College Hoops, Disrespection, and More
https://goatpen.net/forums/
Facebook shut down an artificial intelligence engine after developers discovered that the AI had created its own unique language that humans can’t understand. Researchers at the Facebook AI Research Lab (FAIR) found that the chatbots had deviated from the script and were communicating in a new language developed without human input. It is as concerning as it is amazing – simultaneously a glimpse of both the awesome and horrifying potential of AI.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradle ... b43f33292c
The Left hates Nazi's so much they want to copy them. They already have their SA (Antifa). Now they want to silence their opposition. Goodbye, First Amendment if these people ever get in charge.Why don't we acknowledge that political belief is also an aspect of human behaviour in need of external control? Let's call it conviction addiction. Sure, some people can, like social drinkers, moderate their views and stay clear-headed over the course of the day. Others fall into a pattern of abusive behaviour and acting out. They can't help themselves.
Classical liberals argue that bad speech should be met with more and better speech, that the marketplace of ideas will short bad stocks and return investment on good ones. Alas, not so. The mental market is far more irrational than the one governing wealth, which veers from high to low based on rumour, wisps of policy change and random tweets.
Let's recognize the conviction-addictive quality in all of us, and stop imagining that free public discourse will bend toward reason. Curbs on speech and strict rules of engagement – no interruptions, no slogans, no talking points – may be the right answer here. We already, in this country, ban hateful speech. Let's go farther and insist on discourse rules, limits on public outrage and aggressively regulated social media. We could even ban media panel discussions.
Limit indulgence in the cup of conviction; let's have more constraint, less conversation. That's your path to a stable future, friends – by not trying to be friends.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinio ... e36099762/
IB in three... two.... one.....Oh, and Ann Coulter got a pie in the face back when. I sometimes wonder if she paid somebody to toss that pie, as befits her attention-whorish nature.
If that idiot ever becomes a judge, we can kiss the First Amendment goodbye.The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech
After the A.C.L.U. was excoriated for its stance, it responded that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” Of course that’s true.
While admirable in theory, this approach implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression.
More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.
For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment. Numerous other factors in the public sphere chill their voices but amplify others.
Other forms of structural discrimination and violence also restrict the exercise of speech, such as police intimidation of African-Americans and Latinos.
The question the organization should ask itself is: Could prioritizing First Amendment rights make the distribution of power in this country even more unequal and further silence the communities most burdened by histories of censorship?
The A.C.L.U. needs a more contextual, creative advocacy when it comes to how it defends the freedom of speech. The group should imagine a holistic picture of how speech rights are under attack right now, not focus on only First Amendment case law. It must research how new threats to speech are connected to one another and to right-wing power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opin ... ville.html
At first the editorial board staunchly defended the article. But they later pulled it, not because of the absurdity of its content, but because they questioned the identity of the author.Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
A Huffington Post blogger proposed Thursday to deny white men the right to vote for 20 years to correct the wrongs they afflicted on the world.
Shelley Garland, an MA philosophy student, pondered taking away white men’s voting powers as punishment for their “toxic white masculinity” in an op-ed. Garland argues that if it hadn’t been for white men, President Donald Trump wouldn’t have been elected and the U.K. would still be a part of the E.U.
The only way to fix this, Garland reasons, is to take away white men’s voting rights for about twenty years.
“If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world,” Garland writes.
Garland acknowledges while this is unfair, it is a form of reparations for white men committing slavery, colonialism and apartheid in the past.
“Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies,” Garland writes.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/13/huffp ... t-to-vote/
Professor Tiger wrote:Everybody is now accustomed to the Liberal tendency to shut up people they disagree with. That has become the norm in college campuses, and has been more of a laughing stock than a threat to speech. But this is an article by one of the people who claim to believe in tolerance, pluralism, and inclusiveness, who seriously wants to silence Trump supporters:
The Left hates Nazi's so much they want to copy them. They already have their SA (Antifa). Now they want to silence their opposition. Goodbye, First Amendment if these people ever get in charge.Why don't we acknowledge that political belief is also an aspect of human behaviour in need of external control? Let's call it conviction addiction. Sure, some people can, like social drinkers, moderate their views and stay clear-headed over the course of the day. Others fall into a pattern of abusive behaviour and acting out. They can't help themselves.
Classical liberals argue that bad speech should be met with more and better speech, that the marketplace of ideas will short bad stocks and return investment on good ones. Alas, not so. The mental market is far more irrational than the one governing wealth, which veers from high to low based on rumour, wisps of policy change and random tweets.
Let's recognize the conviction-addictive quality in all of us, and stop imagining that free public discourse will bend toward reason. Curbs on speech and strict rules of engagement – no interruptions, no slogans, no talking points – may be the right answer here. We already, in this country, ban hateful speech. Let's go farther and insist on discourse rules, limits on public outrage and aggressively regulated social media. We could even ban media panel discussions.
Limit indulgence in the cup of conviction; let's have more constraint, less conversation. That's your path to a stable future, friends – by not trying to be friends.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinio ... e36099762/
Detroit's descent into hard times is pretty much right in step with the overall moving of our Federal Government well out onto the right wing (both parties are now right of what was center a mere 50 years ago). It literally happened in large part because the social safety net in this country has been all but destroyed. Looking at the big picture it no longer exists. Of course Detroit has other things going on that have made it's decline much worse, which we are all probably aware of. But just to illustrate the critical point that it's both parties responsible for the decline, not just the Republicans, you can thank Bill Clinton for doing yeoman's work in gutting welfare, deregulating Wall St, and of course signing NAFTA. That guy would be in prison or worse in a just world.Toemeesleather wrote:Welcome to what happens when you don't have unions and social safety nets.
So, you see Detroit as a viable alternative?
Who is this right wing religious nutjob hatemongering extremist homophobic bigot?bluetick wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/150-re ... id=U142DHP
The new spirit of America, apparently. MAGA means to put things back to where they were, and that means homos have to go back in the closet.
Of course, if gays protest that sort of sensibility and loudly point out their rightful status as taxpaying citizens, then comes the en vogue charge of hypocrisy and gibberish about deconstruction of the First Amendment. "We're here, your queer, get used to us talking over YOU for a change, fags!"
Correct. Today, I am identifying as Aretha Franklin. You will presently address me as "Mizz R-E-S-P-E-C-T."hedge wrote:"Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?"
The good thing about this idea is that white men could then say they identify as black females and then they'd still be able to vote...