many(most?) people simply do not jump to that conclusion.
-
But you no longer think that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", right? Glad we got at least to that little eye-opener.
I'm not sure what you're saying, I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.
"I question whether there should be a law banning X" absolutely does not equal "I advocate X", not at all.
"Questioning" something is not the same as saying "I think something is false" again two different things.
-
You are evading the prior point, James. You had mocked the earlier post by Kim C. based on your claim that he supposedly equaled "questioning X" with "advocating X" -- which would indeed be contradictory. But you had either read is original post sloppily, or not understood it, since Kim actually started from a statement saying the opposite. You certainly misquoted him.
I take it that you have realized by now that "questioning whether a law against X should exist" is not the same at all as "questioning X". I am glad we have achieved at least this little eye-opener.
-
I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.
Sure you did. You misquoted (and apparently misinterpreted) Kim Christensen's quote, which said the former, as the latter, verbatim. And then you started to rant about "bizarre logic".
I keep coming back to the "manipulative intent or cognitive limitations?" question.
-
You are evading the prior point, James. You had mocked the earlier post by Kim C. based on your claim that he supposedly equaled "questioning X" with "advocating X" -- which would indeed be contradictory. But you had either read is original post sloppily, or not understood it, since Kim actually started from a statement saying the opposite. You certainly misquoted him.
I take it that you have realized by now that "questioning whether a law against X should exist" is not the same at all as "questioning X". I am glad we have achieved at least this little eye-opener.
You see, this is what the entire "free for all" section would be like. Just thousands of posts like this, but instead of electronics related it would all be about religion, guns, covid, politics, social justice, etc etc ::)
-
Dave, thanks for giving some continuity about the comic strip, post attack.
That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.
I dislike seeing Dilbert go behind a paywall and think it's not practical.
I think it's practical, I just dislike it being behind only one paywall (Locals), and effectively being tied to his other "bonus" content that people may not want.
I'd prefer to pay less for just Dilbert, and I'm absolutely sure I'm not alone. It's a poor business move IMO.
$70/year for Dilbert is at the "do I really need it?" end of the pricing spectrum.
And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
I'm sure there are countless left leaning Dilbert fans who just want to see Dilbert and don't want to, or would prefer not to be, associated with Locals. And/or don't want to pay a premium for other content they don't care about.
Where is the "Just give me Dilbert" option?
-
My open letter to Adams, Like/Retweet if you agree so he sees it.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1635791136521596933
-
I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.
Sure you did. You misquoted (and apparently misinterpreted) Kim Christensen's quote, which said the former, as the latter, verbatim. And then you started to rant about "bizarre logic".
I keep coming back to the "manipulative intent or cognitive limitations?" question.
Then what is the exact quote that I have mis-quoted? Either I misread something or you are going around in circles for reasons I'm unsure of.
-
That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.
Nah, just fair treatment.
And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
Eh, that’s likely a feature, not a bug, to him.
-
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?
Edit, to elaborate:
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."
See?
No. What?
"I question whether a law banning X should exist" does not mean advocating for X, at all.
Criminal laws are the ultima ratio of the government. Any law is a restriction on personal freedoms, and laws should not be made solely to appease morals. (This is not my personal opinion, this is literally a basic principle of any modern democracy/Rechtsstaat)
You can absolutely be against a law existing but not consider the underlying thing acceptable.
Here's just one example:
I question whether banning drug ownership makes sense. It drives the black market and makes safe drug use harder. I do not advocate for drug use, and drug use will exist regardless of whether it's banned or not.
-
My open letter to Adams, Like/Retweet if you agree so he sees it.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1635791136521596933
He replied.
Doesn't seem interested, and said it's "Too dangerous in the wild".
So Locals only it will stay it seems. No surprise, he also has a personal financial stake in Locals I believe, so makes sense.
But he's always preeching "take the free money", but won't do it himself.
-
That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.
Nah, just fair treatment.
Would "fair treatment" be that I delete every off-topic post here?
People just can't seem to help themselves going off the rails.
-
And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
Eh, that’s likely a feature, not a bug, to him.
You do know he's not "right wing", right?
-
You do know he's not "right wing", right?
Everyone is "right wing" if they're not "left wing" in a world of absolutes. I know very little about Adams' politics overall and I'd be content to keep it that way. I've personally been accused of being both right wing and a leftist by two different people in the same day. :-// All it takes is one single comment and some will interpolate a whole picture of you in their head.
-
All it takes is one single comment and some will interpolate a whole picture of you in their head.
On social media, sometimes even just a single word is enough for that.
Heck, even a smiley can be enough.
Always remember that what you think about others and what you think they think about you is just all in your head.
-
You do know he's not "right wing", right?
Looking down the list of titles for his YT channel "Coffee with Scott Adams" sure looks like he's right wing. And I saw you say he has a financial interest in Local.com "No surprise, he also has a personal financial stake in Locals I believe, so makes sense. But he's always preeching "take the free money", but won't do it himself."
If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is not "taking the free money" then what is? He said it himself that he got exactly what he wanted.
I'm not interested in spending an hour (or more) each day listening to him but those easily manipulated will lap up his smarmy style.
Not that I expect to bother following up in a years' time to see what Dilbert looks like but I'm sure it will be unedifying.
-
I haven't checked to verify the assertion that Adams is right wing. But it really shouldn't matter. It isn't OK to do things to folks that have right of center politics or those with left of center politics.
Where this issue gets fuzzy is the commercial aspect. A few years ago a singing group in the US that catered to the country western crowd, The Dixie Chicks, started publicly going against their audiences political views at concerts. They were booed and immediately lost sales and thence contracts. I have no problem with that. When you are an entertainer you depend on your audiences support and throwing dirt in the eyes of an audience isn't how you get its support. A similar thing happened to a florist in a city I lived in. The that city two thirds of the high paying jobs were associated with the military-industrial complex. He took to posting signs with a strong left leaning viewpoint and calling anyone who didn't agree a liar and/or idiot. Strangely many of his customers lost motivation to spend money there. Again, I have no problem with that. In this latter case there was no organized campaign, it just happened. There was a minor degree of organization in the Dixie Chicks case, but not a lot.
Nominal Animal has clearly broken down the lines where this is problematic. And it seems that those lines may have been crossed in the Adams case. For those who feel that the politics of Mr. Adams are justification for crossing those lines, consider the situation with the Hollywood blacklisting which impacted entertainers with left of center views in the US in the 1940s and 1950s. This is now considered a horrible and unfair thing. How is it different than cancelling Mr. Adams?
-
If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is "not taking the free money" then what is?
"not taking the free money" is:
1) Not using the new Twitter Subscription feature when you have nearly 1M followers
2) Not getting control of the Dilbert website or starting a new one to offer paid subcriptions there
3) Not using other popular platforms for paid content like Substack for example
Doesn't sound like he's even considering it. That's not even thinking about picking up free money.
-
If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is "not taking the free money" then what is?
"not taking the free money" is:
1) Not using the new Twitter Subscription feature when you have nearly 1M followers
2) Not getting control of the Dilbert website or starting a new one to offer paid subcriptions there
3) Not using other popular platforms for paid content like Substack for example
Doesn't sound like he's even considering it. That's not even thinking about picking up free money.
I went and looked up what Substak is. It says on the front page "Substack lets independent writers and podcasters publish directly to their audience and get paid through subscriptions."
Isn't that what he is doing on Local? I went there and looked at his "coffee with scott adams " intro video where he says straight up he is moving away from the big tech platforms to get away from censorship and making his content available through subscription.
He can use whatever URL he chooses but if he is selling subscription content on Local, then for you to claim he doesn't do it on the three platforms you mentioned hardly sounds convincing.
-
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true. Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough. If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right! Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all. Sources?
The evidence definitely points in that direction, see DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12424 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33565274/). Specifically, cloth and surgical masks are ineffective in stopping SARS-Cov-2 transmission. (This is a meta-analysis, combining the results of 12 studies, only one of which showed any benefit from cloth or surgical masks.)
Edit: It was pointed to me in a PM that I am be mischaracterising the conclusions of that study. True; their results were summarized as "Fourteen studies were included in this study. One preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks (±hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks." with their conclusions (which sound odd to me, more like someone wishing for more research funding), "There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance."
Addendum: One of the most cited articles on the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks wrt. seasonal influenza, including coronaviruses but not explicitly SARS-CoV-2 (because the article is from 2011), DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir238 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164472/) (cited 72 times (https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/204/2/193/833588)), showed that cloth and surgical masks are rather inefficient in preventing transmission; that basically, N95 (FFP2 in Europe) and eye protection is needed to prevent transmission of such viruses. It is a clearly written article, so I do recommend everyone interested in the subject read it.
In any case, regardless of the two studies above, looking at e.g. NIH PubMed for 'sars-cov-2' and 'mask' (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=sars-cov-2+mask), the conclusions are best summarized as being from "face masks could help reduce transmissions" to "there is very little evidence to support that face masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission". But again, do feel free to check.
My point is that what evidence there is, points that cloth and surgical masks have not shown to be effective, only inconclusive or having little to no effect; whereas consistent hand hygiene (in earlier studies), N95/FFP2 masks when correctly worn and eye protection, do seem to provide significant protection. (But seeing how the majority cannot even seem to be able to correctly wear surgical masks, widespread correct use of N95/FFP2 masks is unrealistic.)
-
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
That sort of "cancel" has always occurred and always will, part of being a human. "There's the door", "you are not welcome at our club".
However, what is meant by "cancel culture" is (semi-)organized large-scale appeal to others, by using means such as threats. "Make X not welcome at your club, or else we will use this same extortion tactic against you because someone always gives us way because we have power".
That's a big difference.
However, I don't think cancel culture could be fought against by concentrating on the cancel mob. They are beyond salvation, and finally, they have freedom of speech, too. The solution is to stop giving way to the extortion tactics. For example, trust your employees and your own set of rules and don't fire them only because someone asked you to. The actual dirty work is always done by people who do not support the cancel mob or cancel culture, out of stupidity, laziness, fear, or combination thereof. This is the problem.
-
I, too, am perplexed at the “discuss ‘cancel culture’ and ‘wokeness’ without discussing politics” decree, as they’re completely political terms (at least nowadays, if there even was ever a time when they weren’t). It’s as preposterous as saying “discuss racism without mentioning race”.
I find this extremely interesting, because I do not see 'cancel culture' or 'wokeness' as political, but purely social or sociological concepts (used to further specific political goals, but those political goals varying across time); and I see racism emerging from in-group/out-group preferences, based on phenotypes (observable characteristics), without any inherent connection to race, only to phenotypes.
I understand that may sound like quibbling, but I'm being precise and literal here; ignore any apparent subtext, because none is intended.
(The emphasis on phenotypes is important, because it involves cultural and behavioural aspects. For example, those working outdoors will have facial tans, separating them from the nobility that does not do so. Even though they were of exactly the same race, this difference provides a phenotypical basis for behaviour that exactly matches 'racism'. In Europe, such 'racism' was extremely common for centuries.)
It does really irk me that people do not see that the definition of racism as oppression by majority towards a minority, is complete ideological bullshit, because it does not match any sociological statistics, ever. As long as humans have had urban societies, they have been ruled by a minority, asserting power over the majority. That minority, be it pharaohs, kings, nobility, or bankers, have also all considered themselves as better than those they rule over, and have always worried about the "purity of their blood" –– which in my opinion, is a direct analog of "race", in terms of racism or in-group/out-group attitudes.
The entire concept was created as an ideological tool to push class struggle to the forefront of politics!
As to 'cancel culture', I've already pointed out how it performs the same sociological function as shunning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning) has for thousands of years.
-
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
I vehemently disagree.
The verb question (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/question#Verb) can be understood in either neutral way, "to interrogate, to ask for information", or in a negative way, "to raise/have doubts about". Neither of them equates to an assertion. Therefore, your approximation is incorrect.
In other words,
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I would like to know whether a law banning X should exist." / "I have doubts whether a law banning X should exist."
See?
Edit: In particular, note the interrogative in both interpretations.
-
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
I vehemently disagree.
The verb question (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/question#Verb) can be understood in either neutral way, "to interrogate, to ask for information", or in a negative way, "to raise/have doubts about". Neither of them equates to an assertion. Therefore, your approximation is incorrect.
In other words,
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I would like to know whether a law banning X should exist." / "I have doubts whether a law banning X should exist."
See?
Edit: In particular, note the interrogative in both interpretations.
I'm really thinking at this point that the people that cannot make this distinction are "binary thinkers" that view things as absolutes. Questioning or having doubts about something is literally the same as thinking it is wrong/bad because there is no gray area whatsoever for them, everything is either good or bad, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. I have a really difficult time grasping this way of thinking because to me virtually everything is some shade of gray, there are almost no absolutes outside of textbook concepts but it certainly seems that many people do perceive the world in this way.
-
However, I don't think cancel culture could be fought against by concentrating on the cancel mob. They are beyond salvation, and finally, they have freedom of speech, too. The solution is to stop giving way to the extortion tactics. For example, trust your employees and your own set of rules and don't fire them only because someone asked you to. The actual dirty work is always done by people who do not support the cancel mob or cancel culture, out of stupidity, laziness, fear, or combination thereof. This is the problem.
I don't even think Adam's syndication company got direct mob pressure themselves, I think they just saw the headlines, some papers dropping him, and they pre-emptively cancelled him out of fear of possible retribution and fall-out from it.
So all it took was one person/company to cave and Adam's lost 80% of his income and his website and book deals etc.
-
Back to Dilbert itself:
At the end of the previous millennium, there was a short-lived (two seasons) animated version of Dilbert on US television.
I noticed that it was actually more bitter than the newspaper version at that time.
Nevertheless, my favorite was the ninth episode of the first series, on the topic of Y2K, as Dilbert's workplace faces the problem of an obsolescent IT system.
It traced the problem back to 1975, when Wally was a fresh young engineer, not yet broken.
When he started there, the senior staff showed him around and pointed out that they used two places to indicate the year (i.e. "87", not "1987").
He asked, "won't that be a problem in 25 years?", to which the staff laughed.
Yes the Dilbert television is great, and really enjoyable. I don't think its on any platforms now, and after this I don't think anyone would pick it up, so its lost for the masses.
However, I don't think cancel culture could be fought against by concentrating on the cancel mob. They are beyond salvation, and finally, they have freedom of speech, too. The solution is to stop giving way to the extortion tactics. For example, trust your employees and your own set of rules and don't fire them only because someone asked you to. The actual dirty work is always done by people who do not support the cancel mob or cancel culture, out of stupidity, laziness, fear, or combination thereof. This is the problem.
I don't even think Adam's syndication company got direct mob pressure themselves, I think they just saw the headlines, some papers dropping him, and they pre-emptively cancelled him out of fear of possible retribution and fall-out from it.
So all it took was one person/company to cave and Adam's lost 80% of his income and his website and book deals etc.
So he went with locals, and with a 70$ a year subscription. It's more than amazon prime >:( This is usually the comparison that I make when someone sets up a subscription for something trivial, and virtual. By the looks of it, about half the content is supporters only. Unfortunately, he decided to make half the Dilbert comics supporter only :(.
TBH I don't really like locals, and I didn't see any improvement in a year. The built in player is bad compared to Youtube. The main stream is filled with content from other people (which I frankly don't care about). No way to filter for video content only.
-
So he went with locals, and with a 70$ a year subscription. It's more than amazon prime >:( This is usually the comparison that I make when someone sets up a subscription for something trivial, and virtual. By the looks of it, about half the content is supporters only. Unfortunately, he decided to make half the Dilbert comics supporter only :(.
TBH I don't really like locals, and I didn't see any improvement in a year. The built in player is bad compared to Youtube. The main stream is filled with content from other people (which I frankly don't care about). No way to filter for video content only.
He's always been a top tier creator on Locals, and he's an investor of some description in the company I believe. So makes sense he's heavily promoting it. But to have that as your only outlet seems like a really dumb move.
I set up a Locals page way back and promoted it but hardly anyone used it. And yeah, it was quirky to use. So I dropped some time back.
Yes, $70/year just for a cartoon is too much. he offers other stuff in therem, but hardly any of his existing Dilbert audience would be interested in that.
116k followers on Locals and only 131 thumbs and 29 comments on his latest Man Cave stream.
I think he'd be way better off selling it for $2/month on Twitter Subscriptions to his 1M followers.
-
Simple: "cancel culture" is what they call it when one of their own experiences consequences. "f*** around and find out" is what they call it when someone else experiences consequences.
Consequences for what?
-
Consequences for what?
Words. Some people are deeply offended by words, I don't get how but it is certainly the case. And those people think that words should be a crime with as severe a punishment as possible and no path to redemption.
-
Consequences for what?
Words. Some people are deeply offended by words, I don't get how but it is certainly the case. And those people think that words should be a crime with as severe a punishment as possible and no path to redemption.
Come to that, the abuse is words too, and the abused are getting offended by that use of words. Assuming they don't turn out to be actual acts, what's the difference? Sauce for the goose, etc.
-
Come to that, the abuse is words too, and the abused are getting offended by that use of words. Assuming they don't turn out to be actual acts, what's the difference? Sauce for the goose, etc.
Well I'm not all that bothered by abuse that is just words, ignore it, problem solved. It is when it is in the form of direct threats, libel, etc that I take issue with it.
-
Come to that, the abuse is words too, and the abused are getting offended by that use of words. Assuming they don't turn out to be actual acts, what's the difference? Sauce for the goose, etc.
Well I'm not all that bothered by abuse that is just words, ignore it, problem solved. It is when it is in the form of direct threats, libel, etc that I take issue with it.
Sometimes there's a fine line here.
And just "words" can have a devastating effect on someone's "online reputation", which may not matter one bit if you don't have a public exposure, and even less so if you're essentially anonymous, but words can go as far as destroying your life otherwise.
It's not the words per se, but the reaction they cause in others. You can control how you receive those words for sure, but you can't control how all others do.
-
Sometimes there's a fine line here.
And just "words" can have a devastating effect on someone's "online reputation", which may not matter one bit if you don't have a public exposure, and even less so if you're essentially anonymous, but words can go as far as destroying your life otherwise.
It's not the words per se, but the reaction they cause in others. You can control how you receive those words for sure, but you can't control how all others do.
That is true. This is one of those cases where it is not cut & dry, some judgement is necessary. I am by no means advocating abuse, and it should be looked down upon and discouraged, but I learned by dealing with bullies in my youth that the best tactic is usually to ignore them and don't give them the reaction they're looking for. In the online world it's much easier to block somebody.
-
Sometimes there's a fine line here.
And just "words" can have a devastating effect on someone's "online reputation", which may not matter one bit if you don't have a public exposure, and even less so if you're essentially anonymous, but words can go as far as destroying your life otherwise.
It's not the words per se, but the reaction they cause in others. You can control how you receive those words for sure, but you can't control how all others do.
I have long time fans who now absolutely hate my guts and think I'm a *insert -ism - phobe" piece of shite because they saw someone out of context post of mine reposted somewhere. If people are pre-disposed to that sort of reactionary thinking then literally the smallest thing you say can trigger them off. Even just following someone like Adams and still liking Dilbert will be enough to trigger them.
It's just an unfortunate fact of moden social conditioning and outrage culture.
-
I have long time fans who now absolutely hate my guts and think I'm a *insert -ism - phobe" piece of shite because they saw someone out of context post of mine reposted somewhere. If people are pre-disposed to that sort of reactionary thinking then literally the smallest thing you say can trigger them off. Even just following someone like Adams and still liking Dilbert will be enough to trigger them.
It's just an unfortunate fact of moden social conditioning and outrage culture.
In academia, especially lecturing, 'networking' and 'reputation' is key, and this sort of stuff is career death.
But until it happens to oneself or a close associate, most people just do not believe it could happen to them. Weird.
-
I have long time fans who now absolutely hate my guts and think I'm a *insert -ism - phobe" piece of shite because they saw someone out of context post of mine reposted somewhere. If people are pre-disposed to that sort of reactionary thinking then literally the smallest thing you say can trigger them off. Even just following someone like Adams and still liking Dilbert will be enough to trigger them.
It's just an unfortunate fact of moden social conditioning and outrage culture.
In academia, especially lecturing, 'networking' and 'reputation' is key, and this sort of stuff is career death.
Which is why just the fear of cancel culture works, it keeps people silent. Head down and shut up.
But until it happens to oneself or a close associate, most people just do not believe it could happen to them. Weird.
Yup. Let's just say this has happened to more than one left learning woke friend of mine. And also friends of other creators who are equally "problematic" like I am. If you aren't 100% towing the line they'll eat you alive.
And yes, it's practically a 100% left leaning phenomenom. The "right" seem to just shrug their shoulders and go, meh.
-
I have long time fans who now absolutely hate my guts and think I'm a *insert -ism - phobe" piece of shite because they saw someone out of context post of mine reposted somewhere. If people are pre-disposed to that sort of reactionary thinking then literally the smallest thing you say can trigger them off. Even just following someone like Adams and still liking Dilbert will be enough to trigger them.
It's just an unfortunate fact of moden social conditioning and outrage culture.
In academia, especially lecturing, 'networking' and 'reputation' is key, and this sort of stuff is career death.
But until it happens to oneself or a close associate, most people just do not believe it could happen to them. Weird.
But isn't the problem at the receiving end? People jumping to conclusions too quickly? It is much like the good old lynching parties. Doesn't matter if someone is guilty, just hang from a tree or burn alive! Maybe society is evolving backwards and internet & media has become a way to visit the Colosseum to see how the 'royals du jour' dressed up and who gets butchered today.
