Facebook and challenging the status quo on acceptable diversity

[Drak3]

Just now, coolkingler1 said:

Exactly, speech coming from a place of hatred, it's not unclear.

We don't use the term "hate speech" as that. We use it to describe ANYTHING negative about ANY "marginalized" group.

 

2 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

By extreme people

That'd be literally EVERYONE that supports hate speech laws (violation of freedom of speech).

 

2 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

the definition itself is not different because some people misuse the word for censorship.

Except that the concept of "hate speech" was born for the explicit purpose of invalidating any and all statements that are negative towards 'minorities,' even factual statements.

 

 

 

Hate speech is a bag of bullshit that exists exclusively to try to invalidate arguments on the basis of appeal to emotion,  there is no factual backing behind "hate speech," there is no logical absolute to what is and isn't hate speech. Hate speech is not a real thing.

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

We don't use the term "hate speech" as that. We use it to describe ANYTHING negative about ANY "marginalized" group.

 

That'd be literally EVERYONE that supports hate speech laws (violation of freedom of speech).

 

Except that the concept of "hate speech" was born for the explicit purpose of invalidating any and all statements that are negative towards 'minorities,' even factual statements.

 

 

 

Hate speech is a bag of bullshit that exists exclusively to try to invalidate arguments on the basis of appeal to emotion,  there is no factual backing behind "hate speech," there is no logical absolute to what is and isn't hate speech. Hate speech is not a real thing.

I agree. Ideals and speech in support of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism (as examples) can easily be defeated without resorting to calling them hate speech.

 

Although all three would use a similar tactic to the idea of "hate speech". Labeling dissent as something and espousing the idea that that thing should immediately be ignored and never, EVER considered in any way shape or form.

 

"greater good"

"genetic purity"

"Rebel extremists"

 

etc.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

We don't use the term "hate speech" as that. We use it to describe ANYTHING negative about ANY "marginalized" group.

 

That'd be literally EVERYONE that supports hate speech laws (violation of freedom of speech).

 

Except that the concept of "hate speech" was born for the explicit purpose of invalidating any and all statements that are negative towards 'minorities,' even factual statements.

 

 

 

Hate speech is a bag of bullshit that exists exclusively to try to invalidate arguments on the basis of appeal to emotion,  there is no factual backing behind "hate speech," there is no logical absolute to what is and isn't hate speech. Hate speech is not a real thing.

Fair enough. I got nothing. I was defining it with what I though it was, what I thought it was definitely exists however.

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

"Diversity is great!"

Until you go against the grain of labels forced upon you by those with undeserved power.

I'm a Mexican, I'm gay and I'm a Trump supporter and I cannot tell you what kind of silence I get whenever I go on about my political opinions to someone who doesn't like them. I don't wish for you to agree or die, all I wish is for people to understand that, guess what? People will have different opinions on literally everything, and if I can accept that, you can too. I'd much rather deal with agreeing to disagree rather than screeching about nothing.

[airdeano]

uhh, get back on topic and drop all this political 'leaning' labeling.

otherwise, we can lock this one up too.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Not clear on which part you consider to be predictable?

 

Is it the forum reactions? The memo contents? The articles contents?

I assume the forum reactions. I would agree too. Though not exactly The Donald, diluted version of it more like. 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm going to quote one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time here.

 

 

"In the beginning I was just as ready as anyone to fall into step, to seek out the guilty and to punish the sinners, even to become a leader. Nothing, I felt, would give me more gratification than riding the steed of yellow journalism into crusade, doing the book that would right the old wrongs. Reevaluation raised haunting questions.I now believe that evolution, or deevolution, never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

-Frank Herbert

 

My interpretation:

Society must be allowed to evolve on its own. Any seriously impactful attempts at guiding a society will only create problems for some members of that society (you can't please everyone) that end up creating the machinations of your own downfall as a being, entity, or group capable of guiding that society. While we shouldn't do nothing to better ourselves, doing too much can have an equally negative effect on society as a whole.

 

My example would be current day China, and the social media eugenics program they've been implementing where if you get a bad rating on social media, your kids might not get to go to the best schools or you might not get that job you want.

