America's net neutrality rage hits academia In an extraordinary flurry of allegations, personal insults and legal threats, net neutrality has entered the world of academia. At the heart of the row is a new paper in the International Journal of Communication (IJOC) that claims to act as a rebuttal to an earlier paper that has been repeatedly cited by the chairman of …
.. when you call someone out, and their first reaction is aggressive, it's obvious that you've hit a nerve.
In this way, it's often easy to identify someone's core motives. The catch 22 though is that by taking an aggressive stance, you similarly give away your own motives. I usually prefer a more subtle approach, but then I'm not the one playing in a game with stakes as large as this one.
.. when you call someone out, and their first reaction is aggressive, it's obvious that you've hit a nerve.
In this way, it's often easy to identify someone's core motives.
Actually, no, but thanks for playing. You are one for three.
First, you don't know what someone's FIRST reaction is -- you only know what they decide to go public. There can be any number of actions and reactions that occur before then.
Second, as someone who has been wrongfully accused in the past, the mere accusation of wrongdoing is enough to put me on war footing, and it really doesn't matter the topic. I do tend to get aggressive when defending my honor because I've learned that being passive doesn't work -- which is why I've never lost a lawsuit and even when someone sues me I tend to walk out of mediation significantly wealthier than when I walked in. Even as such, you have NO IDEA what my core motives are. Any motives that you assign are more of reflection of YOU than ME. I think you will find most people who have ever been on the receiving end of a broadside will react similarly.
Third, and the part that you got correct, is that you would self identify your own motives. However, since you would have self-identified your motives without ascertaining the adversaries you would have put yourself at a significant disadvantage. In that sense, subtle approaches generally have a much higher rate of success.
"Even as such, you have NO IDEA what my core motives are."
Oh I dunno, I make the count at least two for three, since it seems I did hit a nerve.
Whenever I've been wrongfully accused of something, I've not bothered with getting aggressive or reactive, since I personally believe that doing so isn't even slightly productive. I simply gather up all the evidence that shows why the accusation is wrong, and present it in a calm and deliberate fashion.
Having said that, I think you missed a couple of key aspects of my original post, specifically the qualifying word "Often", as well as the part where I stated my own personal preference for the subtle approach.
Still, your response was certainly informative, even though (or possibly also because) it was posted Anon.
"Elites motive is to screw the people."
HAH! Zoom out a bit. The US *people's* motive is to screw the people. Trump voters want immigrants blocked, muslims banned, illegals thrown out, refugees ignored, NATO extorted, coal resurrected etc. They want other people to suffer in their stead. These aren't the elites - this is the base. This runs from bottom to top, and is now on full display.
The drive to poop on anyone they can subjugate has been in America's DNA since well before its independence. The whole of the US is now a snake eating its own tail, pooping in its own belly, and becoming enraged at its meal's blatant attempt to poison it.
It's ridiculous that it's now gotten so bad now that it's actually oozing out of the head. Within a few years America is going to rip its own tail off. Buy shares in all of those private US for-profit jails, now. There's money in the losing side's slavery fully legal, enforced, unpaid, manual labour.
I have a fiver on the non-gun-owners being the losers. Them educated 'elites'.
You say that like it's a bad thing."
It's not a bad thing. The problem is that there is more to the internet than making money from it. There is a social value to it as well. But more specifically, when these guys talk about money, they're not referring to you and I but to the monopolies that they either represent or believe are the only important participants.
Hello:
"Do any of these guys ever think about anything other than money?"
Hmm ...
No, they do not.
" ... far from being an independent analysis, the original paper was commissioned by an advocacy group funded by the cable industry, that its authors have effectively acted for the cable industry for years ... "
I have no doubt that this is true and don't have to see any proof.
I just have to sit and look to see who is on each side of the fence.
And when I see the the likes of AT&T on one side, I know I have to stand on the other side.
An excessively simple analysis?
Could be.
But am I wrong?
The big problem here is that however this goes down in the US, it will have a huge and definitive impact on what goes down in the rest of the world.
Something to think about.
Actually only the very rich are welcome, everybody else can pay-up or just die off.
Here's a couple of examples, firstly Trump's ambition to become a dictator;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/03/as-trump-wages-war-on-the-media-the-echoes-of-erdogan-grow-louder/
How Trump uses the very fake news that he complains about. The last sentence is worth quoting, "So not only is the President using this redditor’s work without citation - he hasn't checked if the redditor is a peddler of fake news."
https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-wrestlamnia-redditor-post-fake-news-cnn-7819561?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100
Unless this arsehole is removed from Office ASAP we're *all* screwed :(
How to deflect imminent problems, like being investigated, is historically done by:
1) Start a war somewhere and declare a state of emergency.
2) Create a private army of heavily armed nut-jobs. For example, Mugabe's "War Veterans". All resistance will be called either anti-revolutionary or unpatriotic.
Unfortunately, it looks like both of these options are about to happen, lots of innocent people are going to die. I am not happy.
In addition to NateGee's post, I firmly believe that Trump is not the problem with the US. Rather his Presidency is a symptom of the problem(s) with the US. The partisan bickering of the public wherein both sides display only knee-jerk opposition to any position taken by the other. Combine that with continuous growth in the powers of the State and Corporations, to the continuing detriment of the middle class (no matter who's in charge) and the people are getting angrier and angrier. Unfortunately the general population of the US has been duped into believing that <other political affiliation> is the enemy, when in fact both parties have been ruining things. I mean, he got elected because he painted himself as opposition to big government and corporations, and enough people were desperate enough to believe him; and some of them still do, that's how bad it is.
In short, removing said arsehole from office will accomplish nothing - We're All Screwed, anyway.
The way you talk, you figure we're past the Point of No Return: beyond the Idiocracy point where the stupid can always outvote the smart. Am I right that this means it would take another intellectual revolution (and luck to avoid the nukes) to correct this properly?
"When the authors contacted the other paper's authors, as well as the group behind funding the paper to put their claims to them for a response, they were understandably upset."
I'm sure Kieran knows what he means by "the authors", the other paper's authors" and "the paper" (as in the group behind fund it) but I gave up at this point. What's wrong with the normal academic approach of referring to authors explicitly by name?
Really?
Once people start threatening Messers Sue Grabbit & Run from day 1, no request to rebut, no request to mediate you know there's something smelly.
The original paper looks a hell of a lot like corporate astro turfing to me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
