Sadly that's where we're at these days. I've been declared a racist because I hold the 'nazi' belief that we're all equal and decisions should be color blind.
Colorblindness is an often unintentional form of "passive" racism. It's certainly far from Nazism.
I'm also pure evil for acknowledging the black-white IQ gap; even entertaining the idea that such a thing exists makes you an alt-right nazi, nevermind that I'm calling for the problems that lead to it to be fixed. SJWs inform me that merely asking the question 'are scores different between blacks and whites' makes you irredeemably racist, because you've already exposed yourself as thinking there's even a possibility that there may be differences between races. Whether it's true or not never enters into the equation.
This makes you a supporter of scientific racism which is quite evil. "Whether it's true or not" indeed should never enter the equation of any practical decision for ethical reasons.
But that's nothing compared to how incomprehensibly sexist I am for having the unmitigated gall to believe that women are every bit as strong willed as men, and thus capable of saying 'no' to a sexual advance, so affirmative consent is not needed,
Clear trivialization of sexual assault and the value of consent, and denial of the possibility that a woman might freeze at the terror of being raped. Calling this sexist and supportive of rape culture is reasonable.
So you aren't a Nazi but you are a scientific racist and a sexist/chauvinist. Change it or own it.
Yep, they now have to play politics with everyone they give a check mark to. Which is fine, if they think they have the manpower to pull that off while threading around boycotts from both sides.
If they don't want most of their employees employed in a sprawling new politics department, they should've either made the verification process available freely and fairly to everyone (meaning they'd now need a sprawling new verifications department), or they should've removed all check marks.
How the fuck are you blaming the left in general for either of those false stories, when no leftists had any say in the matter whatsoever, apart from those employed by Rolling Stone magazine or Duke University?
It's actually far more ridiculous than blaming the right in general for Pizzagate, at least some factions of the far-right in general deserve blame for that since they created and pushed the conspiracy theory.
It effectively DID amount to an endorsement before this incident, it's just official now. Twitter wouldn't give a verified checkmark to Joe Sixpack, even if he attempted to follow the same verification process as Kim Kardashian and was able to do so. Twitter picked and chose who would get one. As such, how could they defend giving one to a nazi and not Joe Sixpack, while arguing that it doesn't amount to an endorsement?
Well it's alt-right(and alt-lite) sure, it's also conservatives, gamers, progressive muslims, gun owners,
Oh fuck this, gamers in general will not be lumped into the basket of deplorables over one incident involving a bunch of fedora-wearing MRA neckbeards who happen to play videogames. This shit will not stand, the sheer percentage of female gamers these days ensures it.
Progressive Muslims are also extremely wary of the same problem and would gladly tell you where you can shove this idea.
Gab.ai, minds.com, and so on
"So on" being the Daily Stormer and other hate sites. These aren't a new phenomenon. Mainstream sites should not attempt to cater to these userbases. Let them remain in the deepest darkest corners of the Internet, I say.
So, from this, it looks like the far right is so desperate to get their hateful brainsharts onto TV and mainstream websites that they're ready to bring back the fairness doctrine to do it. Also helps explain why they didn't make a peep when Trump called for bringing back the fairness doctrine in all but name.
The theoretical Basilisk is the most ball-slappingly insane AI ever imagined: It loves humanity so much that it...digitally resurrects* and tortures people who didn't do their best to bring it into existence? LOLWUT? How could this be beneficial to its goal of helping people in any way? It's a waste of time and energy for any purpose other than satisfying this AI's sense of spite. It could probably use all the power it's expending running this supernatural torture dungeon on actually helping people. Roko's Basilisk makes more sense as a literal hate machine that also helps people on the side when it's not busy. Like the WOTF's "Godhead," it's more of a devil than can be appeased than a benevolent god.
*With the help of some woo-woo metaphysical nonsense, try to suspend your disbelief
It's quite scary that they imagine that their AI god will be a narcissist who will enjoy being worshiped and will favor individual humans who helped bring it into being.
I'm also reminded of an ST:TOS quote: “We have no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.” - James T. Kirk
That makes sense and would be agreeable, but I've never heard it used that way before, and unfortunately I'm all too familiar with it being used in the way I described.
Sigh. "Virtue signaling" is something that has real meaning.
Yes, it means "a political or politically-tinged expression that I disagree with and thus would like to both trivialize and paint as dishonest." Commonly used when the user's own political positions are stupid, indefensible, and otherwise awful.
See also: "SJW:" It's like "ni**er-lover" but can be used against allies of not only black people but any ethnic minority, religious minority, the LGBTQ community, the poor, or even just women, and is thus more usable in the 21st century.