I tend to agree with Dave that the problem is in the society -if that is what he is suggesting-.
-
Maybe society is evolving backwards and internet & media has become a way to visit the Colosseum to see how the 'royals du jour' dressed up and who gets butchered today.
Bread and circuses have always worked, and always will. We're no different in our base needs now than we were a couple of millenia ago.
While individuals are complex, mobs or herd mentality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality) brings out their base needs and drowns out everything else. Everyone should know about the Asch conformity experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments), and think about what the results mean. It is a large part of why and how agitation and propaganda works –– and why ads work! ––, by presenting a world where only one opinion or choice is conformant to a specific narrative or story. Even if there technically are other options, herd mentality will drive the majority to choose the conforming option – at least if they wish to adopt the narrative.
But isn't the problem at the receiving end? People jumping to conclusions too quickly?
My opinion is that we need individuals that resist being part of such mobs. This involves a cultural push to emphasize individual thought and the ability to debate every possible subject, including opinions and things considered "beyond questioning".
It involves things like teaching people that racism isn't something 'evil people' do. It is something related to the in-group preference and out-group rejection that increases cohesion in mid-sized (larger than extended family, but not urban) societies, and the psychological machinery in each human that is involved in that. It is something every individual has in varying degrees, and has to recognize in themselves, accept, and work out; there is no group that is completely free of this preference. Evolution affects us all. To be healthy, we – as individuals – must control it in ourselves, just like we need to exercise and control our caloric intake, because the majority of humans will lapse into sessile obesity given the option.
Or maybe I'm just naïve, and don't understand how the real world works. :-//
-
I tend to agree with Dave that the problem is in the society -if that is what he is suggesting-.
Yes, the grievance/victim/oppresor culture is being actively taught in the universities and filters out into society. it's a well documented phenomenom actually and has been happening for decades. Social media gave the movement god-like powers.
Adams touched on this in todays live show, talking about success mindsets, and how an SJW/DEI/ESG focussed mindset is ultimately a guaranteed losing mindset.
-
Consequences for what?
Words. Some people are deeply offended by words, I don't get how but it is certainly the case. And those people think that words should be a crime with as severe a punishment as possible and no path to redemption.
Publication, reputation and shame.
It's from the past.
It's my name, my name is my name!
(Marlo, The Wire)
-
Yes, the grievance/victim/oppresor culture is being actively taught in the universities and filters out into society.
In Finland, comprehensive school class teachers (typically up to grade 6, or about 13 year olds) require Masters in Pedagogical Sciences ("kasvatustieteen maisteri"), and most subjects also require a masters with a minor in pedagogical sciences. This easily explains why that culture has permeated our school system so thoroughly in the last ten-fifteen years. As the baby boomers have retired, there was simply nobody left to push back on the ideologically-driven hogwash. And the results we already know: PISA scores plummeting.
-
The subject was last put to bed six months ago and the last poll had 88 against, 70 for it and 22 couldn't give a toss either way. :-\
I enjoy a good waffle as much as anyone but I don't think this is the place for it. :-X
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/)
Polls can be interpreted in different ways.
It states that fewer than half of the people here are against the idea of an off-topic section, so that would be an argument for.
Or:
One could argue that those who don't care, will be under-represented, as most of those who couldn't give a toss, probably wouldn't bother responding, which gives 55.7% against and 44.3% for.
My view is it should be a separate private section. I wouldn't have said this 5 years ago, but politics has being gradually creeping in at work, with the diversity and inclusivity training and similar nonsense pushed by the managers. Dave obviously has the final say, whatever we think.
I tend to agree with Dave that the problem is in the society -if that is what he is suggesting-.
Yes, the grievance/victim/oppresor culture is being actively taught in the universities and filters out into society. it's a well documented phenomenom actually and has been happening for decades. Social media gave the movement god-like powers.
Adams touched on this in todays live show, talking about success mindsets, and how an SJW/DEI/ESG focussed mindset is ultimately a guaranteed losing mindset.
Yes it's nothing new. Whilst the economic elements of Marxism have largely been eradicated from culture, the social aspects remain and have been embraced by many institutions. I know that many on the right through the word Marxism around too much, but I call a spade a spade. Looking a society through the lens of oppressor/oppressed and advocating policies of ensuring equity for all marginalised groups is inherently Marxist. This is very different to equality of opportunity, which is what was promoted by most on the left 20 years ago. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that equal opportunity hasn't resulted in X, Y and Z minorities in all areas of life representing the population. Of course this was never going to happen. There will be different proportions of people in different roles due to cultural and biological factors. There always will be disproportionally fewer female engineers and more female child carers. Attempting to socially engineer a system to ensure equity is a recipe for disaster.
-
The subject was last put to bed six months ago and the last poll had 88 against, 70 for it and 22 couldn't give a toss either way. :-\
I enjoy a good waffle as much as anyone but I don't think this is the place for it. :-X
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/)
Polls can be interpreted in different ways.
It states that fewer than half of the people here are against the idea of an off-topic section, so that would be an argument for.
Or if you add in the 22% who think it shuld be hidden means that 70% thing it's at leats not a good idea for forum beginners and the public to see.
My view is it should be a separate private section. I wouldn't have said this 5 years ago, but politics has being gradually creeping in at work, with the diversity and inclusivity training and similar nonsense pushed by the managers. Dave obviously has the final say, whatever we think.
I would want to see an overwhelming majority for it, and also a lot of people voting to consider it. But even then I only see it as mostly having downside.
You also have to factor in the inevitable massive rise in reported posts. So this would either require it's own moderator, or there is a rule that no reports at all allowed and literally anything goes. Racist abuse? Stalking? Constant harressment on every post you make? Death threats? Rabbid Solar roadways supporters? Don't care, you asked for it...
-
Can you square the contradiction between these two statements:
I have long time fans who now absolutely hate my guts and think I'm a *insert -ism - phobe" piece of shite because they saw someone out of context post of mine reposted somewhere. If people are pre-disposed to that sort of reactionary thinking then literally the smallest thing you say can trigger them off. Even just following someone like Adams and still liking Dilbert will be enough to trigger them.
It's just an unfortunate fact of moden social conditioning and outrage culture.
In academia, especially lecturing, 'networking' and 'reputation' is key, and this sort of stuff is career death.
Which is why just the fear of cancel culture works, it keeps people silent. Head down and shut up.
But until it happens to oneself or a close associate, most people just do not believe it could happen to them. Weird.
Yup. Let's just say this has happened to more than one left learning woke friend of mine. And also friends of other creators who are equally "problematic" like I am. If you aren't 100% towing the line they'll eat you alive.
And yes, it's practically a 100% left leaning phenomenom. The "right" seem to just shrug their shoulders and go, meh.
and...
Dave, so you want to discuss "cancel culture", without any aspect of race or politics?
Yes. If you think you can't do that, then don't.
-
Can you square the contradiction between these two statements:
It's The Vibe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMuh33BMZYY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMuh33BMZYY)
-
This easily explains why that culture has permeated our school system so thoroughly in the last ten-fifteen years. As the baby boomers have retired, there was simply nobody left to push back on the ideologically-driven hogwash. And the results we already know: PISA scores plummeting.
Do you have a source or is this your own conclusion?
-
Can you square the contradiction between these two statements:
I can. It is not causation, it is statistical correlation, via personality traits.
It does not mean that your personality traits dictate who you vote for, at all. It simply means it seems that the big 5 personality traits that are common among those who agree with the social justice / cancellation / shunning going on, tend to currently have very left-leaning political views.
What is the key here, is that not all who have left-leaning political views are cancelists!
Note that I myself pointed out that in the past, when the mainstream conformist pressure was towards conservatism, the cancelist/shunners were conservative. This all goes down into herd mentality and social pressure mechanisms in urban environments.
Dave's "And yes, it's practically a 100% left leaning phenomenom. The "right" seem to just shrug their shoulders and go, meh." is my observation also.
Note: my observation. That is also how I understood Dave meant it too: that Dave hasn't seen any right-wingers trying to cancel others.
I do understand that in USA, McCarthyism was a thing (right-wing cancellism), but hasn't been a thing for decades now.
This easily explains why that culture has permeated our school system so thoroughly in the last ten-fifteen years. As the baby boomers have retired, there was simply nobody left to push back on the ideologically-driven hogwash. And the results we already know: PISA scores plummeting.
Do you have a source or is this your own conclusion?
My own conclusion, largely based on my personal contacts and observations wrt. teacher education in the last two decades. I could have prefaced that paragraph with "in my opinion", but I thought it obvious.
If you are interested in finding out for yourself, I recommend you compare the comprehensive school curriculum (suomeksi (https://eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/#/fi/perusopetus/419550/tiedot), på svenska (https://eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/#/sv/perusopetus/419550/tiedot)), to those in say mid-1990s. (Of course, the old ones are not on the web, so to do such research, you need to contact OPH and hope you find someone willing to do extra work for you.)
The current one is full of ideas and models created in this century, relying on them without any scientific basis, except for their proponents hopes and beliefs. 'Yhteisöllinen oppiminen', or 'community learning', is a central one; and quite a few comprehensive school teachers I know say that it just does not work at all in practice. If you take the time to read through it, and do a proper source review for each concept embedded in it, you'll find that "hogwash" is an apt characterization for it.
-
My own conclusion, largely based on my personal contacts and observations wrt. teacher education in the last two decades. I could have prefaced that paragraph with "in my opinion", but I thought it obvious.
I will continue to regard this as your opinion, until I see evidence of this connection. When announcing such beliefs, it's important to tell so, otherwise people could believe it as a commonly known fact, backed by e.g. scientific research. It also sounds like other typical populist statements.
I don't know much about the area of teacher curriculum, but I've observed elementary, vocational and high school educations as a parent (and as elected representative in boards of education for elementary schools) and I've nothing to complain about. In fact, teaching and schools in Finland today are superior compared to the schools I attended to as a kid. This cancellation mob culture thing you are talking about, it's the opposite of what kids are thought. Now my kids haven't attended university (yet), so I have no knowledge about that. But you would think it would somehow show through their teachers if that's the case. This is my narrow experience and opinion.
-
My own conclusion, largely based on my personal contacts and observations wrt. teacher education in the last two decades. I could have prefaced that paragraph with "in my opinion", but I thought it obvious.
I will continue to regard this as your opinion, until I see evidence of this connection.
Why don't you check out the links I provided, then? Or do you not consider the mathematical literacy dropping to 16th place in 2018, from 2nd place in 2006, as being significant?
Just out of interest, what else could it be? Kids nowadays being stupider than before? Or do you believe that Occam's razor cannot be applied when the conclusions are contrary to your current ideology? Or perhaps PISA scores somehow do not reflect the truth?
The one big change there is, is the core curriculum. Group sizes are no larger on average than they were in the mid-nineties. There used to be special needs classes, but no longer because "inclusivity" – which is stated as part of the core curriculum. Similarly for "community learning" or "social learning", which is opposite to the princples applied in Estonia. Which, by the way, is doing exceptionally well, better than any other Western country.
Why doesn't Finland follow Estonia's lead? (There must be something more than just our minister of education, Li Andersson, not appreciating Estonia as it is too right-wing for her tastes –– she does describe herself as a Marxist, after all.)
It also sounds like other typical populist statements.
Sounds? To whom? Do you have any basis for that, or are you just calling me a populist because you don't like me?
I've nothing to complain about. In fact, teaching and schools in Finland today are superior compared to the schools I attended to as a kid.
Ah, so you ascribe to the "kids nowadays are just stupider than we were" or to the "PISA scores do not reflect reality" stances, then?
Very good, sir.
-
I tend to agree with Dave that the problem is in the society -if that is what he is suggesting-.
Yes, the grievance/victim/oppresor culture is being actively taught in the universities and filters out into society. it's a well documented phenomenom actually and has been happening for decades. Social media gave the movement god-like powers.
Adams touched on this in todays live show, talking about success mindsets, and how an SJW/DEI/ESG focussed mindset is ultimately a guaranteed losing mindset.
I don't think there was a self-made CEO of any company who was socialist. It's just an incompatible mindset with it.
But they started to place diversity hires into these positions, and then somehow the company's bottom line suffers. I wonder why?
The Silicon Valley Bank that went out of business? The lady responsible for the risk assessment of the company's assets was more concerned about wokeness than doing her job, they put their money into junk bonds, interest rate went up. They gave bonuses to everyone hours before closing down.
So we are at a stage, where you have to interview your bank, your kindergarden teacher, your doctor, your employer, insurance provider, and so on. "Hey, how woke are you? Are you going to act in my best interest, or are you just an NPC, brainwashed with social propaganda?"
-
Why don't you check out the links I provided, then? Or do you not consider the mathematical literacy dropping to 16th place in 2018, from 2nd place in 2006, as being significant?
I don't dispute numbers, that's not the point.
Sounds? To whom? Do you have any basis for that, or are you just calling me a populist because you don't like me?
It sounded like that to me. But now you are assuming things. I haven't said that I don't like you. Actually I like your forum profile, because you have very insightful posts in this forum. I meant that it sounded like such a statement, because you connected two things that don't yet have been shown to have such a connection. That's typical for populist statements.
Ah, so you ascribe to the "kids nowadays are just stupider than we were" or to the "PISA scores do not reflect reality" stances, then?
No, I didn't say anything about that. My experience of the current education has been positive. It could be a subjective experience and I cannot tell how successful the whole system is. Of course I can see that PISA scores are worse. And for what I know, the curriculum could be one of the causes (but it could very well be other factors also). I don't dispute numbers. It's your connection to the "cancel mob" that I don't see.
-
I don't think there was a self-made CEO of any company who was socialist. It's just an incompatible mindset with it.
Julian Richer?
In November 2013 Julian Richer announced to the press that, upon his death, he would bequeath 100% of the firm to a trust co-owned by employees of the company.[3][4] In May 2019 Richer, then aged 60, announced that he had transferred ownership to employees by passing 60% of his shares to a trust,[5] as well as separately paying each of his over 500 employees, excluding directors,[6] from his own pocket a thank you bonus of £1,000[7] for every year of work, a total of about £4 million, as the employees had worked for an average of 8 years each.
-
it sounded like such a statement, because you connected two things that don't yet have been shown to have such a connection. That's typical for populist statements.
Wow.
This "correlation = causation" belief is typical for *all* groups. And in many cases, the correlation is no better than random chance. Here I see this mostly in left-wing groups, but sure, right-wing or center groups also do this. It's just that on the West coast USA where I live (San Francisco / Portland / Seattle), all the noise comes from the left.
-
I tend to agree with Dave that the problem is in the society -if that is what he is suggesting-.
Yes, the grievance/victim/oppresor culture is being actively taught in the universities and filters out into society. it's a well documented phenomenom actually and has been happening for decades. Social media gave the movement god-like powers.
Adams touched on this in todays live show, talking about success mindsets, and how an SJW/DEI/ESG focussed mindset is ultimately a guaranteed losing mindset.
I don't think there was a self-made CEO of any company who was socialist. It's just an incompatible mindset with it.
But they started to place diversity hires into these positions, and then somehow the company's bottom line suffers. I wonder why?
The Silicon Valley Bank that went out of business? The lady responsible for the risk assessment of the company's assets was more concerned about wokeness than doing her job, they put their money into junk bonds, interest rate went up. They gave bonuses to everyone hours before closing down.
So we are at a stage, where you have to interview your bank, your kindergarden teacher, your doctor, your employer, insurance provider, and so on. "Hey, how woke are you? Are you going to act in my best interest, or are you just an NPC, brainwashed with social propaganda?"
Banks have been failing as long as banks have existed, & even if everybody eschewed "wokeness" forever, would continue to fail from time to time.
There is an old saying----- "whenever I see a "self made" man, it restores my faith in the Almighty."
"Self made men" are quite commonly absolute turds, however, they are quite often competent.
Many CEOS these days went to Uni to study how to be Bosses, got their heads full of idiotic management theory, & set out to make as large a personal fortune as they can, even if their incompetence leaves a trail of failed or close to failing companies behind them.
Strangely, even with a disastrous record behind them, boards continue to employ such people, who are so self obsessed that they have no identification with their company, let alone any consideration of "woke" things.
Meanwhile, ordinary employees who do identify with the company are "kicked to the kerb" without a thought.
-
Several right-wing American politicians stated that SVB failed due to "wokeness".
The New York Times fact-check department, pooping the party, checked the normal "D&I" and "ESG" scorekeepers for the financial industry and found SVB parked right near the middle/median of its peer group.
Facts are for losers.
-
Several right-wing American politicians stated that SVB failed due to "wokeness".
The New York Times fact-check department, pooping the party, checked the normal "D&I" and "ESG" scorekeepers for the financial industry and found SVB parked right near the middle/median of its peer group.
Facts are for losers.
Not to blame "wokeness" entirely for the bank failure but...
And you believe the New York Times "Fact Check"?
If you do I have some cal equipment to sell....HA!
-
Several right-wing American politicians stated that SVB failed due to "wokeness".
The New York Times fact-check department, pooping the party, checked the normal "D&I" and "ESG" scorekeepers for the financial industry and found SVB parked right near the middle/median of its peer group.
Facts are for losers.
Thank you, for making the point for us: Even moderately woke companies are mismanaged beyond any help.
-
What is the key here, is that not all who have left-leaning political views are cancelists!
Note that I myself pointed out that in the past, when the mainstream conformist pressure was towards conservatism, the cancelist/shunners were conservative. This all goes down into herd mentality and social pressure mechanisms in urban environments.
Throughout recent history (last couple hundred years or so at least) this was mostly a right leaning thing and the liberal left were the ones pushing for free speech and defending the right of people to talk about anything without being punished. I'm not sure when this changed exactly but it seems like it was just the last 20 years or so and only in maybe the last 10 years that it has become mainstream.
-
Several right-wing American politicians stated that SVB failed due to "wokeness".
The New York Times fact-check department, pooping the party, checked the normal "D&I" and "ESG" scorekeepers for the financial industry and found SVB parked right near the middle/median of its peer group.
Facts are for losers.
Not to blame "wokeness" entirely for the bank failure but...
And you believe the New York Times "Fact Check"?
If you do I have some cal equipment to sell....HA!
There are several rating agencies for "D&I" and "ESG".
My brokerage lists their ratings on common stocks, for those who are interested.
The NY Times merely quoted those agencies to determine "wokeness".
Why should I distrust their quotation compared to unsupported comments from politicians?
-
It's your connection to the "cancel mob" that I don't see.
It is a connection that I find extremely interesting.
We have a significant drop in Finnish PISA scores between 2009 and 2012. Because these are comprehensive school students' scores, something changed significantly between year 2000 and 2012. During this decade, the curriculum was updated in 2004. It can be found in Finlex (finnish (https://www.finlex.fi/data/normit/17796/oph0101104su.doc.pdf)), and the publication actually delivered to teachers here in Swedish (https://www.finlex.fi/data/normit/17796/oph0101104sv.pdf) and for example here (https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelman-perusteet_2004.pdf) in Finnish. The earlier version from 1994 is only available in paper form, I believe.
The steepest drop in PISA scores was in mathematics in 2012. If we look at the math section above, the goals, content, and criteria have not significantly changed. So, it is not like the materials that the pupils study has changed.
However, the 2004 introduction is full of the Finnish leftist keywords: "arvopohja", "yhteisöllisyys", "monikulttuurisuus", "yhteisöllinen oppiminen".
It is important to note that the entire concept of "yhteisöllinen oppiminen", collaborative learning, is based on Soviet concepts of education, specifically Lev Vygotskys zone of proximal development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development). It is used wholesale as the basis for 'inclusivity' later on, completely ignoring all its well-known weaknesses: unsuitable for large classrooms, with risk of students losing interest or even invalid peer-learning (which interestingly is one possible mechanism explaining the PISA score drops); with medium-learners at worst risk (because they learn best in small groups with similar peers, contrary to what ZOPE concept suggests).
Everything I can see here points to well-meaning, but ideologically fixated people trying to turn Finnish comprehensive school into something that performs their own Marxist-Leninist ideology. Exactly like I've explained how the cancelists believe they're making the world a better place, but are actually just making things worse on the long run.
A good example of this is the recent debacle, when (the parent of) a young pupil wanted to add the text "there are only two sexes" to their school work. (In Finnish, there is only one word for all four aspects of sex and gender, "sukupuoli". Biologically, the statement is a fact. Hermaphrodites belong to both, intersex to either one (which can be arbitrary if and only if they are not capable of biological reproduction).) Yet, the teacher/school reported it to the Ombudsman of Equality (https://tasa-arvo.fi/en/front-page), which stated the school must deny/reject it or they will be in violation of equality laws in Finland.
(If we look at the ages of the Finnish population in say 2005 (here, Wikipedia (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Fin_population_by_age_2005.png)), we can see that those aged 50-59 were the largest ever generation in Finland, and considering the typical retirement age of 63 to 65 at that time, that generation would mostly retire before 2012. If we look at graduates in educational sciences between 2000 and 2016 (stats, Finnish (https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__opiskt/statfin_opiskt_pxt_136b.px/chart/chartViewLine/)) we'll see that while the typical number of masters' degrees was around 1700, in 2008 there were almost 2600, due to a change in the university programs (before that, many studied directly for a masters, without a bachelors). However, this did not correspond to any kind of a spike in unemployed teachers (stats, Finnish (https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__tyonv/statfin_tyonv_pxt_12td.px/table/tableViewLayout1/)). Because most teachers in Finland have a masters degree, and the theses are indexed, looking at the subjects, approaches, and conclusions of the thesis works provides a very good insight into new teachers at finna.fi (https://finna.fi/).)