 

*mic drop*

 

It sounds great until you realise that not guiding society means letting human nature take over, human nature is survival of the fittest, me first, then my bloodline, then my community then my country.  In that order.   If you have something I want then I will do all I can to take it. 

 

But, we no longer live in the dark ages and don't need the remnants of survival instincts steering our culture or guiding society. We have plentiful supply of everything that we can retrain ourselves to be less selfish and maybe even make it as far as the next epoch in humanity.

 

In layman's terms, people believe whatever they are preached. If you don't participate in steering society in the direction you want it to go then it will go in someone else's direction and you won't like it at all.

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, Commodus said:

Political diversity is fine, and you should be careful not to make feel people completely unwelcome, but companies are also allowed to have their own culture... and sometimes those decisions are as much functional as anything.

 

Take Uber, for example.  For years, it didn't include extensive safety features to prevent and report sexual assault because -- surprise -- all the designers were men.  It wasn't until drivers were sexually assaulting women passengers in significant numbers (particularly a rape in India) that Uber realized it should acknowledge the safety concerns of women.  Diversity would likely have avoided that situation simply by giving women input.  "Hey guys, maybe you hadn't heard, but women have had to worry about creepy taxi drivers for decades..."

 

It's a similar thing with immigration; companies like Facebook support immigration as much because it increases their talent pool (it might also let them hire someone for less, although that's not as likely at Facebook's size) as any moral position.

 

Besides, think of the long-term company strategy: if you're going to design a product that has to accommodate virtually all the world's cultures, why would you want company policy shaped almost exclusively by white American dudebros?

crimes should be handled by the police, and the police only, we dont need medieval courts, its very easy for an accusation like this to ruin someones life, and so it should handled by people trained to and obliged to make sure the accused is guilty before taking measures 

[Maxxtraxx]

8 hours ago, coolkingler1 said:

I assume the forum reactions. I would agree too. Though not exactly The Donald, diluted version of it more like. 

I am not seeing where the forum reactions are Donaldesque, unless you mean that people standing up to a bais that has affected their lives and has lead to ridicule and attack against them... which is called character assassination.

 

The proper way to address disagreements with another person's viewpoint or belief is to discuss why you disagree with that viewpoint and provide evidence as to why.

 

When, you attack the individual instead of the idea and label them a term ending in "ist" or "fobe" you claim you don't have to provide proof or evidence that their idea is wrong or unjustified somehow... Instead you just assassinate their character, slander, degrade and threaten. This is what these individuals are speaking against, the personal attacks on them because of their viewpoint... Attacks that oftwn come in the form of mob justice and with zero discussion and discord.

 

So, if you want to discuss some ideas that you disagree with please quote them and discuss them. But please don't accuse those posts of being equivalent to a person or figure that you do not like because of a vaguely similar viewpoint... It's character degradation/assassination.

[Kamina]

11 hours ago, coolkingler1 said:

They are 2 separate things if you think rationally.

Both being arbitrary.

 

In North Korea, it's hate speech to speak against your leader. See, it works in all directions.

 

How one finds offense in a material or a spoken language is entirely subjective.

[Amazonsucks]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

It sounds great until you realise that not guiding society means letting human nature take over, human nature is survival of the fittest, me first, then my bloodline, then my community then my country.  In that order.   If you have something I want then I will do all I can to take it. 

 

But, we no longer live in the dark ages and don't need the remnants of survival instincts steering our culture or guiding society. We have plentiful supply of everything that we can retrain ourselves to be less selfish and maybe even make it as far as the next epoch in humanity.

 

In layman's terms, people believe whatever they are preached. If you don't participate in steering society in the direction you want it to go then it will go in someone else's direction and you won't like it at all.

To your first point: the elite still do that, but they disguise their mooching and enslaving of those they crush beneath them as "altrusim" and use social welfare, progressive taxes, and brutality to accomplish it. Look at any failed socialist state that implements such pretend altruism and disguises equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.

 

If we had a plentiful supply of everything, it would be Star Trek economics and no one would be starving or working in slave camps in China or Africa to make cheap electronics or mine the conflict minerals that go into them, respectively. 

 

If you dont know thats the way the world works, you live in an echo chamber.

 

Everything you said was in laymans terms. To put it in scientific terms: the evolutionary fitness landscape and phase space trajectory for human beings exists, whether you want to acknowledge their existence or not.

