>It'd only be a turnabout if they were ridiculing specific people who made a claim that "any laid-off worker could just learn to code." But this seems to be generalized harassment against and entire class of people.
IOW, it's fine to ignore when those nebulous other people at my journal ridicule coal miners with unrealistic expectations, but when it starts to affect me, then you've suddenly crossed an impermissible line.
(Edit: sorry for the late update for that last section, selection; they somehow broke test highlighting in iOS 13...)
I don't see anything examples in there showing journalist telling laid off people to "just learn to code". Unless you believe that writing stories about people switching careers is actually an implied demand that people switch careers, which seems like a strange takeaway.
Every story has a framing, and this one's an implication of typicality. By the way they were framed, the clear implication was that it's no big deal for anyone to learn to code as a very late second career. It's (also) a mistake to say that, because they didn't explicitly say that view, they weren't promoting it by their choice of framing and emphasis.
> Could you really say readers won't go away thinking "hm, guess this seems like a viable post-coal career"?
I could see readers going away thinking it's a possible post-coal career for some, but that's a far cry from "a clear implication was that it's no big deal for anyone to learn to code as a very late second career."
Would you walk away from this article thinking that participating in triathlons is a viable hobby for senior citizens?
>I could see readers going away thinking it's a possible post-coal career for some, but that's a far cry from "a clear implication was that it's no big deal for anyone to learn to code as a very late second career."
Then I'm glad to hear you're unusually hype resistant.
>Would you walk away from this article thinking that participating in triathlons is a viable hobby for senior citizens?
No, that's clearly framed as an out-of-the-ordinary feat for an individual (nickname indicating uniqueness, "and still finishes"), and about a hobby rather than a new core income source.
Not taking sides in the argument, but it appears to be verified that Joe Biden directly addressed coal miners at a New Hampshire rally, saying “Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well... Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God’s sake!”
>>It's not just framing. At least some of it originated on 4chan as deliberate harassment
> So? If you’re going to judge every argument by its slimiest advocate, then every argument can be dismissed without a thought.
What argument? Just to be clear: we're talking about people taunting the recently laid-of with messages that they should "learn to code." At best, it's just a mindless meme.
>>> It was pretty well documented 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.
>> Where?
> Where to start? It was pretty thoroughly discussed. From a quick search:
I read that article. I don't think it supports your idea that Buzzfeed or any other outlet was "casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code." The article cites:
1. A Buzzfeed article that appears to be mocking the idea of out-of-touch techies encouraging people to "learn to code" as some kind of cure all solution: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/should-... (Should You Learn To Code? Find out if there's been an article written telling you specifically to code or not.)
2. An article about Mike Bloomberg criticizing out-of-touch techies like Mark Zuckerberg encouraging people to "learn to code" as some kind of cure all solution: https://gigaom.com/2014/04/09/michael-bloomberg-you-cant-tea... ("You’re not going to teach a coal miner to code. Mark Zuckerberg says you teach them [people] to code and everything will be great. I don’t know how to break it to you . . . but no.")
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.
> 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.
>>"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.
> 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.
>All right then. Find an article and walk us through it, in detail (because the devil can be in the details). Prove your point.
Now it feels like you haven't read my comments, including the part that you just quoted.
My entire point is that an article wouldn't say (and doesn't have to say) that "This means that any of y'all out there can do the same thing as these coal miners that created a tech shop." So it would be pretty pointless to "walk through" an article and "prove my point" by finding such a line; that sounds like the challenge you would make if you wanted to sound like you were being rigorously evidence-based but also weren't aware of the points I had just made.
>We're getting a long way away from "casual promotion" when we're analyzing (for instance) the coal miner story in Guardian for subtext.
No. "Look at this success story, probably a trend" is exactly what counts as casual promotion! Again, do you hold to this standard on any other issue? Do you deliberately ignore any subtext, and ridicule everyone who reads such subtext into an article? Or is it just for this one issue?
>Also, the edit I made before your reply may be relevant.
Sure, that would be a fair point, that this zeitgeist was actually misreading the reporting of their own biases as journalists promoting it. If you had made that point, then I would at least agreed that that would be a reason that "learn to code" ridicule was misdirected. So why start by pretending the entirety of the history was a 4chan campaign, when you had much better substance to contribute?
>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.
Yes, but it's also possible to promote such a feeling while maintaining the plausible deniability -- that you seem to buy into! -- that "oh, hey, we just reported one obviously-atypical tech shop started by coal miners, not our fault you generalized from that".
> My entire point is that an article wouldn't say (and doesn't have to say) that "This means that any of y'all out there can do the same thing as these coal miners that created a tech shop." So it would be pretty pointless to "walk through" an article and "prove my point" by finding such a line; that sounds like the challenge you would make if you wanted to sound like you were being rigorously evidence-based but also weren't aware of the points I had just made.
I wasn't asking you to find a line or a pithy quote. I was asking you to explain how you thought a particular article proved your point in detail, with examples of what the article says and the subtext you claim is there, rather than just insisting one exists that does. Basically, you're talking in vague abstractions that I don't think are true in the case, and the way to deal with that disconnect is to talk about the specific reasoning.
But this is all a digression. Even if some journalist somewhere wrote an article that consisted entirely of "Those stupid coal miners need to stop complaining about their lost jobs! They should all quit their bitching and learn to code!" repeated over and over, it wouldn't justify the harassment of all journalists as a class with the phrase "learn to code" like has happened here and elsewhere. That's the real topic of this thread.
> No. "Look at this success story, probably a trend" is exactly what counts as casual promotion! Again, do you hold to this standard on any other issue? Do you deliberately ignore any subtext, and ridicule everyone who reads such subtext into an article? Or is it just for this one issue?
Eh, not necessarily. Reporting on something is not promotion, it's reporting. Reporting on something that looks like a trend is not promotion, it's reporting. It's journalists' job to report a lot of varied things: good, bad, and neutral; novel and familiar; human interest stories and world changing events. To be more specific the actual journalistic articles I've read in this thread read as reporting, not promotion.
Also, sometimes that "subtext" is just the interpretive bias the reader brings, and nothing more.
> Yes, but it's also possible to promote such a feeling while maintaining the plausible deniability -- that you seem to buy into! -- that "oh, hey, we just reported one obviously-atypical tech shop started by coal miners, not our fault you generalized from that".
Yeah, it's possible, but don't you think that's a pretty conspiratorial way of looking at it? Maybe the Guardian (to use a specific example) just reported on that company because it was an interesting story that people might want to read about?
So? If you’re going to judge every argument by its slimiest advocate, then every argument can be dismissed without a thought.
>Where?
Where to start? It was pretty thoroughly discussed. From a quick search:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/learn-to-code
>It'd only be a turnabout if they were ridiculing specific people who made a claim that "any laid-off worker could just learn to code." But this seems to be generalized harassment against and entire class of people.
IOW, it's fine to ignore when those nebulous other people at my journal ridicule coal miners with unrealistic expectations, but when it starts to affect me, then you've suddenly crossed an impermissible line.
(Edit: sorry for the late update for that last section, selection; they somehow broke test highlighting in iOS 13...)