If I were to collate all the related information, I could show how this all ties in to the current social conformist cancel culture, through the Marxist-Leninist worldview. I'm not interested in trying to prove it, however, as this is just my observation and current opinion. Most interestingly, the alternatives, the existing explanations as to why Finnish PISA scores are dropping, are odd. In 2022, the results were described as 'still brilliant' (https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/c04dca49-f242-495e-9b84-6353cd9896b8), with the main explanation offered being 'increasing deviation in individual results'.
To be direct, I find your objection similar to how the chief of preventive police measures, Jari Taponen, still insists that "there are no street gangs in Finland", even though the National Bureau of Investigation says it has identified at least ten of them. The reason is that Taponen is big on Twitter Cancelism, even suing a member of parliament for calling him "a dickless whiner". Taponen is incapable of admitting the fact that the street gangs exist, because they consist of mainly 18-23 year old immigrants and children of immigrants, and this is contrary to his ideological beliefs (including the one that racism is by definition the majority oppressing a minority, and other Marxist crap).
Just like for a decade now, the increasing overrepresentation of immigrants in sex crimes in the greater Helsinki region, is explained due to 'increase in willingness to report', rather than an actual change in the crimes occurring. The ideology prevents any fact-based objective examination, leaving only inane excuses and no actions done to rectify the situation. (That is not about race or ethnicity, though: it is about culture, because very specific nationalities/cultures, rather than ethnicities or races, are overrepresented. But the ideology of cultural relativism and multiculturalism does not allow for subjecting another culture to criticism, much less any kind of an action, especially if the members of that culture happen to mostly be of a different race.)
-
My own conclusion, largely based on my personal contacts and observations wrt. teacher education in the last two decades. I could have prefaced that paragraph with "in my opinion", but I thought it obvious.
I will continue to regard this as your opinion, until I see evidence of this connection.
Why don't you check out the links I provided, then? Or do you not consider the mathematical literacy dropping to 16th place in 2018, from 2nd place in 2006, as being significant?
And it's the same in most western countries. And not just with math either.
Meanwhile, the education level keeps rising in asian countries.
And we wonder what our problem is and why we are unable to compete.
-
Meanwhile, the education level keeps rising in asian countries.
And we wonder what our problem is and why we are unable to compete.
If you have any Asian friends, try talking to them about their kid's education. Whether I talk with Indians, Chinese, Koreans or Japanese they all paint a gloomy picture of low expectations and low effort compared with their own experiences at school. It just isn't as bad as in western countries. I have no idea what you do with a really smart kid in countries like the UK. There are no schooling options that will keep them pushing forward and engaged any more, and teaching them yourself isn't an option for most people.
-
It is a connection that I find extremely interesting.
Sorry, this is all very new to me and I would never have made that connection if I hadn't read about it in this thread. It's actually the very first place where I have seen this idea.
All of your explanations for this alleged connection look like right-wing nuttery to me. And I don't know if I care about the subject so much that I would bother gathering more knowledge about it. The things that bother my mind right now are trivial things such as work and family and also the outcome of the Russian war in Ukraine, which will be a deciding step in the history of Europe. I couldn't care less about conservative conspiracy theories right now. Fortunately Finland will probably accepted into NATO. An arrest warrant was issued today by the ICC for Putin. All in all a good day for humanity. Now we can only wait for Trump to be indicted and the world is saved. Yeah, maybe not, but I'll celebrate anyway.
-
Sorry, this is all very new to me and I would never have made that connection if I hadn't read about it in this thread. It's actually the very first place where I have seen this idea.
All of your explanations for this alleged connection look like right-wing nuttery to me. And I don't know if I care about the subject so much that I would bother gathering more knowledge about it. The things that bother my mind right now are trivial things such as work and family and also the outcome of the Russian war in Ukraine, which will be a deciding step in the history of Europe. I couldn't care less about conservative conspiracy theories right now. Fortunately Finland will probably accepted into NATO. An arrest warrant was issued today by the ICC for Putin. All in all a good day for humanity. Now we can only wait for Trump to be indicted and the world is saved. Yeah, maybe not, but I'll celebrate anyway.
How is it right wing nuttery? Do you have a better explanation? Personally I think we should question (as in test) the theory and any others, clearly *something* has changed that is causing the lowered test scores, so what is it? Is it right wing nuttery to acknowledge that something has changed and speculate on what that something or somethings is/are?
The arrest warrant issued on Putin is useless symbolism, it won't do anything at all, who is going to arrest him? I'd be shocked if Trump is ever indicted too and unfortunately it might do more harm than good because it's going to be labeled a political witch hunt and will galvanize his devout worshippers. I would prefer that he dies, ideally under unambiguously natural circumstances. There will of course be others like him so the world won't be saved. He has very little impact on my day to day life though, if people could just ignore him he would go away.
-
How is it right wing nuttery? Do you have a better explanation?
It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.
I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).
-
There are several rating agencies for "D&I" and "ESG".
My brokerage lists their ratings on common stocks, for those who are interested.
The NY Times merely quoted those agencies to determine "wokeness".
Why should I distrust their quotation compared to unsupported comments from politicians?
Tim, I've not read the NYT article, and I also doubt that "Woke" had much to do with the SVB failure, but aren't these rating agencies looking at the diversity of the employees? This isn't exactly what has been claimed about the failure of the bank. Rather, it was suggested that the bank executives spent too much tine on DEI and not enough on financial risk management. I guess it's obvious (now) that they had poor risk management, but the DEI rating doesn't tell us much about why this happened.
-
All of your explanations for this alleged connection look like right-wing nuttery to me.
stat.fi, Tilastokeskus, come on man, you can do better.
For now you're only proving some earlier points of ideology and incapability.
-
The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've put an active leader of a country in prison, only those that have already been vanquished.
-
There are several rating agencies for "D&I" and "ESG".
My brokerage lists their ratings on common stocks, for those who are interested.
The NY Times merely quoted those agencies to determine "wokeness".
Why should I distrust their quotation compared to unsupported comments from politicians?
Tim, I've not read the NYT article, and I also doubt that "Woke" had much to do with the SVB failure, but aren't these rating agencies looking at the diversity of the employees? This isn't exactly what has been claimed about the failure of the bank. Rather, it was suggested that the bank executives spent too much tine on DEI and not enough on financial risk management. I guess it's obvious (now) that they had poor risk management, but the DEI rating doesn't tell us much about why this happened.
My post was about the current poor state of political discourse in the US. The usual suspects had stated without proof that the bank failure was due to "wokeness".
"DEI" or "D&I" refer to employee diversity, and "ESG" refers to "environmental, social, and governance" issues in operation.
Both concepts have been described as "woke".
-
stat.fi, Tilastokeskus, come on man, you can do better.
For now you're only proving some earlier points of ideology and incapability.
I'm not disputing the numbers, I'm saying there is no proved connection between the statistics and the "cancel mob" mentioned above. Correlation does not imply causation. You show me!
-
The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've put an active leader of a country in prison, only those that have already been vanquished.
I think you are right. It's a bit hard to arrest sitting leaders in dictatorships.
-
How is it right wing nuttery? Do you have a better explanation?
It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.
I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).
Literally nobody was talking about putin until you brough the subject up.
BTW, if politicians are talking about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
-
[
Literally nobody was talking about putin until you brough the subject up.
BTW, if politicians are talking about it, it doesn't mean it's not true.
True.
-
The way I look at it, allowing threads like this to exist at all involves bending the rules, and I appreciate that it has been allowed in moderation because the topic is interesting and relevant, but it has to remain civil, and it's nice that it's contained in one or two threads which are easily avoided for those not interested. It would totally ruin the forum if it spread everywhere and took over.
Yup. These kinds of threads should be few and far between, if allowed at all. I used to be fairly active on physicsforums and their strict ban on politics and religion was always appreciated. There are a lot of other forums you can go to if you want to argue about that stuff.
jason
-
The way I look at it, allowing threads like this to exist at all involves bending the rules, and I appreciate that it has been allowed in moderation because the topic is interesting and relevant, but it has to remain civil, and it's nice that it's contained in one or two threads which are easily avoided for those not interested. It would totally ruin the forum if it spread everywhere and took over.
Yup. These kinds of threads should be few and far between, if allowed at all. I used to be fairly active on physicsforums and their strict ban on politics and religion was always appreciated. There are a lot of other forums you can go to if you want to argue about that stuff.
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
-
Doesn't the number of different contributors show that there is still interest in whatever this thread is about. It's not like it's just two people arguing the toss. So perhaps better to leave this one running to contain whatever it is here than have it drift into other threads? So long as it's all even-tempered, what's the problem?
We get that you're bored of it now but you can always drop out, you know. There's an ignore thread feature to make it easy! I'm sure someone will let you know if ever your moderation skills were required to kill it off.
-
It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.
I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).
I've seen populists drink water, I also drink water, does that make me populist? If a group you don't like comes up with an idea that doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's worth exploring. If you think that idea is wrong then please offer an alternate theory, if nobody ever discusses it further than "that's nuttery" then it will never be solved.
Symbolic meaning is useless, it does nothing except making some people feel good like they are doing something. I take no issue with somebody arresting Putin, but I just don't see how that warrant is going to lead to that. I'd never heard of ICC until today, it doesn't seem they have much in the way of teeth.
-
It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.
I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).
I've seen populists drink water, I also drink water, does that make me populist? If a group you don't like comes up with an idea that doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's worth exploring. If you think that idea is wrong then please offer an alternate theory, if nobody ever discusses it further than "that's nuttery" then it will never be solved.
Symbolic meaning is useless, it does nothing except making some people feel good like they are doing something. I take no issue with somebody arresting Putin, but I just don't see how that warrant is going to lead to that. I'd never heard of ICC until today, it doesn't seem they have much in the way of teeth.
You say "symbolic meaning is useless", & yet in the USA, people regularly "salute the flag".
They don't, unless they are a bit unhinged, revere a piece of cloth---it is a symbol.
Australians & New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day every year, but logically, it is just another day of the year.
King Charles III will be crowned in Winchester Abbey, with all the pomp & ceremony that entails---why? he is already King; it doesn't make him any more so.
All just "symbolic meaning".
-
Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.
-
You say "symbolic meaning is useless", & yet in the USA, people regularly "salute the flag".
They don't, unless they are a bit unhinged, revere a piece of cloth---it is a symbol.
Australians & New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day every year, but logically, it is just another day of the year.
King Charles III will be crowned in Winchester Abbey, with all the pomp & ceremony that entails---why? he is already King; it doesn't make him any more so.
All just "symbolic meaning".
I don't do any of those things, as you say, all just symbolic meaning, all useless. Symbolism is an emotional thing, it accomplishes nothing, I've never seen any need for it.
-
Doesn't the number of different contributors show that there is still interest in whatever this thread is about. It's not like it's just two people arguing the toss. So perhaps better to leave this one running to contain whatever it is here than have it drift into other threads? So long as it's all even-tempered, what's the problem?
We get that you're bored of it now but you can always drop out, you know. There's an ignore thread feature to make it easy! I'm sure someone will let you know if ever your moderation skills were required to kill it off.
Years ago, maybe 5-6, I did a bit of analysis of threads like this one. It seemed to me that even though they were getting lots of activity they were not posted in a lot by many different members. I don't have the script anymore to do this one but if memory serves the top 10 most active posters would generate over 50% and Dave himself could easily hold down number one spot. And as the thread went on the number of different posters declined quite rapidly.
I'm not inclined anymore to see if things have changed. The names have mostly changed. I used to use the ignore topics facility but I'll have to go check if any entries remain.
But as for leaving it running, I do agree with you on that point. So if you were posting in response to someone who called for the thread to be closed, it needs to be understood that as long as Dave enjoys these threads they have long been, and will continue, to be a feature on the forum.
-
Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.
Dave, the original topic is pretty much exhausted.
Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.
-
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
As ChatGPT improves, it might (N.B. May not work reliably enough in practice and/or have other difficulties) be possible to write an API, which detects political posts. Hence blocks them, before they enter a thread and/or holds them pending, until a moderator/administrator approves them. If the user insists it is NOT political.
N.B. Only needs enabling, for problematic threads, such as this one, not for ALL threads.
Test question:
Is the following post, political at all? "...actual post - pasted in here..."
Source1: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4763093/#msg4763093 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4763093/#msg4763093)
ChatGPT response to the first test:
The post contains some political elements, specifically discussing populism, the arrest of Putin, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the overall tone and content of the post do not seem to be overtly political. The author is encouraging discussion and exploration of ideas, rather than advocating for a specific political agenda. The post seems to focus more on logical reasoning and critical thinking than on partisan politics.
Source2: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4762712/#msg4762712 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4762712/#msg4762712)
ChatGPT response to the second test:
The post appears to be political in nature, as it discusses education policies, curriculum changes, and social issues, such as inclusivity and cancel culture. It also makes references to Marxist-Leninist ideology and cultural relativism, which are political ideologies. Additionally, it mentions the overrepresentation of immigrants in sex crimes and street gangs, which can be a sensitive and politicized topic.
-
All of your explanations for this alleged connection look like right-wing nuttery to me.
Right-wing nuttery? Right-wing I can accept, but "nuttery"? Point at least one specific thing in my posts that is "nutty". Or is everybody who disagrees with you a "nut"?
I couldn't care less about conservative conspiracy theories right now.
Conspiracy theory? Really? Point out a single conspiracy I've alleged here, please. Otherwise, you are a liar and owe me an apology.
You don't get to call me names just because you feel like it, after I've treated you as an equal, and spent a lot of time and effort to try and explain the basis for my current understanding. You disagree, and that's fine; but just discard all that as "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy theory" is absolutely disgusting, and utterly intellectually dishonest.
Your behaviour shows the same problem we've discussed all along in this thread, about cancel culture: honest debate is dead, dissenting opinions and explanations labeled as "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy theories", and therefore not worth anyones time, and should be eradicated. Only Socially Correct Thoughts shall be expressed. People must stay silent, or they too will be labeled "nutters" and "conspiracy theorists" by the likes of you, all for having a different opinion, even when they try to carefully explain how they have constructed their current understanding. You even refuse to look at those references! How dare you!?
And even now, I do not want you banned or silenced. I only want your lies corrected and acknowledged, and an apology for the uncalled-for name-calling.
-
Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.
No need to analyse any of this, if you actually listen to him (which most people have not), he states repeatedly that he is not a victim, he's not complaining about what happened to him, and yes what he said was racists and that's the entire point of it. After the dust has settled it's clearly a political cancellation from the left. No one on the right/conserative side of politics has cancelled him, no black people have cancelled him, it was ultimately a political takedown because he has influence in politics. He knowingly offered up an opportunity to the political left to cancel him and they took it. They would have been dumb not to. That's politics.
Adam's has said reapeatedly he has achived what he wanted to achieve, is not looking back, and thinks he's made genuine progress in race relations.
He admits he just didn't expect to lose the syndication, but has also said he understand why they were fearful and dropped him, and does not blame them.
The big question is now, do you fork out US$7/month for Dilbert or not...
-
Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.
Dave, the original topic is pretty much exhausted.
Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.
He's not a victim. He has said fairly directly that he isn't complaining and he got exactly what he wanted. I've said that before and showed a link to where he said it. I had a circuitous story that happened in the supermarket yesterday about why something appears on the shelf and then gets "reduced to clear". The upshot of it after all the superficial BS reasons is money. Right at the heart of it at the bottom line it comes down to money.
It is the same with Scott Adams. He calculated the risk and decided it would be more lucrative to move to a subscription based model where he was in complete control. I watched a few of his videos on YT and it became clear to me at least how he rambles on about something, then confesses to not know the answer, then makes a leap of logic and says "am I right" or something like "maybe you know, post it in the comments". It seems to be a sort of technique to manipulate his audience who probably sort of agree with him but don't quite know why. I imagine it is the same sort of thing Fox News commentators do to hold an audience that mostly just enjoys being part of something bigger than themselves that they know they're angry about. As long as they're amongst other angry people they don't need to strain themselves with understanding exactly why.
Scott Adams is clearly not an idiot, I never thought the Fox News anchors actually believed the lies they were spouting on air. And I don't count myself as the sharpest tool in the toolbox but Scott Adams clearly thinks his audience is duller than even I am.
In both cases it comes down to money.
-
It is the same with Scott Adams. He calculated the risk and decided it would be more lucrative to move to a subscription based model where he was in complete control.
Not so. He has said repeatedly that he did not expect his syndication company to drop him (that lead to an 80% drop in his income). He just expected some more newspapers to cancel his strip as they have done 3-4 times now in the last year when he has said something provocative.
Now that that's happened, he decided to go with only having Dilbert on Locals, but that was never a plan.
-
Please stick to the topic.
Once again, Dave, I seem to have been a part of the derailment.
Not thru any action of my own, though, this time. It is just that what I described in #504 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4744433/#msg4744433) a bit over a week ago as a pattern happening often in Finland, repeated here on your forum (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4763018/#msg4763018) a few hours ago, causing the derailment.
:palm:
I have to admit, as a tactic to get people to silence themselves, it does work. It definitely decreases my willingness to engage anyone on this general subject in the future. Not because of fear of cancellation, but just out of sheer disgust.
-
Please stick to the topic.
Once again, Dave, I seem to have been a part of the derailment.
Not thru any action of my own, though, this time. It is just that what I described in #504 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4744433/#msg4744433) a bit over a week ago as a pattern happening often in Finland, repeated here on your forum (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4763018/#msg4763018) a few hours ago, causing the derailment.
:palm:
I have to admit, as a tactic to get people to silence themselves, it does work. It definitely decreases my willingness to engage anyone on this general subject in the future. Not because of fear of cancellation, but just out of sheer disgust.
It seems that whereas others hear hoofbeats & say "Just horses", you think "Unicorns" & post great slabs of text to try to batter people into agreement with you.
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.
-
It seems that whereas others hear hoofbeats & say "Just horses", you think "Unicorns" & post great slabs of text to try to batter people into agreement with you.
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.
Where did he say anything about anyone cancelling him?
-
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.
Eh, what? Accusing me of "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy stories" after explicitly refusing to look at the documentation I linked to as a basis for my current understanding is "maintaining their disagreement" to you? :o
And where did I accuse anyone of cancelling me?
You [...] try to batter people into agreement with you.
No. I try to "batter them" to explain the basis of their opinion, because opinions themselves have zero value to me, only the reasons those opinions and understanding is based on has. If they cannot or do not want to explain why they hold that opinion, why should anyone care about the opinion at all?
It's like plop, here's mine. Take it or leave it.
No exchange of information, no interaction, nothing of value.
I for sure am not interested in any kind of "discussion" where people drop off their opinions as if they were nuggets of gold. Opinions are turds. Especially so when adopted wholesale from an authority without understanding exactly why one should hold that opinion; then it is just negative-worth parroting.
What is interesting and useful, is the reasoning and experiences that shaped those opinions and understanding. Those can be compared, analyzed, and even weighed against ones own experiences and understanding, to quantify their relevance to oneself. Any opinion I hold now, will –– and must, if I consider myself a rational being! –– change, as my understanding changes and acquire additional experience.
If pushing people to explain the basis of their opinions and understanding is "battering them", then so be it. I guess I am doing it right now, am I?
-
It seems that whereas others hear hoofbeats & say "Just horses", you think "Unicorns" & post great slabs of text to try to batter people into agreement with you.
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.
Where did he say anything about anyone cancelling him?
Quoting him directly:-
"Not thru any action of my own, though, this time. It is just that what I described in #504 a bit over a week ago as a pattern happening often in Finland, repeated here on your forum a few hours ago, causing the derailment.
:palm:
I have to admit, as a tactic to get people to silence themselves, it does work. It definitely decreases my willingness to engage anyone on this general subject in the future. Not because of fear of cancellation, but just out of sheer disgust.
-
Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.
No need to analyse any of this, if you actually listen to him (which most people have not), he states repeatedly that he is not a victim, he's not complaining about what happened to him, and yes what he said was racists and that's the entire point of it. After the dust has settled it's clearly a political cancellation from the left. No one on the right/conserative side of politics has cancelled him, no black people have cancelled him, it was ultimately a political takedown because he has influence in politics. He knowingly offered up an opportunity to the political left to cancel him and they took it. They would have been dumb not to. That's politics.
Well, I seem to have missed something important with this. Suppose I walk into a bank with a shotgun, tell them I am going to rob the place and the security guard shoots me (almost) dead. I then laugh in his face and tell him "Ha! I knew you would do that but I am not really a robber and pretended to be so only so you would shoot me. The laugh is on you!"
That's the kind of thing that comes across here: he isn't actually racist but made out he was just so the anti-racist crowd would have a go at him, which they did. And he thinks he scored something over them? Hmmm.
-
Quoting him directly:
In #504 I wrote "Anyone speaking against the "progressivist activist group", is a transphobic racist X, regardless of the actual topic.".
And, like clockwork, JohanH starts blathering about "conservative conspiracy theories" and X and Trump and so on, proving my point perfectly –– and derailing the thread. Probably hoped to get the thread locked, too.
Then, I re-referred to that name-calling as an effective tactic to get people to stay silent. This is not cancelling, just another aspect of the same worldview. Even when they know they cannot cancel someone, they can still label and call others names, bullying others so they'll stop talking out of disgust, not any kind of fear. The need to stop other people from speaking, and yet others from listening, to the Bad Ideas must be strong indeed.
