I am torn on this. On the one hand, I admire, in a sense, their willingness to stick up for what they believe in. On the other hand, I question the tactical efficacy - there was an article linked...
I am torn on this. On the one hand, I admire, in a sense, their willingness to stick up for what they believe in. On the other hand, I question the tactical efficacy - there was an article linked on tildes not too long ago talking about how the nonprofit sector has been absolutely riven by this sort of internal debate.
I also don't think that the neverending quest for ideological purity is good for society. I can totally get behind "this company is lobbying for things we oppose," but when it's all the way to "an exec at the parent company wrote some blog posts we disagree with," I just don't see a path to anything other than infinite infighting among the left.
Research and the documentary record show that the protests of 2020 were overwhelmingly peaceful, that incidents of violence were limited and often instigated by counter protestors or provocateurs, and that in many cases the responses of the police and federal authorities provoked and exacerbated the violence.
This struck me as a bit amusing, in sort of a morbid way. "it didn't happen, but when it did, provocateurs started it, and when it wasn't provocateurs, it was the police's fault that things got out of hand."
This is exactly how the alt-right talks about the Capitol attack.
So, I was following the Floyd protests in Philadelphia closely. The very first day there were 3,000 peaceful protestors. It wasn't until later when violence erupted, and it was a very tiny...
So, I was following the Floyd protests in Philadelphia closely. The very first day there were 3,000 peaceful protestors. It wasn't until later when violence erupted, and it was a very tiny minority, well under 200 people....with many protestors trying to call out to get them to stop. And this is a city that commits all sorts of violence for its sports teams winning (common phrase is "It's worse when we win"). Once you discount petty vandalism like spray paint... there were very few incidents that didn't look incited by people coordinating to incite more violence or just exploit the chaos....Random protestors don't just have a bunch of explosives ready to destroy ATM machines, you know? Hell, from the tv coverage of the looting, some was quite peaceful..lot of people just lining up to take their turn going into a cellphone store to take something....it was bizzare to watch.
Numbers of peaceful protestors went up dramatically, but not violent incidents, aside from crowds getting out of control when teargassed and they became mobs. But all the reporting continued focusing on "rioters and looters", discounting the thousands more peacefully protesting.
In fact, this happened again, when there were a few hundred people protesting, and then some unrelated people came in and started looting.
And the police were often at fault for making things worse. Guess what happened as soon as police were banned from using tear gas (a war crime)? Incidents of violence plummeted. Turns out when police were forced to use more-lethal options or deescalate they were better at deescalating situations.
And it's quite disenginuous to compare a coordinated attack with scattered, nonspecific exploiters of chaos. I'd feel a bit differently if they were overwhelming police to break into city hall and hang the mayor, you know?
Thanks for weighing in. Broadly, I agree: overwhelmingly the protests were peaceful. Two miscellaneous comments. I want to clarify that I am NOT saying that outbreaks of violence during the Floyd...
Thanks for weighing in. Broadly, I agree: overwhelmingly the protests were peaceful. Two miscellaneous comments.
And it's quite disenginuous to compare a coordinated attack with scattered, nonspecific exploiters of chaos.
I want to clarify that I am NOT saying that outbreaks of violence during the Floyd démonstrations are equivalent to the attack on the capitol. I was talking only about the language being used, which I maintain is substantively very similar.
And the police were often at fault for making things worse. Guess what happened as soon as police were banned from using tear gas (a war crime)? ...
I have never seen data one way or the other re: the connection between violence and what the police were doing, so I won't comment on that, though logically it seems reasonable. The war crime thing, though - it's sort of technically true, but misleading. Gases are universally internationally illegal for use in warfare because when you're writing a treaty like that, you can't say "these specific gases are banned" or "those ones are okay," for a whole bunch of logical reasons. You just ban all of them.
The US military uses CS gas (the principal "tear gas") on trainees, for example, during basic training. It's not a "war crime" to use CS gas. It's in contravention of various treaties to use any gas in warfare (small but important semantic difference) for a variety of practical reasons.
I agree that US police often appear to take action designed to escalate a situation, but this is probably a cognitive bias caused by the videos I watch. But here's some OHCR discussion about less...
I agree that US police often appear to take action designed to escalate a situation, but this is probably a cognitive bias caused by the videos I watch.
But here's some OHCR discussion about less lethal munitions, including various gases, and the need for better standards
That last bit seems kind of crazy without context. Wanting context, I did some browsing and found that working dogs usually only receive titanium crowns when their teeth are damaged, similar to...
