It was first described to me by Erik Martin, one of Reddit's first community managers:
The emergence of many new hypocrisies typically heralds an emerging new cultural synthesis.
Are you disturbed that you agree with one of those viewpoints? Or perhaps that other people you respect do?
1/x
\u2014 HYPOCRISY \u2014
— emily (@emnode) January 9, 2021
\U0001f4cdFree market conservatives outraged that a private social media company can decide who has access to its service.
\U0001f4cdSo called liberals overjoyed at the prospect of powerful corporations taking control of the content and information we're allowed to see.
It was first described to me by Erik Martin, one of Reddit's first community managers:
We have become so accustomed to the notion of “free speech, except” that we do not realize that free speech is ALWAYS limited, and that every limit arose from an Omega Event.
Early on any platform’s history, spam is an Omega Event: it will ruin the platform unless it is curtailed. No principle other than survival is relevant.
Any platform (or organism) that does not prioritize survival, explicitly or implicitly, will die - and so all living platforms do so.
There is no slippery slope, and tech’s actions do not reflect “left vs right” or a backlash by “the powers that be” or any such thing.
Incite an insurrection to stop the lawful and orderly transfer of power in the world’s most powerful democracy.
Tech depends on the continued existence of the United States being, however imperfectly, a democratic nation of laws.
The fact that they continue to take action against other people who support the insurrection is merely them making SURE that this threat is ended.
It was act or die. Tech companies don't thrive in countries where the loser of an election can take power through a coup.
Omega Events don’t mean your old systems aren’t worthwhile or about to be destroyed. It just means it is time to synthesize a new system from first principles.
More from Marketing
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?