Generally speaking, most people on the left talk about a certain number of ideas. For example, many on the left believe strongly in trans rights. They believe that trans rights are either being actively limited or are actively under threat by people they believe are trying to either get rid of them or force them back into the shadows.
So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs.
People on the left generally do not believe strongly that “more discussion leads to correct beliefs”. They point to the many moral panics, bigoted movements, and real harm done to certain groups in history and do not believe that what some call “open discussion” has historically always led to the least harm.
People on the left generally do not believe that all discussion needs to be censored or tightly controlled. Rather, they view certain beliefs and viewpoints as actively harmful because they spread harmful beliefs about particular demographics. They believe that political discussion can, and does, go beyond what is useful or helpful sometimes.
No, I didn't make any statement on Musk's politics; it wasn't the part of the comment that interested me.
To the extent you slightly implied you were interested in what I think, he certainly seems trending far-right to me, but I think you need to moderate any thoughts on Musk with the reminder that he loves the drama, enjoys trolling, and has an almost unique freedom (in the west) to say whatever he likes online. Combine that with the drugs and his current ego trip, and I don't think it's that easy to say what he actually thinks, and I certainly don't think it's worth a lot of my time to consider it deeply.
I agree that banning cis while allowing the n-word is a concrete example, thank you. Super dumb. Speaking as a cishet guy. Also, banning cis seems essentially performative for Musk's (target?) audience(s?) -- I note that anti-trans rhetoric was one of the major platform points for Republicans in this election, so it's not, like, risky performativism, just run of the mill performativism.
Do religious and political movements always develop such sects within a decade or so of their founding? If not then I'm not sure wokeness has existed for sufficient time (since the mid 2010s in the form it's discussed in the article I think) that the analysis you present here applies.
But I still find the analysis interesting. I think one difference between wokeness and political and religious movements is that wokeness doesn't seem to have a doctrine.
I didn't mean to imply that pg was saying that these incidents were unjustified or performative. I just think it's telling that the actual real-world events he discusses are not examples of the supposed overwhelming trend he's trying to diagnose.
I think if he tried to actually discuss the main events of cancel culture, it would give the game away, because it would be a lot of penny-ante whining about minor setbacks in people's professional lives. Like, who is the most prominent example of an unjustly cancelled person? Larry Summers, who had to leave his job at Harvard almost 20 years ago, and later served a prominent role in the Obama administration? I'm inclined to take Summers' side in the controversy, but if that is a historically significant injustice in your worldview then you might be suffering an advanced case of brainrot.
To be fair, other non-cosmetic stuff uses the CPU percentage. This same bug was preventing fast user suspend on the OLPC until they worked around it. It was also a fun challenge.
The fact they do this is not very surprising, what I find surprising is the velocity of the change of sentiment in large parts of the tech industry. It seems a lot of people were fed up caring about these topics and feel safe to openly say so now. That wasn’t the case during the first Trump administration, so I wonder what affected this change of heart now?
Hanania's book is called "The Origins of Woke" and specifically calls for massive changes to Title 7 and jurisprudence surrounding it. Hanania has a record of contributing to explicitly white supremacist web sites. Though they claim to have softened their beliefs, they continue to cite other contributors to these sites.
It is possible that PG is not aware of Hanania's book. But I think the connection is worth interrogating.
Where do these principles of equality and tolerance come from? Are they descriptions of a stochastic processes produced by one of an infinite series of marble machines, or do they have a deeper root in something that is true for all places and times (I'll even accept roots in something that is true (not just acceptable) for this time, for all people within this time)?
If anyone's familiar with Christianism they will be also familiar with Pharisians, mentioned probably mentioned more frequently in the New Testament than the old (Jesus often recused their ways)
>The cost per spin is the thing that makes it gambling.
The "landlord" aka casino constantly requiring that you pay `X credits within N spins` or else it's game over is just moving when the subtraction of player's credits happens. It's X/N credits per spin.
It’s an issue with all metaphorical language. You want to compare it with one thing (irresistibility of the call, as TFA) and some non-zero percentage of your audience makes a different association (lured to their doom, as your interpretation).
>Excluding contradicting data is how you corrupt an analysis to match the thesis statement.
I used to call it the First Fundamental Law on Creation of Effective Propaganda.
It went like this - You can prove anything if you ignore enough data.
Nowadays I have a more modern definition - You can prove anything if you exclude or ignore all the data that doesn't fit your desired conclusion.
Your statement aligns with something that I used to point out to my colleagues any time we were faced with the task of analyzing mountains of data in order to find enough evidence to support a conclusion that management desired or needed in order support marketing efforts. By framing it like this with management and marketing present I was able to point out that the real objective should always be to see where the data takes us so that we can identify valid conclusions supported by the data. Those conclusions could then become the basis for product improvements that would be marketable to existing and future clients.
Yes exactly. The whole debate doesn't change the fact that certain people form the lower class, and those people tend to also have certain physical characteristics.
So I only use facebook on desktop, I don't have it installed on my phone. When I go to the website, at the top of the page is 'feeds' and on the left is 'friends' filter. I just bookmark that page and only view that.
> It's not like someone at Google will ever read your blog and offer you a job; if you want to work at Google, learn how to pass their interview process.
My blog _did_ directly cause that from Google, many years ago -- although obviously I still had to go through the interview process. And my blog definitely helped me land my past and current jobs as recently as 2 years ago.
The BBC TV series “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” touches on efforts in the last decades of the 20th century to model ecosystems with feedback loop models. It’s quite well-directed, and an interesting watch if you liked the Wikipedia article.
So, when a prominent figure such as JK Rowling starts both talking about “protecting women” and the “trans mafia”, they become concerned about what influence she might have on the debate on the rights of trans people. They criticize what they believe to be false or harmful beliefs about trans people and believe that her words are actively doing harm by promoting those false beliefs.
People on the left generally do not believe strongly that “more discussion leads to correct beliefs”. They point to the many moral panics, bigoted movements, and real harm done to certain groups in history and do not believe that what some call “open discussion” has historically always led to the least harm.
People on the left generally do not believe that all discussion needs to be censored or tightly controlled. Rather, they view certain beliefs and viewpoints as actively harmful because they spread harmful beliefs about particular demographics. They believe that political discussion can, and does, go beyond what is useful or helpful sometimes.