That last bit seems kind of crazy without context. Wanting context, I did some browsing and found that working dogs usually only receive titanium crowns when their teeth are damaged, similar to when a human would get crowns.
I think the reason why this doesn't read to me as "an exec at the parent company wrote some blog posts we disagree with", as you put it, is that DHH is his companies in a way that, say, the CEO of...
I think the reason why this doesn't read to me as "an exec at the parent company wrote some blog posts we disagree with", as you put it, is that DHH is his companies in a way that, say, the CEO of Atlassian isn't. It's something that can certainly drive a business's success, but it also means that when DHH expresses positions that his customers object to, it's a much clearer line to say "we do not want to associate with this".
I agree with their evaluation of strong disagreement for the sayings of the founder of that company that run the software they use. But I'm not sure if we can do that evaluation during our daily...
I agree with their evaluation of strong disagreement for the sayings of the founder of that company that run the software they use. But I'm not sure if we can do that evaluation during our daily lifes without being alienated. It's not possible or healthy to evaluate the views of the owner of every shop we visit, or every restaurant we want to eat in. We live in a crazy world with people with crazy ideas. Yes, we should advocate for change, but I'm not convinced that the way of doing it is though a scrutiny of ideals that the founder of the company that make the software you use.
Oh, and actually if that means you are moving to Teams (which is apparently what is happening in this case) I'm 🤔
Probably not, but there is something to be said for basing decisions around how publicly they make those views. As an example, a local restaurant covered its windows and doors with Trump 2020...
It's not possible or healthy to evaluate the views of the owner of every shop we visit, or every restaurant we want to eat in
Probably not, but there is something to be said for basing decisions around how publicly they make those views.
As an example, a local restaurant covered its windows and doors with Trump 2020 flags and banners and such preceeding the 2020 elections. I don't think it is unhealthy to say "Maybe I don't want to support this business" if that is not something you agree with. They put those views on display to make sure that you know what their views are and allow you to react however you feel appropriate.
To the other extreme, I also don't think that it would be healthy to search every member of management on political donations databases to see if any of them have ever supported a politician that you disagree with.
Yet you might be trading one for the other if you don't look into them this way. It's essentially encouraging to just rule with your money rather than with your words (don't blog about it, just...
To the other extreme, I also don't think that it would be healthy to search every member of management on political donations databases to see if any of them have ever supported a politician that you disagree with.
Yet you might be trading one for the other if you don't look into them this way. It's essentially encouraging to just rule with your money rather than with your words (don't blog about it, just buy your political will).
Colleges, or at least the beancounters at colleges, love Teams because it's basically free on the Microsoft contract they have anyway. I'm convinced that most people who wholeheartedly like Teams...
Colleges, or at least the beancounters at colleges, love Teams because it's basically free on the Microsoft contract they have anyway.
I'm convinced that most people who wholeheartedly like Teams have never actually used other tools in a like-for-like comparison.
Teams sucks at chat compared to Slack. It sucks at videoconferencing compared to Zoom. It sucks at collaborative documents compared to Google.
It's the ultimate Swiss Army knife that was designed by comittee and thus has 1,000 functions, weighs 10 lbs, is 4 foot long, and sucks at its primary purpose. It's got great marketting though so people whom don't ever use a Swiss Army knife see the price tag and say "Wow what a great pocketknife, why should anybody pay for one?"
Bold, yet a bit petty. Doesn't read like something that went through a PR or marketing department. They're kinda sticking their necks out here as donors hold a lot of the same beliefs as DHH.
Bold, yet a bit petty. Doesn't read like something that went through a PR or marketing department. They're kinda sticking their necks out here as donors hold a lot of the same beliefs as DHH.
They might, but donors don't impact university finances as much as you would think. Not to say no impact, but I'd say well under 20%. Universities are much more willing to make moral stands than...
They might, but donors don't impact university finances as much as you would think. Not to say no impact, but I'd say well under 20%.
Universities are much more willing to make moral stands than most other institutions...in part because they are student-driven in many ways.
And let me tell you....DHH's post is extremely problematic for Universities in particular, because most of them do value diversity.
The right hates universities mostly because bigotry doesn't really hold up well when properly scrutinized.
I feel like I need to qualify that DHH's take is objectively bigoted. My concern here is primarily around the institutional support for the author's position. You've extended that assumption well...
