The 벨기에 of corporations
-
The raw is:
belg<f>ium
-
I spotted a (then) new feature and decided it needed testing.
And it pretty badly needed it from my memories of various topics about it on meta.d.
-
You don't need to do that though. Belgium.
-
Only one (paying) customer needed it. So instead of making it a plugin, it got shoved in core.
One DiscoDev expressed surprise that we'd used it (not for its intended purpose of course... )
-
So instead of making it a plugin, it got shoved in core.
yeppers, but to be fair it is something that is likely to be wanted by a lot of possible paying customers (even though DiscoDevs know it doesn't really work) so putting it in core wasn't that terribad an idea.
-
Tossing [X] in [Y] because easy is exactly how
util.hand God objects happen
-
Belgium is censored? Are you sure?
-
It sure is: Belgium
-
-
-
-
So I'm good at making something right?
-
your average liberal, by applying liberal principles to themselves,
Such as preaching tolerance while being very intolerant of non-liberal opinions?
examining their own prejudices and wrong assumptions is something liberals do, or should do, every day.
I've seen nothing to suggest that liberals actually do this to any greater degree than people in general do.
-
@Buddy said:
your average liberal, by applying liberal principles to themselves,
Such as preaching tolerance while being very intolerant of non-liberal opinions?
Yes, that's what I said. I was trying to explain how someone making a good faith attempt to be tolerant could end up doing that. One hypothesis is that they might have come to associate liberalism with tolerance: if you substitute ‘tolerant’ for ‘liberal’ in the above sentence you can maybe see where a lot of people are at.
@Buddy said:
How would you? I would have thought this falls under the same class of problem that makes politics such a clusterfuck.examining their own prejudices and wrong assumptions is something liberals do, or should do, every day.
I've seen nothing to suggest that liberals actually do this to any greater degree than people in general do.For liberals, the process tends to lead them towards a certain set of opinions, most of which conservatives vocally reject. So hopefully it's not hard to see where these assumptions could be coming from.
But also, something that seems quite common is that when liberals do examine themselves the way I'm saying they do, and then talk to each other about what they've found, conservatives seem to take that as a personal attack on them.
-
conservatives seem to take that as a personal attack on them
It seems to me that taking disagreement as a personal attack is pretty much a universal human mental knee-jerk reaction.
There are two main ways to deal with having experienced such a reaction. One is to acknowledge one's own unfortunate wiring, do one's best to compensate for the reaction, and return to discussion of the actual underlying issues. The other is to double down, and carry on as if (a) the disagreement really was a personal attack and (b) the "fact" of the attack is now far more important than whatever initial disagreement gave rise to it and (c) whatever the "attacker" believes or says is not only wrong but objectively and offensively wrong.
The second way is something I see played out much more often by conservatives than by liberals.
Liberals who arrive at endpoint (c) generally do so by a different path. For example I take the view that what @xaade has to say on almost any topic with even the most tenuous connection to politics is objectively and offensively wrong, but this is not because he has attacked me personally; as far as I can recall, this hasn't happened (and no, telling me that my opinion is not worth paying attention to does not constitute a personal attack, not even when done in public). Rather, it's because he consistently employs the tediously predictable conservative trope of attempting to view every. fucking. subject! through a Them Vs Us political lens.
Racism doesn't matter because Feminists or Liberals or some other convenient group of scapegoats complain about it too much. Sexism doesn't even exist, likewise. Evolution is best understood in terms of its application to Right Thinking Industrious People vs Lazy Backward Welfare Queens. And on and on and on, just grindingly and relentlessly.
There is simply no point engaging somebody in discussion once they have clearly demonstrated this attitude.
That said, I don't perceive @xaade as a "bigoted shit who just doesn't care". I think he believes that bigotry is a permanent and inevitable social feature because there exists no reasonable way for non-bigots to pull bigots into line by the application of testable and objectively fair rules; from which it follows that no proposed set of guidelines for recognizing the operation of bigotry could have any value whatsoever; from which it follows that people who compile such things must be wrongheaded and/or stupid since their only possible effect could be misapplication to the detriment of innocent non-bigots-by-definition like him.
