prev <-> next
[2020-06-09 14:53:35] - Paul: I'd be more OK with attacks on her for specific things she's said rather than a blanket statement about a group of people. -- Xpovos
[2020-06-09 14:52:27] - Xpovos: Honestly? I expected the article to come at her stronger. This almost felt restrained.... like they were at least trying to be objective. -Paul
[2020-06-09 14:47:53] - Paul: gizmodo takes their position strongly calling TERFs an "anti-trans" hate movement. So... cool. Good talk. -- Xpovos
[2020-06-09 14:43:53] - Paul: Legit answer: I don't know. She toes the line on so much else demanded in the modern era of PC, this continuation to not do so over trans issues seems very clear, and intentional. So... she's a TERF. Are TERFs bigots? I don't think so, but I'm further to the right than even most TERFs, and I also don't think I'm a bigot. -- Xpovos
[2020-06-09 14:42:06] - Ooooh, section 230? We have a podcast coming out about that soon (maybe next week?) -Paul
[2020-06-09 14:41:34] - a: I doubt the law, if it went into effect, would do anything beneficial. It's certainly less helpful than the more controversial FOSTA/SESTA. That said, I think, as usual, concerns are overblown. Sec. 230 is under attack from a lot of angles right now. Adding one more seems meaningless. But I'm probably over-estimating the goal of corporations to be consumer-friendly. -- Xpovos
[2020-06-09 14:32:19] - https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-much-of-j-k-rowlings-transphobia-will-be-too-much-1843952716 Legit question for everybody here: Is JK Rowling a bigot? -Paul
[2020-06-09 13:27:32] - mig: roger. my understanding is that end-to-end encryption completly stops the ability to snoop on communications by anybody but the two sides. how would you set up a system where you could snoop on only some people's communications in an end-to-end encryption scenario? ~a
[2020-06-09 13:18:06] - a: by itself, I don't know if it outright ends it, but definitely pushing things in that direction. - mig
[2020-06-09 13:03:55] - mig: "everybody" (the press, and activists, etc) seems to think this pannel of law enforcement will effectively eliminate end-to-end encryption in the united states? do you agree? ~a
[2020-06-09 12:31:27] - a: this has "chilling effect" and "unaccountable bureaucracy" written all over it. - mig
[2020-06-09 12:15:40] - xpovos: child online sexual exploitation measure won’t protect children. thoughts? i'm pretty sure the earn-it act has nothing to do with children, but it'd still be cool to know your opinion. ~a
[2020-06-09 01:27:42] - hmmm I guess 50 is from the "low" in 1932 oops. ~a
[2020-06-09 01:24:57] - im not sure, but I thought Aaron was trying to make a point. I did the math anyway and got 7% per year ignoring inflation ((27572÷50)^(1÷91)). ~a
[2020-06-08 23:32:31] - aaron: That... doesn't seem right for a lot of reasons. For starters, it's not 2029 yet... -Paul
[2020-06-08 22:03:55] - xpovos: amen. this kind voter fraud isn't helped or hurt by vote by mail. ~a
[2020-06-08 21:24:42] - Voter fraud is real, but it looks different than people expect. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery -- Xpovos
[2020-06-08 20:13:16] - (that's not really related to the rate of fatal police shootings among black americans. ...although i guess technically, it is in a way.) - aaron
[2020-06-08 20:11:41] - here's an interesting statistic: if you invested $1,000 in the dow jones in january 1929, and it alone for 100 years -- on average you'd triple your money every year - aaron
[2020-06-08 19:22:39] - Aaron: Right, like Miguel said, it depends on if you're looking at absolute numbers or percentages. By percentage it appears to be higher (and, of course, this talks about shootings when the incident which has kicked all of this off wasn't a shooting at all). And if we wanted to get more "accurate", it's probably worth looking at deaths as a percentage of police interactions. It's complicated and nuanced! -Paul
[2020-06-08 16:16:57] - aaron: it depends on whether you want to look at absolute #s or rate per $x. - mig
[2020-06-08 16:05:05] - did you mean to link to a different page? - aaron
[2020-06-08 16:04:42] - paul: i'm slightly confused because the statista.com web site you linked states "the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 30 fatal shootings per million" but then your statement contradicts that - aaron
[2020-06-08 13:49:37] - a: Sorry, I can shut up now. I need to get work done anyway. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:49:22] - push away support. Why!? Why is it always about this stupid semantic war? Why do we have to single out black lives and not only not ally with people who see a larger issue but actively demonize them? It's super frustrating. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:48:16] - Daniel: It's just super frustrating because this is an issue that I've been paying attention for for probably over a decade and it seemed like we finally might have reached some sort of inflection point in the past few years where we can make meaningful progress towards some reforms and instead I'm seeing rioting and looting and policing of language to say that "all lives matter" is offense.... all of which seems designed to... -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:45:36] - Daniel: No, it's NOT the entire point. It's YOUR entire point. My point is to save all lives, not just black lives. And I'm not sure your statement that they are the ones that get killed the most is right (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/). Although if you want to say killed in greater proportion, that's maybe more accurate. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:44:20] - paul: i kinda don't really care about the "black lives matter" vs "all lives matter" debate. i'll just concede, because i'm tired of it. i'll start replying again when we've started discussing something new. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:42:41] - Paul: Then I guess honestly I think you aren't paying attention? Because the protests aren't arguing for just anti racist trainings in police depts. All of those things you listed are much more in line with what I've seen come out of the protests. Will those help everyone? Sure. Know who they are going to help the most? Black peeps because they are the ones that get killed the most. Which is the ENTIRE point. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 13:38:32] - Daniel: Sure, I get the difference, and I even lean into that. I think "black lives matter" is the wrong context to view this issue in and I think "all lives matter" is a better context. I think we will get better results by addressing reforms that would help ALL people (qualified immunity, more body cameras, getting rid of bad cops) versus reforms which focus on anti-racism training or whatever else. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:36:51] - a: Sure, but you're still saying it to a complete stranger. Also, I've had polls done in public before (many many years ago), and I've had pollsters express surprise at my answers. Not all polling is done completely the right way. -paul
