> You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody.
Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.
> And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
The broad history of violent bigotry in the United States does not get magically forgotten by people just because they write code for a living. And that history and that present reality means that many things are not just abstract propositions but are direct threats.
> And that history and that present reality means that many things are not just abstract propositions but are direct threats.
Historical context alone does not make a direct threat. A direct threat is a direct threat, and right now being accused of racism (no matter the truth of it) is far more scary than racism itself.
Well, is twitter actually the problem, though? Twitter's biases are a problem, but that's a separate issue. Twitter can't be expected to prevent all forms of propaganda from its users, and even if they could the problem is not just twitter specifically, it's all social media. While the parent made a pithy comment using Twitter as an example, in reality instigators rely on an array of platforms to spread the message and whip up the proverbial mob.
And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.
You might agree, but you're both completely wrong. As James Damore proved, the exchange goes like this:
A: Statistically speaking, there are some genetic explanations for trends we see between men and women.
B: That is a sexist thing to say that women can't do tech, so you are harming women in tech. You need to be fired.
A: But... that's not what I said...
(A is fired)
B: SO COURAGEOUS of the company to fire that employee for those bigoted ideas
C: Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?
D: Every time someone says something bigoted, they're like "muh free speech!" Stop saying bigoted things!
Note: D never read the original post and has no first-hand knowledge of what A may or may not be guilty of.
> I keep hearing that from people saying things like...
Are you actually hearing that, or are you reading someone else's disingenuous over-simplified interpretation of what someone else said? Maybe just doing the incorrect reading yourself? Or are you reading an anonymous 4chan one-liner that could have been posted there by anyone for any reason?
> What if the ideas are unethical?
Then explain why. If you can't explain why something is unethical without resorting to intimidation of the people expressing those ideas, then maybe they are more ethical and your concept of righteousness is flawed or missing something important.
I predict the price will continue to rise on average for the next 1-5 years, although it might start slowing. At some point between 10 and 25 years, Bitcoin will experience a major crash. Whether it stabilizes into some sort of useful medium of exchange alongside competing cryptocurrencies is hard to predict. It might survive in a limited role or a limited market, the value of which is very hard to imagine at this point.
If you can't spend it easily, it's not a (functioning) currency.
If it spoils or decays within your lifetime it's not a currency.
If it's not something you can divide in order to make payments of a more-or-less arbitrary amount, it's not a currency.
If you can't predict how much of the asset you will need to pay your bills next month, it's not a currency
If you can't bring it with you to the place where the exchange takes place, it's not a currency.
If you can't obtain capital investment in a currency because the currency itself is more valuable than anything you could produce, then it's not a (good long term) currency. This last one is in parens because it one only matters in a growing economy. A deflationary currency can still otherwise function as a viable medium of exchange, but eventually, lack of availability for new entrants will mean that entrepreneurs will begin looking to do business in alternate currencies.
> If you can't predict how much of the asset you will need to pay your bills next month, it's not a currency
Back in the hyperinflation days, we couldn't predict how many Cr$ we would need to pay our bills in the next month. That didn't keep it from being a currency.
That period did not last. Yes, if you try hard enough and look narrowly enough you can find exceptions to any of these rules, but it holds as a general guideline. If hyperinflation had continued indefinitely, it's probable some other commodity would have supplanted it as a de facto currency.
> Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title?
He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.
Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.
> And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.