 

In philosophical terms: Disguising the machinations of those who rise to power by virtue of their inability, lack of value or uselessness is objectively detrimental to the evolutionary fitness of the species. Hence, charity and welfare(compassion) shouldnt be disguised as the right or obligation to provide for anyone else at the barrel of a government's gun.

 

Also, if you believe "human nature" = vicious behaviour, humans ARE doomed to extinction. By assuming the worst in people is their "true nature" you create a toxic culture and society and raise children to think natural depravity is an excuse to do whatever immoral thing they want, as long as they dont get caught.

 

The result of such toxic social constructs is seen in the fall of every failed state or empire. Human beings are born good, with common sense and a reluctance to do harm(barring mental illness). Public school and idiot adults turn them into he unthinking, unethical zombies that most become, acting less sentient than the bacteria that inhabit their intestines.

 

Every other species on the planet abides by a strict objective "moral code" of: adaptive behaviour or go extinct. Human beings are the only ones who have the capability of deluding themselves into thinking these rules dont apply to them.

 

 

[yian88]

There are no minorities or communities, they have no leaders or organization these so proclaimed online minority communities, we are all only one thing, individuals with differences period.

All websites and social sites and games and movies and politics must be neutral and provide their services to individuals not to minorities and on paper communities.

This is no political opinion but i had enough of white guilt and inexistent minorities and its concept, which is a broken concept, basically any individual anywhere in the world is a minorty, by holding any different opinion about any subject with which the majority of people disagree the said individual is in a minority, which is every single one of us.

 

No 2 individuals have the same opinion about all issues and subjects in the world, hence its stupid. Race minorities again same BS, different cultures(ideas of living) or skin color doesnt make you a minority, they shouldnt even allow organizations or self proclaimed minorities to exist because they create only problems and most of the time dont abide by some of the country's laws and systems, due to different opinions that make them a "minority".

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

To your first point: the elite still do that, but they disguise their mooching and enslaving of those they crush beneath them as "altrusim" and use social welfare, progressive taxes, and brutality to accomplish it. Look at any failed socialist state that implements such pretend altruism and disguises equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.

 

If we had a plentiful supply of everything, it would be Star Trek economics and no one would be starving or working in slave camps in China or Africa to make cheap electronics or mine the conflict minerals that go into them, respectively. 

 

If you dont know thats the way the world works, you live in an echo chamber.

 

Everything you said was in laymans terms. To put it in scientific terms: the evolutionary fitness landscape and phase space trajectory for human beings exists, whether you want to acknowledge their existence or not.

 

In philosophical terms: Disguising the machinations of those who rise to power by virtue of their inability, lack of value or uselessness is objectively detrimental to the evolutionary fitness of the species. Hence, charity and welfare(compassion) shouldnt be disguised as the right or obligation to provide for anyone else at the barrel of a government's gun.

 

Also, if you believe "human nature" = vicious behaviour, humans ARE doomed to extinction. By assuming the worst in people is their "true nature" you create a toxic culture and society and raise children to think natural depravity is an excuse to do whatever immoral thing they want, as long as they dont get caught.

 

The result of such toxic social constructs is seen in the fall of every failed state or empire. Human beings are born good, with common sense and a reluctance to do harm(barring mental illness). Public school and idiot adults turn them into he unthinking, unethical zombies that most become, acting less sentient than the bacteria that inhabit their intestines.

 

Every other species on the planet abides by a strict objective "moral code" of: adaptive behaviour or go extinct. Human beings are the only ones who have the capability of deluding themselves into thinking these rules dont apply to them.

 

 

Are you trying to claim there aren't enough resources on this planet for all humanity or did you miss my point entirely? 

 

My point was really simple: if you don't work for the type of society you want,  you will have to live in someone else's. 

 

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Every other species on the planet abides by a strict objective "moral code" of: adaptive behaviour or go extinct. Human beings are the only ones who have the capability of deluding themselves into thinking these rules dont apply to them.

 

 

So you agree humans are separate from the animal kingdom in cogitative ability but you think that only means they are deluded? Way to narrow your mindset to the point of missing points.

