This kinda bullshit emboldens idiots of the opposite persuasion and I find that terrifying because I've been to /r/menrsrights and /r/theredpill. I want to blame the internet but I think the average person really can't have a rational debate that involves anything other than a clear cut right and wrong. The internet just makes it easier for anyone to lock them self in an echochamber that reinforces their opinions and too many people want exactly that. I'll blame the internet anyway. If I do that I can retain more optimism about human nature.
Well, what they're supporting isn't liberalism, it's socialism. Liberalism requires free speech. Socialism does not. The nanny-state aspect of socialism espouses that the masses are sheep which must be protected from propaganda and sugary drinks. Notwithstanding, I don't think most people believe in socialism or liberalism. I don't think most people believe in freedom. People believe in their freedom. Write a controversial article supporting their beliefs and they cry 'free speech.' Write an article contradicting their beliefs and they cry 'think of the children' and 'national security.'
"sane libertarianism". As opposed to "the state is evil" anarchist libertarianism. People who think that freedom is more than just "everyone does whatever they want", but also think that freedom is not "you must work, you will get paid X, you must not eat X".
libertarianism isn't about unrestrained greed. It's the core ideal that a person should be as free form outside influence as possible, without sacrificing the integrity of society. It all falls down to your definition of free. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on. I do not support any fiscal regulation on people, such as demanding they cannot make more than X money, or anything else of that sort. Freedom isn't "government has no say" it is "government takes action to ensure everyone is free to do as they want". Things like basic income are pillars of such things, where a person is free to decide a job is worth the time while knowing they aren't going to starve. Forcing companies to pay good wages, without requiring a minimum, and allowing people to work for whatever they want to, while making sure nobody gets screwed over for doing so.
It hasn't become a pattern, it is one, so far as I have observed. However, it is a better condition on hubski than reddit, because likes are inhrenetly shares, so if one person gets severely upvoted in a conversation, the person arguing against them also gets seen just as much, and not getting shares doesn't hide a person. The real danger is muting, in that aspect, and you will never know how many people are muted, and prevented from speaking in a conversation, while you can see the vote disparity.
Don't apologize for people agreeing with me. Not every opinion deserves respect for being expressed, least of all due to how long it took to write. The Turner Diaries took a long time to write, that doesn't make it a good book. I have like no idea what this guy is trying to say so I'm not going to be able to refute poorly made arguments
Why don't you both stop for a moment and think about the things that you are saying. Voting doesn't ruin a conversation more than treating the other person poorly. Try to remember that the other person is real. If this is how you both treat real people you don't agree with, try to get rid of that as well. It's not good for your health.
The worst part about this site is the haughty opinion of some users that it's more than a link aggregator. Reddit was supposed to be better than digg and it didn't fall off because people weren't making thoughtful comments, reddit got inundated by idiots. Guess what? Reddit, hubski and digg are all link aggregators. If you want to act like every opinion needs to be respected because there's a person behind it then fine but I will call bullshit on it if I think I need to. I'd do it in person too if it didn't cause social friction with people I see every day. I'm depressed and cranky but I mean everything. If you don't drive certain people away from a community it's going to suffer. There are bad ideas. I don't want to hear them.
Then please mute, filter, ignore instead of polluting the discussion with snarky insults. Right now you are the person who is being insulting and disruptive in this conversation. The nice thing about Hubski is that it allows you to neglect your own sense of self control by removing the people you dislike. Or alternatively you could keep it in your own mind. There isn't a point to add-ons like this. All they do is antagonize other people. "Calling bullshit" isn't an appropriate outlook towards social interaction. I don't care about anything in this argument. I do care about how it is conducted.There are bad ideas. I don't want to hear them.
I'm not going to be able to refute poorly made arguments
self serious joy vacuum
Not to defend Hubski but to get your thinking cap on: It's my considered opinion that there was nothing about Digg or Reddit that gave any advantage to thoughtful discussion over thoughtless discussion. I do think that Hubski has a tiny leg up: the fact that you can't vote past 8 and can't downvote at all eliminates most of the magnifiers that refine Reddit and Digg comments to the point of circlejerking. However, architecture only goes so far. At some level, if we want this place to keep from becoming a smaller Reddit we need to pay attention to what works and what doesn't.
once more with feeling: I've got most of these people ignored so I can just sort of go "libertarian circlejerk" and move on. I'm all about libertarians having their place to circlejerk and if they want to encourage and discourage and debate and disseminate and cheer on and shout down that's entirely their prerogative. What you've got here is a viable mechanism whereby it doesn't impact me. The system works. Don't fuck with it without a damn good reason.
Every time you share a post or comment, you are instead linked to a lengthy remonstration reminding you that even the smallest actions have far-reaching moral consequences. And a warning that upvoting a comment has the same legal repercussions that being accomplice to a crime carries. Or just this.
You're the first Libertarian I've met with such opinions. 'Libertarian' is a nebulous term. I prefer the more concrete 'classical liberal.' Whereas you sound closer to a social liberal. Or maybe Left-Libertarianism, another nebulous term. Maybe my confusion is because most self-identified Libertarians are 'Right Libertarians.'It all falls down to your definition of free. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on.
