And what values are those? Google has done more than perhaps any othe company to put knowledge at our fingertips. Have you considered that this is what they meant when they said that, rather than some intenti to instill a set of Google-approved values in us all?Google manipulate search engine results and bias their output.
Google executives wanted to use their power to "prevent the next Trump situation". Insiders have spoken about what google is trying to do. You're defending manipulators.
Then don't espouse hateful views. It's really not that difficult.
I'll decide what is hateful for myself, not you. People attribute
"Hate" to everything now. Even JK Rowling was called hateful. So many people have been castigated for things which are not hateful.
I take it your American, right? Isn't half your country "deplorable" because they voted for an fascist? At least according to the opinion of some, ie, presidential candidates.
Nonsense. There is plenty of stuff that will be seen and disregarded because there's nothing to it.Until someone has an axe to grind.
Nope. Communicate if you wish, or refrain if you wish. There is the possibility that what you saywill be preserved for possibility, but w anyone care what we say here and now? Will anything you've said here cost you future employment? I doubt it.Thats not the point. The point is that I'm pointing out issues, malfeasance and you're just finding excuses for it.
In my opinion, decent human beings would see to it that we maximise our freedom, our privacy, work towards reducing manipulation and suppression and witch trials. I'm looking to reduce the impact of your "cancel culture" and bring decency back to society, something I think has been lost.
Maybe the cultural differences between Australia and the USA have grown
a lot in the last decade or so, and we are just culturally very
different.
Regulation and control... like banning people who refuse to follow the rules Remember when I said to hold that thought about people being cut off from friends and family by being banned? Here we are. People don't just get randomly banned. They get banned because the platforms are exercising the regulation and control that you believe they should have.
If someone fails to get a job because something racist they said on social media surfaces, I think the question needs to be "why are they posting racis things on social media" and not "is social media harmful because it preserve this racist thing that this person said?"
That doesn't match my experience. My experience is that people that I would chat with no problem in real life, in FB it ends up being different. It is a good forum to communicate with people.
On 29 Jan 2022, boraxman said the following...
Fortunately, participation in social media is entirely voluntary.No, its not.
I had Facebook create a profile on me without joining. It already knew who was in my social circle before I signed up. It new real estate agents I had talked to and other people who had phoned me.
How did they do this? Maybe someone invited you to FB? At any rate, this doe not compel your participation any more than junk mail circulars with your name and address on them compel you to read them or buy the things advertize in them.
Whether one's beliefs are published in a book or presented online world to read, the expectation that the thoughts and opinions cont therein are private is misplaced.Then we should never speak online.
If that's your choice then so be it. Others may feel differently, and may have nothing to say that they will later be ashamed of.
I don't really see that idea working unless you start a new net with specifically those requirements. Then all it takes is one sysop to not follow the rules, and it's all for nothing - sure you can remove them from the network, but you can't take back the history of messages he's
rescanned and made available.
But I agree, it would be good if all those running a BBS made their web frontend "private" until registered users "logged in". I doubt a search engi would learn how to register and login to BBS's to scrape/store the conent - this simple act would keep BBSing "private".
I don't mind them valuing truth over misinformation.
Jeff.
"Cancel culture" has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with decency. Our freedom of speech guarantees us neither a forum nor an audience That speech deemed hateful by society is denied both is not a loss of freedom. Do you honestly expect that increased decency will be the result of maximized freedom to spew hate?
Regulation and control... like banning people who refuse to follow the Remember when I said to hold that thought about people being cut off fr friends and family by being banned? Here we are. People don't just get randomly banned. They get banned because the platforms are exercising t regulation and control that you believe they should have.Some platforms are better at keeping order than others.
The RPG.net forums directly ban certain opinions. There are tons of stories online talking about people getting randomly banned from there
for petty or unexplained reasons.
RPG.net used to be THE forum you visited for RPG related discussion. It
is no small site. It is not an insignificant piece of the Internet. It
is (well, actually "was", because it comitted suicide) the goto place
for people interested in a certain hobby.
And, in the most RPGish tradition, thy exercise their control by rolling
a die in order to decide whether somebody gets banned, apparently. Heck, they have a public thread in which they display bans as trophies.
Of course they have the right to do as they please but that turns the service into a bad service.
And a whole lot of services are just like that. So yeah, I think the ideological or random banhammer is something that exists even in big platforms and is something to be concerned off.
The problem comes when some moron shows up and reconstructs something
you said 3 years ago, casts it under a bad light, and gathers a lynch
mob.
The prime examples would be people in the RPG hobby who mention that
they don t want corebooks to deal with politics or sexual subjects
because the books are not the place for doing it. The standard response
to that is for a mob to build up and attempt to destroy that person s online presence because he is obviously a Nazi (because only Nazies want their RPG books to be politics-free).
Obviously then you can say "He should be self-moderating". But the issue
I have with this is that what you mean is some opinions should not be voiced at all and that you are ok with it.
How did they do this? Maybe someone invited you to FB? At any rate, thi not compel your participation any more than junk mail circulars with yo name and address on them compel you to read them or buy the things adve in them.Shadow profiles have been a thing for a long time already.
If that's your choice then so be it. Others may feel differently, and m have nothing to say that they will later be ashamed of.It has nothing to do with shame.
Blowing the whistle over the corruption at the Town Hall is not a
shameful thing to do, but will get some hooded thugs sent by the mayor
to break your legs.
There are lots of non-shameful things to do which will get you in
trouble.
We are reaching the point in which some casual opinions that didn t use
to be dangerous will get you obliterated.
I don't mind them valuing truth over misinformation."I don t mind them manipulating results as long as they defend my position."
Got it.
"Cancel culture" has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do wi decency. Our freedom of speech guarantees us neither a forum nor an aud That speech deemed hateful by society is denied both is not a loss of freedom. Do you honestly expect that increased decency will be the resu maximized freedom to spew hate?Cancel culture is a political weapon.
In its purest form, what it does is to attempt to remove an individual which is uncomfortable for the cancellers from the scene and to remove
his options for making a living.
