What? That’s way below freezing and totally unsafe. Why don’t you sleep in your car? (WARNING: Make sure your exhaust is uncovered and you’re not in your shed)
(Just to make it clear I didn't mean to downplay this. Obviously to survive in your house at -10c you do need preparations which I understand many people don't have not being used to these temperatures. It's easy to forget as someone who lives a bit further up north that it's not a given that people have thick air tight walls and heavy down filled blankets to help them through. So to answer my own question: It would be unsafe because they might not have the things they need to be safe.)
He as written many useful books and identified a core set of principles for good design. That is much harder than being a cog in the building of a successful product.
That's an entirely circular argument and doesn't prove anything about Uncle Bob.
Question: Why should I listen to Uncle Bob?
Answer: Because he wrote a book telling you what to do.
He's got some un-controversially good opinions but he also has some opinions that are just plain stupid. Since his opinions don't compile and aren't testable, it's not easy to rate their over all value.
Are we sure they're good design principles? Have they been used to design and build something successful?
I think that's the source of consternation: he preaches, and has religious fervor, but what has his principle set built (even if it's not him doing the building!)? I honestly don't know the answer there...but it's definitely not obvious. It frames his arguments are 'just trust me', which rubs a lot of people wrong.
Okay good for you, why add your voice and make it harder for the vast majority of people that don’t want this. Go sit in your office when the quarantine is done but please be quiet about your opinions so legitimate change can happen before then for the rest of us.
I could care less about their terrible tech stack. What I will not stand for is the deletion of opposing viewpoints and the seeming lack of moderation over talk of violence, hate mongering and the cultivation of racist and neo-Nazi sentiment.
Cancel culture has been frivolously applied to a lot of situations where it does not make sense to. Rob Monster literally has said himself he wants to provide a place to foment specifically far-right ideology. He is extremely deserving of a “cancel”.
He has said himself that he want to provide a space to foment and cultivate far-right ideology on the internet. That’s a Nazi and your prevaricating is obvious.
Yes, it is. I don't think that you should be cancelled for being a communist, a nazi, a black nationalist or whatever, simply for holding such opinions. Really outrageous thing to say, I know.
People refusing to speak with you or buy things from you is not "being canceled". You do not have a right to force people to listen to you, or force people to do business with you.
You are protected from the -government- by the 1st amendment, and other laws prohibit you or your business from discriminating based on protected classes. You are not protected from the court of public opinion, and rightly so.
Of course you should be free to say "I agree with Nazi views", and of course I should be allowed to say "that's idiotic, goodbye".
I really don't understand how people seem to think that I -must- respect your opinion no matter what it is, and that I -must- continue to speak with you or do business with you. Where is -my- freedom? If you disagree, then don't give me money and maybe my business will fail! But I should be free to do that.
While access to the airwaves clearly bumps up against questions of First Amendment rights and protections thereof, the airwaves themselves are a finite national resource---at least the way the system was originally set up, two signals cannot share the same carrier frequency, so the FCC has the responsibility of allocating those resources.
The allocation criteria include responsible use of the resources by those to whom they've been allotted for the public good, because those resources have been de facto denied to other private citizens. What that "for the public good" clause means, though, is forever under scrutiny and up for debate.
For historical reasons, the FCC distinguishes obscene or profane material from the general category of material with a viewpoint. The FCC is constrained from sanctioning broadcasters for broadcasting a particular view, but does have general authority to sanction across the board for profanity broadcast within a certain time range (when children are assumed present) and from obscene material at all points in time. For more information: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech
The Internet did not grow up in an ecosystem of similar government constraints because it is not a resource with the physical finiteness of communication spectrum---we can always attach more computers. Plus, if I understand the philosophy correctly, a fundamental difference was understood between broadcast material---what's your user can receive whether or not they wish to but just leaving their receiver tuned to the relevant station---and online material, which the user only receives if they make an explicit request for.
All of that having been said, this is all muddy, and arguments can certainly be made that various aspects of it are incorrectly reasoned, outdated, or bad analogy.
