Extremism / radicalization is spreading so efficiently because we don't recognize their root causes. We recognize causes that are immediately adjacent to manifestations that we consider important; like terrorism. By the time is gets that bad allowable responses have deteriorated and narrowed into "war responses". This is true in many, MANY domains not just international relations.
The big names, like Terrorism, "suck all the oxygen out of the room". The fabric of our collective lives is the real monster that gives birth to these relatively baby monsters.
How is saying all white people are racist any different from saying all blacks are criminals?
Note: I don't understand how this connects to my comment, but I will tackle it.
In practice, the word 'racist' is a problem of confusion because it is used in so many ways. Because the word is socially powerful some distortions of the word are at least willful if not intentional. Virtually everyone who uses, hears or reads the word (and it's derivatives) agrees that it is both powerful and negative, however.
I will start with a TRUNCATED and IMPROMPTU attempt at outlining [you can prefix 'modern' if you like] racism, derived socially and historically:
Racism is systemic. Which, in this context is not the same as institutional. Racism has three components:
Institutional - Schools, housing, health care, justice system, job market, wealth, law enforcement, banking...(seemingly forever)...
Social - Media portrayal, conformity mechanisms, subjective assessments, default handicap, fake meritocracy, "otherism", routine power imbalances...
Hearts and Minds (prejudicial) - eye of the beholder, fear, event interpretation, skill assessment, ethics by power, imagination, self-loathing, monopolize "goodwill"...
I'm going to add one non-outline item: The Siphoning Effect™:
When a subgroup has superior power that is systemically rooted (as described above) it will actively abuse the subgroup that makes up the remainder. Commonly the abuser (subgroup) will siphon from the abused, like a vampire. Except is not blood, it can be anything, eventually everything if not restrained. Including the abused's humanity! Very few people have the stomach for all of what it takes to do this.
That is why the systemic nature of it is so important. It allows mental compartmentalization and self-delusion. It allows people to sustain it in the way they can handle, essentially "help where they can". Allows some to be "blissfully unaware" (but still sustaining). It allows some to easily defend it as "normal" or even "good", because those listening have been relentlessly exposed to compatible ideas. It allows some to modulate the severity of their acceptance to the level their conscious's can bear. It allows some to object to parts of this system, yet accept other related parts; sometimes based on who benefits...
;TLDR
In our current racial environment neutrality is an illusion. The word racism and its derivatives can be used in many contexts, big or small, direct or nuanced. Now to the original question:
How is saying all white people are racist any different from saying all blacks are criminals?
Note: I don't understand how this connects to my comment, but I will tackle it.
Saying all blacks are criminals is wholly absurd, and pure uncut racist. This use of the word 'racist' is simple and easy and acts like a hammer.
Saying all white people are racist is saying something that is impossible and I have NEVER heard someone say that. If one talks of racism in general and does not mention "white people" or some contextual equivalent then you are talking in dishonest gibberish. A common tactic is to hear "all white people" and then object. If this dishonesty is left unchecked it evolves into things like "reverse racism". Reverse racism is a racist Siphoning Effect. It siphons natural communally derived victim status.
When "white people" is used, the word 'racist' is NOT a hammer, but the hammer still lingers in the memory. A white anti-racist would understand.
I've run out of time, hopefully this is good enough. (The markdown formatting is off)
Surveillance is not illegal, only what law enforcement does with that surveillance. When using that surveillance to prosecute someone, then it's illegal. But, surveillance against someone isn't illegal.
Absurd. This is no more meaningful than mashing my palm on the keyboard: y4on[r'thowm. See!
The assessment of surveillance involves the rights, concerns and dignity of the WATCHED, not the watchers. That comment also mis-uses (probably deliberately) the concept of the Neutral (I'm struggling for the right word) Tool: aka, a tool that can be equally used for "good or evil". Surveillance is not something that happens as some kind of benign default setting.
The Internet is being drowned in know-nothing know-it-alls, trying to make non-sense seem knowledgeable.
BLM SHOULD be a monitored group just like the KKK.
The ideal (and the current reality) of BLM is explicitly ANTI-racist. It is a common tactic these days to promote swapping racism and anti-racism in social perceptions. This behavior is a more specific manifestation of a broader social behavior.
...there was not any outrage when laws were broken way back when the government was trying to dismantle the KKK.
"The government" is not some single monolithic, black-box entity. Even so, it may not be accurate to imply the KKK has been under any concerted gov't based attack, ever. Trump is not even the first President to be openly sympathetic to the KKK; not even in just the last century.
I do agree that fighting wrong with more wrong solves nothing, really. However, connecting this concept to the KKK is dishonest (probably deliberately so).
Too many seem to only learn what allows them to deceive better - speak more effective falsehoods.
I simply can't recall ever having seen anything remotely like this, with the PR wing of a company soliciting complaints to corporate in what sure seems like a way to get corporate to move off of a DRM. It seems there is some infighting at Sega over this requirement, though to what level that infighting rises is unknown to me.