Why are you so keen to stop this discussion? Has some of the posts made you think, and you find the cognitive dissonance brewing in yourself so uncomfortable, you feel an overriding need to badger Dave repeatedly hoping he'll close the thread, hopefully quelling those bad thoughts in yourself?
It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.
-
It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.
Keep touting this nonsense. "Declining PISA scores caused by cancel culture" - I put this in the same category as "wind turbines cause cancer". Until there is some scientific proof. Then it MIGHT be worth to take a look at if it really causes trouble in the society. Now I'm supposedly part of the cancel mob because someone's frail feelings got hurt. Sure.
-
Quoting him directly:
In #504 I wrote "Anyone speaking against the "progressivist activist group", is a transphobic racist X, regardless of the actual topic.".
And, like clockwork, JohanH starts blathering about "conservative conspiracy theories" and X and Trump and so on, proving my point perfectly –– and derailing the thread. Probably hoped to get the thread locked, too.
Then, I re-referred to that name-calling as an effective tactic to get people to stay silent. This is not cancelling, just another aspect of the same worldview. Even when they know they cannot cancel someone, they can still label and call others names,
Meanwhile, you seem to be just as happy to throw names around.
Is it just you who shouldn't receive them?
bullying others so they'll stop talking out of disgust,
Well it has certainly worked in my case, as I have decided to not post again in this thread
not any kind of fear. The need to stop other people from speaking, and yet others from listening, to the Bad Ideas must be strong indeed.
Why are you so keen to stop this discussion? Has some of the posts made you think, and you find the cognitive dissonance brewing in yourself so uncomfortable, you feel an overriding need to badger Dave repeatedly hoping he'll close the thread, hopefully quelling those bad thoughts in yourself?
It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.
I am not a "proponent of the cancel culture", nor am I "badgering Dave repeatedly" in the hope of anything. He will make the choice to close it or leave it open.
-
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.
See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/) ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.
-
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
I don't care how Dave runs his forum, it's his forum, he can do what he want. But I think the above statement by tooki should be thought of by more people. Just because a narrative is more common in some English speaking social media, doesn't mean that it should be used as a fact. A lot of people in other countries will react to the specifically American conservative opinions and narratives as strange, because they are not that common as some would like to believe.
-
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
I don't care how Dave runs his forum, it's his forum, he can do what he want.
Of course. I should have mentioned that my intent in my post above wasn’t to argue the politics, nor Dave’s right to run the forum how he sees fit, but to try and explain why the politics draw people back in, and why the topic may be more inherently political than he realizes.
But I think the above statement by tooki should be thought of by more people. Just because a narrative is more common in some English speaking social media, doesn't mean that it should be used as a fact. A lot of people in other countries will react to the specifically American conservative opinions and narratives as strange, because they are not that common as some would like to believe.
Yep. Terms that have become politicized can end up having very different meanings to different groups, and those meanings can change yet again when borrowed into other languages. (And then speakers of different languages may not realize they aren’t talking about the same thing.)
The problem I see here on eevblog is that the conservative usages (mostly in the context of outrage) are bandied about as if they were neutral terms, but they’re not — and thus political debates begin.
-
I wish they had done more of the cartoon series. I quite enjoyed that.
The bit where his mum takes him to the doctors and the ahem Doctor says "I'm sorry but you son is an Engineer" had a good laugh from me. I have used it to explain some of the socially awkward engineers that I experience onsite. Every good company has one, usually a bit awkward, people often misunderstand them so get upset at what they say, but get them on a technical question and they really start to open up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6HojLBsnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6HojLBsnw)
-
It seems that whereas others hear hoofbeats & say "Just horses", you think "Unicorns" & post great slabs of text to try to batter people into agreement with you.
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.
Where did he say anything about anyone cancelling him?
Quoting him directly:-
"Not thru any action of my own, though, this time. It is just that what I described in #504 a bit over a week ago as a pattern happening often in Finland, repeated here on your forum a few hours ago, causing the derailment.
:palm:
I have to admit, as a tactic to get people to silence themselves, it does work. It definitely decreases my willingness to engage anyone on this general subject in the future. Not because of fear of cancellation, but just out of sheer disgust.
I think you need to re-read that again. He said "NOT because of fear of cancellation". It seems that you read into it what you wanted it to say and not what it did say. He never said anyone was cancelling him.
-
I don't care how Dave runs his forum, it's his forum, he can do what he want. But I think the above statement by tooki should be thought of by more people. Just because a narrative is more common in some English speaking social media, doesn't mean that it should be used as a fact. A lot of people in other countries will react to the specifically American conservative opinions and narratives as strange, because they are not that common as some would like to believe.
Define "conservative opinion".
I'm not a conservative, but on some topics I agree with those that are, on others I don't. What I struggle to deal with is the fact that for so many people there are two buckets that everyone gets shoehorned into. I'm not a member of a group, I'm an individual, there's one of me, no other person has quite exactly the same views and opinions across the board as I do. Free speech and not shunning someone for an opinion was never a conservative opinion until very recently. During the 1960s the counterculture (hippies) were fighting for the right to free speech and free expression and it was the conservatives that were all about conformity and tried to silence and shun those that didn't fit the mold. It kind of blindsided me to realize that our far left was the side engaging in this behavior now, I didn't see it coming, I considered myself very liberal throughout most of my life and only very recently realized that I barely recognize modern day liberalism. That still doesn't make me a conservative. I believe very strongly in individualism and personal freedom and very much dislike groupthink. That's something I always considered a very liberal viewpoint.
-
There’s a lot to unpack there, james_s, but I’ve already been warned to stop talking politics in this thread so I dare not address the points, even though I’d like to.
-
Fair enough, I don't want to piss off Dave or anyone else really, I actually hate politics and would be happy to not encounter them at all but it is getting harder and harder and people are more polarized than ever. Growing up my dad was a republican and my mom a democrat and I don't remember that ever being an issue, they didn't see eye to eye on some things but I can't remember there ever being an argument about it, used to be people were allowed to have different opinions and it just wasn't a big deal. I try to be accepting of everyone, I have friends from many walks of life with many different political views from what would probably be called far right to far left. One of my best friends is gay, one of my good friends for many years is trans, I have friends and colleagues of various races and cultures, sometimes I agree, sometimes I partially agree, sometimes I disagree, ultimately it doesn't really matter. I have found some common ground with all of these people and we get along, they all have some redeeming characteristic, usually a common interest. I wish more people could rediscover the ability to agree to disagree. A person my see the world differently than I do, and being on the autistic spectrum it seems *most* people see the world differently than I do. It doesn't make them a monster and I don't hate them. My biggest issue with this "cancel culture" or whatever you want to call it is that I resent being pressured to hate somebody because of the opinions they hold. Someone could be a brutal dictator and if they have some common ground, like a shared interest in one of my hobbies I would be happy to discuss that with them, their other characteristics and views are just not that important to me. I don't care what a person does on their own time or in their own home, and I certainly know that nobody ever has had their mind changed by force. If you want to change a person's views or educate them, finding common ground and forming some kind of bond is far more effective than shunning, lecturing or attacking them. My fellow citizens of differing views and political affiliations are not my enemy and not something to be destroyed.
-
Of course. I should have mentioned that my intent in my post above wasn’t to argue the politics, nor Dave’s right to run the forum how he sees fit, but to try and explain why the politics draw people back in, and why the topic may be more inherently political than he realizes.
I understand full well how political it is, that's why I'm trying to stop it as best I can.
The problem I see here on eevblog is that the conservative usages (mostly in the context of outrage) are bandied about as if they were neutral terms, but they’re not — and thus political debates begin.
The political debates are inevitable, guaranteed in fact regardless of what is said or how it's said.
This is why for this thread to continue to be useful we have to try and stay away from politics (and social debates) as much as possible.
-
The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.
Ok, fine, how about no cancel culture either then?
How about every post from now on that's not directly about Adams/Dibert gets deleted, would that suit you?
Of course "cancel culture" involves "politics". But you can talk about "cancel culture" without dragging too much "politics" into it.
For example, people could talk about their personal experiences and how it's impacted them, their friends and collegues, their workplace, their career etc.
"Politics" really starts to get out of hand when people start to debate it and then extended the scope into broader areas of politics and society. Like I had to tell people to stop talking about Putin, I mean WTF, why did anyone even need to bring up him? Why?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I try and tell people stop the "politics".
Heck, the politics would be appropriate discussion if it directly involved Adams and Dilbert.
It would actually be more useful to have a "no debating" rule on this thread, that would inherently lead to less "politics".
-
Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.
No need to analyse any of this, if you actually listen to him (which most people have not), he states repeatedly that he is not a victim, he's not complaining about what happened to him, and yes what he said was racists and that's the entire point of it. After the dust has settled it's clearly a political cancellation from the left. No one on the right/conserative side of politics has cancelled him, no black people have cancelled him, it was ultimately a political takedown because he has influence in politics. He knowingly offered up an opportunity to the political left to cancel him and they took it. They would have been dumb not to. That's politics.
Well, I seem to have missed something important with this. Suppose I walk into a bank with a shotgun, tell them I am going to rob the place and the security guard shoots me (almost) dead. I then laugh in his face and tell him "Ha! I knew you would do that but I am not really a robber and pretended to be so only so you would shoot me. The laugh is on you!"
That's the kind of thing that comes across here: he isn't actually racist but made out he was just so the anti-racist crowd would have a go at him, which they did. And he thinks he scored something over them? Hmmm.
What he wanted to achieve was, in his own words, to reframe the conversation. His focus in the last few years has been these "reframes", so much so that his new book is eniterly about reframes.
The new book now won't be publish end of year as his publisher has dropped him. It'll still come out, but he's not sure in what form or how.
He seems to have succeeded to, many people are now talking about race in a different frame, and he's being invoted on many shows to talk about it.
-
Level headed current issues and hot topics are pretty simple, just don't take it personally, stop name calling and don't dig strawman name callings from others.
If I say that minorities are much more racist toward majorities than the opposite and El Salvador has built a 40k prison for gang members, then what.
Only rational way to continue is to ask more info.
All other ways are more or less irrational, the text has no more info than it has.
I could also have used "can be" instead of "are" and change the whole thing.
"Are you" and "do you really think" are two different things.
"How the hell you can think that" is still the latter.
For the last "Q" I may have answered something like "quite easily, see, I can do it even with my eyes closed."
Don't go with it and there are no ammo.
Yes, easy for me to say.
-
Of course "cancel culture" involves "politics". But you can talk about "cancel culture" without dragging too much "politics" into it.
For example, people could talk about their personal experiences and how it's impacted them, their friends and collegues, their workplace, their career etc.
I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".
-
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.
See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/) ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.
Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.
I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.
I have tried to look at it from both sides, but no one appeared to ackowledge me.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4745585/#msg4745585 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4745585/#msg4745585)
I can defintely see the point that companies and organisations should be free to choose who they associate themselves with, or employ and that I think most people would want to distance themselves from someone who's truely racist. The problem is the word has become so nebulus over the last decade. Some would consider thsoe who aren't down with BLM to be racists. The fact that companies and organisations face pressure from lef-wing activists to cancel those with "problematic" views is a big problem.
-
I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".
I thought the definition was pretty clear cut, cancel culture is bullying by mobs, for example demanding someone be cancelled rather than just simply not attending their speech and threatening consequences if they are not. Bullying, intimidation, threats of violence, etc. Some people seem to either pretend it is not happening, or find ways to justify it ("those people are evil, they deserve this treatment", etc) but what other definition is there? Or is "it doesn't exist, it's just a right wing talking point" considered a definition?
-
I can defintely see the point that companies and organisations should be free to choose who they associate themselves with, or employ and that I think most people would want to distance themselves from someone who's truely racist. The problem is the word has become so nebulus over the last decade. Some would consider thsoe who aren't down with BLM to be racists. The fact that companies and organisations face pressure from lef-wing activists to cancel those with "problematic" views is a big problem.
The whole issue is the companies (or people) facing pressure part. If someone or some entity wants to cut ties with someone over their views, fine, but what we have been seeing lately is companies and individuals pressured by threat to distance themselves. There are a lot of people now that seem to believe that everyone and every organization should be forced to take a stand on an issue, remaining neutral or private on the matter is not an option, and that is some scary and very authoritarian behavior.
-
The whole issue is the companies (or people) facing pressure part. If someone or some entity wants to cut ties with someone over their views, fine, but what we have been seeing lately is companies and individuals pressured by threat to distance themselves. There are a lot of people now that seem to believe that everyone and every organization should be forced to take a stand on an issue, remaining neutral or private on the matter is not an option, and that is some scary and very authoritarian behavior.
And that's how "cancel culture" works.
And it's worse than that, as I've said before. You can have a company cancel you/your talk/whatever just for being associated with the wrong person.
-
What is the root of a root, systemic bullying of those who are now waken?
If so then it's difficult to stop, many waken ones lose their internal power if they are not shouting it constantly.
I'm sure the condition has a name.
-
It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".
Only if you're so in it that you can't be a bystander.
But then you're not talking about the issue you're talking about you, so taking it personally.
-
this thread is so much fun to read :popcorn: :horse:
-
Yes, those who have no experience can't really understand those who are living it.
But reacting by cancel is also irrational to those who are not against others.
Is cancel a revenge?
At least hate is clearly visible.
-
I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".
I thought the definition was pretty clear cut, cancel culture is bullying by mobs, for example demanding someone be cancelled rather than just simply not attending their speech and threatening consequences if they are not. Bullying, intimidation, threats of violence, etc. Some people seem to either pretend it is not happening, or find ways to justify it ("those people are evil, they deserve this treatment", etc) but what other definition is there? Or is "it doesn't exist, it's just a right wing talking point" considered a definition?
I literally provided a link covering this exact topic. My point is literally that the definition is anything but “clear cut”.
-
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.
See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/) ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.
Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.
I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.
It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.
-
It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".
Not sure what "many things" covers exactly. But almost all matters involving social interactions involve politics in the general sense. So it's not possible to discuss them without involving politics, in fact.
What we can do is remain calm and courteous, and stick to what people *say* rather than extrapolate things we project onto them from just a few words. That would be a good start.
-
It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.
You do know that you don't actually have to respond to and debate people, right?
-
UPDATE:
Adams answered a question on today's show about the Dilbert archives and what he's doing with them. He said he hasn't figured out where to put them yet. So sounds as though he has all the rights, but maybe not to the domain?
Dilbert.com now redirects to his Link tree which links to Locals, Youtube, and Twitter.
Maybe he does now own/have control of dilbert.com, but it could also just be the syndication company doing him a favour with a redirect.
IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.
-
Is cancel a revenge?
It's punishment for non-compliance with their "social order" for want of a better word. Those who wield it are otherwise weak and pathetic people who have discovered it's a way to gain power and control.
-
IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.
Clearly, that is odd.
-
I literally provided a link covering this exact topic. My point is literally that the definition is anything but “clear cut”.
I didn't see that link, but for the sake of discussion here can we use something along the lines of "mob pressure used to coerce others into cutting off association with somebody"? This seems pretty simple to me, if you don't want to listen to somebody speak then don't attend the speech, that's reasonable isn't it? Is it really reasonable to gang up and demand that the speech be canceled or to intimidate anyone that tries to attend it? I don't even understand that, there are lots of politicians, activists and other public figures I don't like and don't agree with, so I don't go to their events, that's really all it takes. There's no reason to try to get rid of them, or to create consequences for anyone that does decide to attend. Maybe I decide to go listen to <insert evil person here> speak out of morbid curiosity, should I be punished for that? I'm capable of listening to ideas I don't happen to agree with without them rubbing off on me.
-
Is cancel a revenge?
It's punishment for non-compliance with their "social order" for want of a better word. Those who wield it are otherwise weak and pathetic people who have discovered it's a way to gain power and control.
Yep.
Some participate in "canceling" not necessarily to get revenge over the person being canceled, but to get revenge over their own life, in which indeed they suffer from a total lack of control.
But trying to control others will never give you control over your own life. That never works like that. So it's just an illusion, and a costly one.
-
IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.
Clearly, that is odd.
I think what happened is that he didn't want to be bother with the details a decade ago. The syndication company whom he trusted promised to set it all up, get the database and daily email system working, work out the ad monetisation and he simply got a cut of it for zero effort. Maybe all part of the "syndication" package that he got. That came back to bite him.
I'm absolutely sure if he had ownership and control that the website would have just continued.
He should have negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him and he goes quietly, or he makes them pay bg time in bad publicity.
What happened is he apparently lost the website, database, email list, ad revenue etc, and was still super nice to them publicly.
-
negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him
Possibly couldn't be done. The probability is that it will use some CMS which is common to all the sites the syndication company hosts, so what you're actually suggesting is they give him a copy of their internal setup - code, database, etc. I suspect that's not going to happen for anything less than a buyout, and certainly not if one side gets the boot.
-
negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him
Possibly couldn't be done. The probability is that it will use some CMS which is common to all the sites the syndication company hosts, so what you're actually suggesting is they give him a copy of their internal setup - code, database, etc. I suspect that's not going to happen for anything less than a buyout, and certainly not if one side gets the boot.
Yeah, could be, fair enough.
EDIT: I do recall him mentioning once that the Dilbert website and a whole host of other comic websites went down because of a central issue.
-
That is likely.
But whatever the reason, it's always a big risk, and a bad idea, to heavily depend on an external structure to run your business.
Now what's possible is that (possibly up until now) he never really saw himself as a business owner, and maybe all the business side of things is not his cup of tea.
But that's the cost of independence.
-
Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So :-//
The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.
See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/) ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.
It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion.
The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.
Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.
I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.
It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.
The fact the left sees it as a positive thing and the right negative, should tell you all you need to know. The fact that euphemisms such as accountability are often used, rather than censor, by authoritarian governments should also elicit some level of alarm. Try going to Uganda and walking down the street wearing a rainbow T-shirt. They'll throw you in jail fairly quickly, as "spreading LGBT propaganda" is illegal over there. Of course they would tell the Swiss/USA authorities you were attempting to subvert society and promote dangerous activities, which is "their truth" of course.
A big problem is people on different parts of the political spectrum have adopted differing definitions of words to match their agenda, which makes debate impossible. It's one of the things which is responsible for maintaining the political divide.
Whatever word you choose, the phenomenon of companies and organisations sacking/no-platforming/disassociating themselves from people, due to pressure placed on them from political activists on social media is real. It doesn't change the fact that it's true, whether you call it something nice such as accountability, or bad like censorship or cancel culture.
-
But whatever the reason, it's always a big risk, and a bad idea, to heavily depend on an external structure to run your business.
Or at least ensure that an export is possible. In this case of the CMS system, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to say export a list of subscribers so you could start up and seed your new website.
Now what's possible is that (possibly up until now) he never really saw himself as a business owner, and maybe all the business side of things is not his cup of tea.
He has started dozens of business that has failed. Mentioned them many time.
That actually the basis of one of his books, how he failed at many businesses and Dilbert was the standout sucess.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sqVXNWHhL.jpg)
-
The fact the left sees it as a positive thing and the right negative, should tell you all you need to know. The fact that euphemisms such as accountability are often used, rather than censor, by authoritarian governments should also elicit some level of alarm.
I'm just struck by how quickly it flipped. It was always the conservatives that were all about conformity and it was the left that was fighting and protesting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, the right to talk about anything, even controversial things without consequences, I mean it's just talk after all, not attacks or threats. Then somehow that flipped, and it happened so quickly I was caught off guard.
Actually that incident that occurred with the Dixie Chicks that someone brought up earlier is interesting because it happened just 20 years ago when at the time I think it was still fair to say that the left was still the prevailing supporter of freedom of speech and the right was still into conformity. It was the right that was seemingly obsessed with homosexuals, it was conservatives that behaved like the very nosy neighbor my friend had who used to lecture him and make comments about the fact that he lived with his girlfriend and wasn't married. The right is still overwhelmingly the party of religion but the left now has become the purveyors of conformity and their ideologies have become almost a religion, dogma that cannot be questioned, else you are a heathen to be destroyed. Libertarianism was once a faction of liberalism but now seems to be lumpd firmly with conservatism.
-
He has started dozens of business that has failed. Mentioned them many time.
That actually the basis of one of his books, how he failed at many businesses and Dilbert was the standout sucess.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sqVXNWHhL.jpg)
I don't know his whole story that well. Now even if we can't say it's not his cup of tea, we might still say that business is not his thing. ;D
And his standout success not relying on really owning the business side of it may be part of the equation, which would explain why he offloaded all the dirty work, which is now coming back and biting him.
-
I don't know his whole story that well. Now even if we can't say it's not his cup of tea, we might still say that business is not his thing. ;D
And his standout success not relying on really owning the business side of it may be part of the equation, which would explain why he offloaded all the dirty work, which is now coming back and biting him.
I think most likely they just offered him the website and email list thing as part of the publishing/syndication deal and it was an obvious "Yeah, why not" back in the early days of the late 90's.
Here is a 1998 capture that says Copyright United Feature Syndicate.
Another snapshot in 2012 shows ©2012, Universal Uclick
Latest ones you can't see the page bottom footer.
Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.
-
Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.
Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.
The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.
Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...
- when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
- nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not
-
Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.
Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.
The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.
Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...
- when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
- nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not
Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.
-
Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.
Not "these days"; that concept long preceeds the internet.
