211–220 of 597 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m old fashioned. I judge articles not on whether they are published by “an odd Christian sect”, but how accurate and well-sourced they are. But hey, I’m a Boomer.
Zero sources provided. There's a link that looks like it should go to the twitter post, but is a list of Newsweek stories about twitter. And the posts are apparently now private. So what did you judge this article on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In case somebody else were wondering, I looked it up: PoC authors in this context refers to "Persons of Color"-authors. In hindsight it is probably clear from the context - but I didn't immediately get it. :)
I feel you, as an European engineer far away from such matters, PoC means "proof of concept" to me :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen this interesting behavior in other contexts. There is a stupid rule that nobody likes. People make an effort to follow it despite hating it. When they see someone breaking the rule they feel that it's very unfair because of the effort they are making, so they report it to make it fairer. Either everyone should follow the rule or it shouldn't exist. But in doing so they have become what they hated. They are…
We all follow rules we don't agree with; that is part of the social contract. Selective enforcement of rules is one of the biggest threats to those who behave lawfully. I see no compromise of principle in people who maintain and enforce stupid rules they disagree with. The most honest response is to argue for and support sensible rules, not to turn a blind eye. I'm not saying that I think it is a good idea to follow…
it's been my experience that people generally don't follow rules they disagree with, unless they are afraid of the consequences. As such, seeing someone breaking the rule who is also someone in power over them with ability to enforce the rule can be especially galling.
People are walking chimps, organizing into tribes and beating the other tribe. Like, our cousins, we take visceral emotional satisfaction in demeaning the other tribe. Today’s US is just a grand example of this at Internet scale and energized by social media. Welcome to shit throwing and the tearing off of genitals. What you have now are threat displays to keep the losing tribe in its place. People identifying with t…
People seem to be doing what losers do when facing destruction: move away. You see movement in both physical and virtual spaces. In people and in companies to different states. In people moving to different social media. People stop fighting with you, they just avoid you. China is going to be the obvious dominant world power within Biden’s term.
Or, atleast, that it have been obvious that they will soon be...
Frequently I feel that there is a conflation of the inherent attributes of a platform like Gab or Parler, and its user base. Though they may pitch themselves at a certian audience, social media platforms don't ultimately get to choose their users, and I'm not sure to what extent it is fair to judge them by their users. If we do judge them by their users (and I don't mean to sound like I'm criticizing Gab/Parler users…
From SlateStarCodex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media accounts are not credentials, and that requirement is bogus for 99% of jobs unless your job is social media publicity
Forget about credentials, hiring someone is a risk and you basically go into it as an employer flying blind. I request social media links (not passwords, just profile links) from everyone I'm considering hiring, because any/all information I can use to winnow potentially problem hires out before I make an offer is extremely valuable to me. You can tell a lot about a person from their social media profiles and posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.
"Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.
Just a reminder that Newsweek ceased publication back in 2013, and the rights to its brand were purchased by an odd Christian sect, somewhat along the lines of The Washington Times and the Reunification Church. The new "Newsweek" capitalizes on the brand reputation of the old one, but has no connections to it; a good thing to do with Newsweek pieces is to check the byline and look up what their background is.
Honest question - it's obvious how you identify politically by all your posts here, but what has your comment got to do with the story? If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?
It is the literal meaning of "virtue signalling".
>"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this" This honestly reads like satire. Why were they "distressed" by this and who could possibly be affected or offended by something so trivial?
Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.
Reminds me of Dawn Frederick, a literary agent who was "cancelled" for calling 911 on looters who rammed a van into the gas station on her apartment block: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p... This happened during the BLM protests this summer in St. Loius. The looters she reported were blocks away from any BLM protest, and other looting bands were setting fires on nearby blocks. Frederick w…
I honestly don't know why people use "post what you're thinking" style social media at all at this point. With employers being so sensitive, how can the cost/benefit analysis ever really result in a determination that it's a good idea to be active on Twitter/Facebook (or Gab, Parler, TheDonald.win, etc.)? Maybe that's part of what makes things get so extreme on those sites. The most reasonable people know enough not…
Only use social-media as a read-only medium, or for marketing.
Anything you say there can, and will, be used against you in the court of public opinion, FOREVER.
On other sites, such as HN and reddit, retire your username after a few weeks / months. Your internet points don't matter.