[realityking]

The question I’d pose to the author is, what would he think of a book using examples he disagrees with? Let’s say for advocating for arming every American or against gay marriage.

The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this - it’s only good if the content fits their world view.

[chickenfries]

> The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this

Your critique isn't very strong when it hinges on supposing something that is not supported by the text, merely by hyperbolic "whatabouts" that you assume the answer you wan't to critique. You're putting the author in a box rather than engaging with the words that they wrote.

[realityking]

I’d agree if this was an active discussion between the author and me. But I’m posing a question to an author of a piece written 17 years ago...

Allow me to reframe the question: if you’re fine with the book as-written, would you still be fine with it if it expressed the opposite political views?

[chickenfries]

I don't think all political views are equivalent. Of course I'm supportive of opinions that I agree with, like you point out. Opinions I disagree with or espouse a world-view that is different than mine? Of course I'm fine with that. I read and own many authors I disagree with because I value the knowledge gained by reading them and understanding their words, even if I disagree.

Your example though? > Let’s say for advocating for arming every American or against gay marriage.

Arming them for what? To shoot gays? Yeah I would probably be pretty upset about that. Advocating ethnic cleansing? "Alternative facts" about vaccines?

If I were on Twitter or something I might tweet, or write a blog post about it trying to convince the publishers to change their mind or encouraging others to support different publishers. I don't think that makes me a book burner.

In reality though unless it was something truly vile or dangerous that crosses some sort of hard to define personal line I would probably not do anything at all... I'm not a despotic ruler who cannot abide the existence of mere words I disagree with...

[realityking]

Then you’re more open minded than most.

The point I was trying to get at is that when discussing a topic like “it is ok to use obviously political examples in a book about programming”, then it’s more interesting to consider what your response will be when they’re political positions different from yours. Nobody minds being “confronted” with opinions they already hold.

Note I explicitly didn’t give an example like ethnic cleansing or shooting gays. Advocating for murder isn’t political opinion in my book.

[smacktoward]

Your commitment to arguing hypotheticals instead of engaging with anything the author actually wrote is impressive.

[rtpg]

Yeah, this is a good point.

Sure, you can put the examples you want in your book. I think it's your own form of personal expression, and maybe you can move hearts and souls in this way.

But you have to own it. Some people might not buy your stuff. Others will go out of their way to buy your stuff. Own the consequences to your speech.

If a white nationalist released a book in the same way... I wouldn't buy it. They might whine about me not wanting to listen to their opinion. And I don't! I would probably buy the article's author's book. But there's no fallacy there.

People want to buy and read what they want to buy and read.

[59nadir]

> Yeah, this is a good point.

It's not a very good point. It hinges on the idea that the author wouldn't want to read a book that did the same but had a different political leaning. There is no indication whatsoever that this is the case and the OP in this case is essentially banking on the fact that most people will assume with him that that's the case.

[beobab]

I would suggest that the author is attempting to use the "thinking past the sale" strategy to influence people, and it's causing cognitive dissonance in the readers who disagree with his position.

The typical reader's mind is actively open to learning PL/SQL. To do so, and to follow the examples as is, their mind has to at least provisionally accept the author's viewpoint in order to understand the concept that the example was designed to teach.

When the "false" belief is rejected (for whatever reason), there is a reasonable chance that the example, which was visually and mentally tied that belief, will be rejected, or only provisionally accepted, which could leave the reader feeling like they haven't got their money's worth.

Bland and vague things are accepted as true and assimilated into worldviews much more easily than controversial things, which might be why most examples are boring.

[gaius]

Consider that at the time Eich made his controversial donation, it was the majority opinion - Prop 8 passed. That didn't age well, and ended up costing him dearly.