The traditional manifestation was of a company salesman defecting to a competitor. The first company then sues to prevent the salesman taking the client base to the competitor.
Obviously that happens with large and/or established companies, but it also extends to small companies...
- when my dentist set up his own practice; he had to be able to demonstrate that he hadn't solicited clients
- nother classic example is hairdressers, believe it or not
Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.
I remember two points from a lunchtime conversation with colleagues in January 1996:
- wrong: buying pet food over the web is a stupid concept
- right: if this web shopping thing ever takes off, it would be good to invest in shipping companies
The latter was fairly obvious, since the conversation was in Palo Alto and while the '49ers often lost money, the people supplying them made fortunes.
-
Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.
Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?
-
Yes, of course. Back in the early days of the interwebs though no one really knew how big it would get though or what the future would be. At the time it would have been just another small incidental thing to tack onto an existing big publishing deal.
Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?
Depends on how far back you go. In order...
I remember email bang addressing, and the pain it caused.
I remember seeing if there was anything new by going to cern.ch.
I remember there being a "best of web" competition. This was one of the winners, although back then the line drawing maps were from the Xerox map server.
I remember using altavista, yahoo (even at the beginning, it was obvious curated lists weren't going to be sufficiently scalable) and google.edu. Google was good then.
I remember Amazon selling CDs and books, and thinking that selling shoes/clothes was a stupid concept.
I remember being 25% responsible for an ecommerce site that won one of the Financial Times competition categories in 1999. (Yeah. I'm shameless :) )
But I don't remember the kremvax hoax :)
-
Was how big ever a question? The speed with which consumer connection speeds increased way beyond a dialup modem, enabling streaming and other high data content, might have surprised you. The exact form things took might have surprised you. Was the general direction ever a surprise?
It absolutely was. The internet was for dweebs, most normal people didn't have or use computers in the 90s, smartphones and tablets didn't exist, lots of people thought online stuff was a fad. Lots of it was too, scores of internet startups crashed and burned.
-
Everyone with any ounce of online business sense these days knows that your subscriber list is your most treasured asset.
Yup.
-
My stuff started during '80s with DEC Notes and internal emails.
Then came All-In-1 and internal spam.
So I had experience but still couldn't see the urge of exhibitionism the social media has proved.
-
My stuff started during '80s with DEC Notes and internal emails.
Then came All-In-1 and internal spam.
So I had experience but still couldn't see the urge of exhibitionism the social media has proved.
We had usenet. Nothing can compare (favourably) with that ;)
-
Usenet used to be good, but then it got totally overrun with spam.
-
Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.
-
Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.
Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.
Sci.electronics.design used to be good, but a couple of years ago Win Hill "disappeared". The few remaining people can be good, but libertarian politics intervenes too often.
-
Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.
Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.
Yes, this one is good with almost no spam.
-
We had usenet. Nothing can compare (favourably) with that ;)
Fido?
I never found any usenet link machines, but it wasn't that big thing back then, and since the company wasn't exactly very small some internal activities were also available.
Later I remember threatened to sue when ISP, out of the blue and in the middle of contract, told they'll drop news, maybe some other things were also emerged.
Then contract ended and NNTP was gone, others didn't support the protocol either, few independent addresses were available but access was limited.
-
On today's livestream Adams finally floated the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month
I wonder who told him that months ago ;D
-
Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.
Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.
Yes, this one is good with almost no spam.
There's nothing that I would term "spam" there; the (highly respected) moderator traps out stupidity and anything grossly off-topic. Having said that, there are sometimes informed and pointed and brief discussions of a post/topic.
Fortunately we don't have to rely on gurgle groups to find posts back to 1st August 1985; they are all archived and searchable (using gurgle, naturally) at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/ (http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/) It also has an RSS feed.
-
On today's livestream Adams finally floated the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month
I wonder who told him that months ago ;D
Still wouldn't pay.
Something has to be both visible and good for me to release my credit card information. Since he's changed recently and appears to be veering towards a libertarian[1] agenda, I no longer believe his invisible stuff is sufficiently good. I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.
[1] politics alert: we've had enough of that in the UK (witness the recent local elections), and libertarianism appears to be in the process of being rebranded to "national conservatism". Somewhere other than here I'd like to see a traditional compare-and-contrast discussion of the dfferences between "national conservatism" and "national socialism".
-
I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.
(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.
-
I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.
(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.
Hmmm.
While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".
I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).
It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.
Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.
I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.
Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.
-
I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.
(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.
Hmmm.
While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".
I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).
It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.
Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.
I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.
Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.
It's just a comic. Used to be free, now you either buy it or you don't. No need to hyper analyse IMO.
He has said very specifically in his live shows that he's now free to put stuff in the comic that the newspapers would have previously balked at. He gave some examples that were so mundane you wouldn't even believe anyone would have had an issue with it.
As for upcoming stuff, in the next few weeks Dilbert will be getting a sex bot named Karen.
-
I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.
(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.
Hmmm.
While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".
I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).
It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.
Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.
I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.
Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.
It's just a comic. Used to be free, now you either buy it or you don't. No need to hyper analyse IMO.
Malefactors use comics too.
I analysed my feelings in order to understand and justify them.
He has said very specifically in his live shows
I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.
Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life :(
that he's now free to put stuff in the comic that the newspapers would have previously balked at. He gave some examples that were so mundane you wouldn't even believe anyone would have had an issue with it.
As for upcoming stuff, in the next few weeks Dilbert will be getting a sex bot named Karen.
I can believe it :( People can be too touchy, especially when satire hits the mark.
But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.
-
I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.
Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life :(
Luckily you don't have too, I just gave you the overview.
But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.
Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.
-
I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.
Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life :(
Luckily you don't have too, I just gave you the overview.
:)
Did he really need an entire video to float "the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month"?
Seems like you managed to sum up the information (and avoid the noise) with only a few words. Good tradeoff, showing consideration for the readers :)
(BTW, with your yootoob vids summaries containing pointers to the "chapter headings" are sufficient information for me to decide to watch or not. Thanks for that consideration.)
But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.
Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.
I opened a "Locals" account and read it daily for a week. All it contained was "not showing you this", "not showing you this", ... "not showing you this".
Unsurprisingly I gave up.
There are far too many interesting things around to worry about one of them disappearing.
-
Did he really need an entire video to float "the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month"?
He does a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.
Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.
I opened a "Locals" account and read it daily for a week. All it contained was "not showing you this", "not showing you this", ... "not showing you this".
Unsurprisingly I gave up.
Err, yeah, you have to pay $7 on locals. Wait until Twitter subscriptions works and you'll get just Dilbert for $2/month.
-
Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...
-
a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.
If anyone wants to know what to think you can watch him free on Youtube. His channel is "Real Coffee with Scott Adams"
The channel description is
"Scott Adams (famous for creating Dilbert) is a trained hypnotist, and is widely recognized as an expert on persuasion. Adams has emerged as one of the most influential observers of politics in the United States. His bestselling book, "Win Bigly," teaches persuasion, and his bestselling book "How to Lose Almost Every Time and Still Win Big" is widely considered the best book ever written on developing systems for success. His most recent book is Loserthink, which teaches you how to avoid it. If you enjoy learning how to be more effective in life while catching up with the interesting news, this is the channel for you."
I don't know if the claim he is one of the most influential observers of politics in the US is his own opinion or someone elses.
But if you can't draw your own conclusions he is ready to tell you what to think.
I don't sit way over on the right with his politics but I did find it interesting to watch how he works. For a few episodes at least. Not that I'm claiming to be clever in working it out. He's not subtle. Although if you see me clucking like a chicken he may have hypnotised me. Maybe.
-
I found "Dilbert" to be funny because it somehow touched a string in me, having the "knack" and being a full-on nerd. But reading Scott Adams blog sort of undid that. Especially the piece he wrote justifying men's predatory behavior towards women because women actually appreciate it even if the say "no".
-
I found "Dilbert" to be funny because it somehow touched a string in me, having the "knack" and being a full-on nerd. But reading Scott Adams blog sort of undid that. Especially the piece he wrote justifying men's predatory behavior towards women because women actually appreciate it even if the say "no".
Exactly my feelings about Adams. And all the "master persuader" posts about Trump didn't help either. "Look how brilliant I am, because I can understand how brilliant Trump is!" :--
-
Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...
Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...
-
I don't know if the claim he is one of the most influential observers of politics in the US is his own opinion or someone elses.
It's not inaccurate. He is very influential.
I don't sit way over on the right with his politics but I did find it interesting to watch how he works. For a few episodes at least. Not that I'm claiming to be clever in working it out. He's not subtle. Although if you see me clucking like a chicken he may have hypnotised me. Maybe.
The live shows can be hit and miss. Might take dozen or so until you find a real gem of a take that you like.
He also has "micro lessons" a few minutes long on the white board. Hundreds of them on Locals, but some are free on Youtube if you search. Again, hit and miss.
You mostly listen to the live shows for his takes on news stories of that day. Although he makes predictions, he is very much a fence sitter. But the explainations of things can be interesting.
-
But the explainations of things can be interesting.
This.
I don't read what others write or listen to what others say because of their opinions, I do that to see what they see and base their opinions on.
I've found there are two kinds of people: the kind that demands others agree because they are the authority on a subject (or because their opinion by itself ought to have sufficient weight/value/importance), and the kind that explains their reasoning and basis. Surprisingly many of the popular newspeople/pundits/commentators/politicians are in the former group, when you start really listening.
-
Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...
Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...
If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.
Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
-
Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...
Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...
If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.
Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
That's a depressingly common trajectory.
It isn't, of course, confined to far-right nuts, since far-left nuts are equally prone to it. And so are people who are intelligent in some respects but not in others, like Linus Pauling and Francis Crick.
-
Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...
Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...
If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.
Seriously? Just because I'm on Twitter? WTF.
I've been on Twitter for 14 years and have 58k followers. Of course I'm going to try the new subscription program. And I'm also now posting my videos natively there too, I'd be a fool not too. And it's going well BTW, thanks for asking.
Your head might explode if you know my videos are also on Odysee, Bitchute, and Rumble.
Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
Seriously, chill out.
-
But the explainations of things can be interesting.
This.
I don't read what others write or listen to what others say because of their opinions, I do that to see what they see and base their opinions on.
I've found there are two kinds of people: the kind that demands others agree because they are the authority on a subject (or because their opinion by itself ought to have sufficient weight/value/importance), and the kind that explains their reasoning and basis. Surprisingly many of the popular newspeople/pundits/commentators/politicians are in the former group, when you start really listening.
To me the worst kind of people are those that judge you and criticise you because you watch someones stuff, or follow them on Twitter, or worst of all I think, use some platform that has people they don't like on it.
Pathetic is the word I'm looking for I think.
-
Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
At the end of the day, are the comics still not funny though? I do not mind someone saying something that might be thought provoking or threaten my view of the world and make me question my beliefs to make sure I still think they are accurate.
I know people who think trump is a great person and are not afraid to tell you, I know people who think he is a crook and are not afraid to tell you. They are all still decent people though and I am not about to cancel them because of one opinion they have. I will listen to them and make up my own mind. If they go out and start clubbing baby platypus while singing the Taliban national anthem, yea well maybe I will re-access my interactions with them but otherwise...
I did not go out and buy a 4ch oscilloscope just because "someone" said to in this day and age. I took that advice onboard and made my own mind up and if I did not agree with that "someone", I would hardly cancel them.
-
Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
What's wrong with wanting to help people and/or shape the world? Sounds more like you are maybe a tad jelous because you don't have the skills or influence to do that perhaps?
He has over 100k followers on Locals, 145k Youtube subs, and almost 1M twitter followers. Not to mention his self help books are massively popular. Like New York Times best selling popular. Must be doing something people are interested in.
For what it's worth, I've taken him to task on several BS claims he's made, and he even admitted he was wrong and corrected his opinion on one of his shows because of me. He does it all the time actually.
-
At the end of the day, are the comics still not funny though?
When they were still accessible on the dilbert.com site, I saw few that I found funny. It increasingly felt like Adams did not want to share funny or absurd observations, but make a point.
I did not go out and buy a 4ch oscilloscope just because "someone" said to in this day and age. I took that advice onboard and made my own mind up and if I did not agree with that "someone", I would hardly cancel them.
Sure, same here. But if a video I am watching to learn about oscilloscopes were to suddenly branch out into some political agenda, I would find that annoying and probably stop watching that video. (And, if this experience repeats regularly, stop watching that channel.) That was my point above.
-
a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.
If anyone wants to know what to think you can watch him free on Youtube. His channel is "Real Coffee with Scott Adams"
His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.
He's got too much time on his hands.
Anybody that listens to that "stream of consciousness" has too much time on their hands.
Hence:
- classic yootoob waste of time
- miserable people wallowing in their own grievances, rather than enjoying life
The channel description is
"Scott Adams (famous for creating Dilbert) is a trained hypnotist, and is widely recognized as an expert on persuasion. Adams has emerged as one of the most influential observers of politics in the United States. His bestselling book, "Win Bigly," teaches persuasion, and his bestselling book "How to Lose Almost Every Time and Still Win Big" is widely considered the best book ever written on developing systems for success. His most recent book is Loserthink, which teaches you how to avoid it. If you enjoy learning how to be more effective in life while catching up with the interesting news, this is the channel for you."
"If you've got to say you're a lady, then you ain't".
"Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't".
s/power/persuasive/
s/lady/expert/
-
Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.
What's wrong with wanting to help people and/or shape the world? Sounds more like you are maybe a tad jelous because you don't have the skills or influence to do that perhaps?
Oh man... Why would I be jealous? I have never even tried to be an "influencer" on any scale and any medium, let alone make money from it, and I have no appetite for it.
You, on the other hand, have written three posts to respond to one of mine, and have included personal slights in each of them. That feels like a nerve got touched.
So, do you have the ambition to share your own views on politics and policies with the world? I have not come across this in videos yet (but watch them somewhat selectively). I have certainly seen it on the forum, and would prefer not to see it in your EEVblog videos. So the "please don't follow Adams' lead in your video channels" was a sincere request.
-
His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.
He's got too much time on his hands.
He enjoys doing it, isn't that enough?, what's your problem? Why berate someone for doing something they enjoy? He obviously doesn't need the money.
Those topics are literally what's in the news those days. He analyses the news, that's what he does.
And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.
-
So, do you have the ambition to share your own views on politics and policies with the world? I have not come across this in videos yet (but watch them somewhat selectively). I have certainly seen it on the forum, and would prefer not to see it in your EEVblog videos. So the "please don't follow Adams' lead in your video channels" was a sincere request.
I've done poltics once or twice in my videos way back in the old days. Never since, it's not the place for it, obviously.
Follow me in Twitter if you want my political takes, I do them fairly often. I've even been "cancelled" for them.
-
His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.
He's got too much time on his hands.
He enjoys doing it, isn't that enough?, what's your problem? Why berate someone for doing something they enjoy? He obviously doesn't need the money.
Those topics are literally what's in the news those days. He analyses the news, that's what he does.
And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.
I feel sorry for anyone that has had such problems. I am glad he has found a technique to deal with those problems. But I too have had problems to deal with - and so have most people; it is part of life.
While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically
- using his audience as part of his therapy
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
-
While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically
- using his audience as part of his therapy
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?
-
While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically
- using his audience as part of his therapy
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?
Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.
Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public nor with expounding far left/right politics.
Discussing problems with trained therapists is a better option for all concerned than discussing them with random strangers. At the very least a trained therapist should be able to encourage someone to look inwards, and discourage them from (conveniently) blaming others.
The "echo chamber" effects of unsocial media are causing more and more problems in society, e.g. Andrew Tate influencing many impressionable teenage boys (of any age!) with his misogynist attitudes.
Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).
-
While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically
- using his audience as part of his therapy
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?
Nah, none of that. Mr Adams probably doesn't use quotes in an approved fashion.
-
Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.
Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public
He did NOT do that. He off-handed mentioned it once. Few people would actually know unless you happened to catch a small part of that one episode where he admitted it. It's not like he came out every morning and pleaded for everyone to stay and listen to him otherwise he'd kill himself. Nothing like that ever happened. His show is not a therapy session.
No different to people who find value in their daily work or family life that keeps them going, while secretely having problems.
Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).
That's no the way you are coming across, not at all.
nor with expounding far left/right politics.
Bugger off. Again, you are practically saying that something is wrong with him by enjoying having a live youtube show talking about daily politics. He clearly enjoys doing his show, he likes talking about and analysing this stuff, why shouldn't he do it?
-
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive and worse?
It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.
-
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive and worse?
It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.
The most divisive thing of all is suppressing the views of others. You have to be of the most brutally authoritarian and oppressive nature to think you absolutely know what is correct, at least outside a STEM discipline.
-
It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.
I am sorry my good man but room 101 for you. You obviously missed your copy of the 23'rd edition of the newspeak dictionary.
Diversity noun Where the freedom of expression and ideas are encouraged, provided they are all the one and the same with government, and approved corporate and entities.
Edit: Oh hell I just buggered up, I said "man", I should have said <insert non-gendered term for human here>. I will take myself to room 101.
-
Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.
Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public
He did NOT do that. He off-handed mentioned it once. Few people would actually know unless you happened to catch a small part of that one episode where he admitted it. It's not like he came out every morning and pleaded for everyone to stay and listen to him otherwise he'd kill himself. Nothing like that ever happened. His show is not a therapy session.
Not following Adams' personal life, all I have to go on is your statement...
And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.
That sounds like therapy for him which has "kept him going" and has (I'm glad to hear) "literally saved his life".
No different to people who find value in their daily work or family life that keeps them going, while secretely having problems.
True - as I noted many people find themselves in equivalent situations. But most people aren't self-proclaimed "expert on persuasion" and "influential observer", and don't broadcast their streams of consciousness.
Yes, being a "self-proclaimed" X is an orange flag. Ditto proclaiming yourself powerful or a lady.
Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).
That's no the way you are coming across, not at all.
nor with expounding far left/right politics.
Bugger off. Again, you are practically saying that something is wrong with him by enjoying having a live youtube show talking about daily politics. He clearly enjoys doing his show, he likes talking about and analysing this stuff, why shouldn't he do it?
No, I'm not saying that. I am noting that, to me, his delivery style is akin to "letters written in green ink".
Are you saying I shouldn't hold that view, and/or that I should spend a couple of hours a day doing the equivalent of reading letters written in green ink?
-
- encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse
What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive and worse?
It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.
Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.
Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.
-
Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.
Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.
I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.
-
We left analogue years ago. It is all digital now.
While I did initially post this as a bit of a joke. If you stop and seriously think about it. It is probably not far off the mark.
-
Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.
Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.
I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.
There is very little difference between far-left and far-right: both want to impose their views on other people regardless of the harm. And worse: too often the harm is the objective of their views.
Both Stalin and Goebbels knew that, both saying they could turn a far-left/right fanatic into a far-right/left fanatic within a week.
Unfortunately nowadays it is too easy for nutcases to publish their nuttery. There will always be some other nuts that believe it and and malefactors that amplify it for their own ends.
-
Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.
Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.
I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.
There is very little difference between far-left and far-right: both want to impose their views on other people regardless of the harm. And worse: too often the harm is the objective of their views.
Both Stalin and Goebbels knew that, both saying they could turn a far-left/right fanatic into a far-right/left fanatic within a week.
Unfortunately nowadays it is too easy for nutcases to publish their nuttery. There will always be some other nuts that believe it and and malefactors that amplify it for their own ends.
The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony (https://news.sky.com/story/adjoa-andohs-terribly-white-coronation-remark-becomes-most-complained-about-moment-of-2023-ofcom-says-12877889) at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.
-
"The U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained."
Interesting statement about a society where over 350,000 WHITE men and women DIED to end the slavery of black people in the country. Many more suffered life-long injuries.
On top of that, the WHITE (and Christian) nations and peoples of Europe are the one ones who were principally responsible for the END of slavery in most of the world. White, Christian Europe was ENDING slavery when most of the rest of the world was still embracing it and profiting from it. That includes NATIVES of Africa who were the ones mostly responsible for capturing and enslaving most, if not all of their fellow Africans who were sold in the slave markets.
But present day blacks are no more responsible for slavery than present day whites. None of us are responsible for the wrong-doings of those who are long dead.
Are there racists? YES, there are. I have met them. I have worked with them. But they are a MINORITY! A SMALL MINORITY! I live in a mixed neighborhood, white (whatever that is), black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and more and no one here cares. Over 30 years here and the neighborhood has only become more mixed. SO WHAT? People are just people.
The real villains are the ones who are turning us against each other with accusations of racism. They use hatred to gain power for themselves.
No matter what tint of glasses you look through, the U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained. Adams seems to be someone who wears his opinions on his sleeve and amplifies it with his podcast.
-
"The U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained."
Interesting statement about a society where over 350,000 WHITE men and women DIED to end the slavery of black people in the country. Many more suffered life-long injuries.
We are getting even worse garbage pushed in the UK. Like people complaining the UK never apologised for North Atlantic slavery. Instead of a meaningless "sorry" the UK committed thousands of sailors lives and huge resources to stamping out sea borne slavery routes. Unfortunately, even when the UK ruled a large chunk of the planet it couldn't stamp out all the land borne slavery routes, Some of which still flourish today. I notice that none of the people who complain about slavery from the past seem to think slavery is so awful they should be doing anything about the slavery we still see today.
-
The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony (https://news.sky.com/story/adjoa-andohs-terribly-white-coronation-remark-becomes-most-complained-about-moment-of-2023-ofcom-says-12877889) at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.