[JoostinOnline]

On 8/29/2018 at 3:26 PM, ltguy said:

Also i don't think LTT forums is a free and open space where we can talk about these issues, this thread will get locked fast.

It's a private tech forum, so there's no reason it would/should be the place to discuss political issues like this.

[Amazonsucks]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you agree humans are separate from the animal kingdom in cogitative ability but you think that only means they are deluded? Way to narrow your mindset to the point of missing points.

Speaking of missing points... I said that humans are the only ones CAPABLE of deluding themsleves. The overall commentary i made was on people's wishfull thinking and self delusion vs objective reality.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Are you trying to claim there aren't enough resources on this planet for all humanity or did you miss my point entirely? 

 

My point was really simple: if you don't work for the type of society you want,  you will have to live in someone else's. 

 

 

There are not enough resources for a perpetually increasing population with so many perverse incentives to be destructive rather than constructive.

 

There are not enough resources for everyone to live the same quality of life with the kind of global economy we have either.

 

Slavery is alive and well, Western culture is entering another dark age, resources are being squandered, humans are busy killing each other over BS, and society in general has its priorities out of whack. You have economic and social forces that are replicating and amplifying these errors. Humans are the only ones capable of rationalizing that and deluding themselves into thinking anything goes.

 

The feedback loops created by these perverse societal incentive structures clearly lead to ever growing non adaptivity and sliding further and further off of the optima in the evolutionary fitness landscape. Think we cant drive ourselves extinct.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Speaking of missing points... I said that humans are the only ones CAPABLE of deluding themsleves. The overall commentary i made was on people's wishfull thinking and self delusion vs objective reality.

 

There are not enough resources for a perpetually increasing population with so many perverse incentives to be destructive rather than constructive.

 

There are not enough resources for everyone to live the same quality of life with the kind of global economy we have either.

 

Slavery is alive and well, Western culture is entering another dark age, resources are being squandered, humans are busy killing each other over BS, and society in general has its priorities out of whack. You have economic and social forces that are replicating and amplifying these errors. Humans are the only ones capable of rationalizing that and deluding themselves into thinking anything goes.

 

The feedback loops created by these perverse societal incentive structures clearly lead to ever growing non adaptivity and sliding further and further off of the optima in the evolutionary fitness landscape. Think we cant drive ourselves extinct.

 

 

 

 

 

Population will cap at 11B.

The whole world is actually moving toward health and wealth

Everything else just an opinion.

 

This might enlighten you:

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/hans-rosling-had-a-way-of-showing-the-meaning-of-data-well-miss-him

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Population will cap at 11B.

The whole world is actually moving toward health and wealth

Everything else just an opinion.

 

This might enlighten you:

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/hans-rosling-had-a-way-of-showing-the-meaning-of-data-well-miss-him

Toward health and wealth when much of the globe lives on $1 a day in filth and squalor? When the middle class has been shrinking for decades and outright disappearing in welfare states?

 

And i find it particularly funny you use the term "wealth", when the vast majority of people have debts and no wealth at all...

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

Toward health and wealth when much of the globe lives on $1 a day in filth and squalor? When the middle class has been shrinking for decades and outright disappearing in welfare states?

 

And i find it particularly funny you use the term "wealth", when the vast majority of people have debts and no wealth at all...

 

Did you even watch the video? 

 

You cannot argue against movement of that size, sure you can point to discrepancies as there are, but you can;t ignore the immensity of that change and where it is heading.   There is enough resources on this planet to sustain the entire population in high quality lifestyles.  As we move from the 20th century mindset to the 21st century thing will change and the old guard will not hold the same power. 

 

It's not just born out in the statistics, but whole nations are moving toward a new system.

 

Many on this forum think that I am a capitalist through and through because of my staunch views on the need for patents and money being the driver of innovation, but the reality is capitalism was good for human development and technology through out the 20th century and we are moving toward a new era, a new business model that requires a new system,  a system that is neither capitalist or socialist as it requires a peer network.   So for the interim we can't just ditch capitalism, we need to keep socialism in check, but we also have to keep the road open for the next century.   It is going to look a lot different when energy is almost free, food can be made in a factory for merely cents and healthcare is universal.    A future that scares the pants of most Americans I am sure.

