That's a pretty disingenuous comment: First, your characterization is probably accurate if restricted to the "first wave" feminism (of a century ago), but, IIRC, I think we're on the "third wave" now. Second, in the American political context, feminism is highly correlated with progressives/left-wing, and the specific people I was talking about are very left-wing. Thirdly, my comment wasn't even about feminism at all, but about how people can change beliefs without changing a lot of things one might naively assume would change with them.
You brought up the broad concept of 'feminism' as an example and your comment was about people who go to either extreme, so I think I took your comment as being more anti-feminism then you meant it (no ingenuous meant to be dis'ed). I agree with your idea of how some people change beliefs but still keep the same extreme attitude.
It's a variant of Chesterton's fence: question an authority when you've learned how that authority works and what motivates it. For god's sake, if you want to be a contrarian, be intelligent about it.
Some freshman with a copy of Derrida and a bullshit social justice grievance does not know enough to question 4,000 years of civilization.
Do you? Anyone can question anything. That's how a free and fair society works.
The professor has a lot of detailed knowledge on the topics they cover, but maybe not a radical critique of the underlying assumptions of what they teach.
I'm not super familiar with this case, but glancing over the student's demands, many looked reasonable.
Of course we have a right to question anything. But pragmatism demands that we don't spend an arbitrarily large amount of time indulging arbitrarily unlikely scenarios. These protesters are attempting to use brute force to give their horrible ideas more salience than they'd get in a fair intellectual forum, and that's not fair to people who actually want to learn about the far more well-established ideas that we've honed over thousands of years.
I think you need to take a break, like other people have said, and reconnect with friends. If you can't visit them, at least email them and ask how they're doing. It seems like a lot of your self-image is wrapped up in being a software creator, and I think you need to decouple it more. I understand how you're under pressure now, like you're looking at each project like it might be the thing that gets you noticed, but you're just compounding the stress on yourself.
Take a break. Think about what you really want to do, and how support from others is necessary. The great founder myth obscures how everyone needs support and encouragement from others to keep going.
You're not too old. Don't compare where you are with where you 'should' be, because I think you have an unrealistic image of where you should be. Any success you have now won't live up to that image, and you'll beat yourself up again and again. You gotta break out of that cycle.
Your parents probably see how unhappy you are, and are trying to guide you to a path where they think you can be happy. They're probably wrong, but I bet they want the best for you and are trying to help in the ways they know how. They're probably frustrated themselves and all that, but go give them some thanks.
It might be, my intention was to highlight the fact that the article is laid down as a set of facts with no judgement. It's not like Charles was a hero. It just shows how Alan was rewarded. It's like reading something as simple as fate.
If 8chan didn't keep calling the police on people, I think it would probably get a lot less heat. You can't claim to be all for free speech, then say it's okay to call the police on somebody who said something you didn't like.
>If 8chan didn't keep calling the police on people
8chan is actually not a person, and no evidence has been presented that a user of the site has done any such thing. I have noticed a couple of posters in this thread posting a gish-gallop of links (mostly from discredited sources) purporting to prove something, but one sees upon inspection that they in fact do nothing of the sort.
Man, not 24 hours ago you tried to convince us all that an article did not contain certain information, when any literate person could see that it did. You're not only a liar, you're a bad liar; your only strategy is making bold, false claims and hoping that everyone is too lazy to follow up on them. Why should we believe anything that you say?
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I think the epistemic closure among the remaining GamerGate partisans is exactly like the sort of thing you see at the core of plenty of movements. MRAs, climate change deniers, biblical fundamentalists, hardcore marxists, truthers, conspiracy theorists, et cetera, ad nauseam.
Promoting a worldview is a tricky thing. To be really good at it, you have to believe, and the more unorthodox your worldview, the harder you have to work to maintain that worldview in the face of widespread resistance. The easy thing is to refuse to even consider anything to the contrary, to only talk with people who share your views.
This pattern happens over and over in tech, too; it's not like we're exempt. Look at the dot-com bubble, for example. It was an article of faith that the Internet would change everything. That it turned out to be true eventually didn't matter; enough people took leave of their senses that we wasted billions.
Direct link: https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ Yes, this is what first implicated Grayson. I'd say its primary purpose was to get people to avoid her, but any interested parties can read the whole thing.
I've seen a lot of big-hearted attempts to bring Hypercard back. I haven't seen a convincing (to me) analysis of why it sputtered out in the first place. Without that knowledge, I don't think any resuscitations can succeed.
I've had the chance to talk a bit with Bill Atkinson about this. I think there are a few things at play here.
First, HC was built before the popularization of the internet, and as such a distribution model for stacks didn't really exist. I can literally remember mailing stacks on floppy disks. So, people could make things, but not easily share them.
Second, there was a fundamental shift in which software became a commodity. I really think in the beginning it was about selling computers; it took a while for people to realize that software was not a 'value add' for the machine but a place to make much, much more money.
So when HC was conceived, it seemed natural to provide a tool to let people author their own software. As the business model changed, this idea lost out. Software should be something that people bought, not something people made
As I understand the history, a couple of things happened. First, HC got kicked around from one business entity to another, and was never wholeheartedly supported by Apple. It was kind of an orphan. There are legends that Bill Atkinson had to go ballistic in order to get it included with the Mac at all.
Second, HC reached its zenith (the final version was a real improvement over its predecessors) just as Apple went into somewhat of a dark age in between System 7 and OS X.
I loved my Mac but never felt that Apple was interested in encouraging indie or small-scale software development. I can't say that Windows was any better, but Windows had a built in lightweight API called MS-DOS.
Continuing my revisionist history, I think what happened next is simply that desirable computer system features proliferated more rapidly than any development tool could keep up with. And the diversity of interests in programming is what would stymie such a revival today.
