41–50 of 120 posts
"The death of the private citizen who publishes publicly with their own personal information attached". First name + middle name + occupation + city isn't "private".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower…
>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?
In percentage terms it doesn't seem that large, there's some complexity to the trends when comparing short- and long-distance moves, and of course the primary cause is assumed to be our transition from an industrial to service oriented economy, as well as the closing of the Western frontier (e.g. end of the Cold War and loss of defense jobs put an end to the great California migration). But I think the trends are amplified in our cultural expectations, which is why I brought up the shift in film and television narratives, which makes it apparent even for people who never lived in the 1980s, when migration began to wane. Obviously people still move for work, just not as much they used to. Likewise, the notion that you can and could move to improve your economic position isn't gone, it's just relatively diminished.
I saw a comment on Twitter that what you're really seeing here is dueling philosophies, and I agree. Ever heard the expression, Sunshine is the best disinfectant? I think you're seeing it's logical endpoint with the SSC story. And while it seems to have fallen out of fashion, for the most part, I agree. It seems to me that no matter where you turn, when it comes to 'the truth and nothing but the truth' about someone…
Like you, I also comment on the internet under my real name, so pulling back the curtain on everything else is an exciting prospect.
But for that not to ever bite us, that requires that we never offend too many people, even for a brief second.
I naturally stay within bounds, so that is fine for me, but I suspect many opinions would need to remain hidden if a war were waged on anonymity.
Why can't ideas be allowed to exist on their own, detached from any known person?
So NYTIMES policy is to Dox their sources ? I don’t see them dox the opinion column of the famous “anonymous” government official or other tyrants.
I was always under the impression that journalistic integrity was staked on providing anonymity to anonymous sources. In the past it was something the most respected journalist would have gone to prison over, but in today's world I guess it's whatever keeps those click rates high.
They are not obligated to offer anonymity to every source.
I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…
If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.
Very interesting article. I'd hypothesize that this comes out of the fact that this is rooted in the idea that "the personal is political". This has led to the growing idea that not taking a stand on an issue is supporting the status quo and therefore just as political. Therefore, everyone must "pick a side". This is reflected in the attacks on people who don't condemn political movements, but refuse to support them.…
A lot of these concepts are derived from the French historian Michel Foucault (he was not a philosopher or a "critical theorist", he was the chair of history at a major French university) and bear out the interpretations that won out in American humanities departments and trickled down to street level as a generation of grad students hit the streets after 2008 as humanities depts shuttered left and right.
Occupy Wall Street wouldn't happen today because it was the last vestige of '68 style old school European Left politics. In 2008, good ol' class consciousness was the last thing critical theory and Humanities depts were discussing. 'Identity politics', itself the evolution of 80/90s Critical Race Theory, had already started to dominate academic circles in the late 90s/early 00s, to the point that the popular, heralded Slovenian Marxist Slavoj Zizek dedicated a whole book to the topic, arguing on behalf of good ol' universality as pivot point for politics against popular writers like Judith Butler (gender/sexuality) and Wendy Brown (race).
Coming to software as I did from continental European philosophy study it's been quite fascinating watch a species of Foucault interpretation become the mainstream Left ideology in America (and one that differs in my reading by quite a bit).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower…
>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?
It’s reasonable to believe that an overall declining mobility rate means that people aren’t moving for jobs.
One interesting note in that data- it appears intracounty moves declined much more quickly than inter-county moves. I suspect that the increasing ubiquity of personal automobile ownership helped drive that decreasing mover rate, as it enabled more work opportunities to be within reasonable distance of peoples existing accommodation (and moving sucks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?
The trend has been quietly discussed in political-economic circles for many years. Here's a relatively recent media article about it: https://www.curbed.com/2019/11/22/20976309/migration-millenn... And somewhat recent academic summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1209_mi... (Choice quote: "Back in the 1950s, almost one fifth of all Americans changed residence annually.") In percentage terms i…
[Edit] It seems to say the proportion of people moving for work has increased, while the total has decreased. I can't see there's enough information to figure out the net change. When I ask for a source, I mean, I don't see it here.
Maybe looking on a .gov site for census data would be more fruitful, but you could also be candid about where your opinion comes from, which doesn't require doing a lot of research for the benefit of anonymous strangers.
Something that I try to remember when I feel defensive about possibly not having a good argument for something is that I can defuse it by simply explaining how I convinced myself and letting go of overthinking what would convince others.