Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Algorithms of Hate  (Read 589 times)

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Algorithms of Hate
« on: February 26, 2019, 10:26:40 PM »
So I was seriously considering a thread, "On Bullshit"...
But before I get kicked out or resign to silent browsing let me start this one:
Please stick to one-liners/paragraphs with max. 3 sentences (incl. semicolons).
(Social)scientific aphorisms most welcome - No lurk o ramblings here, please.
P.S.:  ...and no clickable references, except YouTube.
P.P.S.: mind the googleability!
[Edit done]
.
.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 10:42:05 PM by Martin Gisser »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2019, 10:30:25 PM »
Please stick to one-liners/paragraphs with max. 3 sentences (incl. semicolons).

So, it's okay if I copypaste the last chapter of Ulysses?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2019, 10:54:22 PM »
From a review in this week's Economist:

Quote
Life and society are increasingly governed by numbers.
When everything is quantified, power accrues to whoever is keeping score.

The Metric Society. By Steffen Mau. Translated by Sharon Howe. Polity; 200 pages
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

johnm33

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1083
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2019, 11:58:33 PM »
as ones vision sets
and narrower gets
the faults always lies
in some others eyes.

Human Habitat Index

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2019, 12:33:48 AM »
The extinction will not be televised.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1305
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2019, 02:54:29 AM »
What you don't know
May be more important
Than what you think you do

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2019, 02:58:30 AM »
"Amateurs practice till they get it right.
 Professionals practice till they can't get it wrong."


"Everyone debates everything
 without understanding anything."
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3222
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 359
  • Likes Given: 772
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2019, 04:04:40 AM »
"This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2019, 04:19:14 AM »
What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2019, 05:21:43 AM »
Please stick to one-liners/paragraphs with max. 3 sentences (incl. semicolons).

So, it's okay if I copypaste the last chapter of Ulysses?
Better than Jimmy Dore :-)

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2019, 05:26:53 AM »
Thread title is not my idea, but Vandana Shiva's:

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2019, 07:58:17 AM »
Thread title is not my idea, but Vandana Shiva's:

And there was me thinking it must have been Andrew Jakubowicz's:

https://royalsoc.org.au/images/pdf/journal/151-1-Jakubowicz.pdf

The three (long) sentence conclusions, including but a single colon (and a pair of brackets):

Quote
Perhaps the Royal Society and the Academies, with their aspirations to link science with human prosperity and well-being, might well take on strategy development that looks to public policy based on science as a way forward (Came and Griffith, 2017).

A small group of mathematicians, philosophers, social scientists and others might workshop such ideas to contribute to crowd-sourcing resilience strategies, so that the algorithms that underpin social media in the future are not so conducive to the proliferation of hate: indeed, algorithms if not of love then at least of peace might eventuate.

Ultimately resilience requires strong networks that build active cells of knowledge, where racism can find no place to flourish.

Am I forgiven the clickable reference?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 08:04:01 AM by Jim Hunt »
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2019, 09:13:21 AM »
Thread title is not my idea, but Vandana Shiva's

So, what is this thread about exactly?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2019, 09:22:51 AM »
Found it on Democracy Now:

Quote
VANDANA SHIVA: Which is the tragedy these days, that the 1 percent money machine has become so powerful that it actually controls the political machine in a very big way. And we know the elections of the U.S. was Facebook handing over to Cambridge Analytica the “technology” angle, and you got the first artificial intelligence president based on algorithms of hate—hate for women, hate for blacks, hate for Muslims, hate for migrants. Now, you can’t run democracy on the hate machine. And you can’t run democracy by the hate machine being fueled through the divide-and-rule policy of the 1 percent to destroy our oneness, our solidarity, our recognition that we are one humanity and can be strong when we fight for the rights of the planet and for our basic rights to food and water and livelihoods and justice and democracy.

But, but, but, Martin! In the preceding paragraph Shiva repeats GOP propaganda! This totally disqualifies anything she says!

Quote
AMY GOODMAN: So, how does it feel to come to the United States? Because what you’re saying, the denial of the effects of climate change is very Trumpian.

