This basically is a set of summarizations of episodes Black Mirror. You should really watch Black Mirror before you read this piece. The idea of good SciFi is that is supposed to parallel reality so that you can suspend your disbelief and all the article does is attempt to make those connections that the authors put in intentionally.
I remember asking someone why Cyberpunk died and he said, a dystopian and orwellian future where we lose our individuality in favor of technical advancement? Why would anyone be interested in that as fiction, it's what we're living today.
Is there more to this story? I'm blown away. That's insane and very troubling.
EDIT: It seems that the poster above may have left out some important details. According to an alleged screenshot linked below, the tweet actually said: "Will the 2nd amendment be as cool when I buy a gun start shooting at random white people?"
This is not obviously just an abstract political point. It could understandably be interpreted as a direct threat.
How do we know those are the actual deleted tweets?
(Now we have a truth problem don't we? I could be lying, the guy posting the screenshots could be lying, the original poster could be lying. Turtles all the way down)
Yes there is. The actual tweet, verbatim was "will the 2nd amendment be as cool when i buy a gun and start shooting atrandom white people or no...[two eyes emoji]". Scroll down in the thread to see it.
This is exactly the kind of misinformation bubble that people are talking about. Kevin Allred is clearly misrepresenting his original tweet.
I agree misinformation/misrepresentation is a problem. Do you think this misinformation bubble is happening more on one side or the other, or is more evenly split?
I think the left tends to deal in half truths or highly questionable interpretations of facts passed off as facts, while the right deals more in outright lies.
But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much. So their falsehoods are actually more effective
It'd be interesting to dig in and see what the distribution of methods is. There should be enough out there on line now, if someone wanted to take it on.
Then again, who'd believe the results? :) Who fact checks the fact checkers?
"But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much."
Sure, I will give an example. Most people on the left believe that black Americans commit more crime per capita then whites, and that this is due to various sociostructural phenomena. However another common viewpoint is that the gap in conviction rates is actually due to a biased justice system and blacks do not actually commit more crime.
The latter view is rarely argued in academic circles so I've never seen it rigorously defended. But it is passed off as fact to the general public.
Now I am not able to correct this later group because if I do so, not only will they attack me as racist, but the former group will not defend me. In fact the former group will say "the only reason you would present this fact in isolation is because you want to imply black people are genetically inclined to crime". This would most likely result in disciplinary action in my workplace.
Thanks for the response. What I was hoping to see was some support based on some broad, non-anecdotal, cross-domain research that showed that the left (by some definition) exerts statistically more power in actually firing people for ideological reasons. Please don't take that as a criticism. I'm not looking to score points. I suspect this kind of research is hard to do in a convincing manner.
> "would conservatives care as much abt the 2nd amendment if guns killed more white people? a question meant to expose double standard"
We already have the answer to that question and it is a resounding YES. When the Black Panthers decided to open carry in California in the 70s (I think it was the 70s) conservatives freaked out and passed legislation (led by Reagan I believe) to limit the rights of Californian citizens to open carry.
Twitter reserves the right to kick out whomever it feels violates their policy. As a corporate entity, they have that right.
What I don't agree with is the targeting of a single ideology. If they are doing this in the name of sanitizing content, fine, but sanitize hate speech from all sides.
That said, my preference would be for them to provide better tools for people to manage content of hate or abuse. Of course then we get the echo chamber effect.
Twitter reserves the right to kick out whomever it feels violates their policy. As a corporate entity, they have that right.
One could have argued for that same premise for the "government" in the dark ages. At what point does an entity have to obtain enormous power over everyday life to become seen as a "government"? And at what point do we allow our basic lives to become so censored by corporations before we acknowledge it as hampering our first amendment?
Explain this. What would you consider "legitimate"?
Next question.
And try not to sound like such an arrogant piece of shit next time you hand-wave difficult questions which challenge your perception of right and wrong.
Sorry I was an ass. But I do really think your question has had a very good answer for over 300 years. What is considered legitimate is necessarily a subjective call, and will differ from community to community.
I love how the guy they've talked to compares his banning to Hitlers purge of SA leaders.
The purge of SA happened after Hindenburg threatened Hitler with martial law if Hitler didn't reign in SA (though Hitler had his own motives for going along with it - they were a threat to him as well), which were seen as particularly nasty and brutal.