[2020-06-08 13:36:03] - paul: if someone wants to ACT non-racist, for fear of people thinking that they are bad people otherwise, i think that's a start. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:34:51] - a: Maybe. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if you found a poll saying support has gone down, and I also wouldn't be surprised if some (many?) people legit changed their mind. But I also think plenty of people might not change their mind and just say they did because they don't want to be called racist. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:34:34] - I think if pollsters asked people Do you support the idea that all lives matter I think most (78%?) would say yes. I think pollsters asked would you respond with "All Lives Matter" to someone who said "Black Lives Matter" you would end up with a MUCH lower %. There is a difference there Paul if you refuse to see one. You are part of a larger context even if you don't want to be. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 13:33:55] - paul: polls are rarely public. they want you to be honest or it completely defeats the poll. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:32:46] - paul: also, it could still be that 78% of americans ALSO think all lives matter, (because the two poll questions aren't exact opposites), but i doubt it. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:31:53] - paul: evidence. careful, there are some old poll numbers in there (as a comparison). when it comes to 2020, 64% of americans sympathize with "people who are out protesting right now". ~a
[2020-06-08 13:29:09] - a: I might even say no. We've already established that expressing support for it is a fire-able offense and that saying it makes everybody think you're racist. Why on Earth would I admit such a thing publicly? -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:28:13] - a: Maybe. Can you find any evidence of that? 5 years isn't TOO long. I actually bet it is lower today as well, but that goes back to my previous point about not telling pollsters things once it has been established that merely expressing a sentiment gets you canceled. Honestly? If I was asked if I believed "all lives matter" by a pollster, I would think twice about my answer. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:27:33] - paul: i don't think a majority of americans are racist. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:26:57] - a: From previous conversation, I know you and Daniel think that.... a majority? a lot? I can't remember.... of Americans are racist, so maybe that is what you truly believe. I also know that Daniel thinks all cops (and all people?) are bastards, so I'm not throwing this out there as a gotcha. I am legitimately wondering if you consider all those people racist. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:26:45] - paul: according to a poll in 2015? nah, we've seen a major change in june of 2020. i bet that number is much lower today. ~a
[2020-06-08 13:25:34] - a: I mean, we can pretty much end this right now if you just tell me that you think that all of those people listed in the wikipedia article think the way you do that black people shouldn't get equal treatment by the police. Because if you believe that 78% of Americans are racist then I don't think there's a middle ground we can agree on. -Paul
[2020-06-08 13:24:16] - a: "if anything it means you're against black people getting equal treatment by the police" According to you, but who gets to determine what those words mean? Is that what the words mean when Tim Scott or 78% of Americans say it? I don't think that's what it means at all. I think it means what it literally means, "all lives matter, whether they are black or brown or white or whatever". -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:50:55] - paul: "hail victory", "lying press". when you use these phrases they have meaning. if you only look at the WORDS of "all lives matter" you ignore how its used as a response. ~a
[2020-06-08 12:50:21] - paul: no. "all lives matter" is a response to "black lives matter". if anything it means you're against black people getting equal treatment by the police. not because what the words SAY but because of how those words are used as a RESPONSE. some words get special meaning in the context of a specific argument, if you want some examples of that, we have "you will not replace us", "blood and soil", "long live our glorious leader", ~a
[2020-06-08 12:44:16] - a: But, that's kinda what the message is, right? That if you say "all lives matter" then you don't think black lives matter and therefore you're a-ok with them getting lynched or killed by cops or whatever. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:43:23] - a: "a bad-faith summary" Yeah, probably. I just brought it up because of Daniel's analogy about ropes and I know if he was a Republican politician who made that analogy the newspaper headline would be, "Republican politician compares X to lynching!". But you're right, it's not right when they do it so I shouldn't either. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:42:17] - a: "i don't feel like we have" I 100% agree that you have not censored me. I censor myself. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:41:31] - I have this radical idea that maybe, just maybe, we should allow people to voice their radical dissenting opinion that "all lives matter" and listen to what they have to say instead of immediately writing them off as hopelessly and irredeemably racist. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:41:27] - paul: "all lives matter" as "i want to see black people lynched" is a bad-faith summary. ~a
[2020-06-08 12:40:54] - paul: "there are many things I believe and many things I think should be allowed to at least be expressed that I don't dare say in a public forum (some of which I don't even really say here)" i feel like you've implied we censor you. is that incorrect? i don't feel like we have. do you disagree? ~a
[2020-06-08 12:40:10] - mig: And this seems as good a hill as any. I think it takes a very bizarre mindset to interpret "All Lives Matter" as "I want to see black people lynched", especially when espoused by people like Richard Sherman. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:39:17] - mig: "this very specific hill isn't worth dying on" Maybe. What would be a better one? I'll admit it's less about this specific issue and more about the general movement of vocal minorities (and by minorities I do not mean racial minorities) shouting down opposing opinions and dictating what is acceptable discourse. -paul