Back to the RPG examples: if cancellers start campaigning in order to prevent people from buying somebody s product, what they are doing is to say "This guy does not deserve to make a living"
DO you know what happens when you prevent people from making a living? They die.
It is literally a "Comply or die" weapon and should be regarded as such.
It would be less of a problem if the lynch mob was not started by the silliest of ideas.
The RPG.net forums directly ban certain opinions. There are tons of stories online talking about people getting randomly banned from there for petty or unexplained reasons.
And you feel that handing moderation of the RPG.net forums over to the government would improve the situation? What do you expect the government to do about this?
What attemptsto destroy someone's online presence are we talking about?
The government? Nothing. Just watch the site die due to its own incompetence.
There is a difference between recognizing there is a problem somwehere
and wanting the government to step in and try to fix it.
On 29 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
I don't mind them valuing truth over misinformation."I don t mind them manipulating results as long as they defend my position."
I'm not talking about opinion such as which is prettier, blue or green. I'm talking about objective facts such as whether a vaccine is safe to use.
Got it.
No, I don't think you do.
Jeff.
If one's political views are getting cancelled in the name of decency, it might be time to re-examine one's political views.
Good luck with that. I happen to work in the healthcare sector and there is not much consensus regarding at which point a given vaccinme is beneficial or not.
But here is the thing: reputable publications such as the Brittish
Medical Journañl have been flagged by automated censorship systems becayse they dared releasing an article about a defective batch of vaccines. Which is not to say they are against the vaccines, but that
they were reporting of the degradation of a known batch. ANd they got hammered because automated bots are trained to crush anything that
speaks negatively about the subject.
THe Brittish Medical JOurnal published an official complaint.
So yeah, I am very sure I got it.
THe Brittish Medical JOurnal published an official complaint.
Ok, and were the bots appropriately adjusted?
If one's political views are getting cancelled in the name of decency, might be time to re-examine one's political views.THIS is the problem.
That it is assumed that the cancel campaign is done in the name of
decency and humanity and whatever have you.
Most often it is not.
It is a rabid lynch mob fueled by hate attempting to destroy what people is working for in the name of.... something.
Nosolorol is an interesting case because they were brought into the spotlight for dirty business practices such as not paying employees.
Once they got sued and they started paying, once the issue had been corrected...
... they got the cancel mob cast on them.
For which purpose? Righting a wrong? The wrongs had already been ritghed in court.
No, man, it is illogical fear and hate mixed together in a cauldron with no sense of logic, which is then released into the wild. ANd if you come up and say that by boicotting Nosolorol and forcing it into bankrupcy
you are gonna get the employees you are trying to protect unemployed,
you get added to the list of cancel targets.
No, at least according to my last information.THe Brittish Medical JOurnal published an official complaint.Ok, and were the bots appropriately adjusted?
Appealing processes for this sort of thing are a pain in the ass.
"After BMJ contacted Lead Stories to inquire about the flagging and removal of the post, the company maintained that the “Missing
Context� label it had assigned the BMJ article was valid."
"What does this all tell us about Facebook’s fact-checking and the implications for the restriction of legitimate, timely speech and expression on the platform? It tells us that users with legitimate questions about being fact-checked will not get much help from Facebook itself, even if they are a well-established and well-regarded scholarly journal. "
"Cancel culture" is in no way new to either social media or the 21st century For centuries, the Catholic church waged pressure campaigns (far more aggressive than what we've been discussing here) on ideas and opinions with which they disagreed. You're worried about not being able to sell stuff in a certain market, but people in the past faces being tortured and executed in some pretty horrendous ways.
Jeff.
"Cancel culture" is in no way new to either social media or the 21st ce For centuries, the Catholic church waged pressure campaigns (far more aggressive than what we've been discussing here) on ideas and opinions which they disagreed. You're worried about not being able to sell stuff certain market, but people in the past faces being tortured and execute some pretty horrendous ways.
What I find mostly impressive is that you are able to put out a defense for cancel culture and at the same time show a nice example of cancel culture gone out of control.
I don't really see the point though, if some one really wants information on you, they can just sign up to your secret network - it might be a few more steps than typing your handle and fsxnet into google, but easily done.
And there in lies the problem. Search engines dont know that a website is related to a vendor's products, a blog, or BBS message bases, when folks add a web frontend to their BBS to make it easier for (or to attrach) "users".
But I agree, it would be good if all those running a BBS made their web frontend "private" until registered users "logged in". I doubt a search engine would learn how to register and login to BBS's to scrape/store
the conent - so this simple act would keep BBSing "private".
That would depend on who you ask.
I can't see how this discussion we're having could be used against
either of us.
And I'm pointing out that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
"Cancel culture" has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with decency. Our freedom of speech guarantees us neither a forum nor an audience. That speech deemed hateful by society is denied both is not a loss of freedom. Do you honestly expect that increased decency will be
the result of maximized freedom to spew hate?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps we are different as people.
The problem comes when some moron shows up and reconstructs something
you said 3 years ago, casts it under a bad light, and gathers a lynch
mob.
Shadow profiles have been a thing for a long time already.
If all your friends use Facebook and Whatsapp, these services may
realize you are in their addressbooks and extrapolate your data (your likely hobbies, your likely interests) from the sort of people who has your phone number saved in their phone.
If one's political views are getting cancelled in the name of decency, it might be time to re-examine one's political views.
Getting one's message out to the public requires a speaker, a forum and
an audience and, perhaps unfortunately, requires the consent of all
three. Should anyone be required to host someone espousing views with which they disagree? Should anyone be required to entertain the opinions
Which leads to the conclussion: I consider that a big con instead of a
big plus. If anything, your argumentation has reinforced my opinion that Social Media these days is the tool for a lot of modern day evil.
That would depend on who you ask.This specific one no. But I may want to discuss a more sensitive topic with someone, and that CAN be used against me, if someone wants to.
I can't see how this discussion we're having could be used against either of us.
