Tech destroyed journalism's ad-driven revenue model over a decade ago, and their attitude since then has been a mixture of inferiority complex and white-hot rage and contempt.
Also, hearing "learn to code" on Twitter pissed them off.
Also, hearing "learn to code" on Twitter pissed them off.
Having it thrown back in their face is what irritates them.
Also, people might well be better suited to very different activities. Would we be richer, as a society, if Van Gogh had decided to drop this "paintings" business and start a boring but profitable civil-servant career instead?
Last but not least, the value of each individual programmer, in a capitalistic society, inevitably decreases as the labor pool increases, with obvious consequences in the long run for the profitability of the profession. Car mechanics used to be respected and expensive professionals too.
Elite politicians and journalists were the first to happily bark "learn to code" at freshly-unemployed blue collar workers with all of the apparent condescension you described.
Others flinging the phrase back at later-unemployed journalists are merely returning proverbial fire, with subsequent Twitter bans meted out by those that can't take what they dish out.
Prices and movements in prices indicate where supply is needed (or not needed). I have not yet seen a better mechanism.
I am not opposed to a universal basic income, given that all other subsidies are ceased.
How would society increase the number of surgeons, who require a decade of intense study and risk to become one? How would society incentivize people to live 2 hours from the nearest hospital in order to farm the land and create food for the country? What would society have to do to incentivize people to work jobs where they have to commute somewhere to work, or many places for work, rather than work from their own home?
IIRC, the phrase "learn to code" was either coined or quickly co-opted by right-wing trolls to use to taunt journalists and others.
It was in response to them telling other the same thing. It was never pointed at the blue collar people who lost their jobs, but instead pointed at elite people who had no compassion for those that had the world they grew up working in, being ripped from them.
Oddly I see this as a "for the worker" phrase. Don't tell my 60 year old welder dad that just lost his 40 year job, that he should learn to code, and get a better job. Empathise with him, and come up with real plans.
It was used to taunt journalists, and others who spouted the platitude.
It was right wing trolls: /pol/ was involved [1].
> It was in response to them telling other the same thing. It was never pointed at the blue collar people who lost their jobs, but instead pointed at elite people who had no compassion for those that had the world they grew up working in, being ripped from them....
> It was used to taunt journalists, and others who spouted the platitude.
No it wasn't. It was used to taunt journalists generally [1]. Your justification, frankly, is just bullshit meant to help justify acting like an asshole. The most charitable interpretation requires the taunters relying on sloppy stereotypes akin to someone who generalizes that all black people are criminals based on seeing one black guy mug someone. Except in this case, the taunters didn't even see someone get mugged, they just misinterpreted someone loaning someone some money. Look at the origin timeline: it was Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Bloomberg who were being condescending and aloof, and the journalists where just investigated the questions that condescension raised (e.g. Mike Bloomberg says they're not capable, but he's wrong).
That was confirmed to me the last time someone tried to justify this taunting, and the only "example" they could provide of the supposed condescension of journalists was a sympathetic profile of some coal miners who did, in fact, learn to code, which the taunter-apologist thoroughly misinterpreted through their bias.