A language can be suitable for writing a compiler, but if there is another language that's 10x faster that's also suitable, then you're losing out on a lot of compilation speed for no reason.
Dog-fooding a language by writing a compiler in it can lead to the designers adding language features to make compiler development easier, even if they detract from the design of the language for the 99% of users who aren't writing a compiler.
It is also quite complex and demands huge investment of time to understand its language which isn't so nice to program in it.
The number of cached combinations of various ABI and dependency setting is small with Nix. This means you need source compilation of a considerable number of dependencies. Conda generally contains every library built with the last 3 minor releases of Python.
I started a new job and spent maybe a day setting up the tools and dotfiles on my development machine in the cloud. I'm going to keep it throughout my employment so it's worth the investment. And I install most of the tools via nix package manager so I don't have to compile things or figure out how to install them on a particular Linux distribution.
L
Learn Ansible or similar, and you you can be ~OS (OSX/Linux/even Windows) agnostic with relatively complex setups. I set mine up before Agentic systems were as good as they are now; but I assume it would be relatively effortless now.
IMO, it's worth spending some time to clean up your setup for smooth transition to new machines in the future.
This is a popular idea in the Israeli propaganda. Israelis like to say that they hate Netanyahu, but in reality, majority of Israeli Jews fully align with his policies towards Palestinians, and multiple polls confirm this. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-05/ty-article/.p...
There tends to be a lot more nuance[0] when it comes to polling results like these, the reality is that opinions amongst Israelis vary quite a lot. There are also a lot of problems with organizations like the UN historically wildly misrepresenting the food situation[1] which are likely to make Israelis question the accuracy of many of these starvation reports, especially from organizations that have historically made many highly inaccurate claims. UN backed IPC reports like those cited in the CNN article likewise have serious credibility issues as well[2], additionally there are extremely biased individuals like Michael Fakhri(the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food) cited in the CNN article that even publish comic books with some rather overt antisemitic tropes[3].
This equivocation is absurd. Literally every international aid organization is saying the same thing - and even a few Israeli ones are now recognizing the genocide in Gaza. The fact that Israel, far from sending "large amounts of aid", has, in fact, systematically blocked aid to Gaza was recognized even by the US government. The US even resorted to building a pier to send their own aid in.
Edit: looking at the claims more specifically, this one is particularly easy to debunk:
> even publish comic books with some rather overt antisemitic trope
The supposed "antisemitic trope" is an image of a person holding a cracked globe. The blog post implies that this is supposed to be an image representing the antisemitic "masters of the world" trope. In fact, the image represents the UN rapporteur himself looking at how the lack of international reaction to Israel's crimes has left a crack in the UN-led rules-based world order.
Ok, find a single international humanitarian organization active in Gaza that believes that Gazans are treated well. Or even a single one active in Gaza that is not saying that a blatant genocide is taking place.
And the "tentacles" are the heads of a hydra labeled "Imperialism", "Racism", "Extractivism", "Capitalism", "Patriarchy". Not sure how much clearer the imagery could get, and which part of this is antisemitic.
> Or even a single one active in Gaza that is not saying that a blatant genocide is taking place.
World Central Kitchen is active in Gaza and last I checked makes no claim of there being a genocide in Gaza.
> And the "tentacles" are the heads of a hydra labeled "Imperialism", "Racism", "Extractivism", "Capitalism", "Patriarchy".
What seems to be implied here is that these are the means in which the Jews control the world. Casting Israelis/Jews as demonic figures in general is also a common antisemitic trope.
> Not sure how much clearer the imagery could get, and which part of this is antisemitic.
The implied world domination part as well as the demonic imagery.
> World Central Kitchen is active in Gaza and last I checked makes no claim of there being a genocide in Gaza.
They don't talk about genocide, true, but they do talk about the famine they're seeing and the extreme difficulty of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza - causing them to have almost ceased food delivery at the beginning of this year, before finding ingenious new ways of cooking and delivering supplies.
It's also funny to pick an organization which has suffered one of the most clear and well documented assassinations of aid workers by Israeli forces, the World Central Kitchen attack in 2024. This was one of the cases that even the IDF couldn't invent a justification for (the convoy they killed had been coordinating constantly with them, they had followed the root exactly, etc). They called it a regrettable error, of course.
> What seems to be implied here is that these are the means in which the Jews control the world. Casting Israelis/Jews as demonic figures in general is also a common antisemitic trope.