And I'm pointing out that people are ultimately responsible for their actions.Cancel culture is bullying, and an ideology asserting control aggressively.
"Cancel culture" has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do decency. Our freedom of speech guarantees us neither a forum nor an audience. That speech deemed hateful by society is denied both is not loss of freedom. Do you honestly expect that increased decency will b the result of maximized freedom to spew hate?
I am responsible for my actions, but "being responsible for your actions" doesn't warrant someone trying to damage your life because they disagree with you.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps we are different as people.I think we are. Some Australian's are adopting the American attitude, much to my dismay, but that attitude isn't as wide spread as it is in
say, California.
Australian's are very lax about protecting their freedom, but likewise
the social conditions which lead to Cancel Culture aren't as prevalent here.
Australians take a dim view of what is going on in the USA and the polarisation, and political activism which is beyond the pale.
The problem comes when some moron shows up and reconstructs something you said 3 years ago, casts it under a bad light, and gathers a lynch mob.The problem is that what is 'decent' changes. Things that society
thought were perfectly acceptable not that long ago, are considered hateful. Social activists are constantly shifting the goalposts.
People are saying that attitides and movies from only a decade ago are "outdated". At work, a HR staffer described language in a survey as
being "outdated" and they need to work on it. I honestly couldn't find what was wrong, other then maybe using term 'male' or 'female'.
They don't have to reconstruct what you said. They can find what you said, verbatim, and say you were expressing outdated and hateful views. This is why in this social climate, we should by default seek privacy.
I think it is dangerous to make speech public by default, unless it is clear and explicit when people post, it is world-accessible.
If one's political views are getting cancelled in the name of decency might be time to re-examine one's political views.In the 20th century, not that long ago, it was in parts of the world, considered indecent to say that Jews were not all bad.
It has been considered indecent to say that races can intermarry.
It has been considered indecent to say that homosexuality is an
acceptable lifestyle, or that they can marry.
It was considered acceptable to say there are two sexes.
The only reason you are saying what you are saying, is because YOUR political view is violently dominant. You are happy with supression and cancel culture because it is happening to your political enemies.
This is what I do not want imported into my country, this poison. You
are skirting with supporting authoritarianism. Be careful what you wish for.
Then perhaps a public forum such as social media is not the place to have this discussion.
When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent, though. Other people have the same right to speak their minds that you
do, and can choose where and how to spend their money.
Whose freedom are you advocating to limit?
Which specific acts of political activism do you conside to be beyond the pale?
Then your defense is to say that what is considered decent changes over time and you have changed with the times. Apologize for your past views and move on. If you decide instead to double down, then the consequences are on you. Your participation in society is as smooth as you make it.
This is true. A lot has changed in a short amount of time.
Then realize, first and foremost, that social media does not offer privacy. It never claimed to offer privacy, and it should never be expected to offer privacy.
Jeff.
All of those views (except the first) are now considered unacceptable because they attempt to limit what people can do with their lives. Are those not examples of bullying? Are those not aggressive attempts at "cancel culture" in their own right? Are those not attempts to convince others that certain behaviors should not be socially acceptable? It
seems quite fitting to me that these oppressive opinions should be met with the same "cancel culture" that they seek to impose on others.
Am I? Or is minimizing, harassing, and demonizing gays, interracial couples, and non-binary individuals skirting with supporting authoritarianism? Which is the poison and which is the antidote?
The opposite of "cancel culture gone out of control" is not "no cancel culture." There is, and always has been, a spectrum of "cancel culture" in society. More importantly, it's not novel to social media.
Jeff.
When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent, though. Other people have the same right to speak their minds that you do, and can choose where and how to spend their money.
boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-
That doesn't match my experience. My experience is that people that I would chat with no problem in real life, in FB it ends up being
different. It is not a good forum to communicate with people.
I don't want to be tracked, data harvested,manipulated to be able to
speak to people I know.
What does one *do* with a Z80 at a post-apocalyptic time?
I would imagine that there would be more important
things to deal with.
I have no idea. But a 6502, on the other hand... That could
be used to build a T-800 Terminator!
https://eeggs.com/items/19003.html
Then perhaps a public forum such as social media is not the place to this discussion.I never considered a BBS to be public social media. It certainly wasn't
a world-wide easily accessible record in the 90s.
When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent, though. Other people have the same right to speak their minds that yo do, and can choose where and how to spend their money.They have that right, but you don't have the right (I believe) to
organize economic damage to punish people for their beliefs.
If you don't want to buy from a company because they aren't making a statement on some social issues you want them to make, then fine, but
when you start to organise action to try and economically damage them,
you are infringing upon their freedom of expression.
Companies shouldn't be making social and political statements anyway.
Why companies feel they need to be agents of social change, I don't know.
Whose freedom are you advocating to limit?No ones. I believe that in order to have freedom, you need to be protected from action taken against you. The first amendment isn't
strong enough.
Which specific acts of political activism do you conside to be beyond pale?Turning up in public and attacking people violently because of their politics. Making threats against their employers, anyone who is hosting them, accommodating them. Threatening their families, children. Lying.
A lot of these are actions which some people feel justified as being "consequences of speech"
Then your defense is to say that what is considered decent changes ov time and you have changed with the times. Apologize for your past vie and move on. If you decide instead to double down, then the consequen are on you. Your participation in society is as smooth as you make itIt doesn't work like that. Activists will take that and destroy you.
By that time it is too late. You don't get a chance to explain yourself.
I really think you don't know what is going on, and how these people operate. Are you not aware of how these people operate??
This is true. A lot has changed in a short amount of time.IT does offer it, then settings change on users without warning.
Then realize, first and foremost, that social media does not offer privacy. It never claimed to offer privacy, and it should never be expected to offer privacy.
Facebook has privacy settings. But even then, they will collate data without you knowing.
But for other areas, like an online meeting place, I consider it polite, netiquette if you will, to make it clear. As I said, the Internet is
new, we are learning how to live with it.
