|
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
started 6/19/2007; 10:41:57 AM - last post 6/20/2007; 5:29:41 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Tuesday, June 19, 2007 
6/19/2007; 2:41:57 PM (reads: 8407, responses: 9)
|
|
Quote du jour 2
| | "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw |
| | Not sure I ever heard that before. Sounds familiar. But Chris Heuer just brought it up in the "Economics of Free" discussion. And it sank in. |
Quote du jour
| | The business of the valley is not publishing. It is not advertising. It is not retailing. It is not pet food. It is cool packages of technology that thrill people with empowerment and novelty. |
| | That's why I was thrilled to find myself living here in 1985, and why I still miss it when I'm gone (which is most of the time). |
| | By the way, advertising was a big part of the bubble that burst in '00. And it's a bigger part of the current bubble. |
| | Too much of the "smart" money these days is chasing advertising, as if it's the only business model worth having. |
| | Worse, it's woefully inefficient. Even with all its accountability. |
| | Worse still, one company dominates the whole business. That's not healthy. |
| | We need to imagine A Better Way. Then make it happen. |
Making progress. Literally.
| | For moving discussions forward, nothing beats Open Space. We've been using it (or variations on it) in the Internet Identity Workshops, and the forward motion is tectonic every time. |
| | Today in San Francisco there's another one: Supernova 2007 Open Space. There is no agenda other than the one attendees set. There are no panels, no keynotes. Just self-forming groups that meet for an hour or so apiece with the purpose of actually getting somewhere with whatever they're talking about. |
| | I want to talk about VRM, naturally. I'm also bringing along a Nokia N800, which I think may be the first blank-slate device on which we can breadboard toward a new breed of media recorder/player: one that can record and play podcasts, audio and video streams, play FM radio with data embedded in it, and provide buy-button that allows listeners to send money to artists and intermediators on a voluntary and non-coercive basis. (And tell DRM to screw off.) |
Discussing discussion
| | The first writing I ever did on sexism in this weblog was related to Doc Searls yes beloved, gentle Doc Searls. Doc Searls is a nice man, and yes, he does reference and link to womenmore than a lot of other guys. But he'll never get into a discussion with a woman. He will never debate a woman. In close to seven years of off and on reading of his site, I've never seen him actually have a truly engaged discussion with a woman. To this day, I don't know if it's because he doesn't respect us, professionally. Or if it's because he doesn't know how to have such a discussion without coming across as bully or being abusive. By not engaging with women, though, he does us more harm than if he wrote that we're all skanky bitches. |
| | Read the whole thing. As usual, Shelley brings up some things I agree with, some things I don't. Is it worth discussing them? This is a serious question. |
| | What is a "truly engaged discussion" between blogs anyway? I think I've had more than a few, with both men and women. I also think there are fewer of those in general as the years go on. At least in blogs. Seems I've seen jumping-to-conclusions and piling-on increase over the years, perhaps just because the population of the blogosphere has increased. But maybe I'm just jaded, wrong, or both. |
| | Anyway, here's the best summary I can find of the sexism matter Shelley refers to in that post. Seems to me "engaged discussion" happened there. |
| | But maybe not. Through our back-and-forth Shelley and I came to different conclusions. I thought that "sexism" was a "lousy word" and made a case for it. She didn't buy it. |
| | And here we are, almost five years later, at Round Two. |
| | [Later...] My sister just pointed me to the comments under Shelley's post. Interesting discussion there, between Seth Finkelstein, Shelley and others. One that sticks out for me, by Shelley: Damn, I read that comment thread and we used to have fun back then. What the hell happened? |
| | Michael Bernstein replies, The stakes got higher. And the 'new blog smell' wore off. Good an answer as any. |
discuss
|
|
Andrew Leyden - Where's the Tech? 
6/19/2007; 5:05:09 PM (reads: 1006, responses: 1)
|
|
|
"Where's the Tech?" has been my mantra when confronted with the moniker 'Web 2.0'. Sure there are a few neat little nuances being developed, but they are nothing as revolutionary or radical as Web 1.0 was to Gopher, imho.
So much of Web 2.0 is just a wrapper on some existing technology, and I hope we eventually focus on building really cool and neat features, rather than just re-coloring the coloring book that someone else created.