Last I saw the place, it had a gift shop where the hippy owners took money selling semi-erotic paintings and charcoal drawings, and invited the young folks to spend some quality time mixing concrete with desert sand... or pose for the artist.
Sandy mix, buy some pics, or show your bits, nobody visits for free!
I saw the same problem in the 2010s. Borderline computer-illiterate CEO wanted God Mode access to all file shares. Then something from the '80s did come along, file-wiping malware via email to the CEO...
Well then I'll use this last reply to make one last attempt to cure you of your ideological blindness: It seems to me that you hate the idea of "ideology," because you see yourself as so purely pragmatic that any hint of ideology seems far too dogmatic for your tastes. But why did you arrive at the positions you did on all of those issues? It can't all be based on hard scientific evidence because there isn't enough to make science-based decisions on most topics.
Since I was very interested to see the political positions of someone who considers themselves to be purely pragmatic, I had a look in your post history and found this:
But as a non-idealist, I'm willing to accept what science tells me. Whatever I "believe" or not "believe" is based on my support or lack of for various theories or hypotheses.
Where you basically agree with me and effectively admit that you are ideological. Your support or lack of for various theories and hypotheses? That's ideology, just dressed up in scientific terms. Those beliefs aren't supported by strong scientific evidence, so it's your personal choice. And you can have some degree of idealism without ever having to deny science. I don't deny any science and I not only admit that I am ideological, but I'm not purely pragmatic either.
I'm not trying to jam you into any small pigeonhole. I'm saying that you live in the same ideological universe as everyone else, rather than looking down from some immaculate non-ideological heaven as you believe. I'm saying you're a man and not a god, basically. A person who believes they are purely pragmatic and non-ideological believes, without any evidence that exists outside of their own minds, that they're on a higher plane of intelligence that the rest of humanity is unable or unwilling to ascend to. A startlingly dangerous belief that seems rather insane. Oddly if you were to put a few such people in a room together, their views would have little in common - have a chat with Type44Q sometime and see for yourself.
I think I see your problem. You're suffering from a less severe form of ideological blindness. You see some axis of the political landscape as being ideological/pragmatic. You see yourself as being stuck against the pragmatic limit around the center-right position, and because you're against the pragmatic zero line, you're not ideological. This is quite wrong.
Now let's look at the ideological universe as a cube. What you think of as the ideological/pragmatic axis is actually the idealistic/pragmatic axis. Then you have the left/right axis, and finally the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Now think of your positions on different issues as fine dots in this cube. Because you're against the pragmatic zero axis, your cloud is relatively large and sparse. Pragmatism isn't a lack of ideology, it's ideological flexibility. People against the idealistic maximum would have all their points condensed into one dense dot.
So you see the entire cube represents ideology. Nobody exists outside of it. You thought you were just hanging out by the doorway of ideology because you saw ideology, rather than idealism, as the opposite of pragmatism. But you're just as much in it as anyone near the center. Don't feel bad, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the same mistake.
Actually that is pretty much the argument I'm making and it does apply well to ideology. There is no ideological equivalent of atheism or "none of the above." If you ask a supposedly non-ideological person their opinion on a large number of issues, you can match them to an ideology which closely aligns with their beliefs. If you ask an atheist about which supernatural beings and/or forces they believe in, there is no religion for "none."
Math says that "absolutist" encryption is the only kind that actually works. Deal with it.
I wonder if some of these idiots honestly believe that it's mathematically possible to have encryption that can be cracked by law enforcement but not criminals. I still think it's more likely an "Ask for a pony to get a dog" tactic: they ask for magical encryption to prod tech companies into providing other, actually possible forms of cooperation.
There's no such thing as a non-ideological person, but there are ideologically blind people. You're one of them, despite your supposedly high IQ. I also have you marked as a science denialist, so I'll add to the calls for you to get a refund on that test.
Those people are suffering from an acute shortage of resources, quite different from a person on UBI.
A clear majority of people are working in awful-to-hellish jobs just because they need the money, I wish I lived in the kind of ultra-privileged environment that would lead anyone to think otherwise.
I've made it impossible to take pictures of my junk in the first place, by way of a thick and luxuriant man-bush which tastefully covers all. And the ladies laughed at it! WELL WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!?
The user would need to install their own perceptual hash tool, because a cryptographic hash would be trivially easy to get a false positive on: just flip, add, or remove a single bit on the file.
How is being a human required for any of those? All those jobs could be done by automatons of varying degrees of realism. A medium-sized shellscript would be an improvement over the current US President.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly that's where we're at these days. I've been declared a racist because I hold the 'nazi' belief that we're all equal and decisions should be color blind.
Colorblindness is an often unintentional form of "passive" racism. It's certainly far from Nazism.
