followed tags: 66
followed domains: 9
badges given: 0 of 2
member for: 2184 days
Flash was cool for certain things. Having a cartoon with randomized elements is pretty neat, as is the ability to hide clickable easter-eggs in scenes, or to use clocks that actually work. It was less great as a web development tool.
It's too bad the one couldn't be extricated from the other.
Without having read it yet, though I will soon because that sounds cool, I can see two possible scenarios. Either UBI is designed in a way that allows people to thrive, allowing for increased access to resources for all and giving people the ability to live out their dreams unfettered by employment, or everyone is paid just enough to survive and it becomes damn near impossible to acquire anything more than that, resulting in a new gilded age.
I'd hope, though, that government that's populous enough to create UBI would be populous enough to make sure it's set up so that you don't create a vast underclass of everyone who doesn't own an automated business.
- Cultural exchange is incredibly important, most definitely - but I'd probably postulate that for a lot of people it's important for them to retain their 'self'. For many people in an increasingly globalized world, it's important to stick to their traditions.
Yeah, we have these people in Western cultures too. They're religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and white supremacists. Why do these beliefs suddenly become admirable when it's from another culture?
- But for Western culture to take a festival that is still seen as hugely important to a very prominent religious culture and not just 'secularizing' it (that in itself isn't my problem with it) but commercializing it in a fashion where the entire original meaning behind that day and festival is lost is a bit strange to me.
That is secularizing it, though. You're not going to retain the original religious significance of the holiday because secularization is exactly that, removing the religion from it. Generally, as per Christmas and Easter, we replace that with commerce. Travel, feasting, presents, all of these help to fuel the economy. Easter was pretty religiously important before we went all hippitus hoppitus with it.
- The events I'm referring to are literally an excuse for college kids to go out and have a rave party, basically. That doesn't seem to me to be a good 'cultural exchange'.
Why not? What's wrong with college kids having a rave party? Why does cultural exchange have to be somber? If I meditate does it have to be to attain religious enlightenment or can I do it to relieve my depression and anxiety?
- If you had an event based around Holi that articulated its importance to Hinduism and maybe was even a bit educational?
Who on Earth goes to an educational event? People like parties more than museums. Getting drunk and tossing colored dyes at one another is probably a better introduction to Hinduism for a lot of people than some dull lecture or somber religious ritual.
Japanese Buddhists are allowed to drink alcohol, while Indian Buddhists consider it to be a distraction from the Noble Eightfold Path. Are Japanese Buddhists inappropriately culturally appropriating Buddhism from India because they drink?
- Japan's fine with kimonos, sure - would they be so happy if we started a sport that consisted of nose-diving jets while shouting 'Banzai!'? Probably not.
But what you're doing here is comparing the half-assed barely educated borrowing of culture with actively attempting to offend people. We all know exactly why your later example would be offensive, that's why you picked it. It'd be impossible to come up with that scenario without knowing you're playing with a touchy subject.
That's not nearly the same as having a drunk Holi party, or having some white people in an afrobeat band, or enjoying or adopting music, food, or artistic styles from other cultures.
I think the issue here, really, is that our own culture is being seen as banal or even not a culture at all and other cultures are being exoticized.
I think this approach is going to quickly become a necessity in the next few decades. Automation is coming to relieve the vast majority of us of any remote economic usefulness.
Personally, I think that it's a pretty terrible thing in general that cultural exchange is being discouraged at all. There seems to be this push for segregation and separation happening that's pretty opposed to any historical bonding of peoples. We entangle our cultures and develop bonds by sharing with one another and adapting ideas from one culture to another.
- the UK has a few 'holi' festivals that really boil down to a bunch of drunk rich kids running around throwing colors at each other, and I definitely take issue with that
Why is this more offensive than, say, secularizing holidays like Christmas or Easter?
On Hubski we have a sort of guaranteed freedom of speech granted by the staff. It's not terribly dissimilar to freedom of speech protected by government. What seems to me to be lacking in places is the culture of free speech. It's certainly more prevalent here than many places, but there's most definitely a subsection of this site that's trying to block out content that they don't agree with. That's their right and they impact themselves more than anything, but they're still participating in that culture of shutting out dissent rather than using the generally amicable atmosphere to have a conversation where everyone isn't just nodding their heads or trying to bite one another's off.
Personally, so far my experience with these people has been that they take disagreement as offense and respond as if I'd insulted them. They're a minority of the site's users, but they most certainly impact the atmosphere even when they remove themselves from portions of it.
Free speech doesn't just mean the first amendment. The first amendment is a law protecting free speech in the context of government intervention. It protects us from legal recourse for expressing our opinions and ensures that we're not censored in public arenas. Public schools have frequently been the subject of free speech cases.
Why do we do this? Well it's a pretty basic idea that we probably shouldn't be locking people up for what they say, but as you can see our own free speech laws go beyond that. They're geared not only at guaranteeing legal safety to speakers, but at preventing censorship. That would seem to go beyond merely ensuring that people are able to speak without going to jail, there seems to be some other motivation here.
That motivation is the acknowledgement that the free exchange of ideas leads to socially positive outcomes. Issues are raised and discussed even when they might seem heretical or silly to contemporary thinkers. We have educational institutions where we're protected against censorship and the right to protest peacefully in public without molestation.
That's not the only place free speech exists, though. That idea that free exchange is socially positive is carried into other places as well. You might have heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Blue Ribbon Campaign. I don't think it gets as much attention as it once did, but this was a pretty big deal when I first got online in the late 90s. You'd see these little Blue Ribbon banners plastered across half the sites on the internet and 90% of geocities. A lot of what they did was securing legal free speech online, but another part of it was encouraging the culture of free speech.
You can certainly be in favor of legal free speech but not in favor of a culture of free speech, but pretending the later doesn't exist isn't an argument, it's just nonsense.
Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with what people are allowed to say or do on reddit. If anything reddit becoming more restrictive might cause its userbase to fragment, leading to a more decentralized internet (a good thing). I am concerned with professors who are censored with title ix charges for things like not putting trigger warnings in their syllabus. I am concerned with blackballing and anti-competitive business practices (like threatening to pull your product if someone else's is picked up), on any grounds, but especially on ideological grounds. I am concerned when one of the cleanest comedians of our era feels like crowds have gotten too PC. I am concerned when social fear of ideological backlash is to the point that Boston's Museum of Fine Arts shuts down kimono Wednesdays for fear of offending people who apparently have no idea how Japan sees foreigners wearing kimono.
When we're at a point when people are walking around on eggshells and you can lose your job for making a joke about USB dongles to your friend at a tech conference, yeah, I'm a little worried about the cultural climate regarding the idea of free speech. When people are openly mocking the very idea of free speech, that's not a positive trend.
But are those just loud voices, or are they actually the majority? I mean, if we're talking about reddit as a site we ought to be talking about the users themselves not the impression we get of their amalgamation. We already know that the vast majority of reddit users don't vote or comment, even those that do comment aren't going to participate in most threads.
FPH managed to completely dominate the front page with just a few thousand people, relatively little compared to the overall numbers on reddit. Given that, I don't see how we can think we can gauge reddit users' political compasses simply based on what the front page looks like.
Libertarians in the sense of the third party that had Ron Paul as a front runner? I absolutely agree. Libertarian as a second axis of the political spectrum (libertarian/authoritarian as well as liberal/conservative)? Not at all.
That second meaning of libertarian, defined by its contrast with authoritarian ideals, can be liberal or conservative.