Slashdot Mirror
Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry (vox.com)
After facing criticism for including two controversial members in its AI ethics board, Google told Vox that it's pulling the plug on the board altogether. "The inclusion of drone company CEO Dyan Gibbens reopened old divisions in the company over the use of the company's AI for military applications," reports Vox. But it's Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James who proved most controversial due to her company's hard line stance on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Thousands of Google employees signed a petition earlier this week calling for her removal. From the report: The board survived for barely more than one week. Founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, it would have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about Google's AI program. Those concerns include how AI can enable authoritarian states, how AI algorithms produce disparate outcomes, whether to work on military applications of AI, and more. But it ran into problems from the start.
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A shitfest of overblown egos and exaggerated IQ.
A monopoly in need to be broken up.
why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries........
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
We don't need that from you :| Peanut gallery...
[($)]
I find it interesting to have people from several groups like drones to the Heritage foundation on a board where the peons like me are not there in some form and capacity. its probably just some ones idea to get free travel and some political clout added to their resume. i know of VPs and higher that do this all the time without really adding value or developing and driving a group from a think tank into a draft, then a specification then a product or cool service based on what's Good for the Earth and People. oh well, maybe management from the bottom up is a better approach other than mob rule from the haters.
Seems the best approach is to add those 3 words back as the corporate mantra.
Language alone won't effect change, so the culture must also change. Yet many inside would like the mantra returned.
Making shrill demands to have everyone else follow your own narrow set of beliefs is not the same as ethics. Diversity of opinion is the very thing these employees are protesting against, even if they might not know it themselves.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
This is the last straw: 3========================D
suck it.
A shitfest of overblown egos and exaggerated IQ.
IQ's may not be exaggerated but competence almost certainly is. Keep in mind that people who have superior performance in one area may also be below average performers in other areas. This is more likely the case here. Superior skills in coding not translating over to organizational behavior and psychology.
Those familiar with organizational behavior and psychology would understand that a group of diverse perspectives would most likely make better decisions than a group with a monoculture perspective. IQs cannot overcome this phenomenon.
And google's leadership will be able to do whatever they want to maximise their profitability. Gee, it's almost as if this was planned!
Engineers with ethics? Will the wonders never cease?
No, actually a lack of ethics. Ethical individuals listen to others with diverse or opposite opinions, hear them out, and honestly weigh both side's arguments. It is unethical individuals that presume others are wrong and bar them from participating in the discussion. They are practicing the ethics of fascists, quite ironic.
In any case the goog staff are wrong. You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones. AI will happen, do they want to do it right or let someone else do it badly?
You are absolutely correct. Groups of people with different perspectives often make better decisions than groups of monoculture thought. However we live in an age where results do not matter, where signaling "good intentions" is more important. And again like the hyper partisan politicals they are only "their side" could possibly have "good intentions", thus their ideal of one party control is justified.
"You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones." You need a diversity of both to achieve either.
A diversity of opinions is likely to give you a diversity of genders and skin tones and experiences.
And google's diversity of genders and skin tones is proving you don't necessarily get a diversity of opinions, we are seeing quite the ideological monoculture among Google's "diversity".
Oh they're knowingly against diversity of opinion, that's the bad kind of diversity. Only diversity of skin color and sexuality/gender matter. That said, it's not like they're misrepresenting things, like in so many other cases... Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to; they don't have any unique insight on AI ethics, and they're ethically bankrupt in far more of their positions than LGBT issues. Not all positions are of equal value, and it is worth questioning whether a rep for an organization that's demonstrated appalling ethical positions belongs on a panel intended advance that cause. Though Google's actual intention was probably more along the lines of just how unethical they can be before the torches and pitchforks get broken out.. in that yeah I guess you'd want Heritage.
Skynet's efforts at character assassination were once again successful.
Everything is going according to plan.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
I swear they are having a record year of cancellations.
Hi Andrew, you must be new to the world. I keep it brief and simply.