I think one custom we need, is that Internet communications are as
private as practical. If you chat on IRC, is it just an ephemeral message, is it logged and searchable? Is a BBS just for the users who sign up, is it web searchable? I think this should be considered decent behaviour.
If I chatted with you in a pub, with two others, we would expect the conversation to just be between us. You would not expect the world to
be able to hear it. We have to move away from the "everything is
public" mentality. The "Internet" is just a computer network. Not everything is public, or should be.
All of those views (except the first) are now considered unacceptable because they attempt to limit what people can do with their lives. Ar those not examples of bullying? Are those not aggressive attempts at "cancel culture" in their own right? Are those not attempts to convin others that certain behaviors should not be socially acceptable? It seems quite fitting to me that these oppressive opinions should be me with the same "cancel culture" that they seek to impose on others.They were limited because they were considered to be immoral. There are still things that are limited, because they are considered to be
immoral, such as professing a preference for your own race.
This thinking is nihilistic, because you would have to accept EVERY
view, even the "bigoted" and "racist" views. Are not people engaging in cancel culture infringing upon peoples rights to hold "bigoted" views.
If you are policing what I think, then YOU are the oppressor.
Cancel culture is oppressive. Period.
Am I? Or is minimizing, harassing, and demonizing gays, interracial couples, and non-binary individuals skirting with supporting authoritarianism? Which is the poison and which is the antidote?All evil in this world is perpretated by people who think they are doing good. They take action against people they believe are in the wrong, and justify oppression, silencing, censorship, destroying them personally.
Its the same old story. Communists murdered people and they honestly believed they were killing the bad guys, getting rid of harmful views. Nazi's honestly believed they were getting rid of harmful views.
Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing good. People with
religious and dogmatic views who think they know what views the world needs to have in order to make us better begin removing those who don't
go along.
Same old story, same old cycle, same old evil. Cancel Culture is just another chapter in this evil. Yes, they are EVIL. Ideologies finding reasons to persecute.
The opposite of "cancel culture gone out of control" is not "no cancel culture." There is, and always has been, a spectrum of "cancel culture" society. More importantly, it's not novel to social media.
Dunno, saying that modern cancel culture is not a big deal because there already was cancel culture in the past is a lot like saying nuclear weapons are not a big deal because people has been killing each other in the past too.
You didn't get the people from village X try to boicott into nothingness some leathersmith from village Y for something he thought in the 16th Century. The leathersmith in question might draw the rage of his own village folks at best. There is a definitive difference in scale.
Social media makes the interaction impersonal, so it is very easy to dehumanize the target of the cancellation campaign (it is not me saying it, it has already been described by people with more experience in the fiueld than I). This is also a qualitative difference.
The proponents of keeping vast nuclear arsenals are usually the people
who has the nuclear weapons, or who culturally identifies with the
people who has the nuclear weapons. My hipothesis is that cancel culture proponents nowadays defend the practice because they feel they command this weapon of social mass destruction.
When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent, tho Other people have the same right to speak their minds that you do, and choose where and how to spend their money.Here is the thing,
there is a big difference between society allowing something, you having the right to do something, and that something being good.
Free speech and the freedom for artistical expression are considered a good thing. That does not mean composing an artistic soundtrack made of farting sounds is a good idea. We may allow it because the alternative
is imposing censorship against the arts, which is much, much worse. However, if the onñly way you have of defending your song made of
farting sounds is "I have the right to do it, so let me alone" then what
I take away is that the whole thing is a very bad idea from the get go.
So yeah, people may have the right to boicott Nosolorol into
nothingness. That does not mean it is a good thing. I also have the
right to hammering my feet flat with a sledgehammer, but if I did and attempted to justify it because "It is my right to do so", I would be regarded as a madman.
That's pretty funny. You'd think that the better approachWhat does one *do* with a Z80 at a post-apocalyptic time?I have no idea. But a 6502, on the other hand... That could
I would imagine that there would be more important
things to deal with.
be used to build a T-800 Terminator!
might be to invent new microprocessor code.
Even by the time in Terminator 3 they were still using dialup:
..but the speed to render the images is amazing!
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accused socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it had the force of government behind it.
You didn't get the people from village X try to boicott into nothingnes some leathersmith from village Y for something he thought in the 16th Century. The leathersmith in question might draw the rage of his own village folks at best. There is a definitive difference in scale.
This is true. However, the people in village X were not buying anything from the leathersmith in village Y anyway, so the point is moot.
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accused socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it ha force of government behind it.The correct term nowadays is "blocklisting".
If you put forth "blacklisting" in a modern publication you will be regarded a recist in a lot of circles and you will be forced to
apologize.
I think people used to travel to cities to sell their wares every nowYou didn't get the people from village X try to boicott into nothi some leathersmith from village Y for something he thought in the 1 Century. The leathersmith in question might draw the rage of his o village folks at best. There is a definitive difference in scale.This is true. However, the people in village X were not buying anything the leathersmith in village Y anyway, so the point is moot.
and then in order to trade at a bigger market.
I mean, people in cities consumed a lot of stuff which was only produced in rural areas, right?
On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
When it comes to violence, yes. Words and boycotts are not violent, Other people have the same right to speak their minds that you do, a choose where and how to spend their money.Here is the thing,
there is a big difference between society allowing something, you havin the right to do something, and that something being good.
Free speech and the freedom for artistical expression are considered a good thing. That does not mean composing an artistic soundtrack made of farting sounds is a good idea. We may allow it because the alternative is imposing censorship against the arts, which is much, much worse. However, if the onñly way you have of defending your song made of farting sounds is "I have the right to do it, so let me alone" then wha I take away is that the whole thing is a very bad idea from the get go.
Defending your song from what? People attempting to "cancel" it? I think thi example may have backfired.
So yeah, people may have the right to boicott Nosolorol into nothingness. That does not mean it is a good thing. I also have the right to hammering my feet flat with a sledgehammer, but if I did and attempted to justify it because "It is my right to do so", I would be regarded as a madman.