The comic is quite explicit, we don't have to look for implicit innuendo. It says that these forces (imperialism, capitalism, etc) are the main reasons for food insecurity everywhere this happens in the world, and Gaza is just one example. While Israel, backed by the USA, is the aggressor in the case of Gaza, the same forces (again, meaning imperialist tendencies, not some conspiracy of "evil Jews") behind other acts of aggression by other states in other places impacted by famine.
> They don't talk about genocide, true, but they do talk about the famine they're seeing and the extreme difficulty of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza - causing them to have almost ceased food delivery at the beginning of this year, before finding ingenious new ways of cooking and delivering supplies.
It's much less an issue of getting aid into Gaza and much more an issue of distribution, with most aid being intercepted before reaching the intended destination[3]. Even then I've yet to see any credible evidence that there is a famine, although there are certainly various degrees of food insecurity.
> It's also funny to pick an organization which has suffered one of the most clear and well documented assassinations of aid workers by Israeli forces, the World Central Kitchen attack in 2024. This was one of the cases that even the IDF couldn't invent a justification for (the convoy they killed had been coordinating constantly with them, they had followed the root exactly, etc). They called it a regrettable error, of course.
It's a war, targeting mistakes happen, the IDF generally makes an effort to investigate when these sort of things happen. It quite clearly wasn't a case of the IDF intentionally targeting aid workers. There are simply no incentives or evidence for the IDF to have a policy of deliberately targeting WCK aid workers. Friendly fire incidents where IDF soldiers have been killed have been somewhat common in Gaza in general so it certainly doesn't seem to be improbable that a targeting mistake like this could happen by accident.
> The comic is quite explicit, we don't have to look for implicit innuendo.
Lets go through these and see if they match up with antisemetic tropes as well.
> imperialism
So here we have the "world imperialism"[0] antisemetic trope.
> capitalism
Here we have the "Jewish Capitalism"[1] antisemetic trope.
we even have a "Patriarchy"[2] trope as well
Seems pretty clear to me what the author is doing here.
> While Israel, backed by the USA, is the aggressor in the case of Gaza, the same forces (again, meaning imperialist tendencies, not some conspiracy of "evil Jews") behind other acts of aggression by other states in other places impacted by famine.
This war was started by Hamas on October 7th, it's quite clear they are the aggressor here.
> It's much less an issue of getting aid into Gaza and much more an issue of distribution
The WCK that you cited is very clear on this: the problem is getting aid into Gaza, not distributing it. They had to close their kitchens at the beginning of the year because they just couldn't get any supplies into the territory, because Israel wouldn't allow them - especially fuel. They found creative solutions in the meantime.
> Even then I've yet to see any credible evidence that there is a famine, although there are certainly various degrees of food insecurity.
Again, the org you yourself cited has many examples.
> It quite clearly wasn't a case of the IDF intentionally targeting aid workers.
It quite clearly was. The WCK said plain as day that it was. It wasn't the first or the last either - the IDF has killed more international aid workers than even the Russian barbarians have in Ukraine. When you systematically make such "targeting mistakes" over and over again, at some point the deliberate targeting becomes obvious.
> [ going one by one]
Decrying the ills of imperialism and capitalism and patriarchy is not antisemitic. Sure, the nazis used these crisicisms to refer to Jewish people. But the Indians also used them to refer to their British colonizers, the Romanians used them to refer to the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians, the Afghani and the Nicaraguans used them to refer to the USA etc. Stating that imperialism and capitalism and colonialism are the cause of much suffering in this world is not antisemitic, unless you associate it with other antisemitic imagery. Pointing out that Israel is an imperialist country that is trying to conquer (pieces of) its neighbors and opressing the Palestinian people, sometimes for patriarchal/religious reasons, sometimes for capitalist interests, is not antisemitic.
> This war was started by Hamas on October 7th, it's quite clear they are the aggressor here.
This war started when the state of Israel was formed and kicked out much of the local Palestinian population (mostly Muslims, but also some Christians and even Jewish Palestinians). Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been under Israeli occupation for some 70+ years. October 7th was just one atrocity, from a long series of atrocities, on both sides, that have punctuated this war. But the aggressor in a war doesn't change just because of one attack by the defender, even when that attack is a war crime. If Ukraine launches a terrorist bombing in Moscow tomorrow killing 700 civillians, that war crime will not change the fact that Russia is the aggressor in that war.
> The WCK that you cited is very clear on this: the problem is getting aid into Gaza, not distributing it.
I'm referring to the current situation, I'm not disputing that there have been times where aid was not allowed in, however at those times there was generally sufficient stockpiles available.