I'm also pure evil for acknowledging the black-white IQ gap; even entertaining the idea that such a thing exists makes you an alt-right nazi, nevermind that I'm calling for the problems that lead to it to be fixed. SJWs inform me that merely asking the question 'are scores different between blacks and whites' makes you irredeemably racist, because you've already exposed yourself as thinking there's even a possibility that there may be differences between races. Whether it's true or not never enters into the equation.
This makes you a supporter of scientific racism which is quite evil. "Whether it's true or not" indeed should never enter the equation of any practical decision for ethical reasons.
But that's nothing compared to how incomprehensibly sexist I am for having the unmitigated gall to believe that women are every bit as strong willed as men, and thus capable of saying 'no' to a sexual advance, so affirmative consent is not needed,
Clear trivialization of sexual assault and the value of consent, and denial of the possibility that a woman might freeze at the terror of being raped. Calling this sexist and supportive of rape culture is reasonable.
So you aren't a Nazi but you are a scientific racist and a sexist/chauvinist. Change it or own it.
Yep, they now have to play politics with everyone they give a check mark to. Which is fine, if they think they have the manpower to pull that off while threading around boycotts from both sides.
If they don't want most of their employees employed in a sprawling new politics department, they should've either made the verification process available freely and fairly to everyone (meaning they'd now need a sprawling new verifications department), or they should've removed all check marks.
How the fuck are you blaming the left in general for either of those false stories, when no leftists had any say in the matter whatsoever, apart from those employed by Rolling Stone magazine or Duke University?
It's actually far more ridiculous than blaming the right in general for Pizzagate, at least some factions of the far-right in general deserve blame for that since they created and pushed the conspiracy theory.
It effectively DID amount to an endorsement before this incident, it's just official now. Twitter wouldn't give a verified checkmark to Joe Sixpack, even if he attempted to follow the same verification process as Kim Kardashian and was able to do so. Twitter picked and chose who would get one. As such, how could they defend giving one to a nazi and not Joe Sixpack, while arguing that it doesn't amount to an endorsement?
Well it's alt-right(and alt-lite) sure, it's also conservatives, gamers, progressive muslims, gun owners,
Oh fuck this, gamers in general will not be lumped into the basket of deplorables over one incident involving a bunch of fedora-wearing MRA neckbeards who happen to play videogames. This shit will not stand, the sheer percentage of female gamers these days ensures it.
Progressive Muslims are also extremely wary of the same problem and would gladly tell you where you can shove this idea.
Gab.ai, minds.com, and so on
"So on" being the Daily Stormer and other hate sites. These aren't a new phenomenon. Mainstream sites should not attempt to cater to these userbases. Let them remain in the deepest darkest corners of the Internet, I say.
So, from this, it looks like the far right is so desperate to get their hateful brainsharts onto TV and mainstream websites that they're ready to bring back the fairness doctrine to do it. Also helps explain why they didn't make a peep when Trump called for bringing back the fairness doctrine in all but name.
The theoretical Basilisk is the most ball-slappingly insane AI ever imagined: It loves humanity so much that it...digitally resurrects* and tortures people who didn't do their best to bring it into existence? LOLWUT? How could this be beneficial to its goal of helping people in any way? It's a waste of time and energy for any purpose other than satisfying this AI's sense of spite. It could probably use all the power it's expending running this supernatural torture dungeon on actually helping people. Roko's Basilisk makes more sense as a literal hate machine that also helps people on the side when it's not busy. Like the WOTF's "Godhead," it's more of a devil than can be appeased than a benevolent god.
*With the help of some woo-woo metaphysical nonsense, try to suspend your disbelief
This is Roko's Basilisk Lite: The Church
It's quite scary that they imagine that their AI god will be a narcissist who will enjoy being worshiped and will favor individual humans who helped bring it into being.
I'm also reminded of an ST:TOS quote: “We have no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.” - James T. Kirk
That makes sense and would be agreeable, but I've never heard it used that way before, and unfortunately I'm all too familiar with it being used in the way I described.
Sigh. "Virtue signaling" is something that has real meaning.
Yes, it means "a political or politically-tinged expression that I disagree with and thus would like to both trivialize and paint as dishonest." Commonly used when the user's own political positions are stupid, indefensible, and otherwise awful.
See also: "SJW:" It's like "ni**er-lover" but can be used against allies of not only black people but any ethnic minority, religious minority, the LGBTQ community, the poor, or even just women, and is thus more usable in the 21st century.
Last I saw the place, it had a gift shop where the hippy owners took money selling semi-erotic paintings and charcoal drawings, and invited the young folks to spend some quality time mixing concrete with desert sand... or pose for the artist.
Sandy mix, buy some pics, or show your bits, nobody visits for free!
But your fingerprint is still somewhat private. You can't replicate my fingerprints from a picture of me that you found on facebook.
