181–190 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting a new job soon and I'm trying to figure out how I'll handle these "silence is complicit" characters. My personal policy is to not discuss political/social issues at work.
If you think that it's not true (that silence is not complicit), then shouldn't you attempt to explain that?
Everyone's in the comments talking about professionalism, this isn't the time for professionalism.
BLACK LIVES MATTER! Scream it from the rooftops. "black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per-capita rate of all other Americans" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United...
Slavery is alive and well in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the advocates would agree that it's brigading. They're trying to create a climate where it's simply impossible to be neutral on their issue of choice, since they feel it's wrong to be neutral.
They don't have the numbers to impose the authoritarianism they seek (to fully remake things in the way they see fit), so the rampant threats and intimidation are meant to force joining. The best way to accomplish that, is to threaten a person's livelihood, which threatens their ability to exist. They started by just doing social ostracising, social threats of exclusion, and now they've moved on to targeting liveliho…
you know you can just not tune in, right? it’s not coercive in any way, unlike said dictatorship or government regulation. amplification of voice is not a civil right.
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of: ‘The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough.” “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I w…
I think most adults feel the same way about social media activism, but they probably don't think it's worth their time to call it out even if it annoys them. You would just be begging the social media mob to turn on you next.
I'm so over this political posturing. I can't wait for ~2 weeks when everyone's going to go back to their lives like nothing happened (remember #OccupyWallStreet?). People that actually change the world don't need to advertise it on Twitter. I have friends that volunteer in Watts and Compton every other weekend (and have done so for years ) that don't need to share it on social media. I can't help but think that this…
Unfortunately, there is no going back here - it's partly the issues, but mostly a totally new culture of a) Twitter wars b) a new generation of people feeling that it's their 'duty' to (act out which I often believe lacks context) c) a press and pop culture climate considerably more clicky-baity and divided (just google cnn headlines from the 2000's, way more tame) d) corporate pressure to 'buy into' movements which is only going to really exacerbate the system.
I've said this before to strong disagreement but marketers jobs are to sell you aspiration - when that aspiration moves off the court and into the streets and politics, and you're gadget/shoes/apparel/cars are being sold with politics, it's not only deeply hypocritical, but it's going to come back and bite us.
I don't really see the underlying fundamentals moving in a positive direction.
People might argue that if 'the system were fairer' we wouldn't see this reaction, my response would be that there will always be something to argue about. The NYT was literally calling for 'Paw Patrol' to be cancelled due to indoctrination of children by 'coppaganda'. While this is an interesting idea, I feel there will always be threads to pull upon for people to be angry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, many of the founding fathers explicitly feared that general populace would vote poorly and wanted people who were educated and had access to sufficient information to make a decision to do so on their behalf.
I was also told the following rationale: If elections are decided entirely by popular vote, then candidates are incentivized to campaign in population centers, and have no incentive to ever visit sparsely populated states. (Like, bringing your margin from 70% to 85% of 4 million people is worth more than going from 0% to 100% of 400k people.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting a new job soon and I'm trying to figure out how I'll handle these "silence is complicit" characters. My personal policy is to not discuss political/social issues at work.
>My personal policy is to not discuss political/social issues at work. Your silence is part of the discussion. You cannot escape the political atmosphere of the government to whom you pay taxes. If you want to separate work and politics, you need to not participate in the system that allows the politics to exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it was a private reply, which the facebook employee then outed publicly on twitter. >I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political. That is 100% not ok.
Why is that not okay? Do you think that is sensitive private information? Or do you believe that no content of any private conversation should ever be publicized?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally sure, but when politicians are using your platform (paying you) to further their own narratives, it's fair game.
That depends on if you are a platform or a publisher.