> Again, the org you yourself cited has many examples.
Examples of food insecurity, sure, but not to the level of famine.
> The WCK said plain as day that it was.
How would the WCK alone be able to make that sort of determination? Only those with direct access to the targeting decision making process would be able to with any reasonable degree of certainty be able to determine if the WCK incident was a genuine mistake vs an intentional attack. The details the IDF provided regarding how the mistake was made certainly indicate it being a mistake is plausible IMO.
> When you systematically make such "targeting mistakes" over and over again, at some point the deliberate targeting becomes obvious.
So when the IDF systematically has friendly fire issues where their own soldiers get killed does that mean they are deliberately targeting their own soldiers by that logic?
> Decrying the ills of imperialism and capitalism and patriarchy is not antisemitic. Sure, the nazis used these crisicisms to refer to Jewish people. But the Indians also used them to refer to their British colonizers, the Romanians used them to refer to the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians, the Afghani and the Nicaraguans used them to refer to the USA etc. Stating that imperialism and capitalism and colonialism are the cause of much suffering in this world is not antisemitic, unless you associate it with other antisemitic imagery.
You seem to agree that these are in fact historically documented antisemitic tropes(i.e. used by the Nazis), you appear to be saying their use is justified...that's a rather different argument.
> Pointing out that Israel is an imperialist country that is trying to conquer (pieces of) its neighbors and opressing the Palestinian people, sometimes for patriarchal/religious reasons, sometimes for capitalist interests, is not antisemitic.
One can easily make an argument that Israel's formation was anti-imperialist because its independence was an act of breaking away from an imperialist power(the British). I would agree that is a bit of an oversimplification. This particular conflict has a number of elements to it that are somewhat unique which make these sort of broad categorizations somewhat misleading.
> This war started when the state of Israel was formed and kicked out much of the local Palestinian population (mostly Muslims, but also some Christians and even Jewish Palestinians).
That's not exactly accurate IMO, the Arab-Israeli War started when the British Mandate ended and the Arab states attacked[0].
> Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been under Israeli occupation for some 70+ years.
This is simply factually inaccurate, Gaza has not been occupied by Israel for 70+ years, you seem to forget that it was occupied by Egypt[1] until 1967. The West Bank was annexed/occupied by Jordan until 1967 as well[2]. So in reality this occupation by Israel of Gaza and the West Bank has only been happening for around 58 years. Most Palestinians say the occupation has occurred for 70+ years because they consider all of Israel proper to be an occupation(as they largely reject Israel's right to exist outright).
> October 7th was just one atrocity, from a long series of atrocities, on both sides, that have punctuated this war.
This is certainly a conflict where one can easily blame either side depending on at what point in time you start.
> But the aggressor in a war doesn't change just because of one attack by the defender, even when that attack is a war crime. If Ukraine launches a terrorist bombing in Moscow tomorrow killing 700 civillians, that war crime will not change the fact that Russia is the aggressor in that war.
There's no clear original aggressor here as it largely depends on how far you look back in history, there's been so much back and forth fighting that's it's hard to pin the blame on either side for starting the conflict due to the lack of clearly defined national boarders being recognized by both sides as was the case with Ukraine and Russia.
> You seem to agree that these are in fact historically documented antisemitic tropes(i.e. used by the Nazis), you appear to be saying their use is justified...that's a rather different argument.
No, I'm saying that the nazis also ate apples, but that doesn't mean eating apples is antisemitic. Just because the nazis accused the Jewish people of being the root of all evil doesn't mean that saying evil is bad is antisemitic, if you're not accusing the Jewish people of being the root of this evil. Yes, even if you're accusing a particular group of Jewish people, such as the Israeli state, of doing this.
> There's no clear original aggressor here as it largely depends on how far you look back in history
This is actually very simple. The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times. It was conquered a few times by various empires, and a large part of the population has converted to various religions (from pre-Biblical religions to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam). The languages they speak have changed various times, and of course the genetic makeup of the population has not been constant, especially given it's a relatively common trade route.
Then, starting with the 1930s or so, a colonization effort by an initially fringe group of Jewish zealots, the Zionist movement; they became much more mainstream after the horrors of the Holocaust. This colonization effort culminated with the proclamation of the state of Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic" state in 1948, led mostly by the colonists who started to expel the local population from the region, with the assent of the British Empire, the USA , and even the USSR (and other European powers). This is the beginning point of the current conflict. Going back further in history is completely absurd: the Palestinians of today are descendants of the ancient Jewish people, of ancient Romans, of ancient Arabic tribes and so on - just as much if not more so than the Jewish people "returning home".