In this example, the former is a society passing judgment on the business practices of a company while the latter is a presumably senseless act of self-mutilation. If Nosolorol decided to close up shop for reasons known onl to itself, then you might be able to make a comparison.
Jeff.
On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accu socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during t McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it force of government behind it.The correct term nowadays is "blocklisting".
If you put forth "blacklisting" in a modern publication you will be regarded a recist in a lot of circles and you will be forced to apologize.
Hmm. That convention not appear to have made it to the circles I frequent. Blacklisting and whitelisting are terms commonly used in IT security.
Jeff.
I think people used to travel to cities to sell their wares every now and then in order to trade at a bigger market.
Then it would have been possible for word of the leathersmith's misdeeds to travel, as surely he wasn't the onlyone making this journey.
Defending your song from what? People attempting to "cancel" it? I thin example may have backfired.When I speak about defending a tasteless song, I mean justifiying its existence.
It is pretty common for creative people to face at one time or another
the question "why in Hell have you created *that*?"
The point I was trying to make is that recognizing the artist's right to create a pile of crap does not mean you have to aprove the pile of crap. In this context, I recognize the mob's rights to complain and opinate
and cease to consume products because of... reasons... but that has nothing to do with whether such actions are justified in a given case.
A random thread in RPGnet was started as a complaint that W40K has a faction of "Nazi" humans, which may make actual nazies like the game,
and therefore the game was not to be played anymore. I think they have
the right to hold such discussion. I also think this people should seek help, because you must have a deep mental disorder to suffer because, somewhere, somehow, a nazi may be enjoying the same game you are
enjoying.
Rejoice in cancel culture from the other end of the spectrum, when The
RPG Site Created a list of leftist games to avoid, games of unknown political stance, and True American Games. It is their right to create such list. Do you aprove of such list being created?
The reason why I am mentioning this is becasue you are defending haressment campaigns using two main points. The main one is that it is your right to conduct it, which I don't argue (boraxman might). It is
just that arguing something is your right is not enough to justify it.
The second point you base your defense on boils down to boicott campaign being fine, because it is mainly the bad guys getting destroyed. This I also have a problem with.
Here is this, even if you assume that conservatives are evil and deserve total destruction and that progressives are saints, if you look deep
down the issue, it turns out leftist mobs have begun to target leftist groups for not being leftist enough!
That's right, I have seen people trying to organize campaigns against Wizzards of the Coast, widely regarded as a woke org (to the point some people call them Wizzards of the Woke) because their games are no
pacifist enough or have racist undertones. Mind you, I get complaining that The Birth of a Nation is racist, but complaining 5E is racist
enough to justify a hate campaign is just insanity.
Nosolorol is also a leftist propaganda machine, for the record. All their non-license, in-house created products, use diversity checklists. They invariably portray cuts in government spending as the root of problems
in their settings and published adventures. When they got hit so hard by the cancel campaign that they lost a number of stores, they released an apology statement (which was ignored by the lynch mob) and added that
they are not a capitalist firm.
Therefore, even arguing that lynch campaigns are fine because it is bad people who is getting destroyed does not hold much water as an argument (even if you buy the premise, which I don't).
Hmm. That convention not appear to have made it to the circles I freque Blacklisting and whitelisting are terms commonly used in IT security.Yes, and also master->slave relationships in databases.
A number of projects have been forced to change the names of internal functions of the code. zzz, from the Java implementation of i2p, claimed he adopted the blocklist terminology and removed the terms Master and Slave because it was necessary to protect the project.
Maybe, but I think a single craftmen would get lost in the crowd very easily to specifically target.I think people used to travel to cities to sell their wares every and then in order to trade at a bigger market.Then it would have been possible for word of the leathersmith's misdeed travel, as surely he wasn't the onlyone making this journey.
To whom is this hypothetical musician defending his right to create a bad song? The musician's fans? Music reviewers? Isn't a bad review just an attempt to discourage people from buying something? Are music reviewers now "cancel culture?"
The reason why I am mentioning this is becasue you are defending haressment campaigns using two main points. The main one is that it is your right to conduct it, which I don't argue (boraxman might). It is just that arguing something is your right is not enough to justify it.
Why does exercising one's rights, especially those of speech and expression, need justification?
That's right, I have seen people trying to organize campaigns against Wizzards of the Coast, widely regarded as a woke org (to the point some people call them Wizzards of the Woke) because their games are no pacifist enough or have racist undertones. Mind you, I get complaining that The Birth of a Nation is racist, but complaining 5E is racist enough to justify a hate campaign is just insanity.
How did this go? Were they able to convince enough people to join them, or did it fizzle out? I ask not because they are considered "woke" but because successful boycott requires a critical mass of a given society to agree. Without that, there is no boycott. People can think and say whatever they want, and they can attempt to organize boycotts if they want. We have that freedom.
A random thread in RPGnet was started as a complaint that W40K has a faction of "Nazi" humans, which may make actual nazies like the game, and therefore the game was not to be played anymore. I think they have the right to hold such discussion. I also think this people should seek help, because you must have a deep mental disorder to suffer because, somewhere, somehow, a nazi may be enjoying the same game you are enjoying.
It's up to society whether they choose to play this game or not. They can accept the argument or reject it. There is no higher power that can make tha decision for them.
Rejoice in cancel culture from the other end of the spectrum, when The RPG Site Created a list of leftist games to avoid, games of unknown political stance, and True American Games. It is their right to create such list. Do you aprove of such list being created?
Anyone can create any list they like.
To whom is this hypothetical musician defending his right to create a b song? The musician's fans? Music reviewers? Isn't a bad review just an attempt to discourage people from buying something? Are music reviewers "cancel culture?"This hypothetical musician would not be defending his right to create a bad song. His right to create a bad song is a given.
The point I want to make is that just because you have the right to
create a bad, tasteless song, does not necessarily imply it is a good thing to do.
Why does exercising one's rights, especially those of speech and expres need justification?Oh, you don't *need* a justification.
But we are talking about openly hostile activities with quite aggressive goals, so if somebody partakes in such but does not provide a credible justification, he will come across as a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.