Cancel culture is not really a thing, as much as comedians like to talk about it (on huge platforms like netflix).
People are speaking with the only thing companies give a damn about- money. They want people to be held accountable for things, and are actually willing to put money where their mouth is. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with free market capitalism.
It's not even really political, as people on both sides get "canceled"- I mean, occasionally get held accountable for their actions. There are dumb instances (like Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, Jeffrey Tambor) and others where people jump the gun, but overall I can't say it's really a bad thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions, end of story.
As the saying goes: if you see shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.
The phrase "get held accountable" is an amazing use of passive voice.
It's effectively the same as the transitive verb "to punish", but it avoids having a subject entirely.
The implicit subject becomes some universal morality, which we might personify as God. People who use it assert that they act on behalf of God -- or, perhaps, that they themselves are God. "Deus vult!"
It's very similar to what I've heard described as a "fact-shaped" phrase. For example: "Time's up." Here you transform the imperative sentence "Comply now!" into a declarative sentence. You make your own will sound like an irresistible law of nature.
A person who observes the frequent abuse of this rhetorical device might conclude that facts do not exist at all, but are merely expressions of Power. An alternative to that cynicism is to maintain belief in Fact, while recognizing "fact-shaped" rhetorical tricks for what they are.
Returning to the original topic: When we say "People need to be held accountable for their actions", we are really saying "It is good that people punish one another." That is probably still true. But now we see more honestly the interaction of multiple parties. And we can consider the structure of those interactions.
For example: Do we still get the good things that come from repeated games, when the punisher cannot themselves be punished?
"Returning to the original topic: When we say "People need to be held accountable for their actions", we are really saying "It is good that people punish one another." That is probably still true. But now we see more honestly the interaction of multiple parties. And we can consider the structure of those interactions."
While I don't disagree with making things more explicit, I believe the intent in the original phrasing was clear enough.
"Do we still get the good things that come from repeated games, when the punisher cannot themselves be punished?"
A lot of times, celebrities don't even get "canceled". They lie low for a bit, and come back. While it's true that sometimes the public is unfair and jumps the gun, the only thing we can do is be vocal about well... not jumping the gun on allegations.
While the populace at large can't get punished, the punishments are also much softer. Louis CK didn't go to jail- he just had his comedy career ended (rightly so). He's mostly free to do other things, especially around now that people are starting to forget. Which is also an issue of the populace at large- it has a bad memory for most people.
I mean, you can assert that baselessly, or you could read literally anything about the prevalence of "cancellation" in both the private and public spheres, especially among gen-z cohorts:
People now realize that they can assert their opinions and hold people accountable, whereas in the past other people may have just shrugged and gone "well, that's just how it is".
In the case of the article you linked, the first example of "canceling" was someone walking out of a classroom after requesting a song to not be played. This is not unreasonable given the R.Kelly allegations and documentary.
The second example of "canceling" is literally just deciding to ignore someone, and make other people aware of it and reason behind it. How on earth is that a new phenomenon? She had a valid reason too!
The third example with James Charles is also not unreasonable, and by "canceled" they really mean "people got upset and didn't want to watch his videos anymore". Are you seriously going to argue that if I get upset with someone, I should continue to watch their videos? That's not canceling someone!
So I'm going to repeat it: Cancel "culture" is not really a thing. People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs. And good for it.
If you are a fan of cancel culture, you're free to express that opinion.
But what you seem to be saying is "cancel culture exists, but is not a problem IMO", given that you quoted several instances of it existing, and literally said "People from these last two generations are more vocal about their beliefs" (and thus, in their own words, cancel people).
I'm not sure what you are imagining as the strawman of "cancel culture" which you are asserting doesn't exist?
I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.
I do not think what people recently have been referring to as "cancel culture" exists. They are prescribing their own view onto what humans have been doing for hundreds of years. The primary difference is that people are now holding others accountable more than they did before. So maybe one could refer to this as a new "accountability culture".
But walking out of a room because you did not like the content is not a new phenomenon. Giving someone the cold shoulder because you don't like them or they did something to you, is not a new phenomenon. Choosing to not listen to artists because of their controversial life is not a new phenomenon.