[2020-06-08 12:37:41] - Judith Butler is entitled to her opinion, but I don't believe she gets to define what is acceptable discourse. She can think what she thinks and I should be able to think what I think and I think both opinions should be able to be voiced and debated. Instead, we're at a point where the opinions of 78% of Americans has been declared unacceptable. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:34:43] - Daniel: Let me as you straight up? Do you think 78% of Americans think black lives don't matter? Because using your logic, that is exactly what you are saying. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:33:50] - Daniel: If you said, "I think the poor deserve a tax cut" and I reply with, "I think we all deserve a tax cut", there is no reasonable interpretation of that to me which means, "I think everybody BUT the poor deserve a tax cut". -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:32:53] - Daniel: "you respond with "All Lives Matter" that is you repudiating the concept of BLM" No it's not! How about this, maybe this is the problem. There is the movement "Black Lives Matter" and there is the concept of "Black Lives Matter". I support the concept, I do not support the movement. -Paul
[2020-06-08 12:09:49] - But I also feel the same way with acab. It's unnecessarily antagonistic, and very unhelpful. And quite frankly, bigoted. - mig
[2020-06-08 11:50:17] - paul: I get what you are trying to say, but I'll repeat myself and just say this very specific hill isn't worth dying on. - mig
[2020-06-08 11:34:03] - daniel: there's some nice foundations - simply not trying to involve police to needlessly escalate mundane issues is a really great start. There's no mention of how violent crime would be dealt with though. That's kind of an important detail that probably should be addressed. - mig
[2020-06-08 11:18:24] - You'll probably see Biden do this same dance too. - mig
[2020-06-08 11:17:46] - daniel: I'm simply not seeing any scenario where the funding of police is cut back to where it doesn't affect pay/pensions. Just keep in mind, it's not something I'm against, but I do have get irritated when people latch onto slogans to be cool but insist they don't mean what they actually mean. - mig
[2020-06-08 05:31:57] - mig: More details on the defunding (in this case maybe completely*) of the police: https://time.com/5848705/disband-and-replace-minneapolis-police/ -Daniel
[2020-06-08 05:26:04] - a: Yeah I think to some degree everyone is a bastard. Stuff like police resisting body cams and other reforms I think should have been a bigger red flag that I (and I imagine so many others) let slide when I think its pretty indicative of cops not wanting oversight which then begs the question "Why don't you want oversight" which pretty clearly implies to me that they are doing bad things. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 05:22:14] - Berkley\
[2020-06-08 05:21:44] - “When some people rejoin with ‘All Lives Matter’ they misunderstand the problem, but not because their message is untrue,†she wrote. “It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve.†- Judith Butler, a professor at University of California, Ber
[2020-06-08 05:18:56] - Paul: Honestly from this converstion I can't tell if you are trying to just be hyper logical and ignore all cultural context in which case you are just being tone deaf or if you actually think that there isn't a reason to focus on issues facing black people and that we shouldn't be dealing with racism instead of dealing with other things. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 05:16:57] - Paul: Like if a group of white guys grabbed a black guy and said "we need a rope" would you defend that as maybe he just needs some rope, maybe he some cargo in his pickup to tie down or would you go whoa maybe they are about to lynch that dude and thats fucked up. Sometimes there is a larger meaning behind words. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 05:14:58] - Paul: However, if someone says publicly "Black Lives Matter" and you respond with "All Lives Matter" that is you repudiating the concept of BLM and saying we don't need to focus on you specifically, please stop complaining, we all have problems. Do you understand that part? That there is meaning associated with words that form a phrase? -Daniel
[2020-06-08 05:12:52] - Paul: There are different things here and I really hope you are trying to be strictly logical and pedantic because thats the best case here. The logical idea that all lives matter includes the subset of black lives matter is true and I think everyone understands the logical point you are making there. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 04:20:44] - "According to an August 2015 poll, 78% of likely American voters said that the statement All Lives Matter was "close[r] to [their] own" point of view than was Black Lives Matter." So, yeah, I don't feel too bad dying on this hill that the majority of Americans are horrible racists who feel like black lives don't matter. -Paul
[2020-06-08 04:20:01] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter Sorry, I guess that's not the end. I wanted to leave this here for my "All Lives Matter" point. The saying was (and still is?) supported by such notable racists as Hilary Clinton, Richard Sherman, Tim Scott, and Ben Carson. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:24:39] - And that's the end of my soapbox for tonight. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:23:13] - If you want to win elections and get the bad orange man out of office, maybe stop trying to find ways of accusing everybody that they're bad people? -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:21:25] - I am saying all of this not to try to get pity or anything, and not to point fingers at anybody here. It's more of a larger point about the country and maybe the world. It feels like there is a very vocal minority who is trying to force their list of banned terms and words on a quiet majority who just wants to go through life not getting called a bigot and I think that pendulum is going too far. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:17:38] - Because when you make long lists of things that people aren't allowed to say or else they're going to get lambasted as racists or sexists or homophobes or bigots or whatever and shout those people into submission.... they're probably not going to tell pollsters or journalists what they think. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:15:17] - And maybe just having me angry and silent is fine and leads to a better world. I don't know. But I don't think I'm alone at all. I even suspect I am in the majority. I think this ever increasing policing of words played some part in the election of Donald Trump and I think it's going to continue to bite the censors in the ass at the ballot box in ways that defy measurement. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:12:42] - And none of this is at all making me think my opinions are wrong. I still hold them. I just bite my tongue and don't say anything, and frankly get more and more frustrated and angry that I don't feel like I am permitted to express myself. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:11:43] - And it has nothing to do with me thinking it's wrong in any way. It has more to do with the fact that I am legitimately scared that it will somehow cause me to lose my job or have some other harm to me. The number of topics that I feel I am not allowed to speak my opinion on has grown larger and larger and my fear of expressing myself has also grown. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:09:55] - Anyway, I gave this a lot of thought on my way home tonight (2+ hour drive home by myself), and I just wanted to throw this out there and then I'll try to drop this again: There are many things I believe and many things I think should be allowed to at least be expressed that I don't dare say in a public forum (some of which I don't even really say here). -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:07:22] - Daniel: I agree it doesn't seem complicated in any form or fashion. "All lives matter" means "all lives matter" and it's bonkers to me that people are trying to twist it into it somehow meaning something that it is almost the literal contradiction of. -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:06:14] - Daniel: Because "all lives matter" doesn't have to mean a repudiation of "black lives matter"? Because it's inherently a far more inclusive phrase? Because you don't get to re-define what words mean and then retroactively apply them to my motivations? -Paul
[2020-06-08 03:04:43] - a: "you have the false position that it's two equal sides" Sure, if that's what you want to believe. I know I'm not going to change your mind on this, so I'll just say that hopefully for you your opinions never cross the mob's opinions. -Paul
[2020-06-08 02:35:17] - everybody is a bastard? ~a
[2020-06-08 00:40:24] - Me included. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 00:40:18] - After a debate about ACAB with Andrea here an intruiging idea is that while I'm way closer to ACAB perhaps I'm limiting myself in looking at the scope and that while I think there are elements of ACAB its more of our whole country is bad because we all allowed this shit to happen. -Daniel
[2020-06-08 00:09:46] - mig: I think you could defund the police in some capacity without cutting pay or pensions. Like maybe just no more money for tear gas (no realistic but just as an example). Though with money its hard - I don't know how control cities vs actual police depts cause money is fungible and all that. The dept could just cut pay and buy tear gas and then blame the city? -Daniel
[2020-06-08 00:07:06] - mig: I think it could mean not expanind budgets. I think thats happened in LA. Instead of the proposed budget expansion for next year they moved that money to community programs. -Daniel
[2020-06-07 23:40:12] - stephanie is an idiot. ~a
[2020-06-07 23:14:37] - So, ummm, what the fuck does it mean then? - mig
[2020-06-06 14:49:25] - paul: going to have to agree w/ daniel and adrian on this one. This seems like a weird hill to die on. - mig
[2020-06-06 06:24:25] - I still don't understand why this is hard for you or anyone else. It doesn't seem complicated in any form or fashion. -Daniel
[2020-06-06 06:23:10] - -Daniel
[2020-06-06 06:23:07] - And maybe you have some deep nuanced position on how you think there is some broader issue that should be focused on at a national level that is more important starting with "All lives matter" is super dumb currently because it just reads as anti blm currently. If you say "Black lives matter - they are what we need to work on to get to all lives matter" thats probably cool. Just saying "All lives matter" without anything else is bad.-Danie
[2020-06-06 06:20:50] - Paul: Are you honestly so blind to this that you can't understand that in the current environment when you say "All lives matter" it reads as a repudiation of "Black Lives Matter"? The whole point of 'Black Lives Matter' is that most of us seem to agree thats where we should be focusing. So when you say "All lives matter" it seems like you are saying no I think Black Lives are good where they are so lets focus on other broad things.-Daniel
[2020-06-06 02:45:44] - you have the false position that it's two equal sides. two sides doing the same things and only one side is getting punished for their words. ~a
[2020-06-06 01:49:50] - a: I wish that were the case, but it's not, and that's why worries me. We can agree to disagree here, but pretty much anywhere else it's not "to each their own", but one side gets to be loud and proud and the other gets fired for it. That's what really bothers me. -Paul
[2020-06-06 01:46:23] - to each their own. ~a
[2020-06-06 01:45:21] - a: "i'm very glad he got fired" Sounds suspiciously like applauding to me. I disagree that it's a dumb thing to say. I think it's less dumb than saying "Black Lives Matter", frankly. -Paul
[2020-06-06 01:21:57] - i'm very glad he got fired. it's his job to not say dumb things, like that's what he's paid to not do. and he said something dumb. cut and dry, in my opinion. ~a
[2020-06-05 23:05:03] - a: Right, but not everybody agree "all cops are bastards". I might even call it somewhat controversial. By your own admission, "everybody believes all lives matter". -Paul
[2020-06-05 20:13:59] - bleh, i keep misspelling her name. ~a
[2020-06-05 20:12:02] - mig: agreed. i was responding to your tweet, though. murial bowser, a democrat is running the city with *not* the worst police brutality in america right now, and that's thanks to her. most (if not all) of the dc police brutality isn't mpd. ~a
[2020-06-05 19:44:15] - a: dc is always going to be a weird case since it intersects with the federal government in a lot of ways. - mig
[2020-06-05 19:41:40] - mig: dc is an exception to all that. murial bowser is a democrat and the actual dc police, for the most part, haven't overstepped their authority. the really notable fucked-upedness (by police) in dc was at the direction of the president even though he always tries really hard to pass-the-buck. ~a
[2020-06-05 19:37:11] - yah. ~a
[2020-06-05 19:35:53] - https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1268911183878410246 - mig
[2020-06-05 16:56:01] - (don't know why i addressed that to paul, sorry. that was a mistake) ~a
[2020-06-05 16:55:45] - paul: this section of 16th street is now called black lives matter plaza. they picked a good spot too. this is the literal corner where peaceful protesters were gassed for a photo-op in front of st john's episcopal church. ~a
[2020-06-05 15:38:26] - at best, "All Lives Matter" is kind of concern trolling. - mig
[2020-06-05 15:31:37] - paul: personally I don't see much productivity with the "all lives matter" slogan. I'm not a fan of the overuse of "dog whistle" but I think in this case it applies, even if it's not the intent. - mig
[2020-06-05 15:30:49] - paul: we can make a more complete analogy if you'd like. how about if a radio show personality said "all cops are bastards". and then was fired. yeah, i wouldn't mind. it's their job to be a public-facing person. don't say "all cops are bastards", man. it's like literally your job to not say that kind of thing. ~a
[2020-06-05 15:14:23] - if some other different radio host says some dog-whistle bullshit, i won't cry you a fucking river. ~a
[2020-06-05 15:12:58] - no. but i didn't applaud this other thing either. ~a
