kapitza

I want to order a time machine and send you back to have a conversation with your great-grandparents, for whom you seem to have so little respect.

Sure, the "list" isn't real. People wouldn't have been passing it around in the '70s if it hadn't reflected the actual experience of living in the '40s, which many, many people at that time remembered well.

A time machine is not actually available. Your great-grandparents are probably dead. But you can still go read a bunch of books from the amazing, wonderful, astoundingly different, and yes -- not at all perfect -- world that they lived in. Chronological chauvinism is not a healthy emotion.

This passage from the Economist article I think nicely, and unintentionally, demonstrates the level of insanity here:

The result was that some 20,000 convicts who otherwise would have been sent to prison remained free. The state incarceration rate reverted to 1990s levels without an attending rise. Indeed, studies found no effect on violent crime and a small effect on property crime. (Each year of prison not served due to California's reform was estimated to cause an additional 1.2 auto thefts.) However, the social cost of a stolen Corolla is not clearly greater than the cost to taxpayers of a year of prison time.

So, 20,000 innocent people per year have their cars stolen. But no biggie! Without plutonium, how would we have electricity? If someone steals 1.2 cars per year, why lock him up? It's not worth the cost of a "Corolla."

The result is the insane predatory atmosphere of a normal American (for me, SF) street, in which anyone with any sense is on yellow alert all the time except behind locked doors. As for my children, I'm resigned to being a helicopter parent until they're old enough to... defend themselves, I guess? Should probably start with those karate lessons now.

Meanwhile, in Japan, which has zero tolerance for crime, you can send your five-year-old around the corner to buy milk. Have you ever lived in a crime-free society? Even visited? Try it sometime -- the feeling is downright amazing. You really don't know what you're missing.

You'll have to forgive me if I prefer to trust Dr. Pryor and common sense over the Brookings Institution's "studies and accidental experiments."

If people were fruit flies and it was possible to actually conduct controlled experiments in "social science," I'd be happy to take their results seriously. Or more to the point, if controlled experiments were possible, no one would take uncontrolled experiments seriously (not to mention studies by the Brookings Institution, with its very large axe to grind -- see the Moskos commentaries on Brookings research linked above).

But the definition of science isn't "the best we can do." When actual science isn't physically practical, "the best we can do" is not science but pseudoscience. Fortunately, there are other ways to use our brains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/us/despite-drop-in-crime-a...

In case it isn't obvious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Butterfield#Criticism

The late Dr. Richard Pryor also did some seminal fieldwork in the area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7DhFhzkjcA

Now imagine if 800 Chicagoans were killed by radiation leaks from a nuclear plant. "Well, you can't have electricity without plutonium. Do you want to turn everyone's lights off?" Or if 800 African-Americans were lynched Emmett Till style by KKK thugs. "Regrettable, but what are you going to do? And don't white people have legitimate complaints?"

Even murder rates can be fudged -- turn the homicide into a "death investigation":

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-...

Another point to keep in mind when you see these too-good-to-be-true stories is that criminal subcultures are actually quite conservative. When laws and policies change, it takes time for people to collectively figure out what they can get away with. This makes crime rates a lagging indicator -- we're still experiencing the positive effects of the crime crackdown of the '90s, not just in incarceration rates but in cultural behavior.

The mid-'60s were another period when social scientists realized that punishment was a medieval anachronism. It took 10-20 years to see the full effects of these policies, and another 10 for the political backlash to get started. It seems like we're due for another round of this pendulum.

The question that enables rigorous analysis is always: "where did these ideas come from?" Some people invent ideas on their own, but that's so rare it's lost in the noise.

It's very, very unlikely that your hypothetical observer looked at the world and concluded independently that all members of the species Homo sapiens have equal potential.

First, this person would have to be thinking independently, which is very rare. Second, there is no empirical evidence for this proposition -- or at least, none has ever been brought to my attention. (Fortunately, equality of potential is by no means the only reason to believe in equality of opportunity.)

If I observe that someone is a Catholic, which is more likely: that he learned his Catholicism from another Catholic? Or that he independently derived the Trinity from empirical evidence?

