I've had songs disappear/reappear and I don't notice until it comes up on a discover/radio and I realize it isn't marked as liked anymore.
I imagine it's due to licensing fuckery, but you'd think they'd keep track of the song in your favourites and reinstate it later.. infuriating. I got part way through writing a script to periodically check what has disappeared earlier this year, maybe I should go dust it off
How does this have anything to do with what ‘mizza said? I also took this as comparing flat earthers and occupy Wall Street. Grouping together a bunch of similar things and then adding in another dissimilar item as part of that group is a backhanded way of making connections between the items in readers minds.
It can work to create a positive or negative connection, but the connection is still implied
The connection is that they're highly controversial views from different groups. The professor is saying he was giving his students a chance to critically engage with various controversial ideas to sharpen their reasoning skills, and to get them used to dealing with views that might be quite contradictory to their own or to the mainstream.
In my experience, there is a lot of little urban legends and superstitions that young people still take part in / talk about, but it's unclear how many do it for fun and how many partially believe it. Anecdotally, I've met plenty of young people (20s) who believe the whole bloodtype/personality thing.
Looking at what goes on inside human rights tribunals (at least in ontario), I don't see how things are just fine. If anything, the tiny population size of Canada means nothing particularly exciting ever happens in Canada..
Forgetting the context surrounding this quote (which makes it no where near as bad IMO but I also acknowledge other readings are reasonable), I wonder if this hypothetical would be a proper analogue:
> García Martínez describes [men] in the [Wall Street] area as "[douchey] and [egotistical], cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit.”
That's the sort of sentiment I've heard over a drink about any number of places/topics, but I don't think it should be a fireable opinion to publish. Bonus points if you can explain how above example is different without using the word 'power'.
Edit: I've also noticed others posting quotes from the book where he uses equivalently inflammatory language against men, himself, people he worked with at goldman sachs (aka: my toy example pretty much does also appear in his book), etc. My opinion is this paints the book as more of a gauche satire against everyone/everything in his life.
I read it exactly the opposite. A few years ago my wife was recommended Chaos Monkeys by somebody. It was stunning what he had willingly written down to share with the world. Every few minutes she'd explode in horror at the next even more outrageous thing in the text. Instead of being the expected book on silicon valley, it was fascinating because this person was so proud of being a tremendous asshole to everybody.
The book is not a satire. Not even a little. It is absolutely completely honest and the author is a complete jerk.
It's not satire, but it is a schtick. If you listen to an interview w/ the guy, he's not at all what I expected from the book (and I had the same response as your wife, though I've heard worse in SV many many times and sort of just appreciated the honesty even if it doesn't reflect my worldview). So does it still reflect a culture that's been problematic in SV that we want to get rid of? For sure, yes. But also, maybe people should be allowed to make mistakes - this kind of sexism was widely tolerated in SV even five years ago. That doesn't excuse it, but I sort of think we have to allow people to grow and change.
People should be allowed to make mistakes. If they change. It is clear that he is still proud of this writing. This isn't "wow, in my younger years I was really awful and I feel bad and have changed".
I think your example doesn't quite work. If one says "the guys/men in X", that can most likely be interpreted as "the people in X", particularly for male-dominated fields/areas. If someone specifies "the women in X" however, they're definitely talking specifically about women.
It would also be weird to me to specifically talk about how "the men" of wall street/bay area/etc as opposed to the women have any real shared traits. Gender is a factor in one's personality, but using that as your only feature is just bad stats.
Browsing Netflix for 2 hours only to watch nothing is so common it's memed after all..