the-printer

This is a valid criticism, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily the author’s fault.

This implies that every state constitution has provisions similar to the ones in Montana’s state constitution that were used to uphold the decision and have already given it the distinction of precedence. The ruling on its own is not legally binding on other states, they can refer to it at their own discretion.

This isn’t a question of the decision’s influence in the future or its likelihood. It’s about the decision’s effect today. Either way, as far as I could find, the text of the ruling does nothing to convey concern for the measurable effects that Montana’s coal industry could have on you or your children elsewhere. That’s what we’re talking about.

By law, your self interests were not referred to at all. The "good news" is that your country is governed by self interests, and I’m inclined to believe that The Powers That Be ® are catering to yours this time around.

And people wonder how Jim Crow became a household name…

This isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.

asynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.

Appealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.

OP’s comment is better suited to be taken in reference to the amount of domains banned rather than the “secrecy” of the list. I’m interested in how users are worse off with regards to anything by not knowing what sites are banned.

> Seibel: I’m thinking of the preface to SICP, where it says, “programs must be written for people to read and only incidentally for machines to execute.”

I’m wondering if the initial statement in SICP spoke from a time that was similar to a 1977 McGraw-Hill textbook, “Introduction to Computers”, that I picked up from a thrift store recently. A significant portion chapter on developing computer programs is dedicated to methodology; planning, the development life cycle, systems design, instructing users, processing methodology. The next chapter is about flowcharts and tables.

I mention all this to point out how intrigued I am by what looks like the emphasis that was placed back then on clarity from the human’s perspective, be it programmer, user or anyone else involved in the software’s development and use.

Another thing that’s interesting to me is how old code like Fortran looks like it’s made up of mostly just words, compared to modern languages I’ve looked at that use a lot of abbreviations and special characters.

My knowledge of programming and its history is excruciatingly minimal, but this blog post and that excerpt sort of remind me of what I just mentioned. I’m not sure why exactly, or if there’s any credence to it.

I think what happened is that during the 90s/early 00s the internet was too immature to be affected by the garbage/attention economy campaigns that took place in more refined mediums like television for example. The internet was not yet a part of mass media. It was more like a “walled garden” of a different kind in spite of how open it was within the walls.

Watching the internet change may feel different to some people because the relationship that they’ve had with it is more intimate than with their television. What we’re dealing with now is just the intended development of media in society courtesy of The Powers That Be ®.

In hindsight it was inevitable.

Interesting piece. I don't think what we're dealing online with is anything new per se. Neil Postman expressed a take similar to yours when he said, "Information has become a form of garbage" in 1992. Things appear to be developing as intended; encourage the general public to develop an appetite for junk, make its consumption highly accessible with financial incentives for its makers, blind the public of any notion as to what the meaning of "food" is at all, profit.

The graver thing to ponder over is that the distinction between garbage and what isn't garbage is progressively becoming obscured to many.

I apologize for the long replies. I promise you it doesn’t feel like so much is being typed in the text editing box before I post.

I'm not ashamed to say that my belief is that Islam is inherently great. I'm sure you have your own set of convictions that are guiding your arguments.

My view in this thread is that the perception of the Islamic conquests in Europe are exceptional in the way that they may be perceived due the differences between the Muslim world and Western Europe during that period of time and that this perception may carry over and affect how the relationship between the Muslim world and Western Europe is viewed today, especially within the context of what the book Stealing from the Saracens appears to be about and how society may respond to that as well. These differences were initially predicated theologically and more than likely had an influence on how any similarities between the Islamic states and Western European nations were interpreted by them.

Through literary means we can contextualize certain events like what we're discussing in a way that makes the differences less stark and open the door for a more conclusive, reconciliatory perspective but the efficacy of that is subject to the realities of the living human experience. Polarization is a natural characteristic of society. "Social evolution" can do much to make large groups of people alike, but it can also magnify the ways that they aren't. History and the components that make it are as well-retained in the human experience itself as it is within literature and "the pens are lifted and the ink is dried".

If this disturbs you, well...this is the world that we share. Enjoy.

> I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects.

Yeah, thank you! That's what I was trying to get across.

> from a scripture point of view, they are both Abrahamic religions, use a book as the center of wisdom, buildings to house worship.. but let's set that huge likeness aside.

If we were to refer to scripture we would find that the concept of an "Abrahamic religion" is non-existent, and the presence of scripture itself as a primary fundamental source and houses of worship do little by way of comparing any religion.

The rest of the similarities that you list are useful, but it's unlikely that the valuable context that can be gleaned from any sociopolitical similitudes in retrospect were prioritized when the events in question were taking place. The glaring theological differences between Islam and Christianity were the defining factor as to why the Muslim conquests began at all. We can view sociopolitical similarities as non-trivial, but in respect to the initial impetus (the spread of the Islam), they become trivial. This isn't to discount any likenesses that can be found across certain structures within these regions or how these structures were affected as regions spread and interacted with each other, but the significance varies and how each region interpreted these similarities at that time likely varied as well. In the context of the Islamic conquests as a whole, the belief itself is paramount in beginning any discussions about them.

The point that I'm trying to make is that on the whole, i.e. beginning from as early as 629, how the Islamic conquests can be perceived is exceptional compared to other conflicts that took place involving Western European nations, in particular the conflicts that took place between Western European nations themselves. This exception could be compared to that of how the Islamic conquests of European territories could be perceived from the perspective of the Islamic states as opposed to the early conflicts that took place in Syria/Yemen, for example.

"Likeness" is equally nuanced, is often forsaken for opposing motives and is worthless unless it is predicated by shared principles, especially at the scale that we are discussing.