Google wanted to be able share blame with the largest, most diverse group of individuals possible should AI prove to be ... problematic in the future.
You don't get that without diversity. You just get left with the sole responsibility when it doesn't live up to the hype like Segway, or seriously messes up and ends up killing people, like the 737 Max airplanes Boeing specifically re-enginiered to be perfect in every way, well except for not causing people to did horrifacally.
And some wonder why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries...
Google hasn't even considered such a move because it would be downright idiotic for them.
Have you seen the clashes they having with the EU? Now imagine if the EU could tell them "tough shit" and they just had to comply. Not good for them.
Have you even read about the problems in China? It wouldn't be any good to move your business to China if the government will just steal your IP and give it to a "real" Chinese company.
If you think Google is thinking about moving then you are about as informed as a Fox News Channel viewer.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It must have been a beta.
Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to
The AI Board would be talking about a wide range of issues, of which LGBT rights would only be a small part (it might not even come up at all). I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valuable, but arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters. Maybe they do have an appalling view on other matters as well. In that case, why did the Google employees not say so? Then they'd actually have a point, instead of appearing to be a bunch of whiny virtue signalers.
I don't know if Google wanted to include Heritage Foundation because of their angle on matters related to AI or ethics. Maybe they just wanted to have a conservative representation on the board. You know, for reasons of inclusion...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Setting diversity of opinion as the goal is the secret ethics sauce.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I don't think you've polled Google's employees with the granular depth required to say they all have a particular ideology other than by the fact that they work there, and on what they do. I've had jobs that were just jobs.
And you have never worked for google. I have for 5+ years.
2010 was free open and fun. Discussions across different ideas and ideologies. And everyone respected everyone else.
2018 at google is kind of twitter hate mob. You don't conform and "they" find out they will try to get you fired. Internal emails and lists to ban you from visit other offices to outright calls to fire you, or else.
It is completely insane.
Wikipedia: Heritage also became involved in the culture wars of the 1990s with the publication of "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" by William Bennett. The Index documented how crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s."
China Social Credit 2019. Some local governments have taken things further. Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei province, designed a map on WeChat that warns people when they’re within 500 meters near a “deadbeat,” the word used by authorities to describe those who fail to repay their debts. One county also made a ringtone that warns people when they’re calling a “deadbeat."
As Google continues to help China build a censored search engine (and lies about it), the person you want to help with your AI ethics initiative is from the organization that fanned the flames of the 90's Culture War. President "Grab Them by the Pussy" Trump is 100% on board.
What could possibly go wrong?
Why is Snark Required?
Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to
The AI Board would be talking about a wide range of issues, of which LGBT rights would only be a small part (it might not even come up at all). I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valuable, but arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters. Maybe they do have an appalling view on other matters as well. In that case, why did the Google employees not say so? Then they'd actually have a point, instead of appearing to be a bunch of whiny virtue signalers.
I don't know if Google wanted to include Heritage Foundation because of their angle on matters related to AI or ethics. Maybe they just wanted to have a conservative representation on the board. You know, for reasons of inclusion...
Internal discussion boards at google are more toxic and aggressive than twitter hate mobs.
I am not surprised that HF are basically classified as Hitler.
You have no idea. Even upper management are scared at this point to confront these people.
Ooh, how awful, somebody not going along with the Bolshevik line about 'immigration' and 'LGBT rights'.
i.e. saying what MOST people think about immigration and perverts.
Why do YOU believe that every white person on Earth should be FORCED to live with other races in their countries?
Why do you believe that every white person on Earth should be denied the most basic human right of all - the simple right to live around their own race?
Why aren't you calling the Chinese or Koreans 'racist' every day, since they have homogenous countries? What about Indians? They aren't being invaded by millions of Africans and Chinese every year, aren't they 'racist', or is their country just too rubbish for anybody to want to move there? How 'racist' of you.
How 'racist' of you to believe that only white people's countries are worth living in, and that the rest of the planet should move to them.