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Where's the Tech? 
6/19/2007; 6:11:46 PM (reads: 1095, responses: 0)
|
|
|
BINGO!
Doc said:<QUOTE>We need to imagine A Better Way. Then make it happen.</QUOTE>
The radical (yet subtle) technology we need is to figure out a way to allow markup on the web. Real, honest markup, like you can do with a piece of existing text on paper. You can add notes, cross out, etc.
I know the standard responses all go like:
- HTML is a Markup language, dummy!
- Why would we want to allow graffitti?
- I need control of what I write!
- etc, etc...
HTML only allows inline markup of a document at the time of creation. It doesn't allow you to have multiple layers of markup, even at that time. Try to add a underline tag from the middle of one paragraph into the middle of the next.... it isn't legal HTML. Real markup allows post-creation marking up of a document... which is clearly outside of the realm of HTML
The idea of allowing someone else to alter the context, content, or commentary of a document might send shivers through those who really wish that HTML locked everything down like a PDF file. The possiblities for phishing and spam are incredible, but they need to be solved, and will be. It's a question of time scale, not results.
You might think this is bullshit... but if you dig deeper into the implications of the what I just wrote, I believe you'll find a blueprint for true revolution, and the exact tech that is required for VRM and real change on the web. (A mini-manifesto?)
--Mike--
discuss
|
|
Jim Bursch - Re: Monday, June 16, 2007 
6/19/2007; 7:53:41 PM (reads: 1044, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I like to think I am making a better way happen at MyMindshare. Have you seen my post:
Charting the mindshare market
http://blog.mymindshare.com/2007/03/charting_the_mi_1.html
Inspired by Joe Andrieu's recent VRM post, I am about to launch a new feature, "Request for Bids (RFB)" where people can state their needs/wants and advertiser's can respond accordingly. When someone posts an RFB, others can join the bid, hopefully creating a mass that will be attractive to advertisers.
I hate to use the term "advertiser" because it sets up a dichotomy. We are all advertisers and consumers, but I have to use the coin of the realm to communicate.
I'm also working on a post that will be entitled "The tragedy of mindshare is the tragedy of the commons" and argue that the solution is the same: an enclosure movement wherein people take ownership of their mindshare.
It's point #1 of the My Mindshare 10-Point Declaration
1. My mindshare is mine.
2. My mindshare has real monetary value.
3. I have a right to sell, trade, or keep my mindshare as I choose.
4. Nobody is entitled to take my mindshare without my permission.
5. Unsolicited and intrusive advertising amounts to mindshare theft.
6. Mindshare theft is wrong.
7. I have a right to resist mindshare theft.
8. I demand media that does not deal in stolen mindshare.
9. I support media that respects my mindshare.
10. The world is better when individuals control their mindshare and their media.
discuss
|
|
Trudy W. Schuett - Discussing discussion 
6/20/2007; 11:14:49 AM (reads: 1034, responses: 4)
|
|
|
Picking fights with people is a typical feminist tactic when they feel like drawing attention to themselves. The target is most often a white male who feels obliged by courtesy to respond.
When men act like that, they are called trolls and generally ignored. We can and should learn to ignore feminists too, because just like trolls they will never be satisfied. Nothing you say or do will ever be "enough."
No, it's not worth discussing, because one participant simply will never be open to discussion. Her personal opinion is the only thing she sees, and forcing others to agree by any means is the only goal.
discuss
|
|
Shelley - Re: Discussing discussion 
6/20/2007; 6:02:22 PM (reads: 1136, responses: 3)
|
|
|
Not to pick a fight, Trudy...or is that how you describe a disagreement? If I disagree with you, is that me 'picking a fight'?
Anyway, I'm also assuming you don't vote, since it was feminists who got you the vote.
And you don't own property, since it was feminists who fought for women's property rights.
You probably don't use contraceptives, because feminists have helped to keep access to these legal, and open.
I'm assuming you don't earn a wage, because it was feminists who helped women break into professions, and who continue to work to see we have equal access, and a fair wage.
If you have kids, I'm assuming you're not divorced, or if you are, you don't custody -- without the work of feminists, well, you wouldn't be allowed custody of kids.
Equal access to medicine, ability to drive, an equal voice in congress -- all of these are protected for you by feminists.
