3 ms·

>What argument? The one I gave in my first comment here, the one apparent to most people following the history: "hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just l

by SilasX 7y ago

>What argument? The one I gave in my first comment here, the one apparent to most people following the history: "hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just learn to code after a layoff and make that your new job." If I can summarize the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're saying that, after ignoring context, history, and subtext, and focusing solely on the three words, then there's nothing to the argument. And then, because the coal miner story didn't explicitly say "oh, hey, this must be something every coal miner can do", then obviously the publication is 100% innocent of promoting a zeitgeist of everyone easily slipping into coding no matter what their previous career. And then, because I go in, interpreting the events with such context, history, and subtext, then I'm less informed than you, someone who is deliberately filtering out such subtext and framing. There's a lot I could say about that, but it's probably enough to say: no, that's not generally "how it works", and I would be tremendously surprised if you approached any other story with such filters.

ardy42 7y ago
> The one I gave in my first comment here, the one apparent to most people following the history: "hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just learn to code after a layoff and make that your new job." Two points: 1. No one's disagreeing with you on that. Certainly not me, and probably not any of the journalists who wrote any of those stories or who were laid off 2. That's not the argument that's being made by these drive by "learn to code" comments (and if the commenters think they're making that argument, it's about as cogent as me arguing against your non-existent Stalinist political beliefs). > If I can summarize the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're saying that, after ignoring context, history, and subtext, and focusing solely on the three words, then there's nothing to the argument. Apparently you can't summarize it. I was just showing that you didn't show that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job." Edit: I think it's pretty clear that at one time many out-of-touch techies (and probably some business types) advocated for blue collar people to "learn to code" as a solution to a lot of economic dislocation. I wouldn't be surprised if journalists also reported those ideas. However, I'm not at all convinced that journalists, or any journalistic sub-group of note, themselves advocated for that idea. I also wouldn't be surprised that some people's fallible memories conflated the journalists with the out-of-touch techies they reported on, and misremembered the former as acting like the latter.
- SilasX 7y ago
  >>"hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just learn to code after a layoff and make that your new job." > No one's disagreeing with you on that. Certainly not me, and probably not any of the journalists who wrote any of those stories or who were laid off Wait, what? I wish you had made that clear before. If you agree with that, then wouldn't you say it's pretty irresponsible to publish articles that very suggestively imply that claim, even if they don't say so explicitly? If so, then it sounds like we're in agreement on the broad points, just not the particulars. >Apparently you can't summarize it. I was just showing that you didn't show that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job." That ... still sounds like a pretty good summary of your comment actually. "Aha, this article didn't explicitly say that so you must be wrong, because obviously no one is ever misled by the suggestions or framing." That's my core point. It's not enough that they didn't explictly spell out the implication. Most people -- yes, probably even you when you're not really trying to argue for a preferred conclusion -- read articles with a context, being aware of the history and subtext. Yes, cool, you can show that they didn't explicitly say the words. So what? Obviously there's more to consider. Late edit: >That's not the argument that's being made by these drive by "learn to code" comments (and if the commenters think they're making that argument, it's about as cogent as me arguing against your non-existent Stalinist political beliefs). Where do you get that? Obviously a huge portion of people (it's obviously to me at least) feel like these publications were being casual about this idea, and in that case, yes, "a word to the wise" is enough -- or three words, as the case may be.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > That's my core point. It's not enough that the didn't deliberately spell out the implication. Most people -- yes, probably even you when you're not really trying to argue for a preferred conclusion -- read articles with a context, being aware of the history and subtext. Yes, cool, you can show that they didn't explicitly say the words. So what? Obviously there's more to consider. All right then. Find an article and walk us through it, in detail (because the devil can be in the details). Prove your point. But, you were claiming that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job," with the implication that justified drive-by "learn to code" comments targeted at laid off journalists. We're getting a long way away from "casual promotion" when we're analyzing (for instance) the coal miner story in Guardian for subtext. Also, the edit I made before your reply may be relevant. Reply to late edit: > Where do you get that? Obviously a huge portion of people (it's obviously to me at least) feel like these publications were being casual about this idea, and in that case, yes, "a word to the wise" is enough -- or three words, as the case may be. Your word choice is getting towards my thoughts on this. If there's any genuine belief behind these harassing comments, it's a feeling that something false is actually true.