[2020-06-05 15:06:26] - a: His job is to announce NBA games, not provide deep insights into racial dynamics in the US. So you're saying if somebody got fired for saying Black Lives Matter you would applaud it to? -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:58:26] - it's like saying you can't fire a PR firm for being shitty at PR. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:58:00] - paul: radio show personalities get hired and fired for their personalities. if you think they shouldn't be able to be fired for having some bad PR, then i'm not sure why you'd even want to hire them. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:52:24] - paul: i'm a little sad i have to iterate all the differences, but ok. you're not a radio personality who's job it is to be a radio personality with all that includes. if you were, and this message board was twitter. and you had hundreds of thousands of followers (including many in the press), and you replied to another person with hundreds of thousands of followers who had just said "black lives matter", then no. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:51:22] - a: So expressing something that everybody believes is offensive? -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:49:50] - paul: everybody believes all lives matter. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:49:24] - a: Well, I believe all lives matter. Do you think that's a dog whistle and I don't deserve to hold my job? -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:47:50] - paul: i don't think everybody in the country is racist now. i don't think what he said was innocuous. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:45:37] - a: Although I guess I can see how you think like everybody in the country is racist now. When you assume such innocuous things are signs of racism, I guess everybody will quickly seem racist. -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:44:58] - a: *Shrug* Agree to disagree. I strongly think the idea that expressing the idea that "All Lives Matter" is somehow racist or offensive is.... incredibly stupid. I am sorry for him, even if you have no sympathy. -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:43:01] - the dea has been given permission to investigate people protesting george floyd’s death . . . ok now THIS has got to be illegal. how can you change the very nature of an agency? ~a
[2020-06-05 14:37:34] - paul: "It's one thing to... ignore or downplay the violence and looting" and it's another thing to downplay the violence by the police. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:36:31] - paul: a radio show personality got fired for publicly posting some dog-whistle bullshit. cry me a fucking river. ~a
[2020-06-05 14:35:57] - mig: That's why I find the support for these protests so frustrating in some aspects. It's one thing to... ignore or downplay the violence and looting, but a lot of times those activities are hurting the very people the protesters are claiming to support. -Paul
[2020-06-05 14:31:51] - a: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29257525/kings-play-play-announcer-grant-napear-resigns-all-lives-matter-tweet Apparently "All Lives Matter" is (still?) a fire-able (or technically resign-able) offense. -Paul
[2020-06-05 13:46:52] - mig: wow that sucks. ~a
[2020-06-05 13:45:19] - https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/06/03/chicagos-south-side-left-with-few-food-options-after-weekend-violence/ but it was for a good cause i guess. *insert MLK quote* for big brain take. - mig
[2020-06-05 13:29:01] - https://mobile.twitter.com/dacheslow/status/1268869444643799040 quite the escalation. ~a
[2020-06-04 21:07:50] - mig: constitutional amendments require signature by three-fourths of the states. very unlikely to be addressed, like ever, but it's still a thing. ~a
[2020-06-04 21:05:59] - paul: i've seen a lot of "all lives matter" protest-signs/tweets recently. it reminded me of our many discussions here. anyways, here they are: one two three four. ~a
[2020-06-04 20:32:47] - a: The federal office age requirements are lined out in the constitution. There's no legislative fix available for it. - mig
[2020-06-04 20:11:47] - a: reduced government spending for ineffective and/or abusive departments is generally good, but I have some skepticism the money will be redirected to their stated purposes. - mig
[2020-06-04 19:30:54] - a reminder that things can always be worse. - mig
[2020-06-04 18:40:58] - i saw some of these guys! my first thought was that they were police-on-loan, like (apparently) arlington pd did over the weekend. but actually, now i think i was probably wrong? they're probably technically-legal, but under-the-table. when does it go from under-the-table, to an occupying force? ~a
[2020-06-04 18:17:41] - link2, where actual change is happening. thoughts? ~a
[2020-06-04 18:17:27] - "you said this was going to change, and you reneged on it. If we keep funding them, it gives them the green light to continue" link1, a problem and a solution i hadn't considered. ~a
[2020-06-04 18:15:04] - Paul: I don't totally know - just off the various things I've read and her speech about corona but that was taped so don't know if it counts for much. -Daniel
[2020-06-04 18:14:04] - a: Those are good tips for teaching. I'm not sure about if I can start with graphics or not but I can certainly try to start wtih something better than hello world. -Daniel
[2020-06-04 18:12:13] - Daniel: How can you tell? Does she actually do anything beyond wave at people? -Paul
[2020-06-04 17:56:50] - Paul: Queen still seems relatively with it? -Daniel
[2020-06-04 17:56:46] - ohio, rhode island, wisconson, california, washington, montana, vermont, these are all states that have their shit together. federal law is dumb here too though: 35?! wtf are they citizens or aren't they?! ~a
[2020-06-04 17:52:59] - paul: that's fair, but you can be unhinged at any age. instead of getting people to not-vote for people over 70, i'd suggest a movement of people pushing for the relaxing of age restrictions in the other direction. all of these laws are dumb. i'd propose scraping all of them, but any forward (backward) progress would be helpful. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:51:33] - a: I mean, is there somebody over 70 in power that you think is all there and still sharp and has a good temperament (I had no idea there was an "A" in that word). -Paul
[2020-06-04 17:50:07] - a: #BelieveAllWomen. Believe it or not, this wasn't intended to be a prelude to urging people to vote third party. It's just that (ageist or not), it seems like a lot of the really unhinged or out of touch or... people in mental decline seem to be politicians over 70. -Paul
[2020-06-04 17:45:33] - though you'll obviously get pushback from both-sides that their candidate isn't technically a rapist (or some similar argument). ~a
[2020-06-04 17:44:53] - that'll be an easier sell. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:44:37] - a: Okay, how about vote for a non-rapist?
