Kissaki@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
“I wish that was treated as a teachable moment, not a law enforcement moment,” said Patterson.
Seems like the Gaggle CEO has a good view. They’re still an enabler in these situations. Be it poor guidance or training. With the impact they have, taking responsibility would be tracking and ceasing contracts that do not follow this soft response approach.
whoisearth@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Human nature dictates we do things before we discuss if we should do things.
To me it starts getting into a philosophical discussion but unfortunately I don’t think as a species we are mature enough yet to have these discussions.
A good real world example of this is in Canada the separation movement by Quebec vs. Alberta. In Quebec there have been years of open public discussion before they ultimately took a vote. They were painfully away of all the nuance that came from leaving Canada. They did it right to a large extent. Compare that to Daniella Smith in Alberta and she’s hammering through the mechanisms for a vote to happen meanwhile the public has absolutely no understanding of the ramifications of if they do vote to leave Canada. They’re doing it wrong.
Human nature by default seems to want to change the front tyre while doing 120 on the highway. This needs to change.
CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Imagine it’s 1995 and you’re an average person. You don’t know all that much about separation, you just know that the coming referendum is about it and you don’t want to separate. You likely are not a college/university graduate and a significant amount of the people you know haven’t even graduated high school. You probably don’t have a personal computer or internet access even if you do. Your primary news source is likely the odd updates you get on the radio while driving to or from work, and you haven’t been following and aren’t familiar with how people talk about separation. You show up to vote and you get this question:
What the hell are you even voting for or against here?
The Québec referendum on separation was so confusing people remarked they didn’t actually know what they were voting for. The situation resulted in a law (Clarity Act) that forced all secession votes to pass some tests to be considered valid, and also indicated that a secession requires amendment of the Constitution of Canada, which makes it incredibly difficult to actually do.
I really don’t want to give Québec undeserved credit on this, they handled it quite poorly tbh and the whole thing felt like it was exploiting the ignorance and anger of a minority population that had even less education and literacy than the average Canadian at the time. That said, Canada has since devolved further into being a neoliberal anglosohere shithole so perhaps they were on to something.