Except I did answer your question. Financial regulation, when direct and applied to stopping a person from doing something, does limit personal freedom. When it is taxes, regulations on industry that aren't hard bans on products, and instead forcing them to give information or use certain packaging, and so on, it does not limit personal freedom. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and find myself very much in support in things like basic income, road building, and so on. I do not support any fiscal regulation on people, such as demanding they cannot make more than X money, or anything else of that sort.
This seems like Ebonics 2.0. If you look up "trigger warning" you see a bunch of articles talking about how stupid trigger warnings are. You find almost nothing talking about how they're good. I say "almost" because I assume there's some somewhere but I didn't find it. If you look up "microaggression" you find an XOJane article celebrating a Tumblr blog that has had about 150 posts in a year, the most recent a week ago. There seems to be a whole bunch more discussion of 'ZOMG the thought police are coming' than 'why our language needs to be more sensitive.' Especially when the author calls Hanna Rosin 'longtime friend.'
? I know ("know" acquainted with) a lot of people who take trigger warnings seriously. Facebook friends, bloggers, whatever. Microaggression, I've never heard before, no comment. But yeah I didn't actually endorse this article I'm tryna trick you guys into reading stuff.If you look up "trigger warning" you see a bunch of articles talking about how stupid trigger warnings are. You find almost nothing talking about how they're good. I say "almost" because I assume there's some somewhere but I didn't find it.
And I "know" people on the Internet that take orgone energy seriously. The Internet is a big place that people can get away from easily. That's what makes it nice. It's when things cross over into the world that we start having a problem... and here in the tender state of California, where you can't sell nail polish without a carcinogen warning, where they tried to ban "master" and "slave" terminology in all government-funded enterprises, "trigger language" is something I only ever see on the Internet.
I have mixed feelings on trigger warnings. Not worth getting into here really. But ever since I first read this comment of yours one thing stuck out at me that I've wanted to let you know - I felt that you can make a better argument than: I am pretty sure your opinion itself is more nuanced than "Well, a lot of people seem to think they're stupid, so..." If you look up "trigger warning" you see a bunch of articles talking about how stupid trigger warnings are. You find almost nothing talking about how they're good.
'k check it. I live in the most liberal section of the most liberal city of the United States. My kid's daycare serves gluten free and allows unvaccinated kids. My wife is the go-to in the GLBT community for intrauterine insemination. A goodly portion of her income comes from intimate health services for lesbians. She sees sexual trauma regularly; in fact, she has a 1-page questionnaire for her patients because those things manifest in detrimental ways during childbirth. When I asked her how much "trigger warnings" were coming up in her conversations, I had to explain what they were. So allow me to repeat myself: this shit exists in a handful of universities and is debated pointlessly on the Internet. That's it. Yes, you see it in your Facebook feed because people are used to getting yelled at by friends of friends of friends and they all see each other using it, kind of the way old people spell out "hashtag" and think "LOL" means "lots of love." That doesn't make it a thing. When I was in 8th grade Newsweek lost their shit because some feminist somewhere decided "women" should be spelled "womyn" and the country collectively lost their shit. Two years later the country collectively lost their shit again over "ebonics" - whereby the country collectively lost their shit because a city university in Oakland recognized street language as a separate vernacular but for some reason, that meant all our children will be forced to learn "black talk" in order to get into college. When I was shortly out of college the social worker I was putting through grad school was required to learn seven genders in order to not oppress the GLBT community and soon enough we all would, dammit! Terk er jerbs! Terk er freedoms! Yet here we are. Nobody remembers ebonics. Womyn is a footnote. Chelsea Manning is a she and not even Rush fucking Limbaugh gives a shit - his whole beef with sex change operations is apparently in Dittoland gender reassignment somehow comes with a new identity. Which, for Rush Limbaugh, is pretty goddamn progressive. So no - it's not more nuanced. It's less nuanced if anything because I've lived this shit my whole life. My mother taught alternative medicine in Santa Fe. My cousin taught prenatal yoga in Santa Monica and now teaches it in Boulder. I went to a black lesbian wedding in 1985 and you know what? There will always be a tiny, irrelevant lunatic fringe that will come up with some idea about how the world might be a little better if everyone made a change and a giant, vocal backlash movement freaking out about how it's taking away their freedoms. That one person you know on Facebook that uses the phrase "trigger warning" from time to time? Yeah, I'll bet you a dollar she doesn't use it in real life. And if it isn't in real life, it isn't worth a fucking article in NYMag.
Welcome to the Internet: Jonathan Chait and the Death of False Consensus https://hubski.com/pub?id=204309As many have pointed out, Chait’s response to “calling out perceived microaggressions” is an example of calling out perceived microaggressions. Chait’s resistance to condemnatory discourse that chills free expression is condemnatory discourse that chills free expression. Chait isn’t stuck in hostile, combative, online traffic. He is traffic.