I believe the situation with the Rime game was similar. IIRC it was a rift between the Developers and the Publishers.
I doubt this AC cares that much about the police union. The comment was meant to attack Unions in general. I suspect he/she wants Techdirt to promote this typical "right wing" position.
The power of police unions is mostly not derived from prototypical unions.
I can't believe that in 2017, after years of information explosion, that we would still have computers that can silently corrupt data. Even dedicated storage devices silently corrupt data! Now Microsoft thinks it is a good idea to move ReFS out of the mainstream! Its bad enough that ReFS is proprietary.
I've never been impressed by MS's tech leadership, and they are worse than ever.
Congratulations! Wow, 20 years! Who knew?!...besides you...and many others apparently. I've lurked, on and off, for years. I kept getting re-introduced to Techdirt through Google searches and references from other sites that I don't remember.
I routinely read (or skim through) A LOT of Internet comments (though less so recently). I rarely make comments myself and I don't remember ever creating an account before. What manner of sorcery did you use on me?
Net Neutrality has an actual meaning (this is Techdirt, do a search). It is not just a powerful phrase to use in rhetoric. Websites are not guaranteed existence, especially not through net neutrality.
I'm predisposed to believe that the fundamental issue of software vulnerabilities is due to poor "engineering tolerances".
For instance, how many times has careless input routines (user or I/O) broken a program or created security holes?
When OOP (objected oriented programming) was pushed in earnest in the early 90s, I thought it might have been too soon (and likely too sloppy). To be clear, OOP, or something like it would eventually be necessary. However, it seemed OOP (in place of structured programming techniques) created a situation where programmers often didn't know or didn't have a handle on the code that was in their own software. Maybe the timing of OOP's dominance promoted undisciplined programming behavior and traditions that we are still suffering from now...
On the post: Canadian Cops Belatedly Asking For Authorization To Deploy Stingray Devices They've Been Using For Years
Re: It's much easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.
This was approximately my first thought.
My second, was that if a character in our stories, movies or tv say (or act out) something like this that person is probably the hero.
On the post: UK's Terrorism Law Reviewer Says Tech Companies Shouldn't Offer Encryption To Anonymous Users
Re:
Extremism / radicalization is spreading so efficiently because we don't recognize their root causes. We recognize causes that are immediately adjacent to manifestations that we consider important; like terrorism. By the time is gets that bad allowable responses have deteriorated and narrowed into "war responses". This is true in many, MANY domains not just international relations.
The big names, like Terrorism, "suck all the oxygen out of the room". The fabric of our collective lives is the real monster that gives birth to these relatively baby monsters.
On the post: Black Lives Matter Sues Police Department Over Illegal Surveillance Based On First Amendment Activities
Re: Re: Re: Paradox
Note: I don't understand how this connects to my comment, but I will tackle it.
In practice, the word 'racist' is a problem of confusion because it is used in so many ways. Because the word is socially powerful some distortions of the word are at least willful if not intentional. Virtually everyone who uses, hears or reads the word (and it's derivatives) agrees that it is both powerful and negative, however.
I will start with a TRUNCATED and IMPROMPTU attempt at outlining [you can prefix 'modern' if you like] racism, derived socially and historically:
Racism is systemic. Which, in this context is not the same as institutional. Racism has three components:
Institutional - Schools, housing, health care, justice system, job market, wealth, law enforcement, banking...(seemingly forever)...
Social - Media portrayal, conformity mechanisms, subjective assessments, default handicap, fake meritocracy, "otherism", routine power imbalances...
Hearts and Minds (prejudicial) - eye of the beholder, fear, event interpretation, skill assessment, ethics by power, imagination, self-loathing, monopolize "goodwill"...
I'm going to add one non-outline item: The Siphoning Effect™:
When a subgroup has superior power that is systemically rooted (as described above) it will actively abuse the subgroup that makes up the remainder. Commonly the abuser (subgroup) will siphon from the abused, like a vampire. Except is not blood, it can be anything, eventually everything if not restrained. Including the abused's humanity! Very few people have the stomach for all of what it takes to do this. That is why the systemic nature of it is so important. It allows mental compartmentalization and self-delusion. It allows people to sustain it in the way they can handle, essentially "help where they can". Allows some to be "blissfully unaware" (but still sustaining). It allows some to easily defend it as "normal" or even "good", because those listening have been relentlessly exposed to compatible ideas. It allows some to modulate the severity of their acceptance to the level their conscious's can bear. It allows some to object to parts of this system, yet accept other related parts; sometimes based on who benefits...
;TLDR
In our current racial environment neutrality is an illusion. The word racism and its derivatives can be used in many contexts, big or small, direct or nuanced. Now to the original question:
Note: I don't understand how this connects to my comment, but I will tackle it.