How did this go? Were they able to convince enough people to join them, did it fizzle out? I ask not because they are considered "woke" but bec successful boycott requires a critical mass of a given society to agree Without that, there is no boycott. People can think and say whatever th want, and they can attempt to organize boycotts if they want. We have t freedom.Well, in the end of the day Wizzards of the Woke/Coast is backed by
Hasbro :-)
A big chunk of people seem to have jumped ship. Still not enough to bring Hasbro to its knees pleading for mercy. I think they were doing worse
when they released 4E, because so much people started playing games from its main competitor (to the point Pathfinder was selling better than Dungeons and Dragons).
Nosolorol is also a leftist propaganda machine, for the record. All the non-license, in-house created products, use diversity checklists. They invariably portray cuts in government spending as the root of problems in their settings and published adventures. When they got hit so hard b the cancel campaign that they lost a number of stores, they released an apology statement (which was ignored by the lynch mob) and added that they are not a capitalist firm.
I am not familiar with Nosolorol beyond what you have told me here. My understanding from you was that the economic pressure campaign against them was due to shady business practices, not political ideology. Sometimes an apology is not enough to atone for past sins. Perhaps they needed to transparently implement control measures to insure that the situation which sparked the boycott never recurred. They needed to regain trust, and failed. Perhaps this was not just a result of the shady business practices, but also of a refusal to rectify those things until they were sued. Perhaps it was no just one bad decision but a series of bad decisions, and there was no way possible to come back from that. Whatever the case, the people boycotting them did nothing wrong.
On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
Why does exercising one's rights, especially those of speech and exp need justification?Oh, you don't *need* a justification.
But we are talking about openly hostile activities with quite aggressi goals, so if somebody partakes in such but does not provide a credible justification, he will come across as a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum
And presumably society will impose consequences on them for such behavior.
"Cancel culture" is neither good nor bad, and it can be used for good or bad I could agree that arguments against certain applications of "cancel culture are valid, but arguing that "cancel culture" itself, or society's ability to self-regulate and pressure its members into conformity, is bad is a non-starter.
Jeff.
I am not arguing against their right to make lists of safe and unsafe games. That is a given.Rejoice in cancel culture from the other end of the spectrum, when RPG Site Created a list of leftist games to avoid, games of unknow political stance, and True American Games. It is their right to cr such list. Do you aprove of such list being created?Anyone can create any list they like.
The question I am asking is whether you think these actions are justifiable or sane.
I have already established they don't need to be justified. However, you also know my opinion if no justification is given.
Honestly, I don't know what Nosolorol could have done to regain trust
thay they didn't attempt. The Union that took the case to court pretty much said the issues were solved for good (and took a lot of pride in
it).
Besides, I suspect a lot of employees were taking black money under the table, which is very common in Spain. A lot of professionals prefer to work with no legal contract and be paid in illegal money because then
they can apply for government handouts and unamployment funds. I have
the strong suspicion that this was the case with Nosolorol, that some employee got angry at them for some reason and got some Union to sue
them, and that there was no way Nosolorol could demonstrate any payment because all transactions had been off-the-record.
In any case, if the Union which took the case said the problem had been cleared, and knowing how extremely bitchy this particular union was, I find it hard to understand which issue the lynching mob was trying to solve by campaigning. I guess this people thinks that if you catch a
thief stealing bread in the market, you should hang him in the public square, because rehabilitation is not possible and no amount of penance imposed by court will clear his debt to society :-(
On the other hand, it was delicious to see the firm decimated by the very audience of politically active people they had been pandering to for decades. Guilty pleasure of mine. I don't think it was right but I do think it was fun.
The bad news is the friendly local game store I used to buy games from
had to remove his RPG section due to the pressure. He had lots of orders cancelled, which was specially bad for this guy because he owns the sort of local business that struggles to pay its own costs every single
month. But well, I guess the lynching mob does not care for collateral damages :-P
I think it was Hayek who said that the most important trait of a free society is that you can have an impopular opinion without it ruining
your life.
What we see nowadays is people trying to ruin other people's livemaking, not because they have an impopular opinion, but because they have an opinion they dislike. Even if such opinion has no relationship to the
way the target makes his living.
If my boss fired me because I voted for a different Town Hall candidate than he did, he would be frowned upon, but somehow, there is this big
mass of people who thinks it is good and righteous to send letters to people's employers and providers and demmand him to be kicked out
because of some personal opinion which has nothing to do with his job.
The same people who partakes in such destructive behavior are the sames that complain because this or that politician was divisive.
If you delve deep down into certain echo chambers I can think off, it is very clear that the end goal for a lot of cancellers is for making it so having an opinion they don't aprove off is no longer safe.
To claim this is any good, my friend, is the real non-starter.
On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
I think it was Hayek who said that the most important trait of a free society is that you can have an impopular opinion without it ruining your life.
I don't believe that conjecture to be true. Perhaps Hayek was referring to having one's life ruined by one's government?
What we see nowadays is people trying to ruin other people's livemaking not because they have an impopular opinion, but because they have an opinion they dislike. Even if such opinion has no relationship to the way the target makes his living.
This is true, but is also not anything new.
If my boss fired me because I voted for a different Town Hall candidate than he did, he would be frowned upon, but somehow, there is this big mass of people who thinks it is good and righteous to send letters to people's employers and providers and demmand him to be kicked out because of some personal opinion which has nothing to do with his job.
That is up to the company in question, and whether they want to be associate with that particular employee. The middleman is not even always necessary.
The same people who partakes in such destructive behavior are the sames that complain because this or that politician was divisive.
I don't see the contradiction.
If you delve deep down into certain echo chambers I can think off, it i very clear that the end goal for a lot of cancellers is for making it s having an opinion they don't aprove off is no longer safe.
Indeed. For a very long time, the opinion that women should be able to vote or that gay people should be allowed to exist or that black people should be able to live where they please were not safe opinions to hold. The danger posed by "cancel culture" is mild in comparison.
To claim this is any good, my friend, is the real non-starter.