Comparing yourself with the people that other parts of German society at the time literally saw as worse than Hitler is perhaps not quite what to go for when trying to elicit sympathy.
He should at the very least then not complain if people call him a nazi.
Seems that anti-white slurs and calls for a president assassination are a-OK with Twitter though[1]. Hypocrisy much ? But considering who's the generous donator [2], I'm not even shocked.
A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals. Small things like whether the candidate would do a good job running the government didn't really enter into the picture because hate of "the other side" is the only thing that mattered.
And it continues now, I was just reading someone saying that the choice of Bannon is great because it upset liberals. Apparently that's the only qualification you need to run the government of the world's largest economy and military.
This logic, if liberals hate it it is good, is going to be the ruin of the republic.
Dream on. I am liberal/democratic and I think this election was lost because the dems had the wrong candidate and didn't offer any thing different. It was an election of "pick the least worse choice" for many people. Period.
Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward.
Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful.
> Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward.
Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help.
Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)
True, but when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40%, even with the best defenses.
Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her.
So, whatever they did, it was very, very effective. It really sapped a lot of supporters motivation, at the very least.
George Lakoff has written some interesting books on the topic of reframing. I recommend reading some of his work. I'm sure that the science has evolved considerably since 2004, when I first read him.
> when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40%
Yes. This is SOP.
> But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her.
Don't take this the wrong way, but to me that sounds like cognitive dissonance. If you believe that it was actually unfactual information, I would suggest researching what influenced you badly and try to identify that next time.
Most of this stuff has remained the same since Robert Caldini wrote about it in his book Influence. It's just the tactics and strategies on how to apply them.
I had to look up cognitive dissonance, but I suppose that fits. I had an emotional response and a logical response, and they were in conflict. I had to actually physically list out all of the things that I liked about Clinton vs. what I didn't like to make a rational decision. By far, my list was in favor of Clinton. So, that my emotions said otherwise was odd.
My point is that Hillary wasn't discredited because of some mass disinformation campaign like the new york times recently admitted to (http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-tr...), it was done by whistleblowers. Who cares who called 911 to report the crime? The issue is the criminal.
You may want to reevaluate your stance after you look more closely at the evidence. For example, the supposed "smoking gun" emails about her rigging the primary. Do you know what everyone failed to report on those? The date the emails were sent. They were all sent after Sanders had already lost. Clinton was already the nominee. Of course they would talk about how they are going to help her in the general -- because she was already the candidate.
It was important details like that that were intentionally left out of the reporting to make her look worse.
Edit: Not that it should matter, but I voted for and contributed to the Sanders campaign. I wanted him to win, but I also believe in facts.
This is complete nonsense. Sanders' campaign slowed down and came to a halt throughout June and July 2016. E-mails related to backstabbing Sanders were sent as much as a year before that. Sanders was clearly used as a means to haul in the far left vote and transfer it over to Hillary.
jedberg, I've looked quite closely at a lot of evidence surrounding the Clintons. Picking one aspect of one scandal and discrediting it is not going to change my mind. We'd have to have monstrous discussion of events going back to the 80s. Even if we did, it's far from certainty that it would change my mind. In any case, I don't think Hacker News is an appropriate venue for such a conversation.
I wanted to limit the scope of my comment to contradicting guelo's specific assertion that "A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals". It's important to me that you (the public) understand why your liberal candidate lost. And it's not to spite liberals; it's because the DNC chose to prop up a very seriously compromised candidate. My hope is that next time they can offer a better alternative, rather than blaming their loss on a how terrible American voters are.
The DNC screwed this up, and I have not heard one word from the Democratic party establishment admitting it. Alternatively, if they refuse to accept responsibility, I'd also be happy with the death of the Democratic party, and maybe something less corrupt could be born in its place.
Because he had already lost and they were trying to get him out of the race because at that point he was just dragging the party down. Using his Jewishness was wrong, but not corrupt.
What about the one discussing getting the New York primary moved up if Clinton were to get a big challenger so that she could get an early victory and kill that momentum? What about the ones discussing moving the Illinois primary back so that moderate republicans could not get early victories (and further the narrative that the right is extremist)? And what about the ones where Donna Brazile fed debate questions? And what about the ones showing clear collusion across the board with the media to appease Clinton and push the preferred narrative against her competition?
As someone who works in IT, I know how easy it is to forge emails. So far all those emails have been denied by their senders.
