Redundancy detected: They market themselves as the *apex of progressive enlightened intellectualism*, but in reality, they act as the regulators of *institutionalized classism and elitism*.
... than National Fake News (a la CNN, MSNBC, WaPO, NYT, etc.) Remember? The media outlets who collaborated with the DNC to publish "Hillary good, Orange Man Bad" propaganda? The ones who allowed Democrat Party subjects to review stories about them before they were published or aired?
Or how about when CNN said it was illegal to view the emails leaked on wikileaks that showed this overt propagandistic collaboration?
This "Republican Bad" argument holds no water anymore because information is right in front of peoples' eyes (if they choose to look at and process it). The corporate media would love it if you would just forget what happened; not notice their overt lies, half-truths, and omissions; and just follow the laser pointer of their narrative.
As the Russia hoax inevitably disappears from sight on corporate media (without retraction or anyone being held accountable for overtly lying to divide average Americans), the laser is now pointing at financial crimes. After that, it will be something else. The real authoritarians are right in front of us, but behind a wall of cover from the corporate media.
2) Lots of people trust the free market more than The Government. It's weird how people seem to attribute "evilness" to the "greed" of corporations, and complain about monopolies... How is single-payer healthcare run by the Government not a monopoly? How is it that people miss or willfully ignore the "greed" of politicians who wish to usurp this power and money (and, ultimately, the right to decide what you should do with your body)? Do you *really* want your healthcare to be politicized?
"educated": brainwashed socialist political sycophant with no tether to reality; exhibiting an unearned air of superiority for earning a piece of paper affirming an unabashed acceptance of the fictitious reality of "how things ought to be"; characterized by viewing racial minorities as pets to be kept in the inner-part of cities, and dependent upon failed government programs that demote the importance of family and learning.
Sounds like a climate-flavored version of a "sanctuary city," albeit sanctuary from federal policy stemming from bogus climate alarmist propaganda will *save* money and lives and foster innovation in the green technology sector, while protecting illegal immigrants from law enforcement *costs* money and lives and diminishes the value of American citizenship.
Aaah, the old "poverty is the cause of crime" argument. I'm not necessarily against a UBI; it's seems interesting and raises many questions. But the "poverty is the cause of crime" argument immediately diminishes the credibility of those who want to persuade me that UBI is a good idea.
I'm relatively certain that impoverished folks in civilized countries were/are/have been able to get by without committing "some form of crime." It's actually much cheaper for individuals and society in the long run to avoid breaking the law. In addition, an alternative way to interpret this "poverty is the cause of crime" argument is, "If you don't give these poor people money, they will become criminals." Failure to hold all citizens, regardless of economic status, to a basic standard of decent behavior is no way to maintain a peaceful and civilized society.
Or, innovation within the private sector could yield technologies that foster green industrial processes and help directly clean the environment, creating wealth and jobs while retaining the planet's ability to sustain humans without authoritarian government control over every aspect of a civilized lifestyle.
Why the insistence that increasing taxes actually raises government revenue when that is demonstrably false (see Hauser's Law)? Also, while extreme wealth inequality is not desirable, why punish the wealthy and destroy incentives to invent, implement, succeed, and employ people (the proven sustainable method of wealth distribution)? Or, is your vision to just knock us all down to the same level of poverty, in which case poverty would disappear because-- well, equality? It seems so virtuous to spew this drivel, but it is ultimately a horrible and cruel vision for society where only the political class wins.
That demographic is those who break laws, and it isn't a matter of "liking" or "disliking"; it is the enforcement of laws that someone else made. I'm sure your insinuation is "poor innocent," but this whole line of thinking is completely propagandist. The stats are available for you to peruse if you dare to look at what the propagandists have labeled "hate stats."
Most cases that the media push as "bad policing" have extremely relevant yet unreported details. For instance, a recent police shooting in Philadelphia was reported as "unarmed man was pulled over on his dirt bike, then shot." The guy was unarmed *after he dropped his unregistered gun* (*after he ran from the officer*) (*after he was pulled over for wrecklessly driving a non-street-legal motor vehicle*). Yet, the narrative is "poor innocent black guy shot by bad white supremacist police officer."
Look into this issue more deeply before suggesting "police need to be smacked down." And if you are a white guy, you should specifically research how average (that is, non-criminal) inner city people *actually* perceive the police. (Hint, they are glad the police exist.) Stop pushing this anti-police crap, please.