Hahaha is that what you believe?
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
I saw the same problem in the 2010s. Borderline computer-illiterate CEO wanted God Mode access to all file shares. Then something from the '80s did come along, file-wiping malware via email to the CEO...
Well you see, Hillary's lies are lies, and Hillary's truths are damn dirty lies. On the other hand, Trump's lies are just "alternative facts."
Well then I'll use this last reply to make one last attempt to cure you of your ideological blindness: It seems to me that you hate the idea of "ideology," because you see yourself as so purely pragmatic that any hint of ideology seems far too dogmatic for your tastes. But why did you arrive at the positions you did on all of those issues? It can't all be based on hard scientific evidence because there isn't enough to make science-based decisions on most topics.
Since I was very interested to see the political positions of someone who considers themselves to be purely pragmatic, I had a look in your post history and found this:
But as a non-idealist, I'm willing to accept what science tells me. Whatever I "believe" or not "believe" is based on my support or lack of for various theories or hypotheses.
Where you basically agree with me and effectively admit that you are ideological. Your support or lack of for various theories and hypotheses? That's ideology, just dressed up in scientific terms. Those beliefs aren't supported by strong scientific evidence, so it's your personal choice. And you can have some degree of idealism without ever having to deny science. I don't deny any science and I not only admit that I am ideological, but I'm not purely pragmatic either.
I'm not trying to jam you into any small pigeonhole. I'm saying that you live in the same ideological universe as everyone else, rather than looking down from some immaculate non-ideological heaven as you believe. I'm saying you're a man and not a god, basically. A person who believes they are purely pragmatic and non-ideological believes, without any evidence that exists outside of their own minds, that they're on a higher plane of intelligence that the rest of humanity is unable or unwilling to ascend to. A startlingly dangerous belief that seems rather insane. Oddly if you were to put a few such people in a room together, their views would have little in common - have a chat with Type44Q sometime and see for yourself.
I think I see your problem. You're suffering from a less severe form of ideological blindness. You see some axis of the political landscape as being ideological/pragmatic. You see yourself as being stuck against the pragmatic limit around the center-right position, and because you're against the pragmatic zero line, you're not ideological. This is quite wrong.
Now let's look at the ideological universe as a cube. What you think of as the ideological/pragmatic axis is actually the idealistic/pragmatic axis. Then you have the left/right axis, and finally the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Now think of your positions on different issues as fine dots in this cube. Because you're against the pragmatic zero axis, your cloud is relatively large and sparse. Pragmatism isn't a lack of ideology, it's ideological flexibility. People against the idealistic maximum would have all their points condensed into one dense dot.
So you see the entire cube represents ideology. Nobody exists outside of it. You thought you were just hanging out by the doorway of ideology because you saw ideology, rather than idealism, as the opposite of pragmatism. But you're just as much in it as anyone near the center. Don't feel bad, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the same mistake.
What happens when he has a scheduling conflict between two roles he has to play?
Actually that is pretty much the argument I'm making and it does apply well to ideology. There is no ideological equivalent of atheism or "none of the above." If you ask a supposedly non-ideological person their opinion on a large number of issues, you can match them to an ideology which closely aligns with their beliefs. If you ask an atheist about which supernatural beings and/or forces they believe in, there is no religion for "none."
Math says that "absolutist" encryption is the only kind that actually works. Deal with it.
I wonder if some of these idiots honestly believe that it's mathematically possible to have encryption that can be cracked by law enforcement but not criminals. I still think it's more likely an "Ask for a pony to get a dog" tactic: they ask for magical encryption to prod tech companies into providing other, actually possible forms of cooperation.
There's no such thing as a non-ideological person, but there are ideologically blind people. You're one of them, despite your supposedly high IQ. I also have you marked as a science denialist, so I'll add to the calls for you to get a refund on that test.
Those people are suffering from an acute shortage of resources, quite different from a person on UBI.
A clear majority of people are working in awful-to-hellish jobs just because they need the money, I wish I lived in the kind of ultra-privileged environment that would lead anyone to think otherwise.
I've made it impossible to take pictures of my junk in the first place, by way of a thick and luxuriant man-bush which tastefully covers all. And the ladies laughed at it! WELL WHO'S LAUGHING NOW!?
The user would need to install their own perceptual hash tool, because a cryptographic hash would be trivially easy to get a false positive on: just flip, add, or remove a single bit on the file.
How is being a human required for any of those? All those jobs could be done by automatons of varying degrees of realism. A medium-sized shellscript would be an improvement over the current US President.
And some may never see certain entertainment.
It's already happening, see the Wu-Tang Clan's album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, or Kanye West's movie Cruel Summer.
(Oh wait, you can't)