Re: Re: Re: Boycott O'Reilly

My point should be obvious and it's pitiful that nobody has supported me.

Your point actually is very obvious. The brick wall you're running into is the fact that your paradigm is fundamentally different than that shared by many Perlmonks. Let me explain.

A paradigm is defined as

One that serves as a pattern or model.
A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Many Perlmonks, including myself, tend to be very liberal and open in their attitudes towards ... well ... most things. The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement, with which there is a lot of overlap into the "Perl community" (if there is such a thing).

The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic.

Let me illustrate with an example - the fact that O'Reilly is promoting a book on hacking that includes exploit code. Your reaction is that this is irresponsible and should be punished immediately. My reaction is one of gratitude. I have no desire to crack any system, but I also don't want the systems I'm responsible for to be cracked, either. So, I want to learn how to protect my systems. My question to you is "How can I verify my system is hardened against a certain exploit without testing my system with that exploit?" I don't have the desire to figure out exploits. I just want to stop them. So, I go to CERN, subscribe to security lists, and purchase this book.

Take a hard look at that argument. It is almost identical in form to the argument that the NRA uses in USA politics when opposing gun control. "We must arm ourselves to protect our families against the criminals who already have the guns." Most conservatives would agree with that argument ... If you do, think long and hard what the difference is between the NRA's argument and mine.

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Boycott O'Reilly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Boycott O'Reilly by Anonymous Monk on Aug 05, 2004 at 03:08 UTC
I'm very confused as to the labels that you place on certain ideologies. First you say "Many Perlmonks ... tend to be very liberal.... The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement...." Usually personal accountability / responsibilty are tenants of a more conservative viewpoint: the NRA, as you somewhat pointed out, would be in favor of "blaming the gun-owner, not the gun". It is also the primary reason why conservatives unjustifiably get a black mark for supporting principles such as welfare reform; though it may be nice to give a hungry person a piece of fish, it is much better to teach that person how to fish, so they'll never go hungry again. In other words, the hungry person should be made somewhat accountable for their needs to prevent them from becoming dependant on getting handouts from the system. You further go on to state "The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic." (sorry if there is a "Quote" tag that I'm not using, I'm just a NewB). It actually seems as though "Liberals" have introduced some of the more limiting, "paternalistic" policies: anti-tobacco, anit-gun-ownership, even pro-environmental concerns could be construed as such. In fact the latest group that I've heard mentioning content control of the media stemmed from Tipper Gore and Sen. Lieberman. However, I do not think my confusion is solely your fault, rather it is the fault in the labels themselves. The ideals that you have defined are neither "liberal nor "conservative", but rather they are "anarcistic" and "restrictive" or "open" vs. "closed", respectively. A truly open society would allow the people to do WHATEVER (s)he wanted to do without imposing any laws on the society, nodding to the people's own judgement and their sense of personal responsibility to act in an ethical manner. Whereas in a closed society there is a belief that people will tend to do the wrong thing and so society should be regulated as much as possible to prevent any harm on our society. "Liberals" can be just as open or closed in terms of societal control as "conservatives"; compare my previous points with how these groups view abortion, gay rights, etc. So now that I'm completely off track about the O'Reilly boycott... I agree with most all of the comments why the banning should be, well, banned. A couple of movies that might be interesting to watch: (1) Demolition Man (Huh?! Yep... Demo. Man, IMMHO, is a great take on Huxley's "A Brave New World" (coincidence on author's and character's name? I think not...), a book about a very closed society where: " Lenina Huxley: Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . . John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me? A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute. John Spartan: What the Hell is that? A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . . Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license. ") (2) "Catch Me if You Can" (a movie showing how "knowing" how something bad is done can be used in preventing / exposing these problems in the future)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Boycott O'Reilly
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 05, 2004 at 03:08 UTC

I'm very confused as to the labels that you place on certain ideologies.

First you say "Many Perlmonks ... tend to be very liberal.... The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement...." Usually personal accountability / responsibilty are tenants of a more conservative viewpoint: the NRA, as you somewhat pointed out, would be in favor of "blaming the gun-owner, not the gun". It is also the primary reason why conservatives unjustifiably get a black mark for supporting principles such as welfare reform; though it may be nice to give a hungry person a piece of fish, it is much better to teach that person how to fish, so they'll never go hungry again. In other words, the hungry person should be made somewhat accountable for their needs to prevent them from becoming dependant on getting handouts from the system.

You further go on to state "The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic." (sorry if there is a "Quote" tag that I'm not using, I'm just a NewB). It actually seems as though "Liberals" have introduced some of the more limiting, "paternalistic" policies: anti-tobacco, anit-gun-ownership, even pro-environmental concerns could be construed as such. In fact the latest group that I've heard mentioning content control of the media stemmed from Tipper Gore and Sen. Lieberman.

However, I do not think my confusion is solely your fault, rather it is the fault in the labels themselves. The ideals that you have defined are neither "liberal nor "conservative", but rather they are "anarcistic" and "restrictive" or "open" vs. "closed", respectively. A truly open society would allow the people to do WHATEVER (s)he wanted to do without imposing any laws on the society, nodding to the people's own judgement and their sense of personal responsibility to act in an ethical manner. Whereas in a closed society there is a belief that people will tend to do the wrong thing and so society should be regulated as much as possible to prevent any harm on our society. "Liberals" can be just as open or closed in terms of societal control as "conservatives"; compare my previous points with how these groups view abortion, gay rights, etc.

So now that I'm completely off track about the O'Reilly boycott... I agree with most all of the comments why the banning should be, well, banned. A couple of movies that might be interesting to watch: (1) Demolition Man (Huh?! Yep... Demo. Man, IMMHO, is a great take on Huxley's "A Brave New World" (coincidence on author's and character's name? I think not...), a book about a very closed society where: "

Lenina Huxley: Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . .

John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me?

A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

John Spartan: What the Hell is that?

A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .

Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.

") (2) "Catch Me if You Can" (a movie showing how "knowing" how something bad is done can be used in preventing / exposing these problems in the future)

[reply]