You benefit, daily, from the very women you disdain, whose sweat and blood brought you what you take for granted. Tell me, what does that make you?
Shelley
discuss
|
|
Stephen Lewis - Re: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 
6/20/2007; 9:29:41 PM (reads: 1005, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Doc, I admire the way you handle this silly ad hominem attack. For whatever it is worth, the undersigned fellow masculine geezer happily testifies, that over the forty years I've known you, that in privacy I have never heard you classify, insult, dismiss, or condescend to anyone based on their sex, ethnicity, behavioral choices, or any other characteristic other than, perhaps, blatant incompetence, unwarranted hubris, or bad grammar. Stephen Lewis
discuss
|
|
Trudy W. Schuett - Re: Discussing discussion 
6/20/2007; 9:57:26 PM (reads: 1232, responses: 2)
|
|
|
All of those things would’ve happened with or without feminism, and there is no supportable evidence that women have ever been routinely denied custody of their children. There is only unsubstantiated rumor.
However, there a few things we can all thank feminism for:
Thanks to feminists, dangerous, violent women walk the streets, free to assault and kill. Just because they had a good story about being “victims.”
Thanks to feminists, those women will never get any treatment, or jail time, and the next generation of girls are growing up seeing violence as a way to address their problems.
Thanks to feminists, working women have no access to shelter from domestic violence. Nor do those women with older boys, or lesbian women, who ironically founded the shelter system.
Thanks to feminists, women who repeatedly find themselves in violent relationships can never find any kind of aid or solution to their problem. Feminists claim they don’t exist.
Thanks to feminists, male victims of interpersonal violence cannot get any help. Then when they are killed by their violent spouses, they are blamed for their own deaths.
Thanks to feminists, research into domestic violence has been halted for decades in favor of the party line.
Thanks to feminists, thousands of children every year suffer permanent psychological damage due to the brainwashing efforts of domestic violence programs.
Thanks to feminists, 30% of today’s children live in homes without fathers. Some of those fathers are in jail right now for their inability to pay child support judgments. So we now have debtor's prison reinstated.
Thanks to feminists, we have a society that incorrectly believes that divorce will solve all their problems, and marriage is nothing but a temporary contractual arrangement.
These are just a few things that come to mind right now. Next week I’m going to court as a representative of the family of a male victim, who was finally killed by his live-in girlfriend, after numerous attempts, and one attack that put him in hospital. She’s going to be sentenced, will maybe get a year, if that and then out she goes again. The only question here is who her next victim will be.
Funny thing, I used to be a feminist, and was in fact a charter subscriber to MS. Magazine. But I began to see how little logic or reason, and how much hate and self-interest motivated these girls. No, I fail to recognize any benefit from the manipulation and lies of feminism. All this makes me is an egalitarian and a realist.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Discussing discussion 
6/21/2007; 12:57:03 PM (reads: 1390, responses: 1)
|
|
|
The "things" Shelley listed would not have happened "anyway". Brave people fought for them. Whether those people were called suffragists or feminists doesn't matter.
I'm sorry about your friend's death, and about the prospects regarding the woman who killed him. I also don't think blaming feminism, or reducing it to "manipulation and lies" helps.
discuss
|
|
Trudy W. Schuett - Re: Discussing discussion 
6/21/2007; 2:46:04 PM (reads: 1506, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Please let me clear up one misconception. The man who was murdered was not my friend or acquaintance; in fact, I never met him. As an advocate for unserved victims of domestic violence for the past seven years, his is just the most recent case where a clearly violent abuser was allowed, by a feminist-trained legal system, to continue dangerous behavior unchecked. This is happening with disturbing frequency, in courtrooms and communities across the country.
People often believe in feminism until one of their own become a casualty, and then that's when I hear from them. Too late, of course, to do anything but commiserate, and listen to their story.
We could prevent future murders if we'd stop buying the feminist party line and start recognizing that all men are NOT abusers; all women are NOT victims. But right now we value men very little, and it seems their lives are even less important than the political ideology of a handful of self-serving girls, who will go to any lengths to keep from taking responsibility for themselves.
Eventually, the truth will out. Feminism is nothing but manipulation and lies. I stand firm in my belief.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|