Using DKIM to "prove" they are real only works if you assume the attacker doesn't have access to the private key. If someone hacked the mail server, then they probably have the private key.
I'm saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying that everyone needs to be a little more critical in their analysis of the "evidence" presented.
You're right that the emails could have been forged. I take this as a serious possibility.
You say that "all those emails have been denied by their senders". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Would you mind linking it? I've been following the news rather closely, and I've never heard any sender of a leaked email say something to the effect of "I did not send this". The only thing they say is that they won't comment on veracity.
Also, the Wikileaks organization has never leaked forged documents before and have never lied. The Clintons and their cronies are caught in lies repeatedly. While it's not proof, you have to take things like credibility into account when evaluating who's lying this time.
However, for me, my mind was already made up before any emails were leaked based on the Clintons' previous scandals. If it were proven that the email leaks were entirely fabricated, I would definitely update my opinion of Wikileaks, but my opinion of the Clintons would remain unchanged.
Honest question: assuming that the Clintons are corrupt, do you believe that Trump and his cabinet would do a better job of being the President? Or is it more of a vote against Clinton than for Trump?
As I see it, didn't vote for either, when the devil you know is bad you gotta give hope a chance. That was the mantra back at the start of the Great Recession, hope it takes hold this time or we're just pouring gas on the fire.
I voted O in '08 and fully recognize he picked up a big bag of burning shit. Too bad he turned out to be the same as the old bosses and kept their cronies in key positions to wage war on the economy & invigorate armed conflicts around the world.
edit: i predict Trump will have an ineffectual four years and the next group selected to be elected may pander to the common folk a bit better.
Honest answer: I don't know. Moreover, I'm quite skeptical with others who seem to have such certainty on this issue.
I disliked and dislkike Trump. But my mind recoils at the thought that the Clintons' shenanigans will reap them the White House as a reward. The thought of that injustice makes my blood boil. My vote was a blocking move against Clinton.
Do you have any evidence you can provide of concrete behavior showing Bannon as racist?
I don't mean responses like "duh, CNN, Maher, Oliver, etc. say he is so duh", or "duh, he was the editor for Breitbart". I mean actual behavior that you can point to.
These accusations come off as "He plays for the other team, and calling him racist will marginalize and demonize him, so that's what I'll do". Willing to be proven wrong though.
Edit: curious, why downvote this instead of actually providing evidence?
The quote from his ex-wife is a fair point and does support your case. In the interest of full disclosure, would that statement be equally bad if you replaced the word "Jews" with "rednecks", or "catholics"? Sometimes seems like some groups can be stereotyped and some can't. (OT but related, plenty of first-hand accounts of the Clintons regularly using racially derogatory terms in their Arkansas days, but that doesn't seem to bother people.)
As for Breitbart, I think the "white ethno-" prefix may be unjustified, at least from what I have seen. It is, however, absolutely nationalist, as in anti-globalist, and pushes an agenda targeted at people who feel their standard of living has been reduced due to trade and immigration policies. The Guardian provided a fairly benign review at [1].
Just came across some more evidence in a wapo article today. Bannon opposing immigration for highly educated students says: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
Wanting to limit immigration doesn't make you racist, though. I take it as saying, essentially, if such a significant percentage of jobs in a top industry in this country are held by immigrants, are we maybe not doing enough to help our own residents in need of good paying jobs to be able to acquire these positions?
A CEO of a large software company is more than just a "good paying job" for Joe Sixpack over here. It requires experience, education, intuition - it's an incredibly unique position. It's not the kind of thing that you can just go to school for or train in some government New Deal program an then come out with six offers. What Bannon is speaking to isn't about helping the little guy get jobs, it's about getting 'Americans' (see: white) to be in these positions of powers.
Let me preface by stating that these are vague, short statements that we are trying to use to extrapolate to some fairly large assertions, and we all come into them with a bias and interpret them based on those biases.
That said, the way I interpreted the CEO statement was that it is symbolic of the depth of penetration of immigrants in the tech labor pool. If that large a percentage of CEOs are immigrants, imagine the numbers from the top to the bottom of the org charts. None of these CEO jobs are going to people straight out of college, they are working their way through the industry.
I've been in this industry for 20 years, at all levels. I haven't seen too many entry level positions that Americans can't be easily trained for, yet there is a nonstop push to massively increase annual H1B limits. At some point, someone has to ask why we can't fill that need with the people we have.