Just more Jewish control over everything in the world. Even 'AI' is going to be Bolshevik - how are they going to ensure that so called 'Artificial Intelligence' doesn't expose the truth about Jewish control and the right of white people to have their own countries? By programming it so that it isn't really 'intelligent', that's how.
Google may be interested in moving to China, but they seem perfectly happy to working on censorship and population control tools for China but not reconnaissance software for the US. That is quite the inconsistency, claims of a moral stand debunked.
Seems the truth hurts
That's hardly a recipe for sauce. That's a stated declaration "sauce" and then looking around as if you created something by saying it.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
If someone is working to take away your rights, you should not just accept that as "diversity of opinion", you should fight hard to protect yourself and those like you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The truth knows it doesn't sound like vague bullshit presented by AC as if that's a credential of identity. Beat it kids. You couldn't get a job at Safeway.
For all the people who opposed these board members: what are the parameters of people you can sit down at a table with that disagree with you? Seems like you only want to sit down with a mirror.
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board? I guess as long as they're not different from yours.
LOL at "lesser rights because of who you are". No, I think they are talking about "the freedom to not have to pretend that homosexuality isn't a mental illness, or sick".
Or "the right of white people to NOT have their countries invaded by millions of non-whites who obviously think that white people make better countries than they can"...
Seems like some people or groups of people throw hissy fits over anything they don't like. Not sure why any company allows a few vocal employee's to dictate what the company does? But caving on their decisions only empowers these people to no end. Personally, I would tell the employee's who seem to think they know best that the door works both ways. You don't like what we decide there's the door.
I see you want to change the subject Superkendall, which pretty much means the subject is awkward and political for you. That's really the point isn't it, this is supposed to be about ethics, not a political appointment.
Heritage Foundation did a lot of voter suppression, they were the ones that said you could stick a trained monkey in the Whitehouse, and the real fight is by blocking opposing voters rather than winning votes. So you don't exactly want them as ethics leaders.
Your little political piece here, pretty much confirms the inappropriate political nature of the appointment.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Thats an odd way of saying that the clubhouse judges people for their mind, not their appearance, background, skin tone, gender or race.
How can you possibly be against that?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Google needs to develop a new AI which will make management decisions for Google based on "lowest social outrage algorithm". They should buy data from Facebook to train the AI on social outrage. Given their history over the past couple of years, this could be a very high ROI internal project.
Respect their lived experience, bigot. Listen and believe.
if only they had assembled the board using some kind of unbiased, refined AI that would figure out the correct mix of different people everybody could agree on.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
We must stop letting the tribal factions in our country reject members of other tribes as unacceptable. An AI ethics board with full support from the left that can't convince the Heritage Foundation to come on board with its recommendation is no better than an AI ethics board from the religious right that hasn't considered non-Christian viewpoints.
An angry mob of several thousand people (at a company that employs about 100k) shut down AI Ethics meeting.
But let's pretend "it's because 'mob was right'", or in other words #nothinghappened shall we?
The petitioners wanted Google to create a "bubble" that only had a certain pre-ordained point of view.
As is typical for Google, they didn't quite go through with it but only did one part of it.
For now, they cancel AI ethics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Funny enough, the average engineer I met is way more ethical than the average manager.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I work in the industry AND have strong positive moral ethics. They didn't ask me to serve on the board. Not sure why they picked a bunch of CEOs ... that's a group of people that are more likely to be sociopaths than anybody!
The last thing you'd want from an ethical AI is tolerance of a diversity of viewpoints that aren't yours, clearly.
Short sighted fools. That's what Google and those "thousands of employees" are. Looks like they want a politically pure board that, because it's based on politics, is utterly incapable of doing its job.
Politics over all, and in place of all. Great idea, worked awesome for the USSR.
Another instance of people totally unwilling to openly listen to other ideas. Political correctness is creating the most intolerant generation of people.
