employing it automatically causes you to lose the argument
I dunno. A better Godwinesque observation might be: in any debate on the internet, someone will try to define some sort of formal infraction that they want to automatically disqualify people - such as "logical fallacy!" or "name calling!" - and will latch on to such infractions and attempt to declare sort of formal, inarguable "victory" for their side as a result, or at least the formal exclusion of all other points from the offending side. And that this is not helpful either.
These days however it's the "right" who must overcome considerable obstacles to hold "free speech" rallies -- while masked leftist thugs invade their space and violently assault them with the tacit approval of the mayor and police chief, as has notably happened in Charlottesville
I think you better take a closer look at what actually happened in Charlottesville there, buddy.
It would seem that you're using the fact that you don't like this opinion as reason that the NY Times should have censored it.
The Times makes decisions every single day about what it will and will not publish according to its own editorial standards - such as whether, in the eyes of the editors, something is well-argued or not, misleadingly constructed or not, insightful or not, thorough or not, etc.
To say "The Times should not have published this" is not calling for censorship - it's criticizing editorial standards/decisions. The Times does not publish every single column and editorial that comes across its desk.
There were comment posts on all the Kickstarter weeks - but we did drop the history post on the last couple of saturdays, in favour of a KS promotion post.
Not sure what you mean by "everyone" because everyone can certainly get it now in Kickstarter! :)
We aim to open a simple storefront to accept further pre-orders after the campaign closes, but that will just be for this same single run of the game - we currently have no plans to continue production after that. So if you are sure you want a copy, best thing to do is secure yours now!
We're keeping track of interest from outside the US and we hope to add international shipping if enough people want it - so consider your vote counted :) I'm in Canada too so believe me I very much hope we can do it!
Apparently you don't read this very often. There are anonymous winners and editor's choices more weeks than not, and many weeks where anonymous winners outnumber those with accounts.
Unfortunately a lot of the source links in the posts from 15 years ago (and sometimes even 10 years ago) are broken now, since a lot of news sites have not made the effort to preserve old links as they've updated their websites and such.
For sure. But "if you don't vote, you can't complain" is still a childish, meaningless mantra. You could just as easily say "if you don't call your representative once every few months, and attend regular town halls, you can't complain". And sure, it would be great if more people did that stuff! But it would also be not-so-great if average people going about their day felt they had no right to comment on their government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another "feelings" law in Canada
That might be what his complaint "seemed to be" if you need to force it to make sense instead of admitting he's full of shit. But in reality, he said quite explicitly that he feared he would be *sent to jail* for not using someone's pronouns. Yeah, not gonna happen.
here is bad wording in the new laws: basically that you don't have to have had knowledge of someone's preferred pronouns to "harass" them with the wrong ones.
What wording are you referring to?
The law is not very long. All it does is add "gender identity or expression" to existing lists of categories that are protected. It doesn't change the way the laws function. It doesn't even say ANYTHING about pronouns - not in the new bill, nor in the Canadian Human Rights Act as a whole. The new bill also in no way changes the definitions of harassment in the CHRA.
Yeah, don't get your information on the status of Canada's hate speech laws from the stupid man's smart person.
There are issues with them, yes. Peterson, however, just hyperbolically misrepresents them. For example, there was never ever a law forcing anyone to use any pronouns - that's just something he made up.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying these content decisions are easy to make, or that Facebook (or others) never make mistakes, or even that there's a great solution under the current framework.
But I do reject the notion that Facebook is heavily politically biased in how it enforces its content policies. Or at least I'm highly, highly skeptical of it.
For one thing, I've certainly seen plenty of similar examples to what you're saying happening to people on the left. Such as criticisms of Israel from leftist/socialist groups, or criticisms of men from left-wing feminists (anecdotally, several women I am friends with on Facebook had statuses saying "men are trash" in the wake of various #metoo allegations reported and deleted - because that violates the letter of their hate speech policy). Or the infamous example of a content policy that "protects white men, but not black children". And there are certainly plenty of decisions on both sides I don't agree with. It is, in many ways, a mess.
But inasmuch as it impacts views from the right to a greater degree, I think it's insane to assume that it's solely because of political leanings. Much of the controversy over Facebook's supposed political bias in the last couple of years is centered around content from the "alt-right" - I'm talking Richard Spencer speeches calling explicitly for ethnic cleansing, childish Pepe fanboys making swastika memes and aggressively racist cartoons, etc.
The left has its problems, no doubt about that. But right now, the right (especially in the online world) is much, much uglier.