No doubt immigrants would still likely be over-represented at the higher echelons because a person willing to move across the world likely has more drive to get there, but it still seems like we should feel a civic duty to use what we can from home before increasing the numbers coming in.
His behavior as the editor of Breitbart doesn't count? Why not? Former editors and writers for the outlet have commented at length at how he essentially turned it into an alt-right clearinghouse. Bannon himself has said that it is the platform for the alt-right. Are you going to now argue that the alt-right movement is not racist or motivated by racial concerns? How about all the stormfronters and ethno-nationalists who are cheering his appointment?
Sure, his Breitbart days count, I was just saying that what you typically hear is "Breitbart is racist" without any actual justification, so I was looking for actual examples that show the clear racism as opposed to just saying "Breitbart".
As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument. People, good or bad (or like most of us, good and bad) want to feel that their concerns are heard. I think most of the people championing Bannon are concerned about their standard of living being reduced over the last 30 years, and feeling that trade and immigration policies have been the largest contributors to that decline. They feel Bannon gives them a voice. I have no doubt that plenty of bad people may also feel that Bannon speaks for them, but that doesn't mean he actually is.
> I think most of the people championing Bannon are concerned about their standard of living being reduced over the last 30 years, and feeling that trade and immigration policies have been the largest contributors to that decline.
Sure and those are valid concerns. However they are oftentimes framed through a racial lens which Breitbart plays to all the time. To wit, Breitbart continously pushes the "black on black" violence talking point whenever police shootings, police reform, or hell anything related to black people. Like, just look at this article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta... - does it ever go into the context of these shootings or try to assess them critically? No, it just parrots statistics and then labels Black Lives Matter protesters as "blood-lusting junkies"
>Bannon didn’t just make Breitbart a safe space for white supremacists; he’s also welcomed a scholar blacklisted from the mainstream conservative movement for arguing there’s a connection between race and IQ. Breitbart frequently highlights the work of Jason Richwine, who resigned from the conservative Heritage Foundation when news broke that his Harvard dissertation argued in part that Hispanics have lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites.
>As for bad people supporting someone, bad people support everyone, so that's not really an argument
I agree, those articles are all one sided. To me, that material comes off as the same way that groups like the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam / Farrakhan target their audiences but at the opposite end of the spectrum. Both are using one-sided rhetoric to advance their case and incite their audience. I think that there is a nuance there, and while Farrakhan and the Black Panthers and their supporters may at times have a lot of animosity, anger, distrust, etc., labelling those groups as racist and something to be ignored is not really fair. I think you have to treat the same feelings on the other side of the spectrum the same way, though, as it is really the same emotions being drawn out.
I see your point, though, in that it would be sort of like having Farrakhan's press secretary or speech writer being appointed as chief strategist for Obama. The right would go apeshit.
That is fair..though it might be more beneficial to add a comment stating this at the first point in the tree where things go off topic. Once it gets down this far, everyone's mindset is already off topic.
This comment does not deserve downvotes. When you punish people for asking polite honest questions, you bring down the level of discourse and turn this place into an echo chamber.
We disagree on this point. I believe that Clinton is the most corrupt politician the US has ever seen.
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to when you talk about Trump's corruption, but if you're referring to his buying and bribing of politicians, I don't consider that corruption. It's wrong and illegal, sure, but the private citizen bribing politicians is not betraying the trust of the electorate in the same way that the politician is.
(Seemingly similarly, I go against the societal grain in that I don't think that people who sleep with married people are doing anything wrong; they're not the one who made the commitment.)
If you're any kind of liberal or leftist, you could have voted for the Green Party, written in Bernie Sanders, or left your Presidential ballot line blank. You didn't have to support fascism.
I'm very sympathetic to that viewpoint. I mulled over the idea of voting for a third party long and hard. I would have preferred Sanders, Stein, or Johnson over Trump. In the end, I decided it was worth more to me to block Clinton. But don't pretend that it's an easy clear-cut decision to make.
I think that not voting for a fascist who staffs his administration with neo-Nazis is an easy, clear-cut decision for a leftist to take, even if you live in a swing state.
I appreciate and respect your opinion on this matter, though I don't happen to agree with it. I hope that this can be a lesson for leftists to take - that if you put up a poor enough candidate, you'll lose the votes of people like me. There should be consequences for the anti-democratic tactics the DNC used against Bernie.
