Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

[DysonSphere]

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.

[ihavejeoprosy]

Just because something is acceptable at a certain point, does not make it ethical. Its fine to call out people in history for behaving in an unethical manner. Dismissing something as a sign of the times doesn't help anything.

I don't think you really believe that. If you did, then you'd have no principled basis to object to being convicted of crimes made illegal after the fact.

I said ethical, not illegal. Something may be legal and accepted at some point, but that does not make it an ethical action.

You're on a totally different tangent.

[DysonSphere]

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.

[Robert K S]

we WILL be judged by future generations. When animals are determined to have souls and granted civil rights at some point in the future, we can't really say we didn't see it coming...PETA members will gleefully remind us -- those of us who are still alive -- that we could have chosen to listen to them instead of dismissing them as crazy radicals.

For those reading this in 2080, I just want to make clear how sorry I am for all the times I banged on my keyboard keys. I was a frustrated, imperfect product of my era, and although I know that doesn't excuse my actions, I surely have reformed and have learned to appreciate the machines as my equals.

Superiors! I meant superiors!

ETA: No doubt the M-word will have lapsed into disfavor as politically incorrect. Artificially sentient? Silicon-based life?

[lieph82]

deleted bc this thread sucks

[DysonSphere]

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.

[lieph82]

deleted bc this thread sucks

[BobF]

Why do I tolerate starvation in Africa? Because it's a complex issue and I guess I just don't care all that much at the end of the day. Does that make me a horrible person? Somebody in the future (and the present) will say yes, but when 99% of my peers aren't doing anything about it either, it's a bit more understandable how I can go about my life.

Should be about prioritization. You're one person, you can't solve all of the world's problems. Make strides towards the one(s) you feel passionate about and have the ability to do something about. I believe that's the best any of us can do, and those who judge us be damned.

[BobF]

Maybe not a horrible person, but it certainly contextualizes any comment you make about ethics.

And here you are... posting in an internet forum while children starve. Tsk tsk.

But you care. Truly care. Is that it?

Maybe try to understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you. Even the evil, evil Arthur Chu.

For the record, you are the first person to attach that adjective to Arthur (though I know you did so tongue-in-cheek). I love the search feature of this site!

[Magna]

I actually say this to my students a lot, partially as a way to remind them that we WILL be judged by future generations. When animals are determined to have souls and granted civil rights at some point in the future, we can't really say we didn't see it coming...PETA members will gleefully remind us -- those of us who are still alive -- that we could have chosen to listen to them instead of dismissing them as crazy radicals.

I think this is a valuable observation. It seems to be utterly common to think that we have arrived and that right now happens to the pinnacle of enlightenment. Historically, a lot of people have thought that, and in retrospect we think of them as deluded or at the very least overly optimistic.

On the other hand, it seems to be an article of faith that history is moving in the right direction, towards more justice and not less, and that people in the future will have higher and more refined ethical views than we do. It might happen that they look back on us and think of us as being unduly sensitive, or distracted by things that don't matter. We've made those kinds of judgments on past generations and even our own past decisions.

[lieph82]

deleted bc this thread sucks

[ihavejeoprosy]

Just because something is acceptable at a certain point, does not make it ethical. Its fine to call out people in history for behaving in an unethical manner. Dismissing something as a sign of the times doesn't help anything.

I don't think you really believe that. If you did, then you'd have no principled basis to object to being convicted of crimes made illegal after the fact.

I said ethical, not illegal. Something may be legal and accepted at some point, but that does not make it an ethical action.

You're on a totally different tangent.

I understand perfectly, but you're missing my point. *Why* can we not be held legally responsible for actions that weren't crimes when we committed them? What is the ethical AND legal principle involved there? Go ahead, it's an obvious one. You can answer.

Again, why are you so obsessed with crime in this context? Its irrelevant to this discussion.

[Vanya]

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7

[GhostStalker]

Arthur Chu talking to NPR's On The Media about Sad Puppies. It's mostly him reiterating his Salon article to Brooke Gladstone. Worth a listen.

[DysonSphere]

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.

[Lampy]

Lots of people thinking bigotry and racism are the same thing ITT

[El Jefe]

Arthur Chu talking to NPR's On The Media about Sad Puppies. It's mostly him reiterating his Salon article to Brooke Gladstone. Worth a listen.

Arthur Chu as a guest on Sad Puppies is like having Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman as a guest on the government shutdown or Benghazi. If people want to listen, that's fine, but they should understand it's selective presentation by a far-left ideologue.

Maybe it's interviews like this that lead people to think NPR is slanted.

...so in other words the fact that someone feels strongly about something negates the logic or information in their presentation? Any chance you 'don't see color'? In any case if the goal is to be persuasive then by refusing to (listen to the segment and?) critique its content you are quitting the contest before it starts. Do you by any chance need 'balance' in your journalism like 1 global-warming denier vs 1 scientist or 1 creationist vs 1 evolutionist? Some ideas do not have two equal sides and just because NPR is not interviewing a Sad Puppy that exact segment doesn't mean they're not ever going to (or that they didn't try to)--but nice red herring you have there!

Are you the same DysonSphere who upthread called Arthur a "professional internet troll"? If this were true why wouldn't he be an expert witness in this story?

Sorry to spoil your image of MSNBC as liberal, but they're not so much:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/21/p ... 003_firing

[GhostStalker]

Arthur Chu talking to NPR's On The Media about Sad Puppies. It's mostly him reiterating his Salon article to Brooke Gladstone. Worth a listen.

Arthur Chu as a guest on Sad Puppies is like having Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman as a guest on the government shutdown or Benghazi. If people want to listen, that's fine, but they should understand it's selective presentation by a far-left ideologue.

Maybe it's interviews like this that lead people to think NPR is slanted.

I very much doubt that NPR is going to give a platform to someone as odious as Vox Day. Torgerson, maybe.

But not the guy who was kicked out of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for using an official Twitter account to call a black SciFi author a "half-savage", which he has never apologized for, and who has gone on the record saying that the Taliban was totally justified in their shooting of Malala Yousafzai. That's the kind of person pushing this slate at the Hugo's, the person who originated the Rabid Puppies Campaign which hijacked the Sad Puppies and is trying to burn everything at the Hugo's down.

If you have any doubts about how much of an asshole Vox Day is, read this.

[DysonSphere]

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.

[kristinsausville]

As far as I can tell, he's not really racist per se, but I do think he purposely walks that line and allows people to get the impression. So, for example, calling a black author "half-savage" isnt necessarily racist, but he probably chose the words knowing it would be used to villainize him so he could then claim misrepresention.

I can't believe somebody typed those words.