This reversal is a normal result. Any group formed to explicitly provide an advisory function for a company needs to have oversight from all of its stakeholders. This includes the laborers, the division directors, the bond holders, and the stock holders or at least the preferred stock holders. A group dysfunctional at initiation is inept and incompetent from the start.
That Google also has a leadership role in the industry means that its decision will shape its future development; what they invest in, what they train for, who they hire, etc.
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. "
It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.
"In order to preserve freedom"
Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".
we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
Funny how totalitarian proponents such as yourself never clearly say their definition of "we" doesn't match the "we" any normal person would assume (but rather "only we, the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists") and how they try to obfuscate the true meaning of "certain things" (which sounds benign until it is revealed it means "anything the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists disagree with, including your right to private property, safety, pursuit of happiness, and even life").
Here is a proper rendering of the tolerance vs intolerance balance in a tolerant and open society: "our tolerance should not tolerate physical violence (including attempted/incitement to physical violence)".
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
WTF, Sounds like the employees strike back only to have the company to counter their revolt.
Popper had a pretty good point. WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it. By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead, and in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else. In fact we had to punch more than a few of them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How dare they have a variety of viewpoints represented on an ethics board? Of course the SJWs got their panties in a twist, I mean, their viewpoints are the only ones that count. Everything else must be suppressed.
What is genuinely sad is that Google gave in on this. Since the SJWs got their way this time, they know their strategy works, and they'll whine all the louder next time.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The entire point of panels is to have people with diverging views talk about a subject in a civil manner.
By eliminating people from a panel they disagree with, those whiners are tacitly admitting they can't refute the views or ideas of the people they disagree with.
What you wind up is a panel full of agreement, which is worthless.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things."
Exactly! We can't tolerate people who are intolerant of free speech.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
I love how they frame this as though non-sentient software itself will require oversight when in fact the only ones that need it are the half-sentient dirtbags running Google. Disgusting, as ever.
Except that refuting those views is precisely what they did so, and Google found their arguments convincing.
You don't think there was an actual mob, do you?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Your Nov 2020 suicide is going to be fucking hilarious.
They absolutely did not refute those views. They shut down all discussions before views on AI ethics were ever discussed.
You don't even know what their views were, because they literally were not allowed to speak them. You might have found that the person you hate would have had the same views as you on the dangers or benefits of AI. We'll never know because your arbitrary purity test and extremism once again damaged civil society through censorship and deplatforming.
You are breathtakingly stupid, and still dishonest as always.
Google is full of foreigners. The founders of Google were Russian. Their current CEO is Indian. Googles has lots of current and former H-1b employees. Google refuses US military contracts.
Baidu and Tencent are Chinese companies, and are loyal to China.
Go away, Ivan
Why are you complaining? Its result of all the lies and bullshit you were telling yourself - 'do no evil' while being a sleazy sellout. And now you all act surprised - what a fucking joke.
Nothing to see here, move along, just another degenerate corporate shithole full of lies and corruption.
We just had a bunch of men making decisions about rights for women that everyone made an outcry about.
And yet now we have proposals for ALL HUMAN board to make decisions about the rights of AIs.
Rights for every color except silver and grey apparently.
He admitted to being in the photo. The caption says it was him.
If you look at how he holds beer in other photos (yes really) he is the guy in the klan hood.
Or maybe I'd grant you he is in blackface and he's just friends with KKK dude. Yeah SO MUCH BETTER. Not.
Plenty of people booted from office for way less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Doesn't Google own Boston Dynamics?
Won't they just do everything through this or another entity?
Isn't this just a distraction....
You are wrong. Corporate advisory boards are not democratic, and there is no reason for them to be. They are chosen based on the matching beliefs and philosophy with existing leadership.
The paradox of tolerance was first pointed out by Karl Popper. His philosophy is pretty thoughtful to be labelled "left" or "right."
Except that refuting those views is precisely what they did
Drink! Amimojo pushes alternative facts that's basically the opposite of reality!
Extra drink as the alternative fact also relies on alternative laws of physics, where somehow a view can be refuted when the panel where it could have been refuted was canceled before it even began!