"Fund" a tax break? How does one "fund" a tax break? The government's failure to collect a percentage of money (via legal coercion) earned by an entity creating something of value is not "funding." I'm not saying that taxation is wrong per se, but to have an honest discussion about taxes and corporatism, we need to acknowledge that the government cannot "fund" a tax break. In the meantime, the EU with its non-representative, unelected, bureaucratic governance is not something to hold up as an example, especially if you're suggesting the US has anything to learn from that.
Exactly. It's so strange that the focus would be on whom this technology might "discriminate against" rather than its actual existence and the fact that it would be used at all... Yuck.
Without *killing* the users, who's to say some other copycat website won't come along and lure them into making the same dumb mistake of trying to communicate with others?
That's a good one. "Fine" the companies who hire slaves--er, undocumented workers paid under the table. The actual undocumented workers (aka illegal aliens) can go unpunished and remain here, sucking up all of our resources and sending all of their money back to their respective countries of origin. Punish companies and overwhelm our entitlement system. It's a double-win for the Leftist agenda.
Okay, you sound like a Leftist, so I'll assume that the reason you believe the "majority of Americans" don't support the wall is because you only see things through politics and elections and "Hillary won the popular vote." Unfortunately for you with your asinine "walls don't work" virtue signaling, Americans who live near the border support the wall because they understand the actual negative impact of lax border security; and, border patrol (*actual* border experts) support the wall.
I, as an independent, support the wall. Why? Because for decades of my life, ever since I can remember, immigration has been a game of political "kick the can." Now, the disingenuous "Orange Man Bad" Democrats-- who previously supported stronger border security, including a "barrier"-- have completely flipped their position. Why? The problems associated with illegal immigration still exist. What has changed? My best guess is "Orange Man Bad."
It is hardly "acting like Children" to expect the elected executive to follow through on a promise he was elected on-- that is, the people wanted "a wall" or "better border security" or however you want to frame it. It is also quite *mature* of our president to follow through with trying to resolve the decades-old problem of illegal immigration despite all of the coordinated political smears he continues to face daily from the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.
And BTW, other than federal workers, nobody *really* cares about the shutdown. It is completely undetectable for average citizens. Do you frequent the websites affected by the shutdown? Other than the anti-Trump hyperbole pushed by the Corporate Media, do you have any genuine circumstantial relationship to the government shutdown?
>> Researchers and companies are subject to no fixed rules or even specific professional guidelines regarding AI. Hence, companies have tripped up but suffered little more than a short-lived PR fuss.
This looks like it's teeing up to make the case for government regulation, which is really stupid. AI is a leading edge technology, so all the experts who would even understand the parameters involved in implementing "fixed rules" regarding AI are the ones inventing the thing to begin with. All the government would do if charged with making "fixed rules" is stifle innovation to ensure the government's flavor of this technology is stronger than that available to the general public.
>> We've seen Democratic Socialism work just fine where it's been tried *Citation needed.
Seriously, what are you talking about? Are you making the classic mistake of using small, homogeneous countries with small populations, high taxes, and tight immigration controls as models for what would work in the U.S.? This automation-employment issue is sufficiently complicated enough that asserting the "more government" solution is at best naive and, at worst, exploiting a presumed-yet-unknowable future crisis to grab political power.
No thank you. I'd rather chance war than experience arrogant central planners marching me into a government work camp.
>> How does "economic equality" translates to "everyone is poor"? That's a typical U.S.A. point of view. It's more like "economic equality" translates to "why bother doing anything great if the spoils you are due are going to be forcibly stolen from you and doled out to non-skilled or otherwise non-contributing consumers of resources?"
So what you're saying is that you have seen hit pieces on Jordan Peterson, have no idea what he says, and are now using him in your vague argument advocating for social justice while completely ignoring the agency of women to make their own life choices.
Without having read the parent, this comment seemed brilliant until the "egalitarian" part. There *is* such thing as *good discrimination*. Egalitarian thought would mean that you can't make subjective judgments of "better" or "worse." Absent these notions, you would need to substitute some other unnatural means of judgment that would have little to do with what the outcome of such judgment would be. Therefore, in the context of what you are supposed to be judging, the unpredictable range of outcomes would be somewhere between 1) really awesome, or 2) completely destructive.
In this case, skin color is an important distinguishing characteristic of a perpetrator of a crime. So, helping law enforcement officials *discriminate* from among possible suspects is *good*. I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice law and order for political correctness.
In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.
(I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)
Slashdot Mirror
Redundancy detected: They market themselves as the *apex of progressive enlightened intellectualism*, but in reality, they act as the regulators of *institutionalized classism and elitism*.