> I appreciate and respect your opinion on this matter, though I don't happen to agree with it. I hope that this can be a lesson for leftists to take - that if you put up a poor enough candidate, you'll lose the votes of people like me. There should be consequences for the anti-democratic tactics the DNC used against Bernie.
Again: I'm not saying you should have voted for Clinton. I agree that the anti-democratic strategies of the "Democratic" Party deserve punishment. I'm saying you could have voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, who would have been, at least, not a fascist.
Don't blame me. Blame the incentives created by first-past-the-post voting.
Edit: Just to avoid confusion, by this I mean that though I would have been happier with Johnson or Stein in the White House, realistically either Clinton or Trump would win. Not voting for Clinton would have been good, but voting for Trump is a better way to ensure Clinton doesn't win, which was my primary drive.
I really like that video. Dehumanizing Trump supporters is as bad as dehumanizing any other group. The answer is good reasoned discussions instead of harsh out of place answers. Playing nice has its reward in the long term.
Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.
So here's a perspective on the parent's statement and yours.
Being placed on a registry = bad.
- Have you supported or opposed gun registration?
- Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list?
If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective?
If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency.
Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable?
The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov
So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion.
This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.
You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. If that is the case, how is the reason for being on that registry given of a difference of weight? There are also historical patterns for what happens following a weapons registry...and none of them are good.
Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper.
Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.
> Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination.
> You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination.
Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original.
It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.
Actually I don't see how you can say that registration of gun ownership isn't the same as registration by religion. For many second amendment supporters it seems to equate to the same thing.
The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything.
Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.
hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but...
The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ).
So, examples.
Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes )
Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc )
Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous...
I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
>> Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people
Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others.
I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect.
>> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.
At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1
> If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
I completely understand why a Muslim registry sounds good to a lot of people. That doesn't make it a good idea.
(For what it's worth, the no-fly-list is an abomination, poorly thought out and poorly implemented.)
Many people oppose both the No Fly List and the registering of Muslims. It's not about which evil bastard in office did what. It's about drawing a line now, and getting the hell back to the safe part of the political spectrum, before there are human ashes rising from chimneys.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make here?
First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging.
Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1]
Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires.
What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again?
Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter.
Brendan Eich? Yeah, here's what happened to him: he's now the CEO of another corporation. Not exactly the stuff of martyrdom...
It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla.
It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.
To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning.
I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning
the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.
Gun ownership may not be a religion in itself, but the belief in the right to self defense, or to not be criminalized in advance, can certainly flow from religious beliefs.
The only powerful institution engaging the type of widespread dehumanization that gets people on registries right now is the mainstream media. And it's getting a free pass to do so.
60m people, many in counties that voted for Obama twice... And the left wants to call them all racists and bigots because they weren't as motivated by LGBT and gender issues compared to supporting free speech (fuck safe spaces), avoiding more neocon foreign policy (Syria, Yemen), and blocking free form globalization?
Good luck. There was once a time when democrats led the charge on these issues. WTF happened?
I voted against Trump because I am afraid of what he might do to the environment (like appointing a climate change denier to office) and to our civil liberties (like appointing anti choice justices).
There are legitimately bigoted things that came from Trump supports and arguably Trump himself.
I don't understand this rising hatred towards "safe spaces", but maybe I don't think of them like you do. To me, I see a safe space as something like a home, where someone can relax and be themselves. Every single person should have access to a "safe space".
If your idea of a "safe space" is something different please let me know.
Walk onto a college campus. This isn't about private property. This is about suppressing discussion because you disagree with it. That mentality is why identity politics is so bad. Instead of seeking out people that disagree with us, we're isolating ourselves both digitally and physically within our little tribes.
I'm pro-choice BTW, but it isn't a top issue compared to the others. Call me a bigot as much as you want, it won't change my vote.
>Instead of seeking out people that disagree with us, we're isolating ourselves both digitally and physically within our little tribes.
I completely agree that this is a huge issue, but many Trump supporters seem to fall right into this behavior as well, basically going "if it's not on Breitbart, it can't be true!". In fact, his whole campaign was engineered to convince people that everyone else is lying while only he tells it how it is (while framing his arguments with blatant lies left and right)
Your perception of Trump supporters is based on those you know personally? Where are you located?
If not, then have you considered that your perception might be influenced by mass media and your own echo chamber?
I live in Chicago and worked for the Progressives, so I feel pretty good about my lens. I also don't read any of that alt right garbage.