by SilasX 7y ago

ardy42 7y ago

> The one I gave in my first comment here, the one apparent to most people following the history: "hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just learn to code after a layoff and make that your new job." Two points: 1. No one's disagreeing with you on that. Certainly not me, and probably not any of the journalists who wrote any of those stories or who were laid off 2. That's not the argument that's being made by these drive by "learn to code" comments (and if the commenters think they're making that argument, it's about as cogent as me arguing against your non-existent Stalinist political beliefs). > If I can summarize the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're saying that, after ignoring context, history, and subtext, and focusing solely on the three words, then there's nothing to the argument. Apparently you can't summarize it. I was just showing that you didn't show that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job." Edit: I think it's pretty clear that at one time many out-of-touch techies (and probably some business types) advocated for blue collar people to "learn to code" as a solution to a lot of economic dislocation. I wouldn't be surprised if journalists also reported those ideas. However, I'm not at all convinced that journalists, or any journalistic sub-group of note, themselves advocated for that idea. I also wouldn't be surprised that some people's fallible memories conflated the journalists with the out-of-touch techies they reported on, and misremembered the former as acting like the latter.

SilasX 7y ago
>>"hey, I guess it really isn't so easy to just learn to code after a layoff and make that your new job." > No one's disagreeing with you on that. Certainly not me, and probably not any of the journalists who wrote any of those stories or who were laid off Wait, what? I wish you had made that clear before. If you agree with that, then wouldn't you say it's pretty irresponsible to publish articles that very suggestively imply that claim, even if they don't say so explicitly? If so, then it sounds like we're in agreement on the broad points, just not the particulars. >Apparently you can't summarize it. I was just showing that you didn't show that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job." That ... still sounds like a pretty good summary of your comment actually. "Aha, this article didn't explicitly say that so you must be wrong, because obviously no one is ever misled by the suggestions or framing." That's my core point. It's not enough that they didn't explictly spell out the implication. Most people -- yes, probably even you when you're not really trying to argue for a preferred conclusion -- read articles with a context, being aware of the history and subtext. Yes, cool, you can show that they didn't explicitly say the words. So what? Obviously there's more to consider. Late edit: >That's not the argument that's being made by these drive by "learn to code" comments (and if the commenters think they're making that argument, it's about as cogent as me arguing against your non-existent Stalinist political beliefs). Where do you get that? Obviously a huge portion of people (it's obviously to me at least) feel like these publications were being casual about this idea, and in that case, yes, "a word to the wise" is enough -- or three words, as the case may be.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > That's my core point. It's not enough that the didn't deliberately spell out the implication. Most people -- yes, probably even you when you're not really trying to argue for a preferred conclusion -- read articles with a context, being aware of the history and subtext. Yes, cool, you can show that they didn't explicitly say the words. So what? Obviously there's more to consider. All right then. Find an article and walk us through it, in detail (because the devil can be in the details). Prove your point. But, you were claiming that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job," with the implication that justified drive-by "learn to code" comments targeted at laid off journalists. We're getting a long way away from "casual promotion" when we're analyzing (for instance) the coal miner story in Guardian for subtext. Also, the edit I made before your reply may be relevant. Reply to late edit: > Where do you get that? Obviously a huge portion of people (it's obviously to me at least) feel like these publications were being casual about this idea, and in that case, yes, "a word to the wise" is enough -- or three words, as the case may be. Your word choice is getting towards my thoughts on this. If there's any genuine belief behind these harassing comments, it's a feeling that something false is actually true.