> This is actually very simple. The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times. It was conquered a few times by various empires, and a large part of the population has converted to various religions (from pre-Biblical religions to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam). The languages they speak have changed various times, and of course the genetic makeup of the population has not been constant, especially given it's a relatively common trade route.
There have been many rather significant demographic shifts since biblical times[0] including migration waves of Egyptians during the Ottoman period. The genetic makeup of the population changing would be something one would expect to result from things like population movements into and out of the region, so I'm not sure what you mean by "The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times." if there have been significant changes since Biblical times.
> Then, starting with the 1930s or so, a colonization effort by an initially fringe group of Jewish zealots, the Zionist movement; they became much more mainstream after the horrors of the Holocaust.
That didn't just start in the 1930s[1].
> This colonization effort culminated with the proclamation of the state of Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic" state in 1948, led mostly by the colonists who started to expel the local population from the region, with the assent of the British Empire, the USA , and even the USSR (and other European powers). This is the beginning point of the current conflict. Going back further in history is completely absurd: the Palestinians of today are descendants of the ancient Jewish people, of ancient Romans, of ancient Arabic tribes and so on - just as much if not more so than the Jewish people "returning home".
The origins of the current conflict arguably started in the 1800s, however Jews occupied the region prior to that period as well in smaller numbers.
Regardless of the history most Israelis living in Israel were born in Israel and hold no other citizenship so one can't really expect them to leave their country at this point.
The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago, based on solid legal documents. People with on the ground experience have been saying it even longer. Holocaust scholars have been looking at the evidence and noticing the patterns. It's ridiculous to claim that it only started being a "legitimate genocide" two weeks ago.
> The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago
Both the court and the finding described are inaccurate: it was the ICJ, not the ICC, and it didn't find a significant risk of genocide (it found that Palestinians plausibly had rights under the Genocide Convention, South Africa had the legal right to bring a case to vindicate those rights, and there was a risk of harm in the period of adjudication of those rights were provisional measures not adopted.)
But what you're saying undersells the decision. They very explicitly found that there is credible evidence of a risk of genocide, and ordered Israel to cease their military operations entirely until the court finishes its investigation. They reviewed numerous indications of genocidal intent from public speeches by President Hertz, ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich, and various members of the Knesset, in addition to various facts about the way the actual operations are carried out.
Here is their specific finding [0]:
> In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights invoked by South Africa [emp. mine], as specified by the Court.
You're treating the "real and imminent risk" finding as being comparable to an injunction, which weighs whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the cafe. To my knowledge, the ICJ doesn't do that.
Prejudice to the rights to be protected against genocide doesn’t mean genocide, it can mean making it impossible to litigate the potential violations because of destruction of evidence and witnesses, with or without genocide.
The ICJ decision is important, but it being sold as a ruling on the likelihood of an ultimate genocide finding is inaccurate.
But now, dear reader, just do as instructed and visit the links [0] and [1]. The comic imagery is not antisemitic. But a claim here to the contrary, and the fact that we don't have infinite time to check claims, might have fooled you, as it very nearly fooled me. Fortunately, I clicked and read by myself.
> But now, dear reader, just do as instructed and visit the links [0] and [1]. The comic imagery is not antisemitic. But a claim here to the contrary, and the fact that we don't have infinite time to check claims, might have fooled you, as it very nearly fooled me. Fortunately, I clicked and read by myself.
I posted the link because it's incredibly obvious that these are variations of classic antisemetic tropes, I'm really not sure how one could argue otherwise.
You were refuted in a sibling post. I am not sure what is unclear to you in that situation. Can you screenshot what you think is at fault? Because if it is that subtle, it isn't working.
I think antisemitism is becoming a very elastic concept to neuter any criticism. And, by the way, the Palestinians are a semitic people too. So it should be antijudaism.
> You were refuted in a sibling post. I am not sure what is unclear to you in that situation. Can you screenshot what you think is at fault? Because if it is that subtle, it isn't working.
If you don't recognize the obvious antisemitic tropes based on what I've already shown I don't think further evidence would change your mind.
> I think antisemitism is becoming a very elastic concept to neuter any criticism.
I'm sure there are some cases where that happens, but I don't think this case would qualify as it's far too overt.
> And, by the way, the Palestinians are a semitic people too. So it should be antijudaism.