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re:
employing it automatically causes you to lose the argument
I dunno. A better Godwinesque observation might be: in any debate on the internet, someone will try to define some sort of formal infraction that they want to automatically disqualify people - such as "logical fallacy!" or "name calling!" - and will latch on to such infractions and attempt to declare sort of formal, inarguable "victory" for their side as a result, or at least the formal exclusion of all other points from the offending side. And that this is not helpful either.
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re: role reversal
These days however it's the "right" who must overcome considerable obstacles to hold "free speech" rallies -- while masked leftist thugs invade their space and violently assault them with the tacit approval of the mayor and police chief, as has notably happened in Charlottesville
I think you better take a closer look at what actually happened in Charlottesville there, buddy.
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re:
It would seem that you're using the fact that you don't like this opinion as reason that the NY Times should have censored it.
The Times makes decisions every single day about what it will and will not publish according to its own editorial standards - such as whether, in the eyes of the editors, something is well-argued or not, misleadingly constructed or not, insightful or not, thorough or not, etc.
To say "The Times should not have published this" is not calling for censorship - it's criticizing editorial standards/decisions. The Times does not publish every single column and editorial that comes across its desk.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: The Fidget Capsule
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 20th - 26th
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 20th - 26th
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 20th - 26th
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 167: CIA: Collect It All
Re:
We aim to open a simple storefront to accept further pre-orders after the campaign closes, but that will just be for this same single run of the game - we currently have no plans to continue production after that. So if you are sure you want a copy, best thing to do is secure yours now!
On the post: International Shipping Is Now Available For CIA: Collect It All On Kickstarter!
Re:
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Apocryphal stories
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 15th - 21st
Re: Broken link
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: It Actually Does Help To Vote, Though
Your representative isn't cross-referencing every letter and phone call from a constituent with the voter rolls.
...admittedly, they are with the donor lists.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: It Actually Does Help To Vote, Though
For sure. But "if you don't vote, you can't complain" is still a childish, meaningless mantra. You could just as easily say "if you don't call your representative once every few months, and attend regular town halls, you can't complain". And sure, it would be great if more people did that stuff! But it would also be not-so-great if average people going about their day felt they had no right to comment on their government.
On the post: Canadian Government Leaning Towards A Right To Be Forgotten It Can Enforce Anywhere In The World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another "feelings" law in Canada
On the post: Canadian Government Leaning Towards A Right To Be Forgotten It Can Enforce Anywhere In The World
Re: Re: Re: yet another "feelings" law in Canada
here is bad wording in the new laws: basically that you don't have to have had knowledge of someone's preferred pronouns to "harass" them with the wrong ones.
What wording are you referring to?
The law is not very long. All it does is add "gender identity or expression" to existing lists of categories that are protected. It doesn't change the way the laws function. It doesn't even say ANYTHING about pronouns - not in the new bill, nor in the Canadian Human Rights Act as a whole. The new bill also in no way changes the definitions of harassment in the CHRA.
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent
On the post: Canadian Government Leaning Towards A Right To Be Forgotten It Can Enforce Anywhere In The World
Re: yet another "feelings" law in Canada
There are issues with them, yes. Peterson, however, just hyperbolically misrepresents them. For example, there was never ever a law forcing anyone to use any pronouns - that's just something he made up.
On the post: Ted Cruz Gets Section 230 All Wrong, While Zuck Claims He's Not Familiar With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying these content decisions are easy to make, or that Facebook (or others) never make mistakes, or even that there's a great solution under the current framework.
But I do reject the notion that Facebook is heavily politically biased in how it enforces its content policies. Or at least I'm highly, highly skeptical of it.
For one thing, I've certainly seen plenty of similar examples to what you're saying happening to people on the left. Such as criticisms of Israel from leftist/socialist groups, or criticisms of men from left-wing feminists (anecdotally, several women I am friends with on Facebook had statuses saying "men are trash" in the wake of various #metoo allegations reported and deleted - because that violates the letter of their hate speech policy). Or the infamous example of a content policy that "protects white men, but not black children". And there are certainly plenty of decisions on both sides I don't agree with. It is, in many ways, a mess.
But inasmuch as it impacts views from the right to a greater degree, I think it's insane to assume that it's solely because of political leanings. Much of the controversy over Facebook's supposed political bias in the last couple of years is centered around content from the "alt-right" - I'm talking Richard Spencer speeches calling explicitly for ethnic cleansing, childish Pepe fanboys making swastika memes and aggressively racist cartoons, etc.
The left has its problems, no doubt about that. But right now, the right (especially in the online world) is much, much uglier.
Next >>