I feel like I need to qualify that DHH's take is objectively bigoted. My concern here is primarily around the institutional support for the author's position. You've extended that assumption well in your comment, but looking at the votes I feel like I should clarify.
I feel like I see Universities bending under donor pressure with staff and professors taking publicly controversial positions. I had one on tenure track at school get axed for being a bit too vocal. Positions published through administrative PR departments seem bolstered, I'm not quite feeling that from the library's blog.
Duke is a private university with a massive endowment, so it is shielded from politicians, although not necessarily from Trustees (or other administrative structure). It is a valid concern, and I...
Duke is a private university with a massive endowment, so it is shielded from politicians, although not necessarily from Trustees (or other administrative structure).
It is a valid concern, and I hope the library leadership don't draw flak from university leaders. They write as though they feel backed by leadership.
ALA code of ethics section 9 applies. I may edit when I am at my computer, but it is here if you scroll down. https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics I remember when universities spearheaded the movement...
ALA code of ethics section 9 applies. I may edit when I am at my computer, but it is here if you scroll down.
I am torn on this. On the one hand, I admire, in a sense, their willingness to stick up for what they believe in. On the other hand, I question the tactical efficacy - there was an article linked on tildes not too long ago talking about how the nonprofit sector has been absolutely riven by this sort of internal debate.
I also don't think that the neverending quest for ideological purity is good for society. I can totally get behind "this company is lobbying for things we oppose," but when it's all the way to "an exec at the parent company wrote some blog posts we disagree with," I just don't see a path to anything other than infinite infighting among the left.
This struck me as a bit amusing, in sort of a morbid way. "it didn't happen, but when it did, provocateurs started it, and when it wasn't provocateurs, it was the police's fault that things got out of hand."
This is exactly how the alt-right talks about the Capitol attack.
So, I was following the Floyd protests in Philadelphia closely. The very first day there were 3,000 peaceful protestors. It wasn't until later when violence erupted, and it was a very tiny minority, well under 200 people....with many protestors trying to call out to get them to stop. And this is a city that commits all sorts of violence for its sports teams winning (common phrase is "It's worse when we win"). Once you discount petty vandalism like spray paint... there were very few incidents that didn't look incited by people coordinating to incite more violence or just exploit the chaos....Random protestors don't just have a bunch of explosives ready to destroy ATM machines, you know? Hell, from the tv coverage of the looting, some was quite peaceful..lot of people just lining up to take their turn going into a cellphone store to take something....it was bizzare to watch.
Numbers of peaceful protestors went up dramatically, but not violent incidents, aside from crowds getting out of control when teargassed and they became mobs. But all the reporting continued focusing on "rioters and looters", discounting the thousands more peacefully protesting.
In fact, this happened again, when there were a few hundred people protesting, and then some unrelated people came in and started looting.
And the police were often at fault for making things worse. Guess what happened as soon as police were banned from using tear gas (a war crime)? Incidents of violence plummeted. Turns out when police were forced to use more-lethal options or deescalate they were better at deescalating situations.
And it's quite disenginuous to compare a coordinated attack with scattered, nonspecific exploiters of chaos. I'd feel a bit differently if they were overwhelming police to break into city hall and hang the mayor, you know?
Thanks for weighing in. Broadly, I agree: overwhelmingly the protests were peaceful. Two miscellaneous comments.
I want to clarify that I am NOT saying that outbreaks of violence during the Floyd démonstrations are equivalent to the attack on the capitol. I was talking only about the language being used, which I maintain is substantively very similar.
I have never seen data one way or the other re: the connection between violence and what the police were doing, so I won't comment on that, though logically it seems reasonable. The war crime thing, though - it's sort of technically true, but misleading. Gases are universally internationally illegal for use in warfare because when you're writing a treaty like that, you can't say "these specific gases are banned" or "those ones are okay," for a whole bunch of logical reasons. You just ban all of them.
The US military uses CS gas (the principal "tear gas") on trainees, for example, during basic training. It's not a "war crime" to use CS gas. It's in contravention of various treaties to use any gas in warfare (small but important semantic difference) for a variety of practical reasons.
I agree that US police often appear to take action designed to escalate a situation, but this is probably a cognitive bias caused by the videos I watch.
But here's some OHCR discussion about less lethal munitions, including various gases, and the need for better standards
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/LLW_Guidance.pdf
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/PeacefulProtest/CSOs/omega-research-foundation.pdf
My expectations are low for a country that fits their police dogs with titanium teeth.