You're now going as far as trying to redefine the normal accepted definition of antisemitism, this seems to me to just be another attempt at downplaying antisemitism for whatever reason.
“Here's a challenge - find me just one article in the mainstream media that calls for the de-radicalization of Israeli society. I'll save you the effort - you can't!”
The demonstrations are about his power grabs. They have 0 to do with the genocide. On that topic most Israelis are not against him. It is, in fact, what is keeping him in power and why he wants this war so badly.
~15% of Israelis believe that a terrorist who shot up a mosque (literally all he did) is a national hero.
It shouldnt be that that hard to imagine that most of the rest are willing to look the other way in the event of a genocide against the same untermensch.
(It's an archive link because the original is paywalled).
> Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants."
> Religious interpretations play a key role in shaping these views. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants." Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek's memory remains relevant today.
I switched to Neovim a year ago, and while I did spend a significant amount of time on configuring it, I haven't touched my config for months now - and I'm perfectly happy with it. There's things I can improve, but it does what I want.
I’m in the same boat. I spent a lot of nights for a couple weeks getting everything tuned just right, in the beginning. But now, several years later, it really doesn’t take much. I spend maybe 2-3 hours once every few months, and that’s usually just adding a bunch of features that sound nice to make my life better. I’ve easily gone 6+ months without touching neovim config, if not longer, because it’s unnecessary. It only matters if you want to further improve your editor
I love the modularity, but unlike the 13" version this one is just too bulky. For this reason I am eyeing up Thinkpad P1, even though it is only available with an Intel CPU.
Do you mean it's bulky even compared to other 16" laptops, or just that a 16" laptop is too bulky for you? Because I know they're not for everyone but I like larger laptops (am currently on 15.6") and was pleasantly surprised when they came out with the 16" as I thought the trend was generally towards smaller laptops.
Thinkpad P1 is 1.8kg whereas Framework 16" is 2.4kg - substantial difference. And P1 even looks less bulkier overall. This is quite unfortunate, because I would rather buy Framework than Lenovo.
I use a P1 and I don't think I'd buy another. The fan runs a lot. When I carry it in my backpack, I have to remember to do a complete shutdown otherwise I'll pull a very hot machine with a mostly depleted battery out of my backpack when I get to my destination.
Outside of Apple, there doesn't seem to be many good fanless laptops. I'd love to see Framework come up with something.
The launch video for this new Framework Laptop 16 mentioned firmware improvements to disable wake on keypress when the laptop's screen is closed, specifically to prevent the type of situation you mentioned. I've personally experienced similar issues with an XPS 15 in the past; I'm hopeful this type of change will help.
Thanks for the info! My current laptop is T14s Gen 3 which I find perfect, but the screen size is a big insufficient for programming. I will be looking for a 16" laptop and currently there aren't that many options with a centred keyboard.
I was taking an intercity coach to Glasgow recently and a teenage kid was on his phone browsing social media without headphones. I made a comment that he should use headphones or turn the volume off. He got defensive and angry. I did not to escalate, and put my earplugs on.
I do believe certain parcels of the society need to be restrained.
Exactly. I would expect it not to bother anyone on a busy street, but I would expect to told to stop it in a library, and to be kicked out in a theatre.
Phones on silent in a theatre yet with a sea of bright silent phone screens surrounding you as people watch TikTok, text, etc., the movie won't be very entertaining. Why I stopped going to movie theatres about 10 years ago.
Also the work breakroom should be a headphone only zone.
No Sharron I don't want to hear the gosip about your extended family as you talk on speaker with your sister about your trailer trash cousins. And Jack I don't want to hear your shitty political podcast with their hosts room temperture IQ...
IMO it shouldn't even get that far, to questions of how much we should be allowed to ask of others in the name of basic decency; there's been a massive shift from people being self-regulating and trying to be considerate to others, to the conversation changing to something like, "how dare you even speak to me while I'm blasting tiktok loudly, I'm going to look up the letter of the law and see what the maximum disruption I can legally get away with is, fuck you!"
Basically sometime around the 00s-10s, seemingly everyone decided to become a massive dickface with zero concept of social cohesion, and it's just me me me me me me, and fuck everyone else.
Society needs a reset, pretty much everyone has just become vile, angry and inconsiderate / extreme main-character syndrome.
It's only a small minority who do things like that. Perhaps the proportion has increased slightly, but the biggest change is people are more afraid to challenge antisocial behaviour than before. So they are more bold.
The counter-culture movement was quite explicit in their mission to replace traditional social norms and values that led to social order with their opposites.