... than National Fake News (a la CNN, MSNBC, WaPO, NYT, etc.) Remember? The media outlets who collaborated with the DNC to publish "Hillary good, Orange Man Bad" propaganda? The ones who allowed Democrat Party subjects to review stories about them before they were published or aired?
Or how about when CNN said it was illegal to view the emails leaked on wikileaks that showed this overt propagandistic collaboration?
This "Republican Bad" argument holds no water anymore because information is right in front of peoples' eyes (if they choose to look at and process it). The corporate media would love it if you would just forget what happened; not notice their overt lies, half-truths, and omissions; and just follow the laser pointer of their narrative.
As the Russia hoax inevitably disappears from sight on corporate media (without retraction or anyone being held accountable for overtly lying to divide average Americans), the laser is now pointing at financial crimes. After that, it will be something else. The real authoritarians are right in front of us, but behind a wall of cover from the corporate media.
...uncrossing my eyes after reading and rereading "Meizu set itself an eminently reasonably bar for the campaign" several times.
Two things:
1) Our Medicare system is almost bankrupt.
2) Lots of people trust the free market more than The Government. It's weird how people seem to attribute "evilness" to the "greed" of corporations, and complain about monopolies... How is single-payer healthcare run by the Government not a monopoly? How is it that people miss or willfully ignore the "greed" of politicians who wish to usurp this power and money (and, ultimately, the right to decide what you should do with your body)? Do you *really* want your healthcare to be politicized?
"educated": brainwashed socialist political sycophant with no tether to reality; exhibiting an unearned air of superiority for earning a piece of paper affirming an unabashed acceptance of the fictitious reality of "how things ought to be"; characterized by viewing racial minorities as pets to be kept in the inner-part of cities, and dependent upon failed government programs that demote the importance of family and learning.
>> Wealth is the only virtue American *Progressive* culture acknowledges.
FTFY.
Sounds like a climate-flavored version of a "sanctuary city," albeit sanctuary from federal policy stemming from bogus climate alarmist propaganda will *save* money and lives and foster innovation in the green technology sector, while protecting illegal immigrants from law enforcement *costs* money and lives and diminishes the value of American citizenship.
Aaah, the old "poverty is the cause of crime" argument. I'm not necessarily against a UBI; it's seems interesting and raises many questions. But the "poverty is the cause of crime" argument immediately diminishes the credibility of those who want to persuade me that UBI is a good idea.
I'm relatively certain that impoverished folks in civilized countries were/are/have been able to get by without committing "some form of crime." It's actually much cheaper for individuals and society in the long run to avoid breaking the law. In addition, an alternative way to interpret this "poverty is the cause of crime" argument is, "If you don't give these poor people money, they will become criminals." Failure to hold all citizens, regardless of economic status, to a basic standard of decent behavior is no way to maintain a peaceful and civilized society.
In terms of health care, why not just pay doctors directly rather that having the government as a middle man?
Or, innovation within the private sector could yield technologies that foster green industrial processes and help directly clean the environment, creating wealth and jobs while retaining the planet's ability to sustain humans without authoritarian government control over every aspect of a civilized lifestyle.
Why the insistence that increasing taxes actually raises government revenue when that is demonstrably false (see Hauser's Law)? Also, while extreme wealth inequality is not desirable, why punish the wealthy and destroy incentives to invent, implement, succeed, and employ people (the proven sustainable method of wealth distribution)? Or, is your vision to just knock us all down to the same level of poverty, in which case poverty would disappear because-- well, equality? It seems so virtuous to spew this drivel, but it is ultimately a horrible and cruel vision for society where only the political class wins.
>> demographic they don't particularly like
That demographic is those who break laws, and it isn't a matter of "liking" or "disliking"; it is the enforcement of laws that someone else made. I'm sure your insinuation is "poor innocent ," but this whole line of thinking is completely propagandist. The stats are available for you to peruse if you dare to look at what the propagandists have labeled "hate stats."
Most cases that the media push as "bad policing" have extremely relevant yet unreported details. For instance, a recent police shooting in Philadelphia was reported as "unarmed man was pulled over on his dirt bike, then shot." The guy was unarmed *after he dropped his unregistered gun* (*after he ran from the officer*) (*after he was pulled over for wrecklessly driving a non-street-legal motor vehicle*). Yet, the narrative is "poor innocent black guy shot by bad white supremacist police officer."
Look into this issue more deeply before suggesting "police need to be smacked down." And if you are a white guy, you should specifically research how average (that is, non-criminal) inner city people *actually* perceive the police. (Hint, they are glad the police exist.) Stop pushing this anti-police crap, please.
>> prerecorded history
Citation needed.