Edit: I would argue that the tribalism and unwillingness to listen is represented by small, but noisy, factions on both sides and that by and large people voted according to rational concerns. If we can purge those extremes from both our respective parties, we'd be better off and much happier.
I attended a private (nominally Christian) liberal arts college and I find that I do agree with you on the suppression of discussion that many people found disagreeable. That's a legitimate problem.
I was a member of a free thinkers group there and we were derided for being open atheists/antitheists on an "inclusive" campus. I think there should be places for open discussion that makes us uncomfortable especially on college campuses.
And while I do find demonizing people and shutting the door to conversation to be morally reprehensible, I find demonizing people and basing policy on such demonization to be worse.
I too hope that we can have conversations about controversial ideas (I hold many of them myself), but I don't think saying eliminating safe spaces is a way to accomplish that.
Term safe space is being perverted by people who can't cope with feelings caused by reality of every day occasions - they're "triggered" for every thing they feel non happiness.
It's a direct result of being pampered from primary schools on with "everybody is a winner" trope. America is specially obsessed with happiness and if somehow someone is causing icky feelings, these people scream about "safe space" - it's what they've been let all these years anyway.
I heavily doubt your characterization of the average reasons people voted Trump. Only one candidate threatened journalists with "opening libel laws," where was the hand-wringing about "Free Speech" then? Where was the worry about neocon foreign policy when candidates endorsed torture, carpet bombing the middle east, killing the families of terrorists, and reimbursing ourselves with Iraq's oil after the invasion?
People mostly choose their candidate and make justifications after the fact. I do believe that the rhetoric of the left probably drove conservative voters away, but that has nothing to do with what "Free Speech" actually refers to and a lot more to do with cultural values, hating the liberal elite for being liberal more than being elite, and a vague sense of "feeling attacked."
Trump supports free speech? He promised to strengthen libel laws (pretty sure there aren't any such thing at the federal level now ...)
He said a lot of things freely, and a lot of them are interpreted by many as racist or otherwise categorized as bigotry.
I can see the viewpoint that supporting Trump is much more about supporting bigotry than it is about supporting free speech, based on his words and his promises. I have more trouble seeing the viewpoint of the inverse, at this point still.
But good reasoned discussions will never work on most voters. Facts might make them sheepish for a while if confronted, but they'll soon retreat to news which assuages their confirmation bias. Only large-scale demonstrations and emotional reactions are going to work against that. Make these people feel like they're in the out group, for once.
I'm not offended at all. I just happened across that video a few days ago, I saw the line I quoted in the article, and connected the dots from that video to the quote.
I suppose it is entirely possible I misunderstood the point the guy in the video was trying to make. I certainly didn't mean to come across as offended.
I wouldn't say "reeling" I would say "rejoicing"--we are desperate to get back any semblance of regular people having control over the levers of power in the US. ANY SEMBLANCE.
I'm curious - how has anything Donald Trump done since becoming President Elect shown regular people having control over the levers of power? Best I can see, he's taking the same old Republicans (Giuliani, Gingrich) and reinstalling them into government, throwing in some lobbyists and his extremely rich son-in-law for good measure.
Please enlighten us with your definition of "regular people" here and ask yourself if the line worker at a Ford factory is necessarily instantly qualified to the CEO.
Since this seems to be the current political front-page thread, I'm going to get some things off my chest as a libertarian who voted straight big "L" libertarian ticket with the exception of Clinton as president (which I did with great distaste and only to vote against Trump).
All of you who are raging against the censorship and unfair power of the PC and SJW movement have an absolutely legitimate complaint. I too have been prejudged and attacked by SJWs who made incorrect assumptions about me based solely on my skin color and gender. THAT SAID, do you realize what you've done by voting into power an authoritarian reality TV star with a history of chronic bankruptcy, loose business ethics (habitually stiffing contractors), and erratic behavior?
I'm sure you're satisfied that the SJWs are suffering now, but have you internalized the gravity of having Donald Trump in an executive office that has grown immensely powerful after the Bush and Obama administrations and 9/11?
Best case scenario is that Trump does a Nixon and uses our security apparatus to crack down on his enemies, such as the media and "traitor" Republicans. I think this is very likely. Worst case, and I say this honestly and with good faith: I can only hope we'll get to the end of these 4 years without seeing Russia occupy one or more of the Baltic republics and/or significant parts of Europe fall to far-right authoritarian/strongman parties, probably accompanied by significant violence.