Your hypothetical observer may have derived his or her opinions about school choice and local government from personal observation. More likely, they came from Rush Limbaugh. Their opinions on human biology are straight-up American humanism, ie, leftism. (With nontrivial historical links to Christianity, but that's a separate conversation.) So... a wolf-dog.

Reason has nothing to do with it. The number of deaths due to car accidents, even falling down the stairs, is much greater. The main impact of terrorism is the irrational fear, not the rational risk aversion. But it's much easier to stamp out terrorism by force, hard as that may be, than to convert human beings into rational animals.

The goal of terrorists is to achieve power through violence. The gold standard would be the PLO, now the PA. The ANC also did extremely well with this strategy.

There are two effective ways to combat terrorism. One is to surrender to the terrorists. Neither the PLO, nor the ANC, nor the IRA, is setting off any bombs these days. Works great especially if surrounded by a cloud of euphemisms.

The other is to treat the terrorism as an isolated incident and counterattack on the political front. Consider the response to Timothy McVeigh or especially Dylann Roof -- textbook. Great stuff, America still knows how to do it.

If terrorism is committed in the name of the Confederate flag, ban the Confederate flag and crack down on white nationalists everywhere. Even the peaceful ones. Especially the peaceful ones. No one ever said that the best way to defeat racist terrorism is to satisfy the legitimate grievances of moderate racists. But if the USG adopted this strategy, the GOP would probably grow a "militant wing" in well under a decade...

East Coast coyotes are apparently full of dog DNA, as well as wolf DNA. So maybe they bark, or even howl a bit. But I maintain that barking remains a dog thing.

B: "Wolves don't bark. No other canid barks."

A: "My neighbor's wolf barks all the time. Drives me crazy."

B: "That might lead you to suspect that your neighbor's 'wolf' is actually a wolf-dog. Or maybe just a husky? You should get out more, meet some actual wolves..."

In case you're wondering how this plays out in practice:

http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicf...

H.L., honey, you have no idea...

The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.

For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of custodial sentence in CA today.

Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is real.) Even then, they can only care so much.

Director develops sympathy for him, even sends him free credits because the spyware is eating his bandwidth. Later goes to one of the thief's hangouts and realizes that in fact, the thief is a weird scary guy and not lovable at all.

Sequel hook: phone has been reactivated in Romania. Stay tuned for next episode. "Diversiteit is onze kracht."

https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-...

Neither Americans nor Russians wanted to say much about this, especially after 1945. So, memory hole.

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/772/1/the...

Wait, what's that you say?

One side wants to exist. The other side wants the other to stop existing. It's about as symmetric as lions and buffaloes, although a buffalo will kill a careless lion now and then...

This is true. However, you can observe here that one side petitions you; the other bullies you. This would be unusual in a genuinely symmetric situation...

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-the-alt-right-is

Don't know about you, but I always trust content from Teen Vogue...

The equation in their minds is essentially power == good. They want power over you, and over us, so that they can use this power to do good -- for the quite large set of human beings they feel themselves the protectors of (pretty much anyone but a "straight white dude").

No one has really found a limit on how much power they want, or how much good they think they can do. What we do know is: when you feed them, they get hungrier.

For instance, suppose users can select in their profiles that they are either apolitical, SJWs, or shitlords. When an SJW or shitlord posts, they are offered a check box which indicates whether the post contains any virtue-signaling or shitposting, respectively.

Obviously, shitposts should be seen only by shitlords and so on. Political signaling at your peers is normal discourse and part of benign human social behavior. Political signaling at your enemies, or at neutral parties who just don't care, is normal human warfare behavior.

So the box is a self-reported box. But etiquette can easily render it mandatory. The chimps on each side of the river can and must suppress their own tribal instinct to throw turds over it, or the gods will rain down fire on the offending chimps or possibly even the whole tribe.

And of course, apolitical users shouldn't see any political crap at all...

And of course, we'd never know if the people who aren't banned would stoop to the foul crime of ban evasion. As they used to say, the law in its majesty commands that neither the rich man nor the poor sleep under the bridge.

Moreover, I was describing a general pattern of discourse, not just this one thread. If you don't feel you see this pattern, there's not much to argue about...

And of course, it is not just the mods. Downvoting polite discourse for content is something some people feel a social responsibility to do. We certainly can't avoid the consequences of the secular growth in this popular sense of responsibility.