"Fund" a tax break? How does one "fund" a tax break? The government's failure to collect a percentage of money (via legal coercion) earned by an entity creating something of value is not "funding." I'm not saying that taxation is wrong per se, but to have an honest discussion about taxes and corporatism, we need to acknowledge that the government cannot "fund" a tax break. In the meantime, the EU with its non-representative, unelected, bureaucratic governance is not something to hold up as an example, especially if you're suggesting the US has anything to learn from that.
Exactly. It's so strange that the focus would be on whom this technology might "discriminate against" rather than its actual existence and the fact that it would be used at all... Yuck.
Without *killing* the users, who's to say some other copycat website won't come along and lure them into making the same dumb mistake of trying to communicate with others?
That's a good one. "Fine" the companies who hire slaves--er, undocumented workers paid under the table. The actual undocumented workers (aka illegal aliens) can go unpunished and remain here, sucking up all of our resources and sending all of their money back to their respective countries of origin. Punish companies and overwhelm our entitlement system. It's a double-win for the Leftist agenda.
Okay, you sound like a Leftist, so I'll assume that the reason you believe the "majority of Americans" don't support the wall is because you only see things through politics and elections and "Hillary won the popular vote." Unfortunately for you with your asinine "walls don't work" virtue signaling, Americans who live near the border support the wall because they understand the actual negative impact of lax border security; and, border patrol (*actual* border experts) support the wall.
I, as an independent, support the wall. Why? Because for decades of my life, ever since I can remember, immigration has been a game of political "kick the can." Now, the disingenuous "Orange Man Bad" Democrats-- who previously supported stronger border security, including a "barrier"-- have completely flipped their position. Why? The problems associated with illegal immigration still exist. What has changed? My best guess is "Orange Man Bad."
It is hardly "acting like Children" to expect the elected executive to follow through on a promise he was elected on-- that is, the people wanted "a wall" or "better border security" or however you want to frame it. It is also quite *mature* of our president to follow through with trying to resolve the decades-old problem of illegal immigration despite all of the coordinated political smears he continues to face daily from the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.
And BTW, other than federal workers, nobody *really* cares about the shutdown. It is completely undetectable for average citizens. Do you frequent the websites affected by the shutdown? Other than the anti-Trump hyperbole pushed by the Corporate Media, do you have any genuine circumstantial relationship to the government shutdown?
>> Researchers and companies are subject to no fixed rules or even specific professional guidelines regarding AI. Hence, companies have tripped up but suffered little more than a short-lived PR fuss.
This looks like it's teeing up to make the case for government regulation, which is really stupid. AI is a leading edge technology, so all the experts who would even understand the parameters involved in implementing "fixed rules" regarding AI are the ones inventing the thing to begin with. All the government would do if charged with making "fixed rules" is stifle innovation to ensure the government's flavor of this technology is stronger than that available to the general public.
>> We've seen Democratic Socialism work just fine where it's been tried
*Citation needed.
Seriously, what are you talking about? Are you making the classic mistake of using small, homogeneous countries with small populations, high taxes, and tight immigration controls as models for what would work in the U.S.? This automation-employment issue is sufficiently complicated enough that asserting the "more government" solution is at best naive and, at worst, exploiting a presumed-yet-unknowable future crisis to grab political power.
No thank you. I'd rather chance war than experience arrogant central planners marching me into a government work camp.
>> How does "economic equality" translates to "everyone is poor"? That's a typical U.S.A. point of view.
It's more like "economic equality" translates to "why bother doing anything great if the spoils you are due are going to be forcibly stolen from you and doled out to non-skilled or otherwise non-contributing consumers of resources?"
>> Jordon Peterson comes to mind
So what you're saying is that you have seen hit pieces on Jordan Peterson, have no idea what he says, and are now using him in your vague argument advocating for social justice while completely ignoring the agency of women to make their own life choices.
Without having read the parent, this comment seemed brilliant until the "egalitarian" part. There *is* such thing as *good discrimination*. Egalitarian thought would mean that you can't make subjective judgments of "better" or "worse." Absent these notions, you would need to substitute some other unnatural means of judgment that would have little to do with what the outcome of such judgment would be. Therefore, in the context of what you are supposed to be judging, the unpredictable range of outcomes would be somewhere between 1) really awesome, or 2) completely destructive.
In this case, skin color is an important distinguishing characteristic of a perpetrator of a crime. So, helping law enforcement officials *discriminate* from among possible suspects is *good*. I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice law and order for political correctness.
>>How is this supposed to work anyway?
Porn. Lots and lots of porn.
In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.
(I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)