cobraetor
I'm one and not even my Black friends care about this silly posturing from White progressives. We are frankly getting tired of this virtue signalling while the American society doesn't give a shit about actual Black problems.
What is "rationality without empathy"? Have you tried getting off that armchair and tried talking to poor Black people to understand how they feel?
Cancel culture, which grand parent is referring to, is real. You will find many anecdotes on Hacker News. Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347
I'm an African American, and no I'm not offended by Git's branch name. White progressives spend so much time on virtue signalling but hardly pay any attention to pressing Black problems like Black poverty and education.
We know that before the tech industry became popular and a way to make good money, women displayed little to no interest in being associated with programming "nerds" which were predominantly men to the extent that men over-represented the group of socially outcast nerds. This was mostly an American phenomenon, and other countries did not share this social hierarchy, hence the data on girls performing better academically outside of the US.
But this is not a new trend though. See The Global Influence of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church on Diet: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/9/251
I indicated that affect, not consciousness, is imagined. Furthermore, I indicated (which you entirely overlooked) that consciousness is independent of affect. Take that as a working theory, and you just might discover something new.
Discard whatever you've read in the last 10-15 years, and start afresh; otherwise, you'll just be rehashing the same old same old.
a) Consciousness depends on affect
b) Affect is real, and not simply an imagined experience.
In other words, question the validity of the above. Are they in fact true? How do we know them to be true? Why is a feeling given more credence than hallucinations? What if all feelings are an imagined experience, one that is "programmed" into birth by the genetic material? Just because an imaginative experience is encoded genetically it shouldn't make it any more real, should it? How would humans look like to some alien species that is capable of cognition and consciousness (without being robotic, as our species' scifi literature imagines) but not affect and identity? Wouldn't they see us all acting as if suffering from some mass delusion?
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-56260345
<quote> Before the 20th amendment of the US Constitution - adopted in 1933 - moved the swearing-in dates of the president and Congress to January, American leaders took office on 4 March.
That's why QAnon followers have latched on to this date to underpin their latest theory. </quote>
Doubling down on stifling free speech of course.
https://reclaimthenet.org/democrats-level-up-their-censorshi...
“This started, and I traced this in my second book, ‘The Smear,’ to Media Matters … the left-wing propaganda group that supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and is a big smear organization,” Attkisson says. “They acknowledged going to Facebook about the time when they were worried that Donald Trump was going to get elected.
They really felt that the only thing giving him a leg up, and they still believe this today, is his social media outreach. They tried to think of a way to control, with the kind of social media and news people could get, so Media Matters lobbied Facebook and tried to convince them — and did so successfully — to taking a fact-checking brand-new role that nobody had ever asked for.
We're not begging for our information to be curated. That was a pretend demand created by the propagandists who wanted to control the information. They had to make us think that we needed a third party to step in and tell us what to think and sort through the information … The fake news effort, the fact-checking, which is usually fake fact-checking, meaning it's not a genuine effort, is a propaganda effort …
We’ve seen it explode as we come into the 2020 election, for much the same reason, whereby, the social media companies, third parties, academic institutions and NewsGuard … they insert themselves. But of course, they're all backed by certain money and special interests. They're no more in a position to fact-check than an ordinary person walking on the street …
They have interests. They make sure certain things are not seen, even if true. And I think this is the most serious threat that I'm looking at right now to our media environment.
I'm afraid that our kids will be telling their kids of a time when you used to be able to go on the internet and find most, any, information you wanted, because we are increasingly being pointed only to that which they, people who control the information, wish for us to see.”
Source: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/...
And the president of the United States himself dismissed Uighur genocide as being part of China’s ‘different norms’.
https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/biden-says-uighur-genocide-is-...
Not true, if you read the linked paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/712972
> The reason for the typically low success rates, we believe, is that aggressive behavior accrues social rewards and does so to a degree that leads some to betray their closest friends. Even the most successful prevention programs are unable to alter the aggressive behavior of popular bullies, who use cruelty to gain and maintain status (Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2014). Most programs focus on remedying dynamics such as emotional dysregulation, poor conflict management, and empathy deficits, factors that may explain only a portion of aggressive behavior. These efforts may reduce “normative targeting” of those who violate one or more of myriad unwritten rules governing adolescent fashion, gender expression, physical appearance, sexuality, and so on—in short, the socially vulnerable. But unless they disrupt the popularity contests ubiquitous in secondary schools, they are unlikely to improve conditions for those trying to reach the next rung on the social ladder, not to mention those they step on—who are often their own friends.
What made you think that the use of "Social Ladder" is interpretive when words like "social rewards" and "popularity contents" are used throughout the paper (with references to past papers talking about the same to boot)? The paper is clearly not talking about bullying happening merely among friends and friends-of-friends, but it does so in a social hierarchical context.
The authors could not have come up with any recommendations while discounting the social status aspect (as HN did with the title rewrite here), for instance -
> One such strategy entails coopting status contests for prosocial ends by identifying high-status youths and changing their behavior in the hopes that they in turn influence their peers.
You are absolutely right.
- If you were an anti-bullying organization, what methodologies exactly would you device for parents and educators to intervene so as to train and teach teenagers to the point that bullying is minimized?
- What made the past and current anti-bullying organizations fail in their efforts?
- Do we adults understand what works and what doesn't in preventing bullying? What about bullying among adults?
* https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-w...
Wouldn't that conflict with Google's no-politics policy?
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-community-guidelines-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Everyone is biased, so it would be far more productive to just refute the central point, which in the case of mrzimmerman's comments on this thread (as you may realize) is rather straightforward[1] to do.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
[1] For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198380
I think taking quotes out of context does not present things as they actually happened or provide a fair analysis. We have to be careful of cherry-picking.
Here's the full context: “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” ... “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”
Per legal scholars, like Jonathan Turley,[1], "those words could be equally consistent with calling for a protest, not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and federal capitals." which explains why the legal system has not been able to convict Trump.
People seem to have varying opinions on this topic, but at the end of the day if you look at the facts, it becomes much simpler to understand.
[1] https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/reckless-rhetoric-is-a...
Interesting, but what I don't understand is ... if Trump clearly incited violence, why was he not convicted? Would you say that the American justice system is not fair?
*edit: responding to comment from zimmerman below,
I watched the full trial, but have not seen any clear arguments made in favor of proving incitement. The legal scholar Jonathan Turley explains it better:
"The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence."
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-trum...
*edit: Here's an informative video on House managers presenting fake evidence (as foolinaround explains below) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3I3wXrBoo
* https://reclaimthenet.org/ for news on free speech and cancel culture
* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNdA_qZp4eQP5orJ1BsRBWA for wisdom from Thomas Sowell
* https://newdiscourses.com/ for educating myself on critical race theory
> how do you define hate speech
Ira Glasser explains it precisely: "When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate ... But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides? ... If the government is going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it’s not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate, it’s going to be the speech they hate, ... It all ends up coming down to who decides and most often, it ain’t you' https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
> and what counts as inciting violence?
This is better explained by the legal scholar Jonathan Turley,
"The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence."
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-trum...