tuckerm

Looking forward to reading it! awk has been a huge blind spot for me for a long time now.

I've started doing notes in the terminal as well. I used Obsidian and Logseq for a while, mainly because I wanted something with a GUI so that I could recommend it to people who aren't comfortable with the terminal. But eventually I figured that a terminal solution was the right one for me, since I have a terminal open all the time anyway.

I switched from vim to kakoune a while ago ( https://kakoune.org/ ), so I use nb ( https://xwmx.github.io/nb ) instead of vimwiki.

nb is a terminal application that will open whatever your default text editor is.

Honestly, this sounds like an amazing combination.

It's worth mentioning that the person in the YouTube video is a member of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party, which, as I understand it, is basically like what the Republican Party is in the U.S.

Just in case anyone was thinking that the man in the video is some kind of revered monk or historian -- he might just be another politician that is eager to dive into any ragebait culture war issue.

It's like they have no sense that other views exist, and opposing views do not constitute politics.

I think they point they are trying to make is that once you are very very wrong about something (in their mind), it's no longer a political position, it's just an immoral position. And if that's what they're saying, I disagree with it.

I'm not saying that there are no immoral positions, I'm saying that a position can be completely immoral and still be political. I hate when people use the phrase "it's just politics" as a shield, as though everyone else has to be OK with some incredibly shitty attitude they have, just because they have managed to also make it a political attitude.

And that's such a terrible superpower to give to politics, too: the ability to instantly legitimize a position simply because it falls under the domain of politics.

Not to long ago, the question of "should white children and black children be allowed to go to school together" was a political issue in the U.S. And I'd say that's still a political issue. It didn't magically become some other type of issue just because a few decades passed and we now agree that one side was completely wrong. The fact that it isn't actively being discussed anymore doesn't change the fact that it falls under the umbrella of political issues. It means that someone can have a political opinion and they have to be a real piece of shit to hold that opinion.

We used to have academic freedom. Now we just have sensitivity trainings and PANTS. SHACKLES OF THE MIND, I TELL YOU!

Honestly, those two points don't seem incompatible to me. For example:

Teaching the history of fashion to undergrads in 1985 is bizarre because:

1. They insist that standards of dress are entirely relative. Being dressed decently is a cultural construct; some cultures wear hardly any clothing whatsoever and being nude is a completely normal, default way of presenting yourself.
2. And yet when I walk into class with my dick and balls hanging out, they all get extremely offended and the coeds threaten to call the police.

(And yes I changed the year because I'm sick of so many of these issues being brought up as though "the kids these days" are the problem, when so often these are issues that have been around LITERALLY FOREVER.)

I'm not trying to dunk on this Henry Shelvin guy -- I'm certain that he knows a lot more about philosophy than me, and has more interesting thoughts about morals than I do. And I'm also not going to judge someone based on a tweet...aside from the obvious judgement that they are using Twitter, lol. But as far as takes go, this one kinda sucks.

*edit: I'll add that I hope this professor is taking this opportunity to explain what the difference is between morals being relative vs being subjective, which is an issue that has come up in this very thread. Especially since I bet a lot of his students have only heard the term "moral relativism" being used by religious conservatives who accuse you of being a moral relativist because you don't live by the Bible. I know that was definitely the case for me.