It's not so much the unexamined bigotry that leaks out of every second thing he posts that I find sad and objectionable as the "I didn't do it because you wouldn't be able to prove it even if I did" refusal to assume an adult degree of self-control. It's like reading a four-year-old with gramming skills.
-
Maybe you could benefit from a bit more us and them thinking, though. Recognize when the people you are dealing with are from a different culture than you, respect their beliefs, listen when they tell you about their experiences, try to understand the context of what they're speaking about, then engage them on the issues, if you still care.
I might be on shaky ground here, facts-wise, but my understanding is America's still pretty much divided into the liberal north vs the conservative south. And there's an incredibly pervasive stereotype that the south is more racist than the north. And that doesn't match a lot of southern people's experience. I know I didn't notice anything l particularly insensitive in the time I spent in Texas. And that does fit with a thing that I've heard, about how bigotry might be more visible in the south, because if someone doesn't like your type round these parts they'll just say so, it's actually more pervasive—and infinitely more infuriating—in the north, where people hide it behind seven layers of political correctness and micro aggression to where you can never actually call them on it.
Anyway, the main point of what I'm trying to say here is: don't try to change a culture you're not a member of. It's stupid. There's no justification for it, and no chance of success. If you're going to criticize people, criticize liberals, because at least there you've got a leg to stand on.
-
FUCK YOU YOU CONDESCENDING ARSEHOLE YOU DON'T GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO ok you may well have a point. Thanks for that.
-
don't try to change a culture you're not a member of. It's stupid. There's no justification for it, and no chance of success.
Counterpoint: Internet culture is a thing, and I am a member of it.
If you're going to criticize people, criticize liberals, because at least there you've got a leg to stand on.
Counterpoint: the apparent general tendency of liberal thinkers toward self-criticism and endless internecine infighting on minor points of ideology, as opposed to the apparent general tendency of conservative thinkers toward displaying almost no sign of self-awareness while closing ranks behind their leaders against reality's Intolerable Liberal Bias, is probably one of the main reasons that genuine progress toward implementing an oppression-free society is so painfully difficult to achieve.
Public criticism, it seems to me, is best applied to systems and structures and thinkers and arguments in priority order by wrongness.
-
The second way is something I see played out much more often
by conservativeson the internet thanby liberalsin real life.
FTFY.
-
I think he believes that bigotry is a permanent and inevitable social feature because there exists no reasonable way for non-bigots to pull bigots into line by the application of testable and objectively fair rules;
That is inherently impossible. If someone is a bigot, you don't pull them into line by
by the application of testable and objectively fair rules
They remain a bigot.
The only thing that happens with these rules is make to inconvenience everyone else, and create a platform for the extreme leftists to criticize everyone by judging microaggressions by equity.
Look, I know for most people, the list could be a useful self-reflection technique, but unfortunately the people posting these things, by and large, belong to a group that choose to judge by equity and not by personal conviction.
In essence, I believe the list is useless, because if you are honest to yourself and ask the question, am I being prejudice, you should know the answer. People that don't care to reflect on whether they are prejudice, are inherently prejudice by that choice alone, and the only thing the list can do is judge innocent people by outcomes.
So, the whole "context matters" thing is a weak bullshit shield from criticism.
I mean, how else do I take it, when I see a post on a feminist blog saying that
"I noticed there aren't any black women posting here. Someone must be causing microaggressions."They've gotten cause and effect completely backwards.
You see, there are two problem groups, unlike your assumption that I think there is a
Them Vs Us political lens.
There are actual racist/bigots.
And there is the extreme left that thinks that everyone is a bigot unless there is equity (equality of outcomes).
If there is a "Them vs. Us", us is the rational folk in the middle, drawn between these two polar groups that both need to shut the fuck up.
"I didn't do it because you wouldn't be able to prove it even if I did" refusal to assume an adult degree of self-control.
Another false assumption.
In fact I do observe my own emotions and reactions and take them into account, and take extra care to make sure that they aren't motivated by a natural urge to discriminate.
Why? Because what you feed into yourself turns into your habits and reactions. What you feed the heart is what you become.
That's why I applaud people who post positive stories, like having a year with the largest number of black bar-exam pass rate. People need to know when black people do good things, because if they are constantly fed black people committing crimes, they naturally build resistances to opposing information. And this leads to discrimination.