What would happen then? Are you all prepared to fight in WW III just to spite a bunch of whiny college kids?
You all assume that everyone who opposes Trump is a "lib" or "SJW" or "Democrat". I don't give a rat's ass about any of those. The end of political correctness and social justice crusading would delight me, and I'd be very happy to see both major parties dissolve and a genuine multiparty system spring up in their place (yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen).
Finally, if you're a libertarian and voted for Trump, and you thought the Bush and Obama admins were bad (and they were!), just wait. Things are going to get crazy now. Any President-elect who is Tweeting 3 a.m. rants at a specific newspaper is not going to be a president who respects the 1st Amendment (and for the record, I'm a strong supporter all all the amendments, including the 2nd). Go look at what his base has been calling for on Breibart and r/The_Donald: shutting down unfavorable media outlets, hanging Soros (a US Citizen!) for treason without trial. Seriously, go check out r/The_Donald and tell me what kind of vibe you get.
How are they going to round up 3 million illegals? Random ID checks? Profiling?
I think a lot of people voted out of frustration (understandable), but gave the extraordinary power of the US Presidency to quite possibly a more unstable personality than Nixon (not understandable, and totally irrational).
> significant parts of Europe fall to far-right authoritarian/strongman parties
If this is about to happen, is only going to be as a reaction to the leftist policy in recent years - similar of Trump/Brexit. Merkel is probably next.
> If this is about to happen, is only going to be as a reaction to the leftist policy in recent years - similar of Trump/Brexit.
Can't we encourage people to react toward freedom and liberty? Toward less government control over our lives, and not toward some authoritarian charismatic who promises to save us all? I agree things have sucked for lots of Europeans, but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face, eh?
You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say - they are also exercising their own freedom of speech by doing so.
Furthermore traditionally we have drawn line beyond which speech is not free (for example shouting fire in a crowded theatre is traditionally not allowed).
>You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say
No, they are unwilling to consider the merits of another point of view. They are doing exactly what they are preaching against. This is why Trump is president. Dismissing everything you disagree with. No point in listening, no point in thinking. You already know what the other side has to say, right? So you listen with half ear and wait patiently to tell them how wrong they are.
So would you suggest we should have a safe space where people have to listen to each other?
I will defend people's right to say things I don't like hearing. However I will also defend other people's right to not listen (as long as they don't try to prevent the speech from happening) - that is also a freedom.
To modify a quote: Your liberty to speak ends where I am forced to listen to what you are saying, my freedom to not listen ends where I prevent you from speaking.
Downvoting does not prevent the speech from happening. It merely says I don't like this. Flagging does...
>my freedom to not listen ends where I prevent you from speaking.
But that is exactly what is happening. Liberals, or libtards would be the more correct term, are drowning everything they think they disagree with, creating echo chambers. This is what divided our societies and brought us Trump, Farage, LePen, etc.
Not a big issue for me, most media-driven issues have no bearing on my day-to-day directly, luckily. Until noise on the line could be considred an assault on intelligence, I could care less what media-darling group is being given more attention than they merit, but here's my guess:
Because "safe spaces" inspire unrealistic expectations of the real world and foster dependence and normalization of more institutional controls over the rest of the populace, perhaps.
It seems that you don't understand what safe spaces actually are. Safe spaces are places where marginalized groups such as LGBTQAI, racial and religious minorities, etc can express them selves without fear of violence
Myself I prefer optimistic SF such as classic Asimov and Clarke. I don't mind things going wrong because mistakes are normal. But there ought to be resolution and problems solved by hard-won knowledge and the efforts of good people. If you think that is immoral or unrealistic consider whether you would read your children bedtime stories with no good guys and/or no happy endings. Consider how such children might grow up. Then consider the effect on society of unrelenting pessimism in SF.
Scifi has always been a source of "what-if" predictions, warning us of potential failure modes of new technologies. (As Larry Niven said, it's not enough to predict the car, you have to predict the traffic jam.) It's not surprising that we didn't heed every warning.
I can only guess that Black Mirror coming to Netflix is the first time a lot of people have ever seen decent science fiction. Before that it was what, Battlestar Galactica?, which is basically a soap opera with b-roll of a spaceship.
