The world is full of nuance. Just like whataboutism and "both sides" can be convenient rhetorical devices for people lying to themselves or others, accusing someone of either can be a convenient figleaf for avoiding thinking about the flaws of one's own side.
The fact that Trump won in 2016 obviously overshadowed many things about that election. I didn't vote for him but I can still remember acutely the disappointment I felt during the primaries when the presumptive frontrunners were another Clinton and another Bush. Like out of 300 million people, these will be the choices presented to me? Whataboutism is bad mkay, but two things can also be true at the same time. Nuance.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Always remember that" is all well and good but pretending 1960s ditch weed and fentanyl are a single problem with a common prescription either way is misguided.
Here at least I believe the gambling laws have changed.
Most gas stations I go into now have "gaming" machines and there's always some soul sitting at them at any time of day.
I'm mostly on team let-people-do-what-they-want-even-if-it's-bad-for-them but it's disheartening to watch a dad sitting there totally sucked into it and just ignoring their kid in a stroller behind them.
I used to use this as my example for how big a megabyte actually is. I think the entire text is 4 MB uncompressed (a nagging voice in my head says 16 MB, but I think that's just the residual part of me that never really believed how big a MB actually is).
Your company's software enhances the process somehow, making it easier or faster or cheaper. Your company's software did not unlock the technology of road building.
There were roads built before your company's software and I'm sure if your company disappeared that ultimately roads would get built with or without their software.
It would be interesting to look at all the technological advances of the last 60 years and break them down into categories based on what happens if they went away though (category A: the field just goes back to 1950s and we more or less get by vs Category B: society utterly collapses).
Just because it's easy to say doesn't mean it's wrong.
By the same logic, you could say Microsoft Access should have all the capabilities of Postgres because it's painful for small businesses to move off of it when it's no longer a good fit for their needs.
1. Create a domain like myquickanonemailaccount.com.
2. Use the domain exclusively for hosting your own mail, but create a fake account creation page that just temporarily doesn't work.
3. As an added bonus, should you one day get a subpoena for information about one of your site user's online activities, you've got like a 24 hour head start on fleeing the country.
I just showed this to a Black person and they said it was regarded, whatever that means.
More seriously. Is "moronic" okay? It's just an ever so slightly more archaiac way to say retarded. The meaning, the negative connotation, the level of offense—it's synonymous and analogous across the board in its time.
Is it okay because "nobody means it like that, they're just using it as a synonym for stupid?" If so, congratulations, you now understand the other side of the argument better than when you started.
Mercy me, a slur? Retarded also has a non-offensive meaning. It just means slowed.
In fact, while I wasn't around at the time I'd wager that "mentally retarded" came into an official usage specifically because it was a clinical, sterile, bloodless, and utterly anodyne descriptive term. Moron, imbecile, and idiot all were once clinical terms. And then people throw them back and forth at each other to call each other stupid, they gained an offensive connotation and new terms were needed.
In 20 years will you find it absurd if people say that "differently abled" is a slur? Will you say "this is nuts, we literally came up with that term to avoid offense?" I will!
And my point is that I went out of my way not to use it any more in that circumstance.
Yet in the years since, I still talk about poor decisionmaking, poor luck, poor performance, and poor word choice. Because it would be poor logic to go through life auditing everything I say just in case a middle schooler with a somewhat poor vocabulary might mistake my meaning.
Why would you think I'd continue to say it after realizing I'd inadvertently hurt the kid's feelings? You are making assumptions of ill will from me in the anecdote I shared just like you are making assumptions about the OP intending offense because you didn't like their word choice.
In 2004 I used to volunteer as a tutor at an afterschool center in a low income housing project. One day a middle schooler was complaining about how much homework they had and I ribbed them a little, "oh, poor baby."
They were stung. "I'm not poor!" I felt so bad about it that it's stuck with me all these years. Does that mean because I've seen first hand how hurtful it can be that I should chide people whenever they use the P word?
> I'm embarrassed by the way you're trying to be offensive
Oooor, try this one on for size:
What if they're not out to cause offense and the malice you impute is just an illusion under which you yourself are laboring alone? What if it was a well understood and not particularly offensive vernacular usage from before people decided they ought to spend their time being offended on behalf of hypothetical listeners?
> Yet crime-data analysts have noted that Louisiana’s crime wave was in keeping with a national trend
This is meant to be mitigating? What is this thought process? Who in their right mind is like "okay, a group of people broke into your home at night but your state shouldn't have been so hard on them for what ensued because akshually it was part of a whole nationwide trend at the time."
The modern right absolutely thrives on the fact that so many mostly reasonable people can't see that "play stupid games win stupid prizes" is just another side of the "tolerate anything but intolerance" coin. You can be in favor of showing leniency to kids for dumb, youthful mistakes without taking the doe-eyed approach that every dumb thing someone does in their youth is nothing more than a mistake. And the fact that you yourself made some poor decisions as a youth doesn't mean you have to look at a group burglarizing a house as "well, kids will be kids."
Yes. In the beginning they didn't ban opinion based posts (that's why you can still find some of them that were left up for "historical value").
I liked Joel on Software, I liked Coding Horror, and I liked the idea that two internet guys could just identify a problem like that, start a company and fix it.
There was a Goldilocks period of several years where contributing answers was fun. I joined in 2010 and was most active until about 2016. It felt good to help people and since it was in the open, it felt like a resume booster as well, like having an active GitHub profile.
It would also be satisfied by magic flying carpets. Between flying carpets, functional public transport, and self-driving cars, only one of these three things is not utter fantasy in the near-ish future in the United States.
The fact that Trump won in 2016 obviously overshadowed many things about that election. I didn't vote for him but I can still remember acutely the disappointment I felt during the primaries when the presumptive frontrunners were another Clinton and another Bush. Like out of 300 million people, these will be the choices presented to me? Whataboutism is bad mkay, but two things can also be true at the same time. Nuance.