"Popper had a pretty good point"
Popper had a VERY WRONG point. He didn't distinguish between violence /calls for violence vs. free speech.
"WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it."
Nowhere Popper refers to the appeasement, nor was the appeasement in any way related to Hitler's military build up (which he did anyway in secret, long before the appeasers), nor was Hitler the only problem (he was arguably the junior evil in comparison with Stalin / communism). But interesting how you mix facts with fiction.
"By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead"
There was LITERALLY nobody dead because of tolerating Nazis. There were LITERALLY millions of people killed for allowing / tolerating VIOLENCE & CALLS FOR VIOLENCE from all kind of totalitarians (Communists, Nazis, Fascists, etc.). You're again mixing facts with fiction just to promote a totalitarian call to violence against speech you disagree with. The whole point of free speech is not to protect speech we agree with, but to protect speech we disagree and even find repugnant.
"in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else"
No, that's the whole fallacy: nobody HAS TO be intolerant with free speech. As for violence and calls for violence, there are enough laws to deal with them. Stop hiding your totalitarian aims behind big banner words: you and your kin are never interested in freedom but in enslaving everyone you guys disagree with.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
The ethics board for AI folds because of unethical behavior of the non-artificial intelligent types.
It seems that some at Google think that having an opinion different than their group-think is reason enough to try and silent them.
No tolerance for diversity of thought. No tolerance for different opinions. Hate them because they are different. That is their moral compass?
Is that what we want to teach our AI?
Under the colorful facade, it has deep connections to the US state department, CIA, NSA. Go read 'When Google Met WikiLeaks'.
...once again how intolerant those "tolerant" Googlers are.
This is why nobody can take right wingers seriously. "By proving me wrong, you're inderrrrectly admitting I'm right!" LALA can't hear you over how right I am!
I actually interviewed a guy not too long ago that used this same kind of argument as to why what he was programming was correct even though it didn't work. Naturally we couldn't hire someone with a child-like mindset like that.
Google employees got played so hard. Google executives didn't want an AI ethics board. Google intentionally put a controversial figure on the board, and then begged their employees not to throw them in the briar patch. Google employees gleefully did it and Google executives obligingly eliminated the AI ethics board they didn't want all along and said, "You made us do it!"
SJWs are some of the most gullible fools going in the world today.
Is that really what this is about? That if someone should have a difference of opinion on some hot button topic, they are to be dismissed?
It is obvious that not everyone has the capacity to participate in something like this. But I doubt they would have selected anyone for the board unless they thought they had something to contribute. I mean, they didn't just pick names out of a hat. Did they?
Besides, isn't it supposed to be beneficial to have a diversity of opinions and perspectives? I have always believed in this philosophy. Now I'm finding it hard to reconcile the new norm wihout jumping to horrible conclusions. I don't want to believe this, but it seems like the whole diversity thing has been derailed and misdirected upon itself.
Why would diversity only count for the superficial characteristics of a given individual? I thought the whole point was that by selecting individuals based on superficial characteristics, it is implied that it will bring diverse and unrepresented perspectives to the table. So now we prefer consensus and homogeneity?
What the hell is going on here?
"Except that refuting those views is precisely what they did"
You need to learn the difference between the words "refute" and "silence". You can't refute a person's ideas by silencing them. Such a tactic is blatantly authoritarian.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
The difference is, that you're the one advocating for and defending the ones with an express desire to remove your rights. It's only recursive once you've handwaved away the actual purpose for having ethics and morals; at the end of the day the right want to remove rights from everyone while the left wants to provide rights to everyone. This is plain as day to all but the least intelligent people (who predictably lean right).
They're not judging someone on their merits, they're just endlessly causing division because they thrive on it and need to be the most marginalized group.
If you're X, Y, or Z identity, you're in the club.