Ironic, that in a way, the media blaming us for deep-seated racism, is actually one of the causes of it.
And there's an incredibly unfounded pervasive stereotype that the south is far more racist than the north
FTFY.
No one is saying the South has no racism.
But, really, the North is just the pot calling the kettle black right now.
-
Counterpoint: the apparent general tendency of liberal thinkers toward self-criticism and endless internecine infighting on minor points of ideology, as opposed to the apparent general tendency of conservative thinkers toward displaying almost no sign of self-awareness while closing ranks behind their leaders against reality's Intolerable Liberal Bias
These things are apparent to us, not to them.Public criticism, it seems to me, is best applied to systems and structures and thinkers and arguments in priority order by wrongness.
You've also got to factor in your own experience, so you don't end up criticizing something you don't actually understand, and whether the targets will be receptive to that criticism, if you want anything positive at all to come of it.
-
I'm sorry I edited your thread title with a stupid in-joke based pun, @NeighborhoodButcher, and I'm sorry for shitting your thread body up with stupid partisan politics based trolling.
-
If there is a "Them vs. Us", us is the rational folk in the middle, drawn between these two polar groups that both need to shut the fuck up.
Yeah, it's only worse when you actually care about things like, y'know, the Constitution and its amendments...
That's why I applaud people who post positive stories, like having a year with the largest number of black bar-exam pass rate. People need to know when black people do good things, because if they are constantly fed black people committing crimes, they naturally build resistances to opposing information. And this leads to discrimination.
Ironic, that in a way, the media blaming us for deep-seated racism, is actually one of the causes of it.
QFT -- I'm fortunate enough to have a diverse enough personal experience to ward off at least some of the media's push and shove, but with the way folks tend to insulate themselves these days, boy, is it a problem...You've also got to factor in your own experience, so you don't end up criticizing something you don't actually understand, and whether the targets will be receptive to that criticism, if you want anything positive at all to come of it.
Yeah -- this is especially problematic when you have intricate mechanisms that have very good reasons for not being as simple as the "kindergarten fairness" notion of common law.
-
You've also got to factor in your own experience, so you don't end up criticizing something you don't actually understand, and whether the targets will be receptive to that criticism, if you want anything positive at all to come of it.
I get that there are situations you do want to avoid.
Someone is taking apart their food to alter it for some cultural reason, and you criticize them for being gross.
But, I'm not arguing for the right to be grossly rude.
The entire point of my discussion is people hiding behind the political correctness to (justify their / avoid criticism for) unethical behavior, and dancing around unreasonable expectations.
-
Rather, it's because he consistently employs the tediously predictable conservative trope of attempting to view every. fucking. subject! through a Them Vs Us political lens.
Yeah, because it's conservatives who came up with the slogan, "the personal is political."
-
Counterpoint: the apparent general tendency of liberal thinkers toward self-criticism and endless internecine infighting on minor points of ideology, as opposed to the apparent general tendency of conservative thinkers toward displaying almost no sign of self-awareness while closing ranks behind their leaders against reality's Intolerable Liberal Bias, is probably one of the main reasons that genuine progress toward implementing an oppression-free society is so painfully difficult to achieve.
I know we live in different countries. That may explain you inability to describe what I see around me.
Here's what I've seen here:
The Democrats tend to pound down the nails that stick up. Dissenting view points are generally suppressed. The Republican party has a lot of disagreements (e.g., abortion).
No doubt this is an over simplification, but it's not outright wrong.
-
Dissenting viewpoints being generally suppressed is characteristic of almost all political parties (the Australian Greens are the most notable exception in my own country). Also, I would rate most major-party politicians as apparatchiks rather than actual thinkers.
-
Dissenting viewpoints being generally suppressed is characteristic of almost all political parties
Yes, but it's much more common on the left than the right in America. I agree with the notion about reality having a liberal bias, but in the original meaning, not in the modern Orwellian definition of liberal.
-
Yes, but it's much more common on the left than the right in America. I agree with the notion about reality having a liberal bias, but in the original meaning, not in the modern Orwellian definition of liberal.