It is neither good nor bad; it simply is. It can be used for good or bad, and we may not even agree whether a given application is good or bad, but that's irrelevant. A means of applying economic pressure to corporations doe not possess its own moral compass.
Jeff.
The bad news is the friendly local game store I used to buy
games from had to remove his RPG section due to the
pressure. He had lots of orders cancelled, which was
specially bad for this guy because he owns the sort of
local business that struggles to pay its own costs every
single month. But well, I guess the lynching mob does not
care for collateral damages :-P
Re: Re: Computer Kits
By: Jeff to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 07:49 pm
On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
"I think this politician is divisive. Division is bad" [5 minutes later] "Let's mark a bunch of people I dislike as The Enemy and start a civil cold war. Us against them. Let's finish them all off!!!!"
You already brought cancel culture examples which are as bad (or worse than) relocating people due to ethnical reasons, so the argument (which
The only reason I keep Facebook today is:
2. It's the only place where there are groups for some of my hobbies.
That's a boycott. There are several companies I won't do business with because of their professed beliefs. Now, you might ask, why are companies professing their beliefs anyway? I really don't know, but something must be compelling their owners/CEOs to make those beliefs known.
Again, freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom from
consequences.
As a side note, I don't boycott companies for not making social statements. I boycott them for making social statements that seek to marginalize others. And as a side-side note, I'll also patronize businesses that make inclusive social statements. In general, I'm
neutral toward companies that don't make social statements.
I don't either. In the case of social media, though, I think the self-regulation that we're seeing is an attempt to avoid a) liability,
and b) government regulation.
There are also laws against violence, libel, and slander. But in general, freedom is nowhere guaranteed to be risk-free.
I started to read this thread and realised it seems to have nothing to
do with retro computing, old tech etc. despite being called 'computer kits' :)
It's a classic example I guess of a conversation morphing into something totally different.
Can we please
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
- ensure the subject reflects what's being talked about, or has changed to when you press reply to someone
- move the thread to another echo better suited for the subject if it's changed into something off topic for the echo... I'd suggest this one would be better suited in the general chat echo than this retro chat one.
Many thanks all.
I am, and if they are "activists," they are "active" for a reason or a cause. Should they not leave you alone if you agree with them?
If you know it to be a false promise, then don't expect privacy. Surely there are other ways to communicate. Social media is primarily designed for people to share things that they *want* others to see.
I would agree with that. However, you can often just look at a site and tell that it's not going to be private. What you can see of others,
others can see of you.
That depends. Some searchable communications are very valuable to
others. An example of this would be a forum post about someone having a particular difficulty in setting up a particular BBS. If you search for that problem, you're likely to come across a logged copy of that conversation. And it might be just the thing you need to get your BBS running.
Ooh, no, I would not expect a pub conversation to be private, at least
not in the establishments we have here. I would expect mundane conversation to go without notice but not unheard, and if I started
saying offensive things I would expect that others nearby would be offended and that I very well might face consequences.
That's a boycott. There are several companies I won't do business wit because of their professed beliefs. Now, you might ask, why are compa professing their beliefs anyway? I really don't know, but something m be compelling their owners/CEOs to make those beliefs known.As is your right, and I defend your right to do so. However, if you decide that you are obligated to destroy a company because of their beliefs, that is coercion and bullying.
beliefs, that is coercion and bullying. You have a right to express
your thoughts, your opinions, why you aren't a customer, but an
organised boycott goes from speech to political action, and political action shouldn't be used to coerce and compel.
Again, freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom from consequences.Yes, BUT one cannot take retribution against another, and pass it off as
a "consequence". That is mafia like. There are many who bully others, and claim it is just a "consequence".
If you lie about someone, and the sue you for defamation, that is a natural consequence. If you say that Trump is not a good president, or that immigration reform is needed, and someone decides to firebomb your house, that is NOT a consequence.
Your choice, as long as you respect the right of a company not to make those social statements, or to refuse to do so.
It does need to be protected though. Freedom of speech is to a degree, freedom of consequence. If people are able to freely "punish" you, then you in practice don't have free speech.
All supression of speech is through "consequences". You say something that upsets the powers that be, and you bear "consequences" for your actions.
Freedom of speech doesn't absolve you of the DIRECT negative effects,
but if it cannot be demonstrated there was harm (libel, defamation,
fraud conspiracy to commit a crime), then your speech is protected.
So you're saying that passing judgment on others is ok, but having judgment passed on oneself for passing judgment on others is not? Interesting.
No one is "policing" what you think. In terms of actual "policing," your speech is largely protected (with a few exceptions) from legal consequences. In terms of metaphorical "policing," your speech is
nowhere guaranteed to be protected from social consequences.
Only if you feel that you are entitled to a forum and an audience for
your speech, and believe that free speech should be free of
consequences, neither of which is true.
Social pressure can be used for good or evil. It's how a society self-regulates, whether that society is a national population or a
bowling league.
as I'm aware, we're not talking about people being murdered for
expressing unpopular views on social media.
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accused socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it had the force of government behind it.
The cases we're dealing with don't involve this sort of evil. Comparing a boycott to, for example, the Chinese Cultural Revolution is a massive exaggeration.
I started to read this thread and realised it seems to have nothing to
do with retro computing, old tech etc. despite being called 'computer kits' :)
I am, and if they are "activists," they are "active" for a reason or cause. Should they not leave you alone if you agree with them?
Yes, I've been subject to bullying. That is what bullies do. Comply
and I'll leave you alone, for now...
If you know it to be a false promise, then don't expect privacy. Sure there are other ways to communicate. Social media is primarily design for people to share things that they *want* others to see.You'd be surprised how little thought many people give it. I wouldn't be surprised of MOST facebook users weren't really able to state who and how people can access their information. They just go on because they want their friends and family to see photos of their grandkids.