In the real world things seem to be pretty much the same as they have been for most of my life (and I am 60 in a few months).
Online, yes some people behave like monsters and occasionally some of that bleeds across into the real world - but overall I think we are pretty far from saying that "society has fallen".
Ive identified several aspects. Moral injury, new status baseline due to social media, and lack of awareness of effects our digital powers. Not enough time to type on this phone keybd but if ppl upvote i'll elaborate.
Older persons are more often guilty of making noise with their phones, like talking loudly, having an obnoxious ringtone or watching a movie in full volume.
How can you do effective conflict resolution in a society where someone reads an anecdote about a rude teenager and immediately assumes the problem is multiculturalism?
I don't remember bringing up race. Another interesting leap.
But please do elaborate on what sort of 'dominant culture' you're longing for and what sort of policies you'd love to see to (re-)establish that 'dominant culture' to resolve the incredibly new phenomenon of teenagers being rude and rebelling against social norms.
Come on, don't be a coward and just drop the dogwhistling. You're bad at it.
A dominant culture means a step back from individualist values. The most effective 'policies' are created through communities not through law. We cannot rely only on the law for a healthy society; it is necessary but not sufficient.
Rebelling against cultural norms is not the problem. The problem is when people escalate quickly because of it and threaten others. That means the gaps between cultures/subcultures have gotten too big.
You randomly bring up multiculturalism as a problem to be solved in response to a story about a rude teenager of unknown cultural background, and assume I'm dogwhistling? Please elaborate because all I'm seeing here is projection.
But I see we've pivoted from "multiculturalism bad" to pseudo-intellectual theorizing about collective cultural conformity. Very smooth. Different packaging, still trying to sell the same product, though.
> The problem is when people escalate quickly because of it and threaten others.
Guy asked teenager to use headphones, teenager got defensive, guy put in earplugs. That's... literally de-escalation and conflict avoidance. Are we reading the same anecdote?
You've managed to escalate "rude teenager won't use headphones" into a lament about the decline of Western civilization and the need for cultural homogeneity. It's almost impressive how much ideological weight you're hanging on one kid's refusal to wear headphones.
More name-calling. You still haven't addressed my initial question yet. I'll rephrase it again for you: How do you enforce norms without a dominant culture? Do we even need norms at all?
You're asking about norm enforcement failure, but the story shows norms working fine: expectation communicated, pushback received, de-escalation chosen, situation resolved peacefully, albeit not to the satisfaction of the commenter. The system worked.
The fact that the teenager got defensive is indicative of his understanding of societal expectations and norms. Bending and pushing against norms is what teenagers do, and have done since the dawn of time, regardless of their cultural background and regardless of whether they're navigating the norms of a dominant monoculture or those of a multicultural society.
Your question assumes there was some breakdown that needs fixing, but the only 'problem' was mild inconvenience. When did that become evidence of cultural collapse requiring homogeneity to solve?
You still haven't explained why 'teenager won't use headphones' made you think 'multiculturalism is a problem.' For all you know, this story involved two white Christian Scots from the same cultural background. I'll gladly discuss theories about norm enforcement with you once you've explained why you deemed it necessary to inject race and culture into a story that mentioned neither.
I'm not going to entertain your 'just asking questions' routine until you do.
That's a firm 'no' on explaining your original non sequitur then? I told you I'm happy to dive into theories, philosophy, and other theoretical scenarios once you've answered that simple question.
But you're welcome, I guess. At least one of us did.
I doubt you would be happy to hear it, actually. And I doubt it would change your opinion one bit.
You've kicked this entire thread off with an incredibly telling non sequitur: teenager won't use headphones -> multiculturalism bad. When called out on that leap, you pivoted to abstract questions about norm enforcement while ignoring that the norms actually worked fine in this situation.
You're not interested in debate. You're interested in getting someone to validate your predetermined conclusion about the necessity of a cultural hegemony. Having to acknowledge that norm enforcement wasn't actually broken here is pretty inconvenient for that narrative, isn't it?
Still waiting for you to explain that original leap, but we both know you won't. Because you can't without exposing yourself further. Good day. Thanks for playing.
The same way you do in monoculturalism, so that's a meaningless distinction.
If the families did not impart these values to children from a young age, the "owner" of a space advertises and enforces the rules.
In this particular case the coach company should have had clear rules displayed in the coach (at least the basic and generic ones) and the driver should have enforced them at least on demand. Follow the rules or get off the coach.
reply