That last bit seems kind of crazy without context. Wanting context, I did some browsing and found that working dogs usually only receive titanium crowns when their teeth are damaged, similar to when a human would get crowns.
One such instance:
https://www.ketv.com/article/police-dogs-armed-with-titanium-teeth/7644760
It’s also not even unique to the United States:
https://www.victoriabuzz.com/2022/09/port-alberni-rcmp-clarify-why-k9-rcmp-dog-received-titanium-teeth/
Older article from Wired debunking the claim regarding military working dogs:
https://www.wired.com/2011/05/no-navy-seal-dogs-dont-have-titanium-teeth/
(From a cursory internet search, replacement titanium implants are scary looking but actually more likely to fall out during use.)
I think the reason why this doesn't read to me as "an exec at the parent company wrote some blog posts we disagree with", as you put it, is that DHH is his companies in a way that, say, the CEO of Atlassian isn't. It's something that can certainly drive a business's success, but it also means that when DHH expresses positions that his customers object to, it's a much clearer line to say "we do not want to associate with this".
Also fair!
I agree with their evaluation of strong disagreement for the sayings of the founder of that company that run the software they use. But I'm not sure if we can do that evaluation during our daily lifes without being alienated. It's not possible or healthy to evaluate the views of the owner of every shop we visit, or every restaurant we want to eat in. We live in a crazy world with people with crazy ideas. Yes, we should advocate for change, but I'm not convinced that the way of doing it is though a scrutiny of ideals that the founder of the company that make the software you use.
Oh, and actually if that means you are moving to Teams (which is apparently what is happening in this case) I'm 🤔
Probably not, but there is something to be said for basing decisions around how publicly they make those views.
As an example, a local restaurant covered its windows and doors with Trump 2020 flags and banners and such preceeding the 2020 elections. I don't think it is unhealthy to say "Maybe I don't want to support this business" if that is not something you agree with. They put those views on display to make sure that you know what their views are and allow you to react however you feel appropriate.
To the other extreme, I also don't think that it would be healthy to search every member of management on political donations databases to see if any of them have ever supported a politician that you disagree with.
Yet you might be trading one for the other if you don't look into them this way. It's essentially encouraging to just rule with your money rather than with your words (don't blog about it, just buy your political will).
Agreed ^^
Colleges, or at least the beancounters at colleges, love Teams because it's basically free on the Microsoft contract they have anyway.
I'm convinced that most people who wholeheartedly like Teams have never actually used other tools in a like-for-like comparison.
Teams sucks at chat compared to Slack. It sucks at videoconferencing compared to Zoom. It sucks at collaborative documents compared to Google.
It's the ultimate Swiss Army knife that was designed by comittee and thus has 1,000 functions, weighs 10 lbs, is 4 foot long, and sucks at its primary purpose. It's got great marketting though so people whom don't ever use a Swiss Army knife see the price tag and say "Wow what a great pocketknife, why should anybody pay for one?"
Bold, yet a bit petty. Doesn't read like something that went through a PR or marketing department. They're kinda sticking their necks out here as donors hold a lot of the same beliefs as DHH.
They might, but donors don't impact university finances as much as you would think. Not to say no impact, but I'd say well under 20%.
Universities are much more willing to make moral stands than most other institutions...in part because they are student-driven in many ways.
And let me tell you....DHH's post is extremely problematic for Universities in particular, because most of them do value diversity.
The right hates universities mostly because bigotry doesn't really hold up well when properly scrutinized.
I feel like I need to qualify that DHH's take is objectively bigoted. My concern here is primarily around the institutional support for the author's position. You've extended that assumption well in your comment, but looking at the votes I feel like I should clarify.
I feel like I see Universities bending under donor pressure with staff and professors taking publicly controversial positions. I had one on tenure track at school get axed for being a bit too vocal. Positions published through administrative PR departments seem bolstered, I'm not quite feeling that from the library's blog.
Duke is a private university with a massive endowment, so it is shielded from politicians, although not necessarily from Trustees (or other administrative structure).
It is a valid concern, and I hope the library leadership don't draw flak from university leaders. They write as though they feel backed by leadership.
ALA code of ethics section 9 applies. I may edit when I am at my computer, but it is here if you scroll down.
https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
I remember when universities spearheaded the movement to boycott apartheid in South Africa