Saying all blacks are criminals is wholly absurd, and pure uncut racist. This use of the word 'racist' is simple and easy and acts like a hammer. Saying all white people are racist is saying something that is impossible and I have NEVER heard someone say that. If one talks of racism in general and does not mention "white people" or some contextual equivalent then you are talking in dishonest gibberish. A common tactic is to hear "all white people" and then object. If this dishonesty is left unchecked it evolves into things like "reverse racism". Reverse racism is a racist Siphoning Effect. It siphons natural communally derived victim status. When "white people" is used, the word 'racist' is NOT a hammer, but the hammer still lingers in the memory. A white anti-racist would understand.
I've run out of time, hopefully this is good enough. (The markdown formatting is off)
On the post: Black Lives Matter Sues Police Department Over Illegal Surveillance Based On First Amendment Activities
Re: Re: Re: Paradox
However, comparing Trump and Hitler is valid and reasonable. I never believed in the Godwin rule: a silly shortcut to actual reasoning.
Note: I did not mention Hitler and did not imply a connection.
On the post: Black Lives Matter Sues Police Department Over Illegal Surveillance Based On First Amendment Activities
Re:
BLM does not have leaders.
Absurd. This is no more meaningful than mashing my palm on the keyboard: y4on[r'thowm. See!
The assessment of surveillance involves the rights, concerns and dignity of the WATCHED, not the watchers. That comment also mis-uses (probably deliberately) the concept of the Neutral (I'm struggling for the right word) Tool: aka, a tool that can be equally used for "good or evil". Surveillance is not something that happens as some kind of benign default setting.
The Internet is being drowned in know-nothing know-it-alls, trying to make non-sense seem knowledgeable.
On the post: Black Lives Matter Sues Police Department Over Illegal Surveillance Based On First Amendment Activities
Re: Paradox
The ideal (and the current reality) of BLM is explicitly ANTI-racist. It is a common tactic these days to promote swapping racism and anti-racism in social perceptions. This behavior is a more specific manifestation of a broader social behavior.
"The government" is not some single monolithic, black-box entity. Even so, it may not be accurate to imply the KKK has been under any concerted gov't based attack, ever. Trump is not even the first President to be openly sympathetic to the KKK; not even in just the last century.
I do agree that fighting wrong with more wrong solves nothing, really. However, connecting this concept to the KKK is dishonest (probably deliberately so).
Too many seem to only learn what allows them to deceive better - speak more effective falsehoods.
On the post: Sega Releases 'Sonic Mania' Without Informing PC Customers Of Denuvo Inclusion And Always Online Requirements
I believe the situation with the Rime game was similar. IIRC it was a rift between the Developers and the Publishers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Media bias does matter.
God forbid, one of them goes missing.
The FBI or police are now involved.
You call them regularly to get updates.
One day an Agent complains that your anguish is misleading because you never talk about the seven children you still have.
On the post: Court: TSA Agents Can Be Shielded From Certain Civil Rights Lawsuits Because They're Too Important
Re: Freedoms
On the post: Deputy Who Rear-Ended Driver At 104 MPH Had Horrendous Service Record, Received Almost Zero Discipline
Re: Re:
The power of police unions is mostly not derived from prototypical unions.
On the post: Sonos Users Forced To Choose Between Privacy And Working Hardware
Re: Timely mention of Microsoft
I've never been impressed by MS's tech leadership, and they are worse than ever.
On the post: Sonos Users Forced To Choose Between Privacy And Working Hardware
So quaint.
These days its more like: "They'll keep taking until you make them stop".
On the post: Techdirt Turns Twenty!
I routinely read (or skim through) A LOT of Internet comments (though less so recently). I rarely make comments myself and I don't remember ever creating an account before. What manner of sorcery did you use on me?
Anyway, good luck going forward.
On the post: YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Against drilling with arms
On the post: YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
Re: Re: Re: Choose
On the post: YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes the use of physical force is necessary and morally defensible. I imagine "Nazi punching" may fall into that category.
Violence is not always physical.
The rest of that is the usual disingenuous attacks on universities.
On the post: YouTube Briefly Nukes Video Of Nazi Symbol Destruction For Violating Hate Speech Rules
Re: Choose
On the post: The Ultimate Virus: How Malware Encoded In Synthesized DNA Can Compromise A Computer System
For instance, how many times has careless input routines (user or I/O) broken a program or created security holes?
When OOP (objected oriented programming) was pushed in earnest in the early 90s, I thought it might have been too soon (and likely too sloppy). To be clear, OOP, or something like it would eventually be necessary. However, it seemed OOP (in place of structured programming techniques) created a situation where programmers often didn't know or didn't have a handle on the code that was in their own software. Maybe the timing of OOP's dominance promoted undisciplined programming behavior and traditions that we are still suffering from now...
Or, I could be oversimplifying.
On the post: Former NSA Official Argues The Real Problem With Undisclosed Exploits Is Careless End Users
On the post: Florida City Ignores All Legal Precedent As It Attempts To Silence & Identify Mild Critic
Re: Re: Mike, please tell
Next >>