-Paul[2020-06-04 17:44:17] - a: Yeah, it's super ageist, but I dunno.... I just saw a video of an unhinged Guliani and I legit think he's not just acting crazy to cozy up to Trump... I think he's lost something in his age. He didn't used to be that crazy. -Paul
[2020-06-04 17:43:56] - especially this time around. i'm all for voting for a 3rd party, but when ~90% of the votes are going to go to someone over 70 in the general this year, you're kinda pissing into the wind at a certain point. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:42:53] - also for what it's worth, you'll also get push-back that such a "requirement" or "suggestion" makes more sense for voting in the primaries. less-true after the primaries are over and you have less control over such things. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:41:57] - well everybody will call you ageist. and it's probably true. but even though it's ageist as fuck, it might also be a good idea. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:41:13] - Question: Is there anything wrong with saying this (partially in jest... but only partially)? "I don't know about term limits, but I do think we should all think twice about voting for anybody over the age of 70." -Paul
[2020-06-04 17:22:43] - uhhh, that's enough for now i guess. any questions?
~a[2020-06-04 17:21:04] - they also got bogged down in some home-grown libraries that worked only so well. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:20:35] - 8. eighth tip, stay away from git and build-systems (and libraries) and anything that can over-complicate things. this one actually was borne out from one of my coworkers that had a simmilar (volunteer) job teaching robotics programming to high school students. they used git (big mistake) and android (big mistake). ~a
[2020-06-04 17:18:51] - 5. fifth tip, don't expect much. it's better to underestimate someone than overestimate them. 6. sixth tip, don't overwhelm them. for kids this is very easy to accidentally do. 7. seventh tip, every kid is different. if i kid wants to do ANYTHING let them do it, but sometimes you can dissuade them from biting off more than they can chew by having them start with a part of what they want to do. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:17:15] - 4. fourth tip, start small. very very small. smaller than you think. don't teach them the language, teach them what they can do with the language using a single sentence, or one-liner, that sort of thing. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:16:07] - 3. third tip, (this tip applies to kids only, for adults it might matter less) graphics should be the first step. "hello world" is actually kinda dumb, you should be showing them how to draw a line or display an image, or some stylized text on a display, not System.out.println. this is why logowriter is AMAZING (*for kids*). graphics is actually easier than anything. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:13:31] - 2. second tip, make it hands on from the get-go. your first step / goal should be to figure out what they're creating. when i was teaching kids that was ALWAYS a video-game. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:12:37] - daniel: gotcha. 1. first tip, imo, remote training would be VERY hard to use. (i've learned that way, but creation of those materials are orders of magnitude more complex) non-remote training is much easier and better in this situation. ~a
[2020-06-04 17:10:10] - a: I don't know yet if it would be remote or not... Its not 100% but I'm leaving my current project and might help my company develop / look over some java training stuff they have for adults who are potentially brand new to coding. -Daniel
[2020-06-04 16:17:20] - daniel: i would ask politely for a lot more context. i've done it a lot, actually. it was my first real job. they were all kids, and i was teaching most of them logowriter (and of that ilk). but if this is an adult, and/or they're trying to learn for a specific reason, and/or you're doing this remotely, that would be all useful information. ~a
[2020-06-04 15:53:41] - Anyone ever taught a hypothetical person off the street how to code? Any tips on that front? -Daniel
[2020-06-04 02:50:13] - daniel: meh. he left over a year ago. ~a
[2020-06-04 02:39:49] - agreed. i'm very surprised. ~a
[2020-06-04 01:52:56] - honestly its a minor miracle all 4 ex-officers were arrested to begin with. - mig
[2020-06-04 00:39:30] - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-7c37-d3d2-ab7a-7f3762a80000&fbclid=IwAR3OgfOauPCdDRZqWi_BvgHtUAxZ5AZa50T4KQRewW0tL3cHF0oV2_t7Gy0 Better link pdf version of statement. -Daniel
[2020-06-04 00:37:55] - him being trump. -Daniel
[2020-06-04 00:37:41] - General (?) Sec Def(? Not sure on title) Mattis on board: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1268326891477442560.html. Rips Trump. If the military bails on him not sure where that goes. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 19:32:03] - something like that, yeah. ~a
[2020-06-03 19:31:39] - Ah, okay. So third degree murder can be an accident if somebody is reckless enough? -Paul
[2020-06-03 19:18:21] - paul: "John Grey killed his insubordinate servant by striking him in the head with an iron bar. Grey claimed he was not guilty of murder, since he had intended only to discipline the servant". not exactly recent case law, but it is a similar situation. ~a
[2020-06-03 19:18:06] - Former being 3rd degree murder and the latter being second degree manslaughter. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 19:17:32] - Paul: “the unintentional taking of human life by an act evincing a wanton and reckless disregard of life.†vs “gross negligence coupled with the element of recklessness.†according to the article. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 19:17:15] - actually intent is the wrong word, really meant premeditation for 1st and 2nd. - mig
[2020-06-03 19:09:25] - a: I'm not sure I see what you're talking about. They use a lot of fancy language and refer to things like "depraved heart" and talk about it at length, but doesn't it ultimately come down to whether it was intentional or an accident? Or if he could've known his actions could've caused death? I'll admit I'm less clear about the degrees. -paul
[2020-06-03 19:08:30] - paul: 1st and 2nd degree have to establish intent i believe. Not sure about 3rd degree. - mig
[2020-06-03 19:02:42] - paul: not, not at all. check out the dispatch article i linked, they talk about what murder means exactly. it includes a lot of things you might consider manslaughter. either way, i think i'd be satisfied with manslaughter. ~a
[2020-06-03 19:01:53] - a: I'm no lawyer, but manslaughter seems like it's the right charge, right? Doesn't murder require intent or premeditation or something? -Paul
[2020-06-03 18:32:02] - daniel: yeah, thanks. (probably controversial, but) if he gets charged with "manslaughter" instead of "murder" i'll still be satisfied. i'm just worried he'll get nuthin. ~a
[2020-06-03 18:28:15] - a: The dispatch article was a good read. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 18:23:26] - george bush released a statement yesterday. no surprises, since bush has never been a fan of trump. still, lots of republicans love to fall in line behind trump, it's nice to see some dissent of this behavior. ~a
