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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Heritage Foundation: keeping the world safe for entitled white christian males since 1973.
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."
Was Mr. Bennett wrong? Were those social indicators worse in the 1990s than in the 1960s? If so - then why do the facts hurt you so?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board? I guess as long as they're not different from yours.
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.
You didn't actually refute the study. Do you have a citation handy? All you did was a very clumsy attempt at the "guilt by association" fallacy. And you began with an "ad hominem" fallacy. It's shameful this passes as argument and gets modded up. It's rank tribalism, "my side is right". Believe all women, except when they accuse Democrats.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
The Heritage Foundation did no voter suppression.
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car.
In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
If you want to solve social problems, start with the erosion of the middle class and wage dumping. You'll notice that "socialist" Europe, where it still is true that one earner can feed a family, does not have those problems. Now what do you think might be the reason for this?
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
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.
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.
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
The paradox of tolerance was first pointed out by Karl Popper. His philosophy is pretty thoughtful to be labelled "left" or "right."
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car. In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
Yes, but if you were to compare the standard of living between the two, you'd probably find that a one income household could feed a family of 4 and buy a house and a car today at the same standard of living as a family in the 1960's. It's just that we expect so much more. The percentages of income that went to housing and food would probably be switched at 25% and 45% with clothes being 10% of the total income. The one thing that is different today, is that you would have a hard time finding a house as small as they would be buying in the 60's, which wouldn't be new and from previous decades and those two kids would be in the only other bedroom together till they left. Small house, one car, few appliances, no cable or internet, and the father gets bacon and eggs for breakfast and everybody else gets oatmeal because that's all the family could afford. Go back before the 60's and things just get worse. Start talking about what was called "middle class" lived in the great depression and it looks worse that how dystopian nightmares are in literature these days.
"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?
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.
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
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.
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
The Culture War era was a reactionary pushback to the gains made by minorities and women preceding the Regan era. It was an example of blaming the victim, a tactic being used by Trump and the Republican Party right now.
Culture Warriors like Bennett demonized their targets and used racial fear and hostility for political propaganda. Bush 41 used the infamous Willie Horton political ad in his election campaign.
Many other commentators remarked that the Bush presidency, and back to the Horton ad of the campaign, stoked racial animosity. Even if there was not an intentional race-bating or similar dog whistle in the ad, the fact that he was black is still a key part of how the ad is still discussed.
Bennett and the Heritage Foundation contributed to the current political situation where Trump made excuses for Nazis marching in North Carolina. The next day an innocent woman was killed by one of the right wingers in a hate crime. You OK with that?
Why is Snark Required?
I can't believe I let myself miss this angle. I knew the story didn't add up, but I couldn't come up with a realistic explanation.
I realize now that I had fooled myself by trying to keep a good-faith attitude towards the formation of the board. Yikes, I've got to keep my naive optimism in check.
Considering that according to the OECD most of Europe has a standard of living similar to the poorest U.S. States, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
An income of one worker in the U.S. can live in a tiny run-down apartment with their family even easier than they can in Europe. They just choose not to because they have better opportunities here.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
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.
No, Google Cancels is a fully released product. It's being rolled out company wide.
So he was wrong, "crime, illegitimacy, divorce, teenage suicide, drug use and fourteen other social indicators had become measurably worse since the 1960s"? The statistics show that? Or do you just think the conclusion he reached about the source of that change was wrong?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One earner can also feed a family in the US. I know many people who do just that. They typically have one car and smaller homes as well. I assume it's because they don't chase all the consumerism of many others. They don't take big vacations overseas (usually driving places), don't have jet skis, timeshares, and boats. Don't have TVs in every room.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
We're not talking about the depression, we're talking about the 60s. Because until the 60s, things were actually improving for the average family in the US. From then on it went downhill.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This ranking compares apples with oranges. In a country with a higher tax rate you will of course have a lower disposable income, but at the same time also lower expenses that gobble up that disposable income. How much do you pay for an operation? Probably more than the zero I pay for one. Do you have to put some of that disposable money aside for retirement? I don't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We're not talking about the depression, we're talking about the 60s. Because until the 60s, things were actually improving for the average family in the US. From then on it went downhill.
That is sort of a different discussion. That the American income has stopped increasing as much as it should have is a commonly agreed upon topic although most people seem to move it to the 70's or 80's as the point it stops doing so. I'd still argue that it has increased as has the standard of living, and that it you wanted to play 1960's re-enactor according to the household data of the time, you could on today's salary.