Well, she sure received some public backlash and had to paddle back. As far as Adams is concerned, the latest "incident" sure wasn't the first. I found his views and statements often fueled by a white/male supremacy complex. Eventually I stopped reading his blog and subsequently payed no more attention to Dilbert, too. I wasn't comfortable supporting him in any way. As far as I'm concerned he's free to express his views, but I for one won't be part of it. I can completely understand how mainstream media don't want that, either. He will find out soon enough if he's worth anything apart from being an artist and a comedian.
-
The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony (https://news.sky.com/story/adjoa-andohs-terribly-white-coronation-remark-becomes-most-complained-about-moment-of-2023-ofcom-says-12877889) at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.
Well, she sure received some public backlash and had to paddle back.
True, but she hasn't faced any real consequences. She still has her acting job. Had a pale male said something bad about black people, he would have been treated much more harshly, even if he didn't receive the same level of public criticism. Take historian David Starkey for example. This obvious double standard shows that black/minority privilege is real in many scenarios.
I don't think she should be cancelled. She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes and the same should be true for Scott Adams.
As far as Adams is concerned, the latest "incident" sure wasn't the first. I found his views and statements often fueled by a white/male supremacy complex. Eventually I stopped reading his blog and subsequently payed no more attention to Dilbert, too. I wasn't comfortable supporting him in any way. As far as I'm concerned he's free to express his views, but I for one won't be part of it. I can completely understand how mainstream media don't want that, either. He will find out soon enough if he's worth anything apart from being an artist and a comedian.
I don't know anything about his views other than this one video. It's of course your choice to stop consuming his content, because you disagree with him. The problem is, his publisher hasn't dropped him because no one was buying, but through pressure from a few activists. There are plenty of others who would have been happy to continue to see his content, in various publications, yet no longer have the choice.
-
... She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes ...
... and presumably shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. If not, where's the boundary?
That's a notoriously difficult problem, akin to defining "art".
There are plenty of others who would have been happy to continue to see [Adams'] content, in various publications, yet no longer have the choice.
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
-
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.
-
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.
Sure. So what? That doesn't conflict with what I wrote!
People do still have the choice of reading Adams' output, because Adams has arranged for it to be on other platforms.
Such free market choice and activities are just what libertarians love and promote.
-
True, but she hasn't faced any real consequences. She still has her acting job. Had a pale male said something bad about black people, he would have been treated much more harshly, even if he didn't receive the same level of public criticism. Take historian David Starkey for example. This obvious double standard shows that black/minority privilege is real in many scenarios.
I don't think she should be cancelled. She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes and the same should be true for Scott Adams.
I'm not sure you can really compare Scott Adams, David Starkey, and the lady's remarks. Scott Adams openly said he thought black were a "hate group", and said he thought whites should steer clear of them; David starkey said "The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture.". What she said was pretty poor taste and frankly stupid, but nowhere near as racist as the other two.
Also, whenever I read about someone being "cancelled" it is because their employers recieve so many complaints it outweighs the benefits of employing them - so they are dismissed. I'm not sure this is unfair since part of employment is not damaging the companies repuation/image - if an employee's actions create financial harm beyond any income that employee generates, why would they not fire them?
These people stated their opinions - and far from being silenced, had those opinions posted in TV shows and newspapers around the world. But somehow the obvious consequences of sharing those opinions is "unfair" ?
-
True, but she hasn't faced any real consequences. She still has her acting job. Had a pale male said something bad about black people, he would have been treated much more harshly, even if he didn't receive the same level of public criticism. Take historian David Starkey for example. This obvious double standard shows that black/minority privilege is real in many scenarios.
I don't think she should be cancelled. She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes and the same should be true for Scott Adams.
I'm not sure you can really compare Scott Adams, David Starkey, and the lady's remarks. Scott Adams openly said he thought black were a "hate group", and said he thought whites should steer clear of them; David starkey said "The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture.". What she said was pretty poor taste and frankly stupid, but nowhere near as racist as the other two.
Also, whenever I read about someone being "cancelled" it is because their employers recieve so many complaints it outweighs the benefits of employing them - so they are dismissed. I'm not sure this is unfair since part of employment is not damaging the companies repuation/image - if an employee's actions create financial harm beyond any income that employee generates, why would they not fire them?
These people stated their opinions - and far from being silenced, had those opinions posted in TV shows and newspapers around the world. But somehow the obvious consequences of sharing those opinions is "unfair" ?
It's subjective and open to interpretation to some degree. Not all black people find what Scott Adams said offensive. Some have interpreted as him referring specifically to blacks who hate whites and even agree (https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic&t=388s) with him.
I just chose a couple of examples currently in the news. It doesn't change the fact there are plenty of examples of black people saying nasty things about whites and getting away with it. I could talk about that nutty professor in the video linked above (skip to 9:13 for her racist rant (https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic&t=553s)) or Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who refused one on one interviews with white journalists (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/). The double standard definitely exists and is plain to see.
-
It's subjective and open to interpretation to some degree. Not all black people find what Scott Adams said offensive. Some have interpreted as him referring specifically to blacks who hate whites and even agree (https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic&t=388s) with him.
I thought it was obvious that's what he was referring to, what else could he mean? It seems a significant segment of the population today simply does not grasp context in any form, nor implied things, ie if I were to complain about "rude Americans doing xyz" it should be obvious that I'm talking specifically about the rude variety of Americans and their behavior, not stating that all Americans are rude. The thought that all black people find someone or something offensive is in itself racist. Black people like any other people are individuals. We can make statistical generalizations but nobody can speak for all of them.
-
There are a subset of individuals out there that only see what they want to see. When someone says something they do not like they will zero in on something insignificant and use that to launch a personal attack on the poster. It gets really absurd at times. Like EEVBlog #502, The $19 Hameg Oscillscope. While testing, Dave brings up the ABC logo on the screen. Obviously he is a raging left wing communist socialist pinko. :)
In fact after my interactions on internet forums, it is more widespread then you think (not raging left wing communist socialist pinko's).
-
If people enter that space, with pre-conceived notions about the so-called 'NEW' racism...then yes, they will see racism in that question, and answer in that context, that being that there is a new racist behind every tree, out there, and of course, (wink wink) that statement being read for a survey is USING CODE.
Give me a break, I say. These days the main media behave (beneath), like a band of teenage gossipy kids, running for sophomore class president. Reading second warmed 'news' regurgitated here, like compliant little robots.
Try ask this (in a survey of 1000 random citizens):
"Are you comfortable with the phrase: 'All white men are racist'..."
Stop dancing around the issue, there are those (in media) who wish for a real race war, not some endless debate.
-
It's subjective and open to interpretation to some degree. Not all black people find what Scott Adams said offensive. Some have interpreted as him referring specifically to blacks who hate whites and even agree (https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic&t=388s) with him.
Most black people, and in particular black pundits did not find it offensive at all.
Show me one black pundit who was grossly offended and outraged by it and wanted him cancelled and I'll show you a dozen that were not. Adams has been on many black hosted shows and podcasts explaining it and they all agree with him.
Practically all the outrage came from the (white) media which were already against him and were looking for any excuse to take him out. Dumb move on Adam's part from a business point of view, but he did it deliberately to provoke the discussion.
Anyway, this is all just rehashing what's been discussed before.
-
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.
Sure. So what? That doesn't conflict with what I wrote!
People do still have the choice of reading Adams' output, because Adams has arranged for it to be on other platforms.
Such free market choice and activities are just what libertarians love and promote.
You know very well this is about Adam's being cancelled and having the newspaper distribution taken away from him completely.
Countless millions of people can no longer read it in newspapers, like they have done for 30 years, it's not an option any more.
His website and database was also taken away from him, and that's were almost everyone else read it for free, including myself.
Now if we want it we have to pay for it direct from Adam's otherwise he doesn't get paid anything. Whereas before he got paid via newspaper syndication rights and by advertising revenue on the website email list (again, via the syndication company who controlled it).
-
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.
Sure. So what? That doesn't conflict with what I wrote!
People do still have the choice of reading Adams' output, because Adams has arranged for it to be on other platforms.
Such free market choice and activities are just what libertarians love and promote.
You know very well this is about Adam's being cancelled and having the newspaper distribution taken away from him completely.
Not quite. This sub-thread is about something different, specifically a comment by Zero999, viz with my emphasis
...
There are plenty of others who would have been happy to continue to see [Adams'] content, in various publications, yet no longer have the choice.
Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.
That context has been "lost". (The ability to include multiple levels of quoting to preserve context is vital when having subtle conversations on a forum, and is one reason I ignore StackExchange EDABoard and similar.)
My point, which Zero999 has not contested, is that people do still have the choice. A different choice, but a choice nonetheless.
Countless millions of people can no longer read it in newspapers, like they have done for 30 years, it's not an option any more.
His website and database was also taken away from him, and that's were almost everyone else read it for free, including myself.
Now if we want it we have to pay for it direct from Adam's otherwise he doesn't get paid anything. Whereas before he got paid via newspaper syndication rights and by advertising revenue on the website email list (again, via the syndication company who controlled it).
Agreed. That is beyond doubt.
Creators losing control of their content is not a new phenomenon[1]. It is written into the contract between creators and distributors. Maybe that is/was a "Faustian bargain", but both parties did enter into it willingly.
Personally, like many others, I was happy to be a freeloader and I feel I have lost something by not being able to see new content in a newspaper/website. I - and the many others - will have to make our own minds up about how much we have lost. That is a personal choice which is open to everybody: money for access to content.
[1] Taylor Swift is one recent well-publicised example. Another more surprising one is Arnold Schwarzenegger and his film "Pumping Iron"; he has become embarassed by it and has (allegedly) spent a lot of his money buying up copies so nobody can see them.
-
It's subjective and open to interpretation to some degree. Not all black people find what Scott Adams said offensive. Some have interpreted as him referring specifically to blacks who hate whites and even agree (https://youtu.be/QA-eif423ic&t=388s) with him.
Most black people, and in particular black pundits did not find it offensive at all.
Show me one black pundit who was grossly offended and outraged by it and wanted him cancelled and I'll show you a dozen that were not. Adams has been on many black hosted shows and podcasts explaining it and they all agree with him.
Practically all the outrage came from the (white) media which were already against him and were looking for any excuse to take him out.
Yes, that kind of "proactive offence" being taken on behalf of others is a very destructive trend.
My favourite discussion of it is from the West Wing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2T5m3Jk-YM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2T5m3Jk-YM)
To save readers 2mins of their remaining life, the TLDR is:
- political aides worried that having a black kid being the President's bagcarrier is politically bad optics
- they ask the head of the armed services, a black man
- his response is "will you treat him with respect and pay him a fair wage?". "Yes". "Then should I care. I've got real life problems to deal with and can't be worried about cosmetic ones?"
I like that attitude.
Dumb move on Adam's part from a business point of view, but he did it deliberately to provoke the discussion.
Agreed.
A principal difference between adults and children is that adults are expected to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. I presume Adams is doing that gracefully.
But are other people being "proactively offended" on his behalf?
-
A principal difference between adults and children is that adults are expected to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. I presume Adams is doing that gracefully.
But are other people being "proactively offended" on his behalf?
The opposite. White SJW's are being proactively offended on behalf of black people. Nothing new there, that's how the modern world operates.
But yes, Adams is taking is gracefully. This not an off-handed remark on his part, he deliberately put his career on the line to steer the race issue in a different direction. That's not me guessing, he's admitted this.
-
Creators losing control of their content is not a new phenomenon[1]. It is written into the contract between creators and distributors. Maybe that is/was a "Faustian bargain", but both parties did enter into it willingly.
Yes. I've said it was a bad business decision on Adam's part. Classic example in fact.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/?action=dlattach;attach=1783610;image)
-
My point, which Zero999 has not contested, is that people do still have the choice. A different choice, but a choice nonetheless.
It would be like me losing my website, my Youtube channels, all my alternative video channels, and every revenue stream I had. And my only remaining option would be to put new content behind a Patreon or Locals paywall.
Yes my content would still be technically available, and people would still have a choice, but it has totally changed the game for everyone.
He and practically all his readers got nuked. And in his case we are talking millions of people beign left with nothing unless they pony up $7/month on a platform they almost certainly don't use for anything else.
-
A principal difference between adults and children is that adults are expected to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. I presume Adams is doing that gracefully.
But are other people being "proactively offended" on his behalf?
The opposite. White SJW's are being proactively offended on behalf of black people. Nothing new there, that's how the modern world operates.
But yes, Adams is taking is gracefully. This not an off-handed remark on his part, he deliberately put his career on the line to steer the race issue in a different direction. That's not me guessing, he's admitted this.
I don't think that's an opposite. It is a different and unrelated issue, in a related area.
Anyone choosing to challenge the status quo in a contentious area such as race (or religion, or...) has to do it with extreme grace, subtlety and pace. Without that, it is impossible to lead the middle ground. Very few have the personality to be successful in that way.
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte (and more passively Nichelle Nichols). President Obama was the 00s poster child.
Examples of how not to do it: SJWs and (apparently) Adams. There are too many others, in too many fields.
-
My point, which Zero999 has not contested, is that people do still have the choice. A different choice, but a choice nonetheless.
It would be like me losing my website, my Youtube channels, all my alternative video channels, and every revenue stream I had. And my only remaining option would be to put new content behind a Patreon or Locals paywall.
Yes my content would still be technically available, and people would still have a choice, but it has totally changed the game for everyone.
He and practically all his readers got nuked. And in his case we are talking millions of people beign left with nothing unless they pony up $7/month on a platform they almost certainly don't use for anything else.
Agreed; painful for all. But his readers do have a option: to stop being freeloaders. How many choose take that option will be some form of indication of how much they value his current and future work.
My own view... Adams' content was slowly becoming stale and repetitive and therefore less compelling. After 30 years, that's an unsurprising fate that has befallen many others, e.g. Peanuts, Andy Capp, Bristow, The Gambols, Fred Bassett, etc. Adams chose to counteract staleness by making his content more, um, contentious. We'll see how that turns out.
One "workplace strip comic" that is at least as good as Dilbert is the 35yo Alex (https://www.alexcartoon.com) cartoon. It has avoided becoming stale because it is inspired by current events (https://www.alexcartoon.com/about.cfm), is sharply and viciously skewers its "subjects" - and they almost revel in it. (I've just noticed there is a "30 years ago" section, giving people a chance to relive their schadenfreude; excellent)
-
Agreed; painful for all. But his readers do have a option: to stop being freeloaders. How many choose take that option will be some form of indication of how much they value his current and future work.
I didn't consider myself a freeloader having gotten the "free" daily newsletter with the strip. The email was plastered with ads. Same for the newspaper, you bought the newspaper and at least some small fraction of that went to Adams.
Plus I have bought several Dilbert books over the years.
Same way my videos are "free", I made a fractional token amount per view, and it maybe leads to other sales of my stuff.
-
Now if we want it we have to pay for it direct from Adam's otherwise he doesn't get paid anything. Whereas before he got paid via newspaper syndication rights and by advertising revenue on the website email list (again, via the syndication company who controlled it).
From what I've been told by artists, syndication companies keep a large part of the proft for their services unless you're a super star, i.e. you're in a strong position when negotiating. So some artists switched to promoting and selling their art/content directly and say that they make more money than with syndication. No free DIlbert for me anymore. However, we don't know if Adam might be even better off without syndication.
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
-
However, we don't know if Adam might be even better off without syndication.
He should be.
He still owns all the rights, he just has to build up a reader base again.
He's just announced he is branching out onto twitter subscriptions for $2/month.
And there is no reason he can't build up a website and mailing list again supported by adsense ads just like before. Although I doubt he'll do that, as the new subscription model might work better financially.
IIRC he has 115k followers on Locals. i don't know how many of those pay $8/month though, or just follow, but it's a lot. Will be interestng to see how many subscriber twitter gets, although are those stats even available?
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
Really? Why? The reasons matter.
One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?
In that vein there is always an MGM "family entertainment" film that won all 9 Oscars for which it was nominated (inc best film and director), and has been preserved in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". The whole film is about grooming a girl to be a prostitute. Family entertainment?!
The film? Gigi, of course - containing the famous Maurice Chevalier song "Thank heaven for little girls" (For little girls get bigger every day). Even as a kid I thought that was yucky. Attitudes do change, sometimes for the better.
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
Really? Why? The reasons matter.
It's because his idea is the polar opposite of the wokies. He said that merit matters and not your skin.
It's a stupid idea, obviously, since everyone knows that white people are just the source of all evil, and should be punished for things that happened 150 years ago (also the union ones that were fighting against it). :-//
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
Really? Why? The reasons matter.
It's because his idea is the polar opposite of the wokies. He said that merit matters and not your skin.
It's a stupid idea, obviously, since everyone knows that white people are just the source of all evil, and should be punished for things that happened 150 years ago (also the union ones that were fighting against it). :-//
I've only read silently this thread for a while now but come on y'all... please listen to what MLK actually said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/martin-luther-king-makes-the-case-for-reparations/372696/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/martin-luther-king-makes-the-case-for-reparations/372696/)
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/dyson-may.html (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/dyson-may.html)
Now, when we come to Washington in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.
MLK Jr.
MLK was 'cancelled' (i.e. actually f**king assassinated) because he believed in reparations for blacks and was a very profoundly outspoken socialist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoLh3dCkigI& (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoLh3dCkigI&)
It's a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. Many negroes have been left bootless as a result of all these years of oppression and as a result of a society that deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading.
MLK Jr.
So... yea... he did say white people are the source of evil and oppression for blacks in America. You can think he's wrong or that it is stupid - but he said it. :-//
PS
The whole interview is here. This was filmed 11 months before he was murdered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8)
-
Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
Really? Why? The reasons matter.
One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?
Correct. Welcome to the madness of 2020's culture wars.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/canceling-thomas-jefferson/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/canceling-thomas-jefferson/)
-
Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.
And yet it's still better than the situation of minority groups in almost any country. And how it was over 100% of history. And how it happens to any group of people, regardless skin color or anything. You all act like there is some sort of monopoly on this stuff. Have you seen Borat? That was a Romani ethnic village in Romania. Do you see what's going on in SA? Have you heard a Chinese term gweilo?
Pick up a history book and maybe travel somewhere not to just make a picture of a famous building, and actually realize what is going on.
I can tell you whenever you point at a group of people, and say "these people" are responsible, thats always some third reich level hatred, creating the perpetual misery.
-
Examples of how to do it: in the 60s people like Martin Luther King Jr
Who is now ironically being or has been "cancelled".
Really? Why? The reasons matter.
One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?
Correct. Welcome to the madness of 2020's culture wars.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/canceling-thomas-jefferson/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/canceling-thomas-jefferson/)
People have always taken good ideas beyond the boundaries of good sense and into extremist territory. That's true for all subjects, technical and non-technical.
One example is "Post Modern Literary Criticism". A couple of software engineers went and found out what that is about, and wrote a wryly amusing essay that I remember 30 years later. http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html (http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html) Basically it is good to think about what's behind a statement and what isn't being said (e.g. in datasheets). But the PoMo LitCrit mob took that to ridiculous and unjustifiable extremes.
Currently the people over here going into extremist territory are (re)branding themselves "National Conservatives". We need of a good essay comparing-and-contrasting that with "National Socialists". So far as I can see, there is far too much overlap for comfort, and little "clear blue water".
-
Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.
It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.
The key to overcoming it is to avoid anyone or any group who wants you to see yourself as a victim. "Just get the hell away" from that as Adams would say. And that has been one of his focusses recently in teaching people this. A good general life strategy.
-
Just checked, Twitter subscription now available. I'm going to join to get Dilbert Reborn.
EDIT: Just joined, it was AU$5/month. Not sub tweets yet, must have just got approved.
-
It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.
The key to overcoming it is to avoid anyone or any group who wants you to see yourself as a victim. "Just get the hell away" from that as Adams would say. And that has been one of his focusses recently in teaching people this. A good general life strategy.
There is no systemic racism in the US, it's a myth perpetuated by people that look at statistics, starting out with a conclusion and extrapolate data that is not there to fit the conclusion they started with. Does that mean there is no racism? Of course not, but it isn't systemic. Laws apply equally to everyone, and cases where someone of one race gets a stiffer sentence than someone of another race that get pointed out as evidence of systemic racism usually have more to the story, for example the person with the light sentence had a clean record prior to the crime in question while the one that got the stiffer sentence has multiple felonies. Black people that apply themselves are just as successful as white people. Asians and Indians which also have dark skin are statistically more successful than whites, which kind of blows a hole in the whole "America is a terrible place for people with dark skin" myth.
-
One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?
I strongly object to that too, and people DO condemn Thomas Jefferson for that reason.
A ridiculous example of that which is local to me, I live in King County, it was named after William Rufus King, however around 20 years ago a group of local politicians without a vote from the people decided to retroactively change the namesake to MLK and the county seal to a picture of him because William King was a slave owner. Now I have nothing at all against MLK, in fact I quite admire him, but he visited King County briefly only once in his life and he had NOTHING to do with founding it. King County is located in the state of Washington which was named after our first president George Washington who like many in his class at the time also owned slaves. I have joked that they should change the namesake of my state to Denzel Washington except I don't say that too loudly because I don't want anyone getting any ideas.
I am very bothered by people attempting to erase and revise history by quietly making edits like this. I don't know much about William King nor do I go out of my way to honor him, but the county was named after him, he did live here and was influential at the time, and to change the namesake in modern times for nothing more than political correctness is tantamount to lying. I think it's totally unreasonable to assume that any of us today, had we grown up ~200 years ago in a region where slavery was commonplace and widely seen as acceptable would have some innate belief that it was horrible and wrong. It's unfair to judge historical figures against modern cultural standards. We are all products of our environment and upbringing, morals and ethics are taught, not innate and everything is relative.