[2020-06-03 18:16:48] - pelosi's daughter was by the church where the tear gas was used on peaceful protesters over a photo op, on monday. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:52:48] - paul: yah. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:52:30] - a: Juries tend to give a lot of deference to cops. Honestly, right now my main hope is that he doesn't get re-hired as a cop somewhere else. I know that's a low bar, but I've seen plenty of scenarios where bad cops get re-hired elsewhere time after time. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:38:38] - oof, we're in for a rough road ~a
[2020-06-03 17:34:36] - paul: agreed. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:33:40] - a: Yes, I think differentiating between groups and individuals is important and I do think most of these protesters are peaceful and well-intentioned and (perhaps more controversially) I believe most cops are good people trying to do the right thing. I DO believe the system, though, helps to protect those bad cops and can minimize the impacts of good ones. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:18:09] - it was the parenthetical that i misinterpreted as being part of the last sentence. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:17:39] - paul: oh nm, i misread your post. ignore me. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:17:18] - "It's probably a minority on both sides" meh, i disagree with you and daniel on this. but, i think it's a minority on both sides that are assholes. maybe it doesn't matter. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:13:41] - a: "not all cops are bastards, and not all protesters are violent rioters" Yes, I 100% agree, which is why I am not a fan of the police OR the protesters (in general, since this is all about not painting everybody with a broad brush.... many have acted admirable on both sides). It's probably a minority on both sides, but both sides have bastards doing bad things. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:08:50] - mig: ok. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:08:24] - a: maybe? - mig
[2020-06-03 17:08:01] - paul: nah they can both be wrong. your thinking that is part of the problem is that you treat all people in the same brush. not all cops are bastards, and not all protesters are violent rioters. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:07:36] - a: Depends on your definition of "better". Mine was a personal attack against somebody that I know and don't actually think is a piece of shit at all, so I consider mine far worse. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:06:51] - a: But I also think the "our side" thinking is part of the problem. I suspect you and Daniel see this as a "The protesters are against X, so you have to support the protesters or else you are for X". It's a "you're either with us or against us" mentality. I don't see why both can't be wrong. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:06:49] - paul: well, so the conversation daniel and i had was about the word ALL. so in your case you were only saying one person was a bastard. yours IS better. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:06:07] - paul: imo, bastards = pieces of shit. so no better is fine. ~a
[2020-06-03 17:05:11] - a: "you are a piece of shit" Ugh, I'm so embarrassed about that. What an absolutely inexcusable outburst by me. If you want that Paul on your side, then I'm sorry, I want that Paul dead and buried. That's no better (and in fact worse) than ACAB. -Paul
[2020-06-03 17:01:59] - mig: like, if a friend said, "hey, miguel, it's adrian. i'm thinking of going down to connecticut and H street, near-ish the whitehouse, tonight (wednesday, the 3rd) around 6pm, to protest george floyd's unlawful death. and we'll leave if there are any signs of violence by protestors, or rioters, OR police, did you want to come?" would you come? ~a
[2020-06-03 16:51:35] - mig: sorry please replace blm protest with "George Floyd protest" or "anti police brutality protest" my mistake. ~a
[2020-06-03 16:48:03] - I'm just clarifying your position. you'd attend a peaceful blm protest? ~a
[2020-06-03 16:22:43] - a: not sure where I made the impression that I'm not ok with peaceful protests? - mig
[2020-06-03 16:08:35] - mig: i think we knew what you meant. at least i did. i'm on your side here. but i'm not sure how you feel about peaceful protest. are you against that too? ~a
[2020-06-03 16:07:54] - that was way too many negatives, I'll rephrase. If a looter or rioter tells me they care about the injustice of George Floyd's murder, my response is I don't believe you. - mig
[2020-06-03 16:01:42] - daniel: I get to choose not to believe that rioters and looters don't care about Geroge Floyd, yes. - mig
[2020-06-03 15:52:53] - I don't think the violent parts are good. I think they are understandable and not an overreaction. Those are both true. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:52:45] - mig: (hypothetically) if i could promise nothing was going to be on fire, would you attend? ~a
[2020-06-03 15:52:18] - mig: what are your thoughts on peaceful protest? ~a
[2020-06-03 15:52:11] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/s-not-going-bring-my-brother-back-george-floyd-s-n1221306 i guess a sort of counterpoint. -mig
[2020-06-03 15:52:07] - mig: You get to decide they don't? -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:51:13] - daniel: her perogative to feel that way but I think she's being naive if she thinks the people who burned down her restaurant gave any fucks about George Floyd. - mig
[2020-06-03 15:46:44] - https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.5593101/let-it-burn-owners-of-ruined-minneapolis-restaurant-stand-with-protesters-1.5593104 I think I would aspire to this, though to be fair it hasn't happened to me. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:46:26] - mig: Define ok? I'd be upset my car got burned. It wouldn't be good that my car got burned. But I still wouldn't be like "man why are they overreacting!". -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:46:10] - mig: an example of this. i'm not sure i would say the same thing, but after their "car" was set on fire, they still were "ok" with it. ~a
[2020-06-03 15:45:03] - daniel: would you be ok with it if it was your car? - mig
[2020-06-03 15:44:54] - "neither do I see it as an overreaction" oof, i couldn't disagree more. i do feel like "riots are the language of the unheard", but i ALSO think riots are (usually) an overreaction. ~a
[2020-06-03 15:43:19] - a: I'd leave to but that doesn't mean I think its an overreaction. I think the judgement of overrreaction is seperate from the value judgement to be clear. Setting a car on fire isn't good but neither do I see it as an overreaction. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:40:12] - once i see a protester set a car on fire, i will leave. though, once i see a police-officer set a car on fire, i will also leave.