When they add X', Y', and Z' to the club you have to bow down, check your privilege, and accept your new betters as the more victimized corner case of internationality that they now are. Or you get booted from the club and attacked. Just like when you got into the club in the first place, by attacking others who were deemed to be more privileged than you, or who were deemed to have fewer victimhood points than you.
A good recent example of this is how many modern "feminists" hate trans women. (Modern, "third wave" feminists are not actual feminists - the 60s and 70s had actual feminists fighting for actual equality, making positive change, etc.) Modern feminists now divide themselves into 3 groups, with one group thinking that trans women are not women and thus should not be supported by feminists, one group thinking that they are women and should be supported, and one group thinking that they are women but their different circumstances mean they need to segregate into a separate feminist group for trans women only.
If you want trans women to fuck off you're a TERF - a trans-exclusive radical feminist. Your bigotry and hate and transphobia have gotten you a label you will be constantly attacked with. The TERFs think that the label "TERF", which they earned for their hate, is itself hate speech and anyone using it should be attacked for their hate. This is why the group in the middle exists. They don't want to take a side and be attacked by their own. TERFs prefer to be called GCFs - gender critical feminists, by the way.
Of course, the actual cause of this is that the TERFs don't like their control and influence being diluted and the attention being diverted elsewhere. If trans people (and trans women specifically) make noise together and get more attention, they're going to be the squeakiest wheel that gets the most grease, politicial influence, special legal protections, and ultimately money and power for their identity. That means non trans ("cis") feminists get less.
Once awareness and general acceptance of your marginalized group reaches some critical mass, subgroups or related groups can use you as a stepping stone to get that same attention, influence, etc. With homosexuals the same thing happened. The divide was initially over bisexuals. They were often seen as non genuine, as if they were merely riding the rainbow wave because it was popular. Outing an affirmed bisexual as straight was a thing. That rift wasn't as bad (or at least, not as loud and public) as the current one between the TERFs and the other modern "feminists". And that rift quickly went away once the trans population started speaking out.
Basically, every time they try to add a letter/symbol to LGBTQIA+, some subset of the previous acronym is not on board with the idea, and a rift is formed. That new rift, however, can cause previous rifts to disappear or become less important. For example, Ls and Gs who were against Bs were willing to work with Bs to exclude Ts.
So the real question is, what group rises after trans? Will it be the pedophiles (they're already trying to normalize this, forming groups for NOMAP (non-offending minor-attracted person), etc.)? Will it be an individual gender from the gender alphabet soup, or are they sufficiently small and included under "trans" to not reach critical mass? Will it be furries or otherkin (people who don't just get off on dressing up as animals/etc., but believe they are animals/etc. and actively try to live as such, including modifying their body surgically), or are they too small a group to ever gain acceptance?
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power, or waiting until violence was the only solution?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Really, they have been silenced? Their web site was taken down, they have been banned from promoting their policies, no-one can listen to them any more?
You need to learn the difference between not being invited to something and being silenced.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"they found their arguments convincing"
No... they found that the benefit of fighting a culture of whiny babies wasn't worth the cost.
They heard the terrorist cries and they caved.
Shutting down dissenting opinions isn't "refuting" the views you disagree with. it's bringing a bullhorn and shouting until the other side packs up and goes home.
Cowards scream over idea's they can't fight with civilized discussion.
Your appeal to authority is cute, but the "paradox of intolerance" can stand or fall on its own. It's only the intolerant left who use it so that they can pretend to be "tolerant" and then switch to the infantile "but I don't have to be tolerant because you're hateful" bullshit when called on it.
Do you have ESP?
The difference is, that you're the one advocating for and defending the ones with an express desire to remove your rights. It's only recursive once you've handwaved away the actual purpose for having ethics and morals; at the end of the day the right want to remove rights from everyone while the left wants to provide rights to everyone. This is plain as day to all but the least intelligent people (who predictably lean right).
Yeah, the left wants to provide rights to everyone.
LOL. You don't really believe this nonsense, do you?
Do you have ESP?