-
One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?
I strongly object to that too, and people DO condemn Thomas Jefferson for that reason.
A ridiculous example of that which is local to me, I live in King County, it was named after William Rufus King, however around 20 years ago a group of local politicians without a vote from the people decided to retroactively change the namesake to MLK and the county seal to a picture of him because William King was a slave owner. Now I have nothing at all against MLK, in fact I quite admire him, but he visited King County briefly only once in his life and he had NOTHING to do with founding it. King County is located in the state of Washington which was named after our first president George Washington who like many in his class at the time also owned slaves. I have joked that they should change the namesake of my state to Denzel Washington except I don't say that too loudly because I don't want anyone getting any ideas.
I am very bothered by people attempting to erase and revise history by quietly making edits like this. I don't know much about William King nor do I go out of my way to honor him, but the county was named after him, he did live here and was influential at the time, and to change the namesake in modern times for nothing more than political correctness is tantamount to lying. I think it's totally unreasonable to assume that any of us today, had we grown up ~200 years ago in a region where slavery was commonplace and widely seen as acceptable would have some innate belief that it was horrible and wrong. It's unfair to judge historical figures against modern cultural standards. We are all products of our environment and upbringing, morals and ethics are taught, not innate and everything is relative.
My nearby city has a proud recent tradition (over a couple of hundred years old) of riots that have occasionally changed the law of the land. The latest were over a slave transporter, Colston, who was also a city benefactor - his statue was dumped in the harbour, and his name is slowly being erased from locations.[1]
The local unelected city elders (think local Freemasons on steroids) repeatedly refused to allow explantory plaques to be attached to the statue's plinth. I'm not sure of the reasoning, but they probably didn't want attention brought to their past activities.
My preference would have been to have plaques everywhere associated with Colston, and to use them as a trigger for discussing the city's inglorious past. Now those triggers are missing, it will be easier to forget history. Not, I suspect, what the protestors and SJWs were aiming for.
[1] i suspect that in part Colston was merely a "Marlon Brando trigger", i.e. "Hey, Johnny, what are you rebelling against?" "What've you got?".
-
Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.
It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.
So, so bad, they even get the privilege of being able to say things whites can't, without consequence.
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?
I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.
My father used to say that if you found a company being run by a short person, invest in it - because that person has probably got something extra over most CEOs. Nowadays I'd s/short/female/, by the same reasoning.
-
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
Yes it is. If something is systemic then there is going to be loads of evidence, that's virtually the definition of a systemic problem, it is widespread, repeatable and thus easily studied, if there is not evidence then it's not a problem worthy of discussion.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking for evidence. Show me the data, racism is a very serious accusation, and if somebody is going to make that accusation they had better have something to back it up. If it is anywhere near as serious and widespread as claimed then there should be mountains of evidence, thousands and thousands of cases where the same circumstances led to different outcomes. Show me even a few dozen cases where people of different races under all the same circumstances had different outcomes, that should be easy, if it's a systemic problem then surely there must be loads of incidents so sourcing a few clear cut examples should be easy.
-
I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.
I can. This has been studied many times and is widely known to be true.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing\ (https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing\)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/tall-people-more-likely-to-be-successful-in-life-study-find-a6919431.html\ (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/tall-people-more-likely-to-be-successful-in-life-study-find-a6919431.html\)
There was a study on dating sites as well, although I can't find the one I'm thinking of, they tried making two otherwise identical profiles for a man, one shorter than 6' and another over 6' and the taller guy got way more responses. Height shouldn't matter but it obviously does. Being short is an impediment to almost everything related to social standing. That doesn't mean of course that short men are in a hopeless situation, but they certainly are at a measurable disadvantage.
-
Got my first two Dilbert comics through Twitter subscriptions, works well.
585 views. So presumably he has that many subscribers already.
I'm not sure there is a way actually see how subscribers someone has?
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
On the other hand, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All I see it is "I feel this way"s and statistics that reduce problems to one dimensions, while other dimensions have much higher role in the outcome.
They made a psychological study quite a while ago. A makeup artist made a scar to the subjects face, showed it to the subject with a mirror, then removed it from the face. Then they had the subject have conversations with others, and they had to rate their feelings about prejudice and negative emotions. They overwhelmingly reported that people were staring at the scar, and they were rude to them. While they had nothing on their face. Victim mentality, where none exists.
Look it up yourself, Dartmouth university scar study.
-
I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.
It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.
But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?
I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.
My father used to say that if you found a company being run by a short person, invest in it - because that person has probably got something extra over most CEOs. Nowadays I'd s/short/female/, by the same reasoning.
You're talking about bias, which is different. It's true that taller men tend to rise to positions of power, probably due to the fact taller men are feared more. That doesn't mean short men are systemically oppressed. Systemic oppression is when the system i.e. laws and institutions are obviously set up to oppress a certain group. Examples of this were Nazi Germany and South Africa under Apartheid. This objectively doesn't apply to black people in the 21st century US. If anything many institutions discriminate against whites and Asians in favour of black people by means of affirmative action. It's also true that African immigrants to the US do better than whites. There are far too many confounding factors.
-
I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.
Odd example to choose, as most aspects of leadership have quite a bit of research data to support or shoot them down. I can't quote any off hand, but I remember seeing multiple papers on this particular topic. Being taller correlates quite well with being smarter. The reasons aren't well understood, but that is well supported by research. So, when you look at other factors in leadership you need to allow for that, and try to isolate whether it is tallness in itself leading to leadership success. There is research which looks specifically at whether people are more likely to obey someone taller, regardless of more meaningful qualities of leadership, which finds they actually are.
-
You're talking about bias, which is different.
Is it? The lack of a single well-defined meaning of the terms we're using is part of the barrier to ever reaching any common understanding here. That's certainly one possible interpretation, but lacking said definition, my default interpretation of the word would tend to consider common widely-held biases to be a "systemic" factor, too.
Examples of this were Nazi Germany and South Africa under Apartheid.
...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.
-
...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.
I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.
-
...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.
I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.
They were both, and more, religion was another popular one, and I'm sure there were others... Redlining wasn't only race-based, but it certainly included race, and more so the farther back you go. More recent laws were less explicitly race-based in their language, but no less so in their intent, in many cases. And it's still largely socially acceptable now when you talk about affluence... there are communities today with property covenants that legally forbid selling land for less than some minimum price.
-
...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.
There is no denying that blacks and various other groups have experienced some pretty horrible treatment in the USA, slavery is one example, the treatment of the Irish and the Chinese immigrants back in the 1800's is another, one of the more recent atrocities was pushing everyone of Japanese descent into relocation camps during WWII, and redlining was absolutely a thing that did at times directly involve race. But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago, well before I was even born and it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world. A lot of people have been screwed over the years and got the short end of the stick, at times this affected some groups more than others but there is no group that has never been affected. Bottom line is life isn't fair, sometimes people get cancer or some rare disease and die, sometimes even kids. There is no possible way to make life fair, and treating some groups unfairly today to make up for some other unfairness in the past is just going to create more problems. It is virtually impossible to take any given individual and calculate a real world value on the impact of all past discrimination and unfair treatment toward them. What we CAN do is strive to not discriminate NOW, and to do everything possible to ensure equality of opportunity, for everyone.
-
But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago
You say that like it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"... when in reality that's exactly when someone retiring at 70 today would likely have been establishing a family and looking for their first home. Even if that's not you, it's likely your parents or grandparents.
it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world.
Who blamed you? Certainly not me, nor anyone else here that I saw. Laying blame (or assuming it, for that matter) is seldom a productive means to solving a problem. But so is denying that the problem exists at all, as several other people seemed to be doing upthread.
-
But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago
You say that like it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"... when in reality that's exactly when someone retiring at 70 today would likely have been establishing a family and looking for their first home. Even if that's not you, it's likely your parents or grandparents.
it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world.
Who blamed you? Certainly not me, nor anyone else here that I saw. Laying blame (or assuming it, for that matter) is seldom a productive means to solving a problem. But so is denying that the problem exists at all, as several other people seemed to be doing upthread.
How long ago does something have to be before we can leave it in the past? Any time before I was born is as good as "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" from my perspective. Can't get much more removed from a situation than "I didn't exist yet". Also are everyone's past grievances fair game or do only certain things count?
If you're asking me to do anything at all beyond simply not discriminating then you are blaming me. If I'm not to blame then I should not have to take any remedial action.
-
If you're asking me to do anything at all
Again, who here asked you to do something? You seem to be having an argument with someone who isn't here.
-
I'm enjoying my new Twitter subscriber Dilbert strips. Wally is currently in jail, arrested by the FBI for pre-crime, and he has a Bing AI lawyer.
-
If you're asking me to do anything at all
Again, who here asked you to do something? You seem to be having an argument with someone who isn't here.
Nobody *here* asked me to do something, we're not talking about people here, we're speaking in general terms about something that is occurring in society. If you don't think there are people blaming others for being white, engaging in "reverse discrimination" and expecting concessions to be made then either you're not paying attention or you're being deliberately obtuse.
-
IMO (My opinion):
The whole systemic racism thing has to be viewed in the context it has been presented, that is the presidential elections, past and immediate future; all part of the '2024' campaign cycle.
Racism claims, and discussion will be DROPPED like hot cakes, if better (propaganda) substitute arises. That means the recent attention on abortion rights, and transgender rights....It has the appearance of trial balloons, whatever route has the most visible effect, on the Nov. 2024 election day.
That means, yes, those white folks weeping so profusely will then drop the whole racism thing, if or when some other, divisive issue has more pull, with the voters. No actual care about racism, abortion rights, or whatever...it's election season pretense, which is a pretty sick state of affairs.
They don't actually care, as it's largely just a calculated theater.
I.M.H.O.
-
I'm not going to bother reading this thread any more because it's too full of guys arguing there's no systemic racism in the U.S. and that it's all about people claiming victimhood.
Yes, there are laws against racism in the U.S., but if any of you think for a minute that those laws stop racism, you're delusional. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has gradually been whittling away the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Bye...
-
...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.
I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.
The vast majority of it [redlining] was a smokescreen for blatantly racist objectives.
Levittown, New York, was a model for suburban growth in post-WW2 America. This was in their town charter:
https://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/ (https://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/)
Originally, the Levitts’ racist policy was enshrined in the lease itself, which stipulated that “the tenant agrees not to permit the premises to be used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasian race.” That provision was later struck down in court as unconstitutional, but Bill Levitt continued to enforce racial homogeneity in practice by rejecting would-be black buyers.
https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/levittown-demographics-real-estate/ (https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/levittown-demographics-real-estate/)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trailblazers-the-story-of-the-myers-family-in-levittown-pennsylvania (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trailblazers-the-story-of-the-myers-family-in-levittown-pennsylvania)
Depending on how old you are (and if you live in the USA of course), these were policies that our grandparents/parents would've experienced and ones whose effects we are still dealing with today. :(
And like any good engineering problem, acknowledging the origins of the problem is the first step towards correctly solving it/ensuring it doesn't happen again.
-
Recent posts, today, indicate that, perhaps Gov. Newsom's California reparations payments, of 1.2 $ million dollars per decendant, might be fair but....oh wait a second, Newsom now saying "Nevermind, we don't have the money....".
Yeah, hilarious tease, but (he) can't deliver on it, and even has quickly now stated that CASH isn't all that important, in reparations, anyway. Newsom, in same press conference, stated that the Reparations Committee 'went a little overboard', in the cash proposal, (a commitee he appointed).
See how quick and easy the offer, and cancel that, as they mostly, don't really care, only that pesky election scheduled for 2024 is what matters. It sure shows that way.
-
I'm not going to bother reading this thread any more because it's too full of guys arguing there's no systemic racism in the U.S. and that it's all about people claiming victimhood.
Yep, thread locked for bit to calm people down. Maybe we can get this back on topic at some point.
-
Dilbert got his Karen 3000 AI sex bot :-DD
-
Dilbert got his Karen 3000 AI sex bot :-DD
Being Dilbert I am sure the sexbot leaves him for someone more interesting.
-
Being Dilbert I am sure the sexbot leaves him for someone more interesting.
Likely.
BTW, I'm enjoying the twitter subscription thing. Seperate tab where I only get content from people I subscribe to, in this case it's only Adam's so far, but I'm liking how it work. Seems like a good way to get daily content like this.
-
Dilbert got his Karen 3000 AI sex bot :-DD
Being Dilbert I am sure the sexbot leaves him for someone more interesting.
Getting a Karen 3000 Ai sexbot doesn't really give enough context to get what the joke might be. Not to me anyway. It's the same as the other one you described where Wally was in jail and has a Bing AI lawyer. Is it important to know why Wally was in jail to get the punch line or isn't there a punch line at all.
I'm starting out with a preconceived notion that Adams is just exploiting an existing extreme right bias in his new subscriber base. Which is necessary to enjoy the comic now that it has forgone a well crafted twist. Maybe there is a twist, I don't know.
Two of my favourite cartoons were a FarSide single panel where a farmer was entering a turkey pen with an axe. The text read "Now whooo's it gonna be". And amongst the turkeys was one with a longer neck and a worried look. The joke being that either Turkeys understand English, what the axe is for or that it was Thanksgiving soon. And that particular Turkey knew it had a long neck and stood out. It is just the typical FarSide absurdity.
Another one which has always stayed with me as a classic was a BC comic tri-panel where BC (the titular caveman) was sitting on a boulder at sunrise with a snail on the left side. Middle panel was noon with the snail in center. Third panel was sunset with the snail on the right. It has taken a whole day for the snail to travel a
short distance. BC says "What a waste, a whole day to go from there to there. The joke being that he hasn't actually moved from the boulder.
Farside and BC were always noted for their absurdist observations which were universally able to be appreciated. Dilbert focused on Corporate and cubical life for its absurd observations. But what does Dilbert do now behind the subscription wall?
-
Getting a Karen 3000 Ai sexbot doesn't really give enough context to get what the joke might be. Not to me anyway. It's the same as the other one you described where Wally was in jail and has a Bing AI lawyer. Is it important to know why Wally was in jail to get the punch line or isn't there a punch line at all.
Err, yeah, that's the point. I know because I'm subscribed and you aren't.
I'm not going to rip off his strip and post it here.
Farside and BC were always noted for their absurdist observations which were universally able to be appreciated. Dilbert focused on Corporate and cubical life for its absurd observations. But what does Dilbert do now behind the subscription wall?
Pay the two bucks and find out for a month.
-
Just checked, Twitter subscription now available. I'm going to join to get Dilbert Reborn.
Got my first two Dilbert comics through Twitter subscriptions, works well.
I'm enjoying my new Twitter subscriber Dilbert strips. Wally is currently in jail, arrested by the FBI for pre-crime, and he has a Bing AI lawyer.
Dilbert got his Karen 3000 AI sex bot :-DD
BTW, I'm enjoying the twitter subscription thing.
Pay the two bucks and find out for a month.
Boy, you are persistent! Is this about advertising Dilbert, since you feel Adams needs the money, or about advertising paid Twitter feeds, because you hope yours to gain traction?
-
Back in the day we had a partial cartoon magazines.
There you had to wait the next number for the next part.
I've also tried to support local artists, at least from Hyborian Age.
But when I recently checked market's magazine section it was basically crosswords.
Maybe this new only fans trend will change things, French-Belgian era was much better.
-
Boy, you are persistent! Is this about advertising Dilbert,
I dunno, this is the post newspaper Dilbert thread and the discussion is about reincarnated Dilbert. But I know where you are coming from, how dare someone post something on topic. It's just not cricket.
-
Boy, you are persistent! Is this about advertising Dilbert, since you feel Adams needs the money, or about advertising paid Twitter feeds, because you hope yours to gain traction?
How about
Option 4: Trying to drag this thread back on track.
Option 5: Some people might be interested in what's happening with Dilbert in a thread about Dilbert.
But yes, beaing a large-ish creator I'm also very interested in how the Twitter Subscription system works and how it's going to be received. I'd be stupid not to.
-
How about
Option 4: Trying to drag this thread back on track.
Option 5: Some people might be interested in what's happening with Dilbert in a thread about Dilbert.
But yes, beaing a large-ish creator I'm also very interested in how the Twitter Subscription system works and how it's going to be received. I'd be stupid not to.
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course.
(a) Adams has lost his syndication deal over his increasingly pointed political views.
(b) Adams has set up paid subscription channels, one for those interested in his broader views, one for those interested only in the Dilbert-ized version of these.
All posts over the past few weeks seem to be either repetitions of (a) or (b), or off-topic digressions.
-
Being Dilbert I am sure the sexbot leaves him for someone more interesting.
Likely.
BTW, I'm enjoying the twitter subscription thing. Seperate tab where I only get content from people I subscribe to, in this case it's only Adam's so far, but I'm liking how it work. Seems like a good way to get daily content like this.
Side note, the whole twitter ui is very confusing. I've joined something called twitter spaces (someone decided to only have the conversation there), which is like a live audio conversation and honestly I have no idea what was happening, or where do I click or so. It took me like 5 minutes to realize that I can only write (by design) and not talk.
The concept was fine in cca 2011 when you got tweets from people who your followed, and that was it.
Now I feel like 90% of the content there is by randoms, try hard effort to get some reaction from people.
-
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course.
Easy, don't click on it again.
-
Side note, the whole twitter ui is very confusing. I've joined something called twitter spaces (someone decided to only have the conversation there), which is like a live audio conversation and honestly I have no idea what was happening, or where do I click or so. It took me like 5 minutes to realize that I can only write (by design) and not talk.
The concept was fine in cca 2011 when you got tweets from people who your followed, and that was it.
Now I feel like 90% of the content there is by randoms, try hard effort to get some reaction from people.
You are looking at the For You tab. That's where is suggests stuff to you it thinks you might like. I think it's working really well recently.
The other tab is Following where you only see tweets from people you follow.
The other is the Subscribed tab where you only see posts from people you pay to subscribe to.
Streets ahead of Twitter 1.0 IMO
-
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course.
Easy, don't click on it again.
It's not about me.
-
By pure accident I found this. There is at least one person who thinks as I do. Just goes to show "Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ".
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/?action=dlattach;attach=1789373;image)
-
By pure accident I found this. There is at least one person who thinks as I do. Just goes to show "Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ".
Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.
-
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course.
Easy, don't click on it again.
It's not about me.
It's entirely about you. You are just using others as an excuse to get a thread locked that you don't like.
Seriously, don't click on it. Some of us like talking about Dilbert, it's an integral part of the engineering community.
-
Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.
He's actually talked about this very thing quite a bit. His feeling is that it won't work because AI can't "feel" when a joke is funny, it's got no feedback mechanism like that.
Also, AI doesn't do anything new, it's just a language model that uses existing work as a reference and tried to think of variations on that. So it would get stale very quickly.
-
Frankly, I think this thread has run its course.
Easy, don't click on it again.
It's not about me.
Then what is it about?
If you don't want to participate then why are you still here? Nobody is forcing you to read a thread you're no longer interested in, this forum is filled with threads I've moved on from. I simply stop following them.
-
In other news, I've lost one of my Dilbert books. Just had it delivered the other month.
Sagan loves reading them, and I swear it's in the lab here somewhere but buggered if I can find it. >:(
-
I imagine "AI Cartoons" being like Jerk City (published for decades starting in 1998).
The gag is the same in each strip: an uninformed reader would think someone actually wrote and drew it, but as a qualified expert I know that the whole thing is just somebody on IRC (with Microsoft Comic Chat) pressing the PrScr key.
-
Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.
He's actually talked about this very thing quite a bit. His feeling is that it won't work because AI can't "feel" when a joke is funny, it's got no feedback mechanism like that.
Also, AI doesn't do anything new, it's just a language model that uses existing work as a reference and tried to think of variations on that. So it would get stale very quickly.
Are you saying Scott Adams is an AI bot? That would be intriguing. I suppose this would be one way towards proving it. But not conclusively. The comics could be unfunny stale variations without fresh ideas and hard work even from a human. It is entirely possible he would do this. If he is getting subscription money regardless of the quality of the comics then why not.
There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.
-
Are you saying Scott Adams is an AI bot? That would be intriguing. I suppose this would be one way towards proving it. But not conclusively. The comics could be unfunny stale variations without fresh ideas and hard work even from a human. It is entirely possible he would do this. If he is getting subscription money regardless of the quality of the comics then why not.
There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.
Hillarious. You should write a comic strip...
-
There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.
Well you are all bots are you not?
Imagine that, a fake reality, creating it's own fake reality and fooling the original fake reality.
-
Hillarious. You should write a comic strip...
I think you're being sarcastic. But maybe not. Someone once told me I was gullible, and I believed them.
-
There is probably some legal or ethical hazard to publishing falsely as Scott Adams in syndicated publications but doing it as an AI bot masquerading as Scott Adams in a closed subscription only platform is a great joke to play on the gullible subscribers. Who may never notice.
Well you are all bots are you not?
Imagine that, a fake reality, creating it's own fake reality and fooling the original fake reality.
Ironically, Adams literally believes we are a simulation.
-
Ironically, Adams literally believes we are a simulation.
That's either a good joke on your part, or is useful background to his political (etc) views. I can't be arsed to research which of those it might be :)
-
Is this an original? I think due to the format, Scott could totally train an AI to make daily comic strips and we would have no idea that he is doing that. Insert every now and then the building shown from the outside with floating text, gotta reuse that frame.