~a[2020-06-03 15:38:12] - daniel: well, then i think we'd disagree there. i think *some* of the protests have been an overraction. some of them have not been an overreaction. i'll do my best to participate in the latter. ~a
[2020-06-03 15:37:20] - So if you view B (protests which have sometimes turned violent) as an "overreaction" to A (police murdering people in the street) then I suppose I can understand. However I guess I would say that B is not an overreaction to A in my judgement. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:36:29] - I guess "over reaction" is the key phrase. Like if I drop a paper clip and you punch me in the face because I dropped a paper clip then I suppose B is worse than A. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:35:43] - I can imagine scenarios where you have to deal with B first - fair. However if A still causes B I think A might still be worse. Like in Chernoby A is just mis trained guys flipping some switches and B is irradiating whole chunks of the countryside. B is worse in a vacuum but A directly led to B so while you have to deal wtih B you should prevent A from happening again. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:34:47] - "what is"="what if", sorry. ~a
[2020-06-03 15:29:15] - i mean, there is one big problem with your argument. what is problem B is a violent over-reaction to problem A? is there no scenario where you could imagine problem B being significantly worse than problem A? ~a
[2020-06-03 15:23:09] - Problem B can still be bad / a problem but by definition of being a subset of problem A is less. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:21:04] - So yes I think so. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:20:58] - If problem A leads to / causes problem B then in my head problem A is by definition worse since it includes problem B. Solving problem B just leaves problem A. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 15:16:20] - does it matter which is worse? ~a
[2020-06-03 15:13:05] - Paul: "I believe that there are too many bad cops who get away with murder (literally) and there's not a good enough system to get rid of them and/or punish them. I also believe rioting and looting is wrong". This is a good sentence that I agree with. However I think the first part is way worse than the second. I think the first represents a pervasive and systemic problem while the second is a temporary response to the first. -Daniel
[2020-06-03 14:49:07] - some times i long for the days when paul was on our side. "you are a piece of shit" is a quote that will forever be scorched into my memory. hopefully i'm quoting you correctly, god it was so long ago. am i? ~a
[2020-06-03 14:42:45] - paul: yes, i'm against violence. none of the protests i've been to have been violent. (ignoring the secret service, of course) if i saw a violent protest, i would refuse to participate. sorry some of the protests have been violent. i apologize on behalf of the violent protesters. seriously. i denounce that shit, i wish we could get past it somehow. bad apples spoil the bunch. there are bad people on both sides. ~a
[2020-06-03 14:39:41] - a: "your only complaint was about their means" That's a pretty big aspect, though. I mean, you could say I support the police during these protests as well and my "only" complaint is about their methods. When those methods involve violence I think that's a legitimately big complaint. Isn't that what we're all against here? -Paul
[2020-06-03 14:35:47] - i never claimed you don't care. i did claim you had lukewarm acceptance. i did claim your only complaint was about their means, and their methods of direct action. ~a
[2020-06-03 14:33:49] - But somehow I got roped into the exact same thing I said I would let others have the last word on, sorry. I'll shut up now, I got work to do anyway.
-Paul[2020-06-03 14:32:59] - ok, i never claimed you don't care. ~a
[2020-06-03 14:32:06] - Daniel: "This is the most wtf thing ever. There cause is to stop police from murdering people in the street. I can't even conceive how one doesn't 100% support this." -Paul
[2020-06-03 14:30:37] - paul: that's not accurate either. we never claimed you don't care. we claimed you don't like the protests. because that's what you've said. ~a
[2020-06-03 14:30:12] - a: The ends do not justify the means. Yes. -Paul
[2020-06-03 14:29:53] - a: And I don't understand at all why it SEEMS to me that you guys have this, "You either with the protesters or you want all black people to die" mentality. I know that's unfair, but I don't know how else to explain it. No matter how many times I try to say I support police reforms and whatnot it always comes back to, "How can you be for cops murdering people?" -Paul
[2020-06-03 14:29:17] - paul: "i agree with you in the goal you seek, but i cannot agree with your methods of direct action" is an accurate summary? ~a
[2020-06-03 14:28:34] - a: I support police reforms. I believe that there are too many bad cops who get away with murder (literally) and there's not a good enough system to get rid of them and/or punish them. I also believe rioting and looting is wrong and that gathering in mass groups right now is supremely stupid. There is no reason I can't believe all these things at once. -paul
prev <-> next