The initial sections are a bit dry, yes. I would suggest skipping to "Deference to Authority" and "2012 Pycon Code of Conduct" and "2012 Pycon: Steve Holden's One Eyed Snake".
Zed Shaw accurately predicted the cancellation excesses of 2020 up to at least 2024 using basic reasoning about group dynamics and a concrete example from 2012. The inner circle is always protected and can do whatever it likes. He was wrong about all core devs being protected. The inner circle is very much a subset.
To this end, I've long held that Zed Shaw's blindness was in his misunderstanding of how authoritarian inner sancta tend to work in times of social or ideological crisis. Some protection happens, but the lion's share of the work undertaken is purification, especially when the list of targets external to that inner sanctum has been exhausted.
I like people who pre emptively counter common arguments they have been made in the past or that they can predict by red teaming their own thought. What’s wrong with that ? Shows careful thought
I think that it's fine to address anticipated counterarguments, but you should save that for after you made your main point. Otherwise the reader is going to get bored of reading a defense of something he hasn't even seen yet.
Comments
I stopped reading when the author was spending pages defending the stuff he hadn't even written yet from the imaginary criticism in their head.
Future tip: make your argument. Make it well, and make it succinctly. Save "arguing with the Internet" for the comments.
The initial sections are a bit dry, yes. I would suggest skipping to "Deference to Authority" and "2012 Pycon Code of Conduct" and "2012 Pycon: Steve Holden's One Eyed Snake".
Zed Shaw accurately predicted the cancellation excesses of 2020 up to at least 2024 using basic reasoning about group dynamics and a concrete example from 2012. The inner circle is always protected and can do whatever it likes. He was wrong about all core devs being protected. The inner circle is very much a subset.
To this end, I've long held that Zed Shaw's blindness was in his misunderstanding of how authoritarian inner sancta tend to work in times of social or ideological crisis. Some protection happens, but the lion's share of the work undertaken is purification, especially when the list of targets external to that inner sanctum has been exhausted.
I like people who pre emptively counter common arguments they have been made in the past or that they can predict by red teaming their own thought. What’s wrong with that ? Shows careful thought
I think that it's fine to address anticipated counterarguments, but you should save that for after you made your main point. Otherwise the reader is going to get bored of reading a defense of something he hasn't even seen yet.
Someone who needs the cushy executive summary because they can't skim read detected.
Sometimes, systems of thought are frigging big. Not everything is conducive to being reduced to "the YouTube Short of Reading".
It may show careful thought, but it can also take too long to get to the point, especially for readers who don't have those objections.
who could ever tell that someone questioning authority would need to position themselves forward in face of unfounded criticism?