To reiterate. For that second example, she decided that she didn't want to engage with him because he used racial slurs. This is not "canceling" someone- it is calling them out for unacceptable behavior. Nobody was forced into agreeing with her. So to call this as "canceling someone" is patently ridiculous. She's free to point out he uses racial slurs, and others are free to continue to engage or disengage. This is not "cancel culture"!
I did not quote several instances of "cancel culture". That article had several examples of people putting their foot down about their beliefs. Nothing new here.
>I am a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. People should be held accountable, and I don't think anyone would find this to be unreasonable.
How can you be a fan of people being vocal about their beliefs, even when you disagree with them, while also being a fan of punishing people for being vocal about beliefs which you disagree with? (Assuming you're not a sadist)
But he's actively endorsing a viewpoint which attempts to silence (through social coercion) dissenting views. This is at odds with his professed support for... dissenting views.
“People are calling out injustice rather than letting it slide” is the viewpoint he’s endorsing, which is an “attempt to silence dissenting views”? Silencing dissenting views has a very concrete meaning, which has apparently been hijacked by some people to fit their narrative of a non existent cancel culture.
I find this to be a bit of a bad comparison. /r/politics downvotes opposing viewpoints - they aren’t banned. And there are many, many other subreddits where you will find opinions completely different from those of the /r/politics orthodoxy.
There's not really a way to prove it, since reddit doesn't have transparent moderation, but in my experience /r/politics tends to ban users with different viewpoints.
You believe something that doesn't have a way to prove it? Were you banned personally? Or are just believing anecdotes from people with an agenda?
What makes you believe it then? Anyway, that sub bans people only for violent threats and such, but opposing viewpoints are downvoted a lot. They even have some pro-Trump mods on their team who can see and reverse mod actions including bans.
Anyway you can try an experiment if you care, post on there (with a new account if needed) very partisan stuff, but don't advocate for violence, and you'll find yourself not banned.
Why would there be a lot of opposing viewpoints that are buried under downvotes if you sort by controversial then? You’re making claims with no basis whatsoever.
Do they? Or is it someone with opposing view points that also happen to be racist/belligerent getting banned, and think it's because of their opposing view points rather than being racist/belligerent?
I have no experience with /r/politics but I've seen other subreddits make absolutely no distinction between "having moderately opposing viewpoints" and "being racist/belligerent/troll/brigader", so it results in a ban.
No, you're thinking of /r/conservative, which literally has "flaired users only" posts, and insta-bans people who express even mild criticism of conservative talking points.
"Do not violate the Mission Statement. (We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.)"
And when you suffer from constant brigading, this is a reasonable way to deal with it. If /r/liberal did this, fine. /r/politics belies its name by being a liberal echo chamber. And _yes_ you can easily get banned there for expressing perfectly benign, but unpopular views.
To a pizza driver, a more dangerous job than being a cop, the biggest threat is another human as well. That doesn’t mean they can go around shooting undeserving people. You’re rationalizing criminal behavior.
I’m not rationalizing or endorsing anything. I’m describing the nature of the problem. We will never see any change unless people understand the problem.
Always on body cams, ending civil forfeiture, replacement of police unions with individual liability insurance, third party review boards are just a few.
I think the strongest are review boards and body cams, and the weakest are busting the unions and individual insurance. For the latter, I haven't seen any data showing public support over 50%.
I think the most productive changes would be legalization and demilitarization of the the war on drugs. A centralized database of police violence and complaints would be the next step, and this could go hand in hand with third party review boards.
Even if your proposals and mine were adopted entirely, I don't think they would resolve the fundamental problems with police violence and bring behavior in line with expectations.
The police unions have too strong of an influence on government and are rife with corruption, nepotism, favoritism and worse. Breaking up the union and individual insurance are the number one priorities to break the back of the excessive authority the cops currently wield. Everything else is a nice to have.
It’s not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in the nation. It’s simple, they are an armed gang with authority and are using their teamism to keep their power. It needs to be wrenched away and cops should be what they are everywhere else — servants for the public good.