Your aggressive rhetorical style is quaint. I didn't claim Popper was right, I said he originated the idea, and his politics are more complicated than "left" or "right". Popper also gives specific examples of necessary intolerances, including noting that diverging viewpoints should normally be tolerated unless they are specifically opposed to civil discussion.
Your appeal to binary labels is interesting. Research suggests that the extreme viewpoints I assume you're referring to don't represent the general left-of-centre majority, but instead are a tiny, but vocal, minority.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Because the mother of the revolution devours its own children.
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power
First and foremost it's interesting to see your obsession with Hitler and only Hitler, a discredited dictator with basically no real supporters (expect for some fringe minuscule number of idiots).
Why only Hitler but not Lenin + Trotzky + Mussolini + + Stalin + Hitler + Mao, in chronological order?
Now, the Nazis didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the German states, the German republic, the Communists, the Jews, the homosexuals, and their own factions (Strasser etc.). The Nazi speech was never the problem, their ability to bring brown shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The Bolsheviks didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the Kerensky government, against the Russian Constituent Assembly, the priests, the rich peasants (kulaks), the political parties, and their own factions. The Communist speech was never the problem, their ability to bring red shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The problem is VIOLENCE, not speech.
waiting until violence was the only solution?
Violence only justification is against violence, and such justified violence may come ONLY from the state (as the lawful monopolist of violence), not from non-state actors.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
arguing against LGBT rights in no way invalidates the Heritage rep's opinion on all of those other matters.
No, being a Heritage rep invalidates their opinion. If you want to have a productive discussion, you don't invite an organization which is a compulsive liar with an agenda to that discussion.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
That's how she regenerates hitpoints, moron.
Goddammit Leeeroy, if you aren't gonna learn the fights, you can't be raid leader.
First and foremost, it's interesting to see your obsession with deflecting the argument away from Hitler and only Hitler. I honestly can't figure out what all of your replies are even trying to argue or what idea they're trying to convey, you just seem hellbent on "winning" against Amimojo and shitting on some commies. Seriously what the hell is your message? Is this it:
That's the same stupid ass argument that gun nutters say: Guns don't kil people, people kill people. You are completely ignoring why people want to give those speeches in the first place, and act like you can't rile up a mob to commit actions with those speeches and that that result is the intention of said speaker. You're being obtuse on purpose and trying to win your argument by being Mr Wellackshually and we're getting tired of that bullshit, nerd. And I'm a nerd calling you a nerd, NERD. This all reminds me of that stupid Vickers scene in Good Will Hunting. Well Clark, how do you like dem apples?
A tiny, vocal minority that lefties like you refuse to stand up to, which makes you complicit in their behavior.
Do you have ESP?
Not sure why you'd assume I'm a "lefty", whatever that is. As for standing up to extreme viewpoints, I like to think I have a fairly balanced record of pissing off all sides.
The Democrats might succeed in losing the election far before Nov 2020. They're working on it now, by knifing people like Biden.
Because the clubhouse purports to speak for those people, and dictates those without as many victim points should shut up and listen to them. Not based on the merit of their ideas, because of their marginalization, they're the only ones qualified to speak on the issue. Unless of course they have a different opinion. It's "Are you black/gay/$identity? Then shut up you don't know our lived experience." Then someone who *is* $identity stands up and says 'I disagree' and is not listened to.
I'm for judging ideas based on their merit, I'm against the raging hypocrisy of saying only the marginalized can speak to something, then ostracizing them for dissent.
> ...refuse to stand up to, which makes you complicit in their behavior.
So ... if you're not with us, you're against us?
That's your argument?
You are so wrong. The Nazi party got popular support with speeches. They were identifiable as an enemy before they started the violence.
Without popular support, the violence lands you in jail or worse. Popular support allows you to do violence and get away with it, or even call it justice. It's how the state works.
Their web site was taken down
We know for certain that you have never visited their website.
Don't worry! You don't have to! You can let them remain at the level of comic book villains if it suits your worldview.