> threatened/marginalized populations worried about future political environments
Including not only oneself, but all future current and future friends, lovers and offspring.
But the real kicker is that ultimately, it's not just about managing your presentation, but about the (impossibility of) managing the interpretations of others, according to rules, quotas and/or programs they defined and which they will always be somewhat in the dark about. So if in doubt, if you haven't seen others say it and be rewarded for it, maybe don't say it. How's that for a great outlook.
You're projecting. When you drool about people who are against fascism being "subjugated", anyone who stands up to you isn't "giving in to fear and hatred", they're showing it the door.
Would have saying "fantasizing" instead of "drooling" have been acceptable? Would it have been to suggest that they -- not that person in particular of course, just anyone like them -- should be "kettled and subjugated"? And you really think talking that way about large groups of people in their absence is "civil" (enough), whereas being "abrasive" to such a person is not?
When someone in the subway next to you says "gas all Jews", and you turn around to them and say "Oh no, dear friend, I agree with this plan of action for several reasons, many of which I'm sure you will agree to if you would just let me explain them to you" -- that would be too friendly. I would even argue this would be very callous and abrasive to not just Jews, but any other decent person sitting in earshot as well. I'm not saying the alternative is to call them names, but you can be too friendly in light of some things. You're essentially asking me to choose this random, callous, unintelligent person over millions of people just because this random person is "here", which is just your own personal outlook on time and space. Which is fine, just be aware that that's what you're asking.
I'm not contesting what I said was unnecessary, I know this because I spoke in anger and and shot of a quick snarky reply. I could have packaged my disgust, and my will to do battle, more smartly. I could have been funny about it, or a million other things. But generally speaking, I still think your idea of civility is basically cannibalism with a fork and a knife. Or how does that expression go, penny-wise pound-foolish, something like that. If anything, I regret that word choice because when people literally drool, it's often because of health problems or old age or other reasons that have no business being mentioned in one sentence with someone... advocating, now there's a perfectly lifeless word... people being "kettled and subjugated". But otherwise, what makes me care for a sick person, what makes me give a friendly answer to a child, what motivates me to all sorts of "civil" things is also the exact same thing that makes me irate when I hear talk like the above. It's not even the same material, it's the same element. I respect your wishes in so far as this is private property, but I'm not holding my hat saying sorry for being out of line.
> There's a word for those that use random violence to effect change in society -- terrorists.
Except of course you wouldn't use that word for all those planning and fighting in US wars of aggression, correct? Is it just because they're not so "random" or are there other factors, too?
> It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
"The state" is the one thing people in a democracy at least own on paper. That's not to be trifled with.
Besides, just about anything is "bigger than it's ever been", one might as well say there have never been so many people working in non-profits for justice and whatnot, so that must be causing inequality.
Last but not least, "big" doesn't mean anything. It's like only looking at lines of code, and not content at all. Even reducing it to "bigger versus smaller government", regardless of where you fall on that, is nonsense.
> In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is frequently[citation needed] used to mean "to invite the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge a question"
That's just useless. And you know, saying "it once was A, now it's B, so it can never be A again" is exactly as "prescriptivist".
Little things add up, and before you know it people are just stringing words together as demonstrated on a million youtube videos.
> The older meaning is obscure, largely redundant
How so? How is the "new one" (which one? heh) not redundant? If you want to say something raises a question, that's an easy way to put it right there. On the other hand, I'm not even convinced that the bastardization of "begs the question" into "raises the question" wasn't simply based on not even understanding what assuming an initial point even could be, of just hearing the phrase without understanding the context and using it as another way to say something or someone raises a question. I certainly don't hear it in common usage, regardless of the phrasing used. You know, if all those other people say they just say it because "most" people do, then none of them actually do have a reason. A billion times zero is zero.
And don't even get me started on people suddenly calling low framerates "lag" :P It just destroys information, and you can call it progress because the hands on the clock moved a little, but I won't.
>saying "it once was A, now it's B, so it can never be A again" is exactly as "prescriptivist".
Except I'm not telling you what you can say, I'm telling you what other people do say, which is descriptivist. You can use meaning A if you want to, but don't expect people to understand you.
>You know, if all those other people say they just say it because "most" people do, then none of them actually do have a reason.
That's like saying no one in the US has a reason to speak English, they're doing it just because everyone else does.
Language is about shared understanding, so most people around you using a particular meaning is pretty much the only reason for someone to use it.
Though still in early access, I kind of adore Catacomb Kids, and I'm even more of a fan after I looked up one of the GDC talks [1] of the creator he mentioned in his blog [2].
I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying there aren't others that may be worth your money more, but I am absolutely convinced that he has the heart and mind in the right place when doing this, and it really shows. I'm hopeful to see where it will go and what he'll come up with after it's finished.
The average user doesn't need to nor doesn't want to know about the existence of Widevine. And if he's told about it, he wouldn't care about it, he just wants to watch Netflix.
Talking about use cases when it comes to widely used software is a null argument in most contexts. It was previously disablable, preventing that now is just taking features away without a benefit. Its automatically enabled for all the people that don't know about it, but need it anyway.
Users who don't understand it, disable it either accidentally, or based in bad advice, then don't know why Netflix doesn't work, probably in 2 years time when they long since forgot editing it.
As the years go by, I learn every config option is going to lead to some set of users getting confused and upset.
So some parties pushing hard for DRM has nothing to do with it, whatsoever? It's all about preemptively avoiding horrible user pain and incredible customer support costs, correct? Then explain the million options left over in chrome://flags/ ?
Oh, snap. Looks like that explanation doesn't even begin to make sense, and it's hilarious how the "average user", in their absence, gets used as an excuse to implement outright hostile things, but only then. When Google Reader shuts down or other things are done nobody likes, which not one person welcomes, that doesn't matter, it's only when it's about things no user wants but companies want to push when they suddenly do.
The bug report mentions real problems caused by this change. Are there similar reports about problems that were caused by that option being available, or is that all just theoretical?
> As the years go by, I learn every config option is going to lead to some set of users getting confused and upset.
So? Remove all config options, or simply do good work and let the remaining complainers complain? Why not take the person who filed the bug report and is "confused and upset" for very good reasons they can argue for more seriously than some random hypothetical person?
Then you put it somewhere that it can't be easily accessed by the unknowing. Which, IIRC, was already the case--there's no menu option for "chrome://plugins".
Making idiot-proofing your top design priority "for the user's own good" is a really bad idea that invariably results in a less functional product for no substantial benefit. If people are getting confused and messing with things they didn't mean to, the solution is better interface design, not axing useful features.
http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/