I would agree with that. However, you can often just look at a site a tell that it's not going to be private. What you can see of others, others can see of you.Maybe. Take a discord group, one with 5 people. Do I know from an
invite when I join, whether that will be google searchable, or just between us 5? What should I expect? I actually honestly am not sure. I initially assumed that on a BBS, the messages didn't get replicated on
the web. How would I have known? I might have talked about economics with someone, and now my employer can search my name and find critiques against Big Business...
That depends. Some searchable communications are very valuable to others. An example of this would be a forum post about someone having particular difficulty in setting up a particular BBS. If you search f that problem, you're likely to come across a logged copy of that conversation. And it might be just the thing you need to get your BBS running.Agree, as I stated, such forums SHOULD be public. But a general debate forum? Chat? At best, it just add chaff to search engine results.
Ooh, no, I would not expect a pub conversation to be private, at leas not in the establishments we have here. I would expect mundane conversation to go without notice but not unheard, and if I started saying offensive things I would expect that others nearby would be offended and that I very well might face consequences.But it wouldn't go to the whole world. At worst, people within earshot will chime in.
So you're saying that passing judgment on others is ok, but having judgment passed on oneself for passing judgment on others is not? Interesting.Passing judgement is fine. What you cannot do is FORCE or COERCE
someone. You are not entitled to make other people believe what you
want them to believe.
You and I probably disagree politically, but I will NOT try to get you fired, doxxed, exposed, or lead others who are prone to violence to your personal details.
I do not have to approve if you, nor you of me. But we have to respect each others right to free expression, and to live our lives the way we
see fit.
I don't think we disagree here.
No one is "policing" what you think. In terms of actual "policing," y speech is largely protected (with a few exceptions) from legal consequences. In terms of metaphorical "policing," your speech is nowhere guaranteed to be protected from social consequences.Lynch mobs is vigilante justice. Extra-judicial punishment. People are policing speech by acting as if they were the state, and taking on
rights and responsibilities they do not have the right to take on.
Only if you feel that you are entitled to a forum and an audience for your speech, and believe that free speech should be free of consequences, neither of which is true.It is also how society stagnates, and becomes authoritarian, despotic and violent.
Social pressure can be used for good or evil. It's how a society self-regulates, whether that society is a national population or a bowling league.
In the West, we've learned through experience that freedom of expression is an overall good. Supression of speech just doesn't work out well. Ever.
It doesn't matter how 'noble' the attempt is, once people start using coercion to maintain an orthodoxy, things turn south.
as I'm aware, we're not talking about people being murdered for expressing unpopular views on social media.The same thing is going on now. AOC wanted a LIST of people who
Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the blacklisting of accus socialists by the House Committee on Un-American Activities during th McCarthy era, although that was more than social pressure in that it the force of government behind it.
supported Trump to take action against them! Neither the blacklisting
back then, or now, should be condoned.
Once you're making blacklists of people for beliefs, you're evil.
Period.
The cases we're dealing with don't involve this sort of evil. Compari boycott to, for example, the Chinese Cultural Revolution is a massive exaggeration.I didn't compare it to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. But things could turn that bad in the USA, I really do think so, because "Cancel Culture" uses the same techniques and justifications.
Hello Arelor!
** On Sunday 30.01.22 - 18:29, Arelor wrote to Jeff:
The bad news is the friendly local game store I used to buy
games from had to remove his RPG section due to the
pressure. He had lots of orders cancelled, which was
specially bad for this guy because he owns the sort of
local business that struggles to pay its own costs every
single month. But well, I guess the lynching mob does not
care for collateral damages :-P
I missed something. Why would he need to remove the RPG
section? As an independent seller, can't he curate his own
products?
How is deciding not to do business with a company due to their beliefs different from being obligated to destroy a company because of their beliefs One does what is within one's power to do, regardless of the end goal.
In the West, we've learned through experience that freedom of expressio is an overall good. Supression of speech just doesn't work out well. Ever.
Then why are you seeking to suppress the speech of those who disagree with you?
Hi all.
I started to read this thread and realised it seems to have nothing to do wi retro computing, old tech etc. despite being called 'computer kits' :)
It's a classic example I guess of a conversation morphing into something totally different.
Can we please
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
- ensure the subject reflects what's being talked about, or has changed to when you press reply to someone
- move the thread to another echo better suited for the subject if it's chan into something off topic for the echo... I'd suggest this one would be bette suited in the general chat echo than this retro chat one.
Many thanks all.
Thank you. I was hoping this would be addressed. I am also not
interested at reading the same ole converstaion about the current situation/sm ills while looking for Retro Computing info.
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
- ensure the subject reflects what's being talked about, or has change when you press reply to someone
- move the thread to another echo better suited for the subject if it's into something off topic for the echo... I'd suggest this one would be suited in the general chat echo than this retro chat one.
Many thanks all.
Well, I am then dropping the subject.
Hi Avon,
I've posted a response before I saw this.
I'm happy to cease the thread.
It's a classic example I guess of a conversation morphing into someth totally different.
I would agree with this, yes. It has morphed into a critique of modern "cancel culture."
Can we please
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
That is a subjective request.
- move the thread to another echo better suited for the subject if it changed into something off topic for the echo... I'd suggest this one would be better suited in the general chat echo than this retro chat
Inasmuch as it is ideologically tinged, I wpuld suggest that this topic
be verboten in fsx echoes. I would also note that I have argued against such ideological intingement. I would also note that no such forum for politically charged conversation exists at present.
Many thanks all.
You are welcome.
Discussions about cancel culture etc. are not discussions about retro tech. There's nothing subjective here.Can we pleaseThat is a subjective request.
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
On 01 Feb 2022, Avon said the following...
Discussions about cancel culture etc. are not discussions about retro tech. There's nothing subjective here.Can we pleaseThat is a subjective request.
- keep the posts on topic in this echo
I was a bit harsh with this, and I apologize. I quoted the bit above for context, but I'm referring to the whole post from which the quote came. Despite my words, I trust that it has not gone unnoticed that the conversation in question has ended, as requested.
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 78 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 00:48:34 |
| Calls: | 2,228 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 9,590 |
| Messages: | 323,135 |