asabjorn

32 ms·

271.
by asabjorn 8y ago
I’d like to more clearly find out where and if we disagree where it matters the most. Do you think it is justified to ban or suppress content on social media from people that SPLC/ADL view as part of the radicalization process? Eg jord
272.
by asabjorn 8y ago
With regards to examples I can do better than showing how people use it in the same breath. Here [1, 2] are examples of where SPLC specifically uses alt-right and white supremacy to describe the viewpoints related to Jordan Peterson, Ben S
273.
by asabjorn 8y ago
From the same ADL source on white supremacy: > White supremacist Richard Spencer, who runs the National Policy Institute, a tiny white supremacist think tank, coined the term “Alternative Right” Or from the SPLC source: > The racist s
274.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Incitement to imminent violent action is illegal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
275.
by asabjorn 8y ago
ADL defines alt right to be white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim... SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate&
276.
by asabjorn 8y ago
ADL defines alt right and white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim... SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate&#x
277.
by asabjorn 8y ago
ISIS has a clearly defined religious teaching and a core part of their message is using power as well as violence to push their religious teachings onto others to create a world Islamic kaliphate. On the other hand what is being called alt
278.
by asabjorn 8y ago
You are still assuming a clear definition of what white supremacy is, which Facebook doesn’t provide. How do you think about the false positives?
279.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Free speech doesn’t cover incitement to violence, and it is already illegal and that is why it’s a red herring. Advocating for violence against innocent people is not primarily ideology, but someone being a bad human being that should go to
280.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Talking about ISIS is a red herring. Are they considered white suprenacists now? If we are to judge by social media companies past behavior [1] it’s regular conservative and liberal opinions that will be considered hate speech or white supr
281.
by asabjorn 8y ago
The problem is who defines what hate and a hate group is. It is usually the people you don’t want to do so, people that want to tell you what to think. Eg to some Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are considered white supremaci
282.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Bullshitting is what many talking heads do on TV, YouTube and tumbler to generate content required for their job. Basically, truth seeking has not done its job on it so the person doesn’t know if it’s true or not. People are right now most
283.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Exactly, and I am surprised they don't know they should have a better process that is feels fairer to their customers. This seems to be treating customers too logistically, without enough regard to your own potential mistakes and biase
284.
by asabjorn 8y ago
It is quite telling how this is getting downvoted with no argument. Always judge people on their actions, and especially how their actions impose upon others. Edit: and then this is also downvoted with no argument. A better demonstration o
285.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Why do they have the right to use power to suppress viewpoint opponents with 100% flexibility in claiming an individual has wronged a group with no evidence, no clear definition of what the terms are, and no recourse? It seems like terms li
286.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Regardless of what one thinks of the brexit vote outcome it will be interesting to see if the people of a democratic European country has the power to exit the EU through its own democratic process.
287.
by asabjorn 8y ago
If you put this is context of long-term economic stagnation where the kind of predictable growth modernity brought over two hundred years is no longer there, then for people that are expected to generate large returns have a large incentive
288.
by asabjorn 8y ago
It is as different as dropping a stone is not physics. One drops a stone and it follows the laws physics predicts, and with physics you can make more accurate predictions of complex systems. The laws would still be there without physics, bu
289.
by asabjorn 8y ago
I agree reproducibility is an issue, especially in psychology that is slowly becoming a science right now. There it’s actially a good sign, since now psychology has a methodology we can use as a standard bearer to spot issues. In other huma
290.
by asabjorn 8y ago
The argument that science is a social construct is easily disproven by the device you are typing this on, which is build upon science. However, the claim that some science is more believable than other science is obviously correct. Science
291.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Maybe nature should first take responsibility for their own role in discrediting science before asking others to do so, and stop publishing articles on discredited takes on complex problems such as the gender pay gap [1]. There is no excuse
292.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Those are good points. However, I do think we will look back at the large amount of postmodern literature inspired by Foucault and deidre as obfuscatory to knowledge seeking. They essentially wrap simple concepts within a format that requir
293.
by asabjorn 8y ago
That is not what I claim. Like the creationists adherents of intersectionality are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head with good intent. If we that don’t agree to these beliefs should accept it as science is an entirely diffe
294.
by asabjorn 8y ago
I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reason
295.
by asabjorn 8y ago
Why do you think this methodology support their conclusion that meritocracy doesn’t exist?
296.
by asabjorn 8y ago
People that share the intersectional beliefs does not believe in scientific reasoning. See this aero expose for a more expansive reasoning on how the scientific and intersectional paradigms are inherently incompatible https://are
297.
by asabjorn 8y ago
That abstract seems very intersectional. The scientific bankruptcy of research that tow the intersectional line, such as papers that are similar to the sokal hoax papers, have demostrated that papers and programs towing that line is with al
298.
by asabjorn 8y ago
They seem politically rather than scientifically motivated. They even redefined meritocracy into something where people with different capabilities as well as willingness to work hard in intellectual pursuits should have equal outcome. Esse
299.
by asabjorn 8y ago
The point I am making is that the premise seems to be politically motivated and not scientifically. They even redefined meritocracy to fit an intersectional paradigm in the same way as the sokal hoax papers showed. I fail to see how it’s in
300.
by asabjorn 8y ago
So they are effectively not using the normal definition of meritocracy that people of same capability and will to work hard born in different classes can succeed at somewhat the same degree in intellectual professions, and instead talk abou

More ›