Aye -- reality has a bias towards Enlightment liberalism (and to some extent modern small-l libertarianism/civil-liberties-advocacy), if you will. Modern/Orwellian liberalism is really a tyranny of sensitivity in disguise, sadly...which hurts hard, because the US conservatives don't fare any better regarding power grabs.
-
Here in Australia, dissent within the party is generally suppressed to about the same extent within both the majors, though voting against the party line on the floor of Parliament will get you officially disciplined within the Labor Party (centre left) but not usually in the Liberal/National coalition (centre right).
Where the Coalition really shines, though, is in attempting to shut down public dissent. Try googling "Gillian Triggs" and "Q&A ban" for egregious recent examples, if you're interested; then research present Australian Government policy on press access to its offshore immigration detention centres. It's a pretty disgusting record.
-
"Q&A ban"
Meh...you guys seem to have relatively weak freedom of speech and a government owned broadcaster. What did you think would happen (NB: I didn't look into this stuff specifically)?
-
Question, if you have a white person in South African.... are they "African-European"?
No, they're European-South African.
-
government owned broadcaster.
The ABC charter is supposed to guarantee its independence from the government of the day. The organization has a long and proud record of freedom from political bias; it's the most trusted news broadcaster in the country for good and sufficient reasons.
Every. single. time. we get a conservative Government in this country, it does its best to turn the ABC into a propaganda mouthpiece. If it's not stacking the ABC board with political fellow travelers, it's cutting funding, or ridiculous bullshit like this withdrawal of Ministers from its public discussion program. The Tories hate the ABC with a passion; the current Prime Minister has recently described the Q&A discussion program as a "lefty lynch mob", despite the fact that his own frequent appearances on that program in years past (to considerable applause) were undoubtedly helpful to his eventual ascendancy to the Prime Ministership.
If Q&A has devolved into a "lefty lynch mob" from Abbott's POV, this can only be because (a) he's long been way further to the right than most Australians and (b) most Australians have now got sick of his ham-fisted mismanagement style. Q&A's audience selection process is unchanged.
-
Every. single. time. we get a conservative Government in this country, it does its best to turn the ABC into a propaganda mouthpiece.
Everything I've seen from it, it already has a significant leftward bias. I think you need to check your political spectrum privilege.
-
Everything I've seen from it, it already has a significant leftward bias.
I'd expect no less from you. Reality, of course, is biased against you:
Is the ABC biased and inefficient? Here's what the data says
Conservative commentators have lambasted the ABC for its skewed coverage but a range of figures dispute that
-
Everything I've seen from it, it already has a significant leftward bias.
Asking flabdablet to see leftward bias is like asking a fish to see the water in which it swims.
-
You have to correct for the fact that Australians are prudes who have no Freedom of Speech.
Look how they treat video games and internet censorship. They'll probably be setting up gulags soon, which is good because they have lots of land that lends itself to making really miserable gulags.
-
Reality, of course, is biased against you:
The number of people sharing a world view doesn't make reality biased against him.
If everyone died, it doesn't matter the pregnancy statistics of abstinence.
Which, by the way, is a subjective concern. Some people are more concerned with advocating bad ethics than resulting pregnancies. That doesn't invalidate their views.
And no one has to say condemns aren't allowed in school, just don't force taxpayers to pay for it. You want to solve the problem that way, then create a charity.
-
The number of people sharing a world view doesn't make reality biased against him.
Quite so; only the actual measurements refuting his perception that the ABC is biased left can do that.
-
if you are honest to yourself and ask the question, am I being prejudice, you should know the answer.
Nothing I've ever seen has told me that people are good at admitting when they are doing something that they know is wrong.The entire point of my discussion is people hiding behind the political correctness to (justify their / avoid criticism for) unethical behavior, and dancing around unreasonable expectations.
The best way to live, imo, is not to need any justification for your fuckups beyond “I did the best that I was able”.
-
@boomzilla said:
Everything I've seen from it, it already has a significant leftward bias.
I'd expect no less from you. Reality, of course, is biased against you:
Conservative commentators have lambasted the ABC for its skewed coverage but a range of figures dispute that
OK, now I've seen one thing that claims otherwise, though I admit to not being an expert on Australian media.
The personal is political - Wikipedia