 

 

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

Toward health and wealth when much of the globe lives on $1 a day in filth and squalor? When the middle class has been shrinking for decades and outright disappearing in welfare states?

 

And i find it particularly funny you use the term "wealth", when the vast majority of people have debts and no wealth at all...

The middle class is disappearing in welfare states? Uh what? 

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Toward health and wealth when much of the globe lives on $1 a day in filth and squalor? When the middle class has been shrinking for decades and outright disappearing in welfare states?

 

And i find it particularly funny you use the term "wealth", when the vast majority of people have debts and no wealth at all...

The country where middle class have shrunken the most is a country that have less welfare than many other western countries. USA.

[GumblesGrambles]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:52 PM, mr moose said:

 

Population will cap at 11B.

The whole world is actually moving toward health and wealth

Everything else just an opinion.

 

This might enlighten you:

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/hans-rosling-had-a-way-of-showing-the-meaning-of-data-well-miss-him

 

Ah yes, "big think" the lulbert site.  Drawing straight lines right into mouse utopia.  I've seen Pinker do the same with his cherry picked data as well.  The native western populations they claim are doing so well are well below replacement rate, especially once you deduct the children from recent immigrants.  Not the sign of a functional sustainable society, let alone one built on the ever expanding ponzi scheme of a giant social welfare state.  All the while the very same types proclaim the end of labor due to automation, while they mass import poverty they won't know what to do with after even their labor is made obsolete.  And all the while this is going on, they continue to shift the IQ bell curve with reckless immigration policies, which will result in far fewer scientists and engineers, not very smart when their utopian dream relies on science to save us in the end.  Remember, not even the west produces enough top tier minds at the top end of the bell curve to sustain our advanced societies, we import and poach what we cannot produce ourselves.  Now imagine how hopeless it is for countries which start with an even lower starting point.  To put it simply, the "data" he's willing to show is selective, because there were questions he didn't dare ask.

and back to censorship

 

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, GumblesGrambles said:

 

Ah yes, "big think" the lulbert site.  Drawing straight lines right into mouse utopia.  I've seen Pinker do the same with his cherry picked data as well.  The native western populations they claim are doing so well are well below replacement rate, especially once you deduct the children from recent immigrants.  Not the sign of a functional sustainable society, let alone one built on the ever expanding ponzi scheme of a giant social welfare state.  All the while the very same types proclaim the end of labor due to automation, while they mass import poverty they won't know what to do with after even their labor is made obsolete.  And all the while this is going on, they continue to shift the IQ bell curve with reckless immigration policies, which will result in far fewer scientists and engineers, not very smart when their utopian dream relies on science to save us in the end.  Remember, not even the west produces enough top tier minds at the top end of the bell curve to sustain our advanced societies, we import and poach what we cannot produce ourselves.  Now imagine how hopeless it is for countries which start with an even lower starting point.  To put it simply, the "data" he's willing to show is selective, because there were questions he didn't dare ask.

and back to censorship

 

interesting perspective.   Too bad you won't find many of the brilliant minds you refer to agree with it.  As for accusing some of the most well regarded statisticians and world health educators as "cherry pickers" of data, well you are entitled to your pinon.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Ah, but Facebook, Google et. al. aren't fighting against crackdowns on illegal immigration (not in public, anyway).  They're complaining about explicitly anti-immigrant policies.  For example, Trump's ban on immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.  Moral repugnance notwithstanding, it hurts Facebook and Google by arbitrarily limiting their access to talent pools, not to mention the long-term possibilities those families provide.  (Remember, Steve Jobs' dad was Syrian.)  Even if they were just being selfish, why would they want to close doors to the next great engineer or leader based on someone's bigoted views on a religion?

from all the big religions only one has murders done in its name, those countries were selected because of the probability of a terrorist being from one of them, and the ban is temporary while better immigration checks are put into place, it sounds bad but what can we do, just look at what happened in europe after the "refugees" started to come in, rape sky rocketed, dozens of terrorist attacks happened, similar problems have also increased in cities in europe with large muslim communities, they themselves say they are still in the 1400s, 

[SansVarnic]

-=Topic Locked =-

 

This thread has taken a turn down polital road. As warned earlier by @airdeano to not continue the derailing of this topic it is now locked.