He's actually talked about this very thing quite a bit. His feeling is that it won't work because AI can't "feel" when a joke is funny, it's got no feedback mechanism like that.
Also, AI doesn't do anything new, it's just a language model that uses existing work as a reference and tried to think of variations on that. So it would get stale very quickly.
There is a party card game called Joking hazard, where from the Cyanide and Happiness webcomic you are supposed to make a joke with the random frames (on the card) you are dealt with. Funniest ones wins.
-
That's like it's not really Dave, I've seen the AI EEVBlog YouTube video of the bot complaining that the real Dave is too Pommy sounding.
-
Is there a way to ban users from certain threads? That would solve a few problems.
Anyway, is there anyone who found Adam's remarks offensive, or extremely disagreeable, yet still appreciates his comics?
I certainly didn't find it offensive and can appreciate his comics, but not enough to go out of my way to get them. I remember people having some of pin-ups of his comic strips enlarged where I used to work around 15 years ago, but didn't buy any.
-
He seems a tad unhinged but not particularly offensive, and it makes absolutely no difference in my opinion of his comics. He could be a full on card carrying communist or nazi and it wouldn't affect my opinion of his comic. The personal life and views of an artist is totally separate from the art they produce, I don't link them at all.
-
Anyway, is there anyone who found Adam's remarks offensive, or extremely disagreeable, yet still appreciates his comics?
That's not how cancel culture works.
-
With cancel culture, you do not own your appreciation of something, you merely borrow it from the social consensus and must be ready to give it up at any point.
:popcorn:
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
Essentially peer group pressure. And that has gone on for an eternity, not just in today's "enlightened and free"* world.
*you are enlightened and free to follow what you think is the majority demands
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.
I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...
This is what ideological possession does to people.
So your private opinions might be private to you, but that doesn't stop anyone else applying whatever they like to you regardless.
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.
Woody Allen poked fun of this in a filum he made 40 years ago.
And as you'd expect, the audience missed the joke and took offence by taking it personally. Now of course you can't even mention the woodman without someone invariably bringing up his later life bullshit. Kinda proving the point.
https://youtu.be/Q-ZmaLE8dao?t=371
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.
I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...
Let me paraphrase that: if you are on twitter (or any social media for that matter), you have no life >:D
-sigh-
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.
Woody Allen poked fun of this in a filum he made 40 years ago.
And as you'd expect, the audience missed the joke and took offence by taking it personally. Now of course you can't even mention the woodman without someone invariably bringing up his later life bullshit. Kinda proving the point.
https://youtu.be/Q-ZmaLE8dao?t=371 (https://youtu.be/Q-ZmaLE8dao?t=371)
Woody Allen likes to poke at things like that. My favourite is the one in Annie Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s)
-
Let me paraphrase that: if you are on twitter (or any social media for that matter), you have no life >:D
-sigh-
A forum isn't that much different ;D
-
I think that really is your "public" appreciation of something. What you think privately is currently not able to be determined.
That doesn't stop people speculating, assuming, or thinking they can infer your opinions.
I was just attacked on Twitter the other day for "the company I keep" in regards to me simply watching another creators Youtube videos. Got to the point that I had to block them, as they would not stop saying I was supporting bigotry, blah blah blah. No amount of explaination would do anything, they wanted me to completely and publicly disavow this other creator for things I've never heard them even say.
And of course, even if I did that, it would not be enough. It's never enough...
This is what ideological possession does to people.
So your private opinions might be private to you, but that doesn't stop anyone else applying whatever they like to you regardless.
Yep, make one single comment on some topic and some people will instantly infer a complete picture of you in their head, they will make assumptions on all sorts of unrelated stuff based on one single data point. It's absurd.
-
Woody Allen likes to poke at things like that. My favourite is the one in Annie Hall - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg#t=1m45s)
I saw that movie for the first time recently, having heard how great it was supposed to be. It had moments that were funny but overall I was very underwhelmed. It's not one I'd want to watch more than once.
-
It works like this doesn't it.
Someone says on social media. "I am going to taste this lemonade that is fizzy straight away"
Some people see.
I AM going to tAste this lemoNAde that fiZzy straIght away
-
Now you're getting it. ;)
All we have to do now is convince you that it's not really lemonade. :)
-
Now you're getting it. ;)
All we have to do now is convince you that it's not really lemonade. :)
Has Big Clive's "Will it carbonate" experiments been getting out of hand? ;D
-
Carbon is bad.
-
Wondering what I'm doing tonight
I've been in the closet and I feel alright.
Ran out of Carbona, Mom threw out the glue.
Ran out of paint and roach spray too.
-
Another classic example in my Youtube comments just now:
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I mentioned precisely what he said that makes me feel iffy about being a fan of yours ( or anyone for that matter ) and likely any other jewish person that likes to watch your content, just a few replies above.
But it's fine, I don't intend or expect you to change who you yourself watch and who not
You can probbaly guess what topic he's talking about, and he's upset because I subscribed at some point years ago for whatever reason to a channel (one of thousands) that I'm guessing that creator probably once said something about this toipic that has triggered him?
And of course the passive-agressive bullying of trying to guilt me into somehow disavowing someone (and assuming I know what this creator has said at some point) or else he any every other jewish person will have a negative opinion of me?
This is the kind of crap that happens. Someone said something once that someone didn't like and therefore everyone must disavow this person and never watch any of their content ever again or else they get branded with *insert brush here*.
I think I'm going to blanket ban these childish people from now on.
-
Can't even capitalize properly, I bet it was an American.
Those are the worst. Massive messiah complex.
-
Another classic example in my Youtube comments just now:
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I mentioned precisely what he said that makes me feel iffy about being a fan of yours ( or anyone for that matter ) and likely any other jewish person that likes to watch your content, just a few replies above.
But it's fine, I don't intend or expect you to change who you yourself watch and who not
You can probbaly guess what topic he's talking about, and he's upset because I subscribed at some point years ago for whatever reason to a channel (one of thousands) that I'm guessing that creator probably once said something about this toipic that has triggered him?
And of course the passive-agressive bullying of trying to guilt me into somehow disavowing someone (and assuming I know what this creator has said at some point) or else he any every other jewish person will have a negative opinion of me?
This is the kind of crap that happens. Someone said something once that someone didn't like and therefore everyone must disavow this person and never watch any of their content ever again or else they get branded with *insert brush here*.
I think I'm going to blanket ban these childish people from now on.
It's pretty weak. They are quite able to shitpost in the comments, but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
-
but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
Are you saying one needs to be a content creator to be able to have an opinion, or that a comment should only be made via another lengthy and tedious video?
-
but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
Are you saying one needs to be a content creator to be able to have an opinion, or that a comment should only be made via another lengthy and tedious video?
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it. I'm suggesting that if they truly were sincere, putting out their own video content would surly reach a wider audience.
It's simply just sinister behaviour, intended to harm anyone who has a platform. The 'opinion' is just an excuse or perhaps even a mask to hide the comment's true purpose.
-
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it.
Surely the video creator is the person they want to read the comment. The rest are irrelevant; just bystanders. Unless one is playing to the gallery, of course, but that's what twitter's for.
-
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
In Scott Adams' case, probably. I doubt very much he cares about anyone who isn't fully agreeable with him. They can shout into the ether if they want. Free world and all that.
The comments section in youtube of creators that instead really do engage with their audience is a privilege for participants.
-
Yep, make one single comment on some topic and some people will instantly infer a complete picture of you in their head, they will make assumptions on all sorts of unrelated stuff based on one single data point. It's absurd.
Such is the internet.
That’s why I say that if you have people from both sides accusing you of being the other, you’ve probably got a balanced stance on things. (That’s happened to me over the years many times…)
-
but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
Are you saying one needs to be a content creator to be able to have an opinion, or that a comment should only be made via another lengthy and tedious video?
100% agree. And not just in politics.
Like if you point out a factual error in a tutorial video, and the channel’s acolytes bark back “well if it’s so bad why don’t you make your own tutorial!” :palm:
-
but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
Are you saying one needs to be a content creator to be able to have an opinion, or that a comment should only be made via another lengthy and tedious video?
100% agree. And not just in politics.
Like if you point out a factual error in a tutorial video, and the channel’s acolytes bark back “well if it’s so bad why don’t you make your own tutorial!” :palm:
:palm: :palm: back at you.
We aren't talking about comments regarding a video rather commenters using the service to attack the youtuber for existing.
-
That’s why I say that if you have people from both sides accusing you of being the other, you’ve probably got a balanced stance on things. (That’s happened to me over the years many times…)
If you think that there are only two sides to anything then you are probably an American, and if you are being attacked from all sides by strawman arguments than you have probably found yourself immersed in the inane American politics.
That's all it means. There is 300 million others like you, all equally right and balanced snowflakes.
This is what makes all this bullshit so fun :popcorn:
-
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it.
Surely the video creator is the person they want to read the comment. The rest are irrelevant; just bystanders. Unless one is playing to the gallery, of course, but that's what twitter's for.
That's what it is my my case, they are actively tragetting me directly. A few of them will send a personal email, but most know that if they leave a comment then it could get Liked by other people to help reinforce their message.
They like me and my videos but absolutely detest that I dare to follow, watch, or otherwise interact with another creator they do not like. And they will verbally bully me into denouncing this creator and severing all ties with them. It it 100% bully cancel culture. They cannot be argued with, as they do not discuss in good faith.
And IME, all of them have been on the radical social justice left.
-
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it.
Surely the video creator is the person they want to read the comment. The rest are irrelevant; just bystanders. Unless one is playing to the gallery, of course, but that's what twitter's for.
That's what it is my my case, they are actively tragetting me directly. A few of them will send a personal email, but most know that if they leave a comment then it could get Liked by other people to help reinforce their message.
They like me and my videos but absolutely detest that I dare to follow, watch, or otherwise interact with another creator they do not like. And they will verbally bully me into denouncing this creator and severing all ties with them. It it 100% bully cancel culture. They cannot be argued with, as they do not discuss in good faith.
And IME, all of them have been on the radical social justice left.
Over here the radical libertarian right is just as bad. They tolerate no dissent, and are in the process of rebranding themselves "national conservatives". As far I as they can see they are the same as "national socialists".
There's a less clear cut debate as well. If the artist is abhorrent, what should you do about their works? Take, for example, Eric Gill inventor of the Gill Sans typeface and many other famous works. His statue of Prospero and Ariel outside the BBC headquarters has just been defaced again. Apparently... ... his crimes, which only came to light when biographer Fiona MacCarthy published his diary confessions. Gill wrote about abusing his daughters, interfering with his dog and having sex with at least one of his sisters. Horribly, but perhaps predictably, these secret acts went along with a Catholic socialist idealism and a belief in art as a messianic instrument
My starting point is not to destroy his work or otherwise cancel him, but to put up plaques reminding people of his crimes.
-
Over here the radical libertarian right is just as bad. They tolerate no dissent, and are in the process of rebranding themselves "national conservatives". As far I as they can see they are the same as "national socialists".
Different sides of the same coin. But they are everywhere it is not just confined to political viewpoints. Go ask on a popular Australian forum that has a section about DIY abut how to go about wiring up a mains light in your house. Grab the popcorn and watch the fireworks. Although these days such a question would be shut down by the moderators as they know how it is going to end up.
There are a plethora of people out there hell bent on ordering you how to run your life, often backed up by some stupid law. I am at the stage where I think we are on a downhill run when it comes to what I call freedoms and we peaked a decade or two or three ago.
If the artist is abhorrent, what should you do about their works?
I take it no one in the UK broke out the wobble board last week? But it no doubt created joy for people in the long distant past.
-
In Scott Adams' case, probably. I doubt very much he cares about anyone who isn't fully agreeable with him. They can shout into the ether if they want. Free world and all that.
The comments section in youtube of creators that instead really do engage with their audience is a privilege for participants.
Scott Adams airs his opinions on a subscription platform. He's doing it for the money. I doubt he cares about anyone else's opinions even if they DO agree with him. That's not unique to SA though. Tucker Carlson is a notable recent case in point. He didn't even agree with his own opinions.
-
Tucker Carlson is a notable recent case in point.
Tucker famously does not use or even read any form of social media.
-
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it.
Surely the video creator is the person they want to read the comment. The rest are irrelevant; just bystanders. Unless one is playing to the gallery, of course, but that's what twitter's for.
That's what it is my my case, they are actively tragetting me directly. A few of them will send a personal email, but most know that if they leave a comment then it could get Liked by other people to help reinforce their message.
They like me and my videos but absolutely detest that I dare to follow, watch, or otherwise interact with another creator they do not like. And they will verbally bully me into denouncing this creator and severing all ties with them. It it 100% bully cancel culture. They cannot be argued with, as they do not discuss in good faith.
And IME, all of them have been on the radical social justice left.
Over here the radical libertarian right is just as bad. They tolerate no dissent, and are in the process of rebranding themselves "national conservatives". As far I as they can see they are the same as "national socialists".
I admit, I do follow some conservative, as well as liberal channels and see more hate from the left at the moment. There are extremists on both sides, but the hysteria over NatCon is very overhyped. I haven't seen any examples of actual hate. Heck I agree with some of it, but obviously not all of it. The bits I don't like are stupid and silly, rather than hateful and I just laugh at them making fools of themselves.
Well, putting out a video will likely have an audience of one. Even so, isn't that a high bar to set? It's like saying if you really have to disagree with Scott Adams you should do it in a syndicated cartoon strip.
A comment will only annoy the video creator and a handful a other people who happen to read it.
Surely the video creator is the person they want to read the comment. The rest are irrelevant; just bystanders. Unless one is playing to the gallery, of course, but that's what twitter's for.
That's what it is my my case, they are actively tragetting me directly. A few of them will send a personal email, but most know that if they leave a comment then it could get Liked by other people to help reinforce their message.
They like me and my videos but absolutely detest that I dare to follow, watch, or otherwise interact with another creator they do not like. And they will verbally bully me into denouncing this creator and severing all ties with them. It it 100% bully cancel culture. They cannot be argued with, as they do not discuss in good faith.
And IME, all of them have been on the radical social justice left.
Just tell them to bugger off and block them, if they keep pestering you,
-
Just tell them to bugger off and block them, if they keep pestering you,
I've already announced this as a new rule on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1662331854815637505
-
Tucker Carlson is a notable recent case in point.
Tucker famously does not use or even read any form of social media.
Yeah, I'd readily accept that. Successful well-off people probably use their time wisely to achieve that status. I would never have made the claim TC believed what he was saying. Quite the opposite. He was hired to sell advertising on FOX. Murdoch kept him until he became an expensive liability. Locally here in Australia the popular radio shock-jocks were (are) the same. I did not believe Alan Jones believed what he was spouting. I think the turning point for me was when the banks decided to pay him to cooperate. And he did.
Scott Adams lit the touch-paper on his comic syndication when he saw a more lucrative market. I don't think he's at all stupid no matter what I think of his ethics.
There is an easy to exploit and growing market for selling opinions. More than enough suggestable people to take advantage of. You just have to be smarter than your audience. Which is a low bar.
When Kmart sell vlogging and "influencer" lighting kits you just know there is a market for opinions out there.
https://www.kmart.com.au/product/6in.-ring-light-influencer-kit-43033058/? (https://www.kmart.com.au/product/6in.-ring-light-influencer-kit-43033058/?)
-
Anyway, is there anyone who found Adam's remarks offensive, or extremely disagreeable, yet still appreciates his comics?
That's not how cancel culture works.
I know. That was my point: most people don't care, which is at odds with how people such as Adams have been treated.
Come to think of it, I've become much more tolerant of those with differing views over the last few years, because I've changed my position on a variety of topics, even to the point of being 180° on certain subjects. Heck I can see my old self being upset about some of my current views, but my old ideas don't trigger me. In most cases it's not my personality which has changed. I've just altered my opinion, based on new evidence, like any rational human being should do.
-
That’s why I say that if you have people from both sides accusing you of being the other, you’ve probably got a balanced stance on things. (That’s happened to me over the years many times…)
If you think that there are only two sides to anything then you are probably an American, and if you are being attacked from all sides by strawman arguments than you have probably found yourself immersed in the inane American politics.
That's all it means. There is 300 million others like you, all equally right and balanced snowflakes.
This is what makes all this bullshit so fun :popcorn:
It’s not limited to American politics, nor to politics. It’s anything: iPhone vs. Android. Coke vs. Pepsi. Blue vs. white dress. Any time you take a middle ground, you’ll get attacked by both sides as being a “fanboy” or “shill” or “sheeple” or whatever.
And the fact that these are binaries is kinda my point: reality isn’t simple, single axes like that, but people often react as if it were.
-
but if they feel so strongly, where are their own videos?
Are you saying one needs to be a content creator to be able to have an opinion, or that a comment should only be made via another lengthy and tedious video?
100% agree. And not just in politics.
Like if you point out a factual error in a tutorial video, and the channel’s acolytes bark back “well if it’s so bad why don’t you make your own tutorial!” :palm:
:palm: :palm: back at you.
We aren't talking about comments regarding a video rather commenters using the service to attack the youtuber for existing.
I was literally commenting simply on the “well why don’t you make your own video?!?” nonsense. That’s it.
-
Scott Adams lit the touch-paper on his comic syndication when he saw a more lucrative market. I don't think he's at all stupid no matter what I think of his ethics.
That's not what happened.
He's lost 80% of his income because of this. He said he did not expect to be cancelled by his syndication company, just by a bunch of more newspapers that has already happened to him several times before.
I believe him when he says he did what he did because he's in a financial position to do it and wanted to push the race discussion in a new direction.
Long time, he might eventually end up financially better off, that remains to be seen, but it's certainly no the case at the moment. Now that he's been "completely cancelled ", he's now more free to say what he wants. And that's not my speculation, this is stuff he has said.
-
When Kmart sell vlogging and "influencer" lighting kits you just know there is a market for opinions out there.
https://www.kmart.com.au/product/6in.-ring-light-influencer-kit-43033058/? (https://www.kmart.com.au/product/6in.-ring-light-influencer-kit-43033058/?)
Not sure why they would need that. Seems plenty of those types think they already have a ring that emits light.
-
(hahaa). You guys argue, seemingly EVEN about length of some yt VIDEO. In the face of, this year, being the emergent trend, towards short-short topics, less than 60 seconds. I'm sticking to more moderate length topics, maybe learn something as I get entertainment.
-
It’s not limited to American politics, nor to politics. It’s anything: iPhone vs. Android. Coke vs. Pepsi. Blue vs. white dress. Any time you take a middle ground, you’ll get attacked by both sides as being a “fanboy” or “shill” or “sheeple” or whatever.
Yeah, a bunch of American products ::)
Correction: you can take any position you want, and you will still be attacked by your own camp for not being devoted enough, possibly more so than the opponents.
It's that retarded. Being attacked by both camps means literally nothing, but it's not the first time I'm seeing somebody claiming it as some sort of virtue.
-
OK. To move it at least halfway out of the USA. Metric vs traditional unit. Football (soccer) vs Rugby or US football. Tea vs coffee.
-
Tea vs coffee
Why can't one have both? I start the day with tea, migrate to coffee (albeit fake instant stuff) then mix and match throughout the day, ending with hot chocolate. Only thing I don't drink is water.
-
It’s not limited to American politics, nor to politics. It’s anything: iPhone vs. Android. Coke vs. Pepsi. Blue vs. white dress. Any time you take a middle ground, you’ll get attacked by both sides as being a “fanboy” or “shill” or “sheeple” or whatever.
Yeah, a bunch of American products ::)
It’s got nothing to do with being American. Can you please stop constantly attacking USA every time it comes up (and stop bringing it up when it doesn’t)? Not everything is about nationalism!
And since when is The Dress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress) even a product? It’s a silly debate, which is why I added it as an example of something that isn’t a product!
-
Correction: you can take any position you want, and you will still be attacked by your own camp for not being devoted enough, possibly more so than the opponents.
It's that retarded. Being attacked by both camps means literally nothing, but it's not the first time I'm seeing somebody claiming it as some sort of virtue.
But it’s not meaningless: it means you aren’t rabidly on one side or the other.
-
coffee (albeit fake instant stuff)
Ok, that may be one choice that's clearly abhorrent to every reasonable person. :-DD
-
Adams allowed sharing of the latest Dilbert:
-
Correction: you can take any position you want, and you will still be attacked by your own camp for not being devoted enough, possibly more so than the opponents.
It's that retarded. Being attacked by both camps means literally nothing, but it's not the first time I'm seeing somebody claiming it as some sort of virtue.
But it’s not meaningless: it means you aren’t rabidly on one side or the other.
You're right, it isn't meaningless. It actually means you are so rabid and unhinged that your own side can't put up with you.
Think Trump fighting mainstream Republicans and vice versa. Or the whole PQRXYZ+ABC rainbow crowd and the PQR flaming the ABC for "violating their boundaries" and the ABC hating on the PQR for "judging them by how they were born". Competing religious fundamentalist groups. Radical versus liberal feminists. Coca Cola fanboys vandalizing Pepsi vending machines.
:popcorn:
All of them are "the moderates" unlike the other guys who are "the real fascists".
But we know the truth - they are all Americans and they are all equal :-DD
edit
And yes, this is what this thread is about: Americans eating their own for not being American enough.
-
Dilbert reborn? Born again Dilbert.
There's a scary thought...
:o