Is this an advertisement for black mirror? All I see is one intro paragraph bashing Trump and then a summary of popular episodes. Nice stealth advertisement.
>> in the past week, as we reel from the 2016 presidential election, the world of Black Mirror seems nearer than ever to our current reality—less a warning than a crystal ball.
Not everyone is "reeling" from the presidential election and choosing now to look at the parallels because of it is, well, a bit myopic considering this things have been taking place for so long that suddenly they just realized there were a ton of parallels between the show and reality?
I fail to see the connection to Trump, frankly. The world over, people are getting sick of elitists, oligarchs, and a crony system that is impoverishing them while making hollow promises. It's all very obvious why these nascent populist movements have come about. Only the hard left doesn't get it.
If you think the Trump administration won't AT BEST be the most crony capitalist administration that has ever existed with a high degree of nepotism thrown in for good measure, then you haven't been paying attention to the transition so far.
Neither have you. I suggest you refresh your browser because the situation is dveeloping by the day, from Christie, to letting Christie make picks, to booting Christie, to then booting everyone he picked... things are changing fast.
The "hard left" has been arguing against "elitists, oligarchs, and a crony system that is impoverishing them while making hollow promises" for 150+ years.
Unfortunatelly for the USA, what now passes for the left do support economic policies that would have been considered "hard right" merely 50 years ago. Instead, they have devoted themselves to the task of policing other people's moral opinions.
When no respectable politician will hear the pledge of the downtrodden, anyone can pick up the mantle and wipe out any and all opposition.
I think Black Mirror is a terrible ham-fisted show. The assertion by the article that real life is coming close to the worlds of black mirror is ridiculous.
> The assertion by the article that real life is coming close to the worlds of black mirror is ridiculous.
While I kind of agree with your ham-fisted comment, I'm going to disagree with your statement quoted above. The article does link similar technologies that show how this is happening. It shows direct similarities between the show, and real-life products and systems that either exist, or are looking to exist in the near future.
Holy Crap someone else doesn't get the hype for that show. It isn't just me.
I find it pretty shallow as well. People compare it to the Twilight Zone all the time and I really can't see it. Black Mirror isn't really as deep and it deals with the issues it tries to examine pretty poorly.
I had no idea downvotes were used for blocking negative reviews of our fav shows. Have an up.
BTW, never seen he show, came here to get some edification. What I got is more one-sided equality for all who agree and a lot of people who see the future b/c the media told them which portents are truer than others.
What? The criticisms that are getting downvoted are pure assertions with no reasoning to back them up. I'm pretty sure that if these posters had provided more than 1 line proclaiming their distaste, they wouldn't be receiving downvotes.
run4yourlives2 posted 3 lines of his take on seeing the show. Preceeded by an agreement to the OP. Looks like he is indeed a part of the discussion, albeit an unpopular opinion.
edit: he or she.
edit 2: manfromuranus's(lulz) opinion provoked posts of disagreement and what alternatives are available. Again, a meaningful discussion with substance.
run4yourlives2 posted an unpopular, unsupported opinion yes. Half of one sentence dedicated to that opinion and the rest about another subject. Completely understandable why that would get downvotes.
manfromuranus provoking meaningful discussion does not make that post worthy. If I post trolling nonsense and someone calls me out with an informative post, I somehow don't deserve downvotes? That's some ends justify the means logic there.
I concede that is your opinion for R4YL2's post though still disagree to it's worth, the other subject was a comparison to Black Mirror content & execution; guess that is why there is no sole arbiter of value here.
As for MFU's post, yeah, I cannot defend it in itself. It is solely his opinion that was not supported in any meaningful way.
I (of course) believe there are plenty of people who fully understand the show and don't like it, but given how many times I've seen people who do like the show manage to miss major points or even the central theme of an episode, there must be people who don't like it because they've missed those same things. From that perspective, several of the episodes probably are hamfisted. Nosedive is the only one I'd describe as such... but then again, maybe I missed the point.
[EDIT] for the record: I'm not among the downvoters.
Yeah I agree. I've watched all of the first season, part of the 2nd, and just started trying the 3rd. Couldn't get more than 15 min into the first ep. 2nd one is a little better but still pretty bad.
Well, I'm upvoting you because I can say that while I think the show has some pretty good moments, its not great and I feel it pulls on my "depression strings" quite deliberately, and I have a pretty damn dark sense of humor. And frankly, it can't touch the Twilight Zone in my mind.