VANDANA SHIVA: Well, sadly, in that case, it was President Obama, because he flew into Singapore to tell the governments, “Stop pushing for legally binding emissions.” He flew into Copenhagen after having received the Nobel Peace Prize, and called the five worst polluters—India, China included now—and said, “Let’s get rid of the legally binding convention.” And that’s why Paris is merely an agreement. It’s not the legally binding U.N. Framework Convention with emissions that were legally binding.

And it was in the middle of the negotiations he announced, “We’ve come to an agreement.” And that’s when Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, got up and said, “We were here to fight for the rights of Mother Earth. We weren’t here for the rights of polluters. And all of us are negotiating inside the hall. Five people get together and say, ’We’ve come to an agreement to destroy the Earth.’”

Evo Morales, the fascist authoritarian, who is lucky not to be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.

Here are my three sentences:

Black is white
Up is down
Hippie is neocon
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2019, 09:40:53 AM »
Apparently YouTube videos are in scope?

Also via the Economist:



Do not think of the white bear in the room!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 09:49:15 AM by Jim Hunt »
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2019, 10:08:38 AM »
Found it on Democracy Now:

Quote
VANDANA SHIVA: Which is the tragedy these days, that the 1 percent money machine has become so powerful that it actually controls the political machine in a very big way. And we know the elections of the U.S. was Facebook handing over to Cambridge Analytica the “technology” angle, and you got the first artificial intelligence president based on algorithms of hate—hate for women, hate for blacks, hate for Muslims, hate for migrants. Now, you can’t run democracy on the hate machine. And you can’t run democracy by the hate machine being fueled through the divide-and-rule policy of the 1 percent to destroy our oneness, our solidarity, our recognition that we are one humanity and can be strong when we fight for the rights of the planet and for our basic rights to food and water and livelihoods and justice and democracy.

But, but, but, Martin! In the preceding paragraph Shiva repeats GOP propaganda! This totally disqualifies anything she says!

Quote
AMY GOODMAN: So, how does it feel to come to the United States? Because what you’re saying, the denial of the effects of climate change is very Trumpian.

VANDANA SHIVA: Well, sadly, in that case, it was President Obama, because he flew into Singapore to tell the governments, “Stop pushing for legally binding emissions.” He flew into Copenhagen after having received the Nobel Peace Prize, and called the five worst polluters—India, China included now—and said, “Let’s get rid of the legally binding convention.” And that’s why Paris is merely an agreement. It’s not the legally binding U.N. Framework Convention with emissions that were legally binding.

And it was in the middle of the negotiations he announced, “We’ve come to an agreement.” And that’s when Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, got up and said, “We were here to fight for the rights of Mother Earth. We weren’t here for the rights of polluters. And all of us are negotiating inside the hall. Five people get together and say, ’We’ve come to an agreement to destroy the Earth.’”

Evo Morales, the fascist authoritarian, who is lucky not to be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.

Here are my three sentences:

Black is white
Up is down
Hippie is neocon

Of course a legally-binding treaty would have been better.
But for the US, a legally-binding treaty would require Senate ratification--which was never going to happen, even when Dems held a majority there.
So, better to have an agreement that's not legally binding, but which the US could sign on to, or better to have an agreement that the US would not be a party to?
I think Obama made the right call.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2019, 10:15:42 AM »
Of course a legally-binding treaty would have been better.
But for the US, a legally-binding treaty would require Senate ratification--which was never going to happen, even when Dems held a majority there.
So, better to have an agreement that's not legally binding, but which the US could sign on to, or better to have an agreement that the US would not be a party to?
I think Obama made the right call.

Thanks for making my point. We cannot trust anything Vandana Shiva says. Before you know it, she'll be on RT.

As for your other BS argument: Better to have a legally binding agreement that the US would not be a party to, and then use that to blame the Republicans and let them pay a political price for it, so you can join that legally binding agreement next time. But Obama's role is to provide cover the Republicans, so that together they achieve what is best for those who give them wealth and fame in return.

Another three sentences:

Reasonable people stand by and do nothing
Except for berating the unreasonable
To protect self-fulfilling prophecies
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2019, 10:40:53 AM »
Of course a legally-binding treaty would have been better.
But for the US, a legally-binding treaty would require Senate ratification--which was never going to happen, even when Dems held a majority there.
So, better to have an agreement that's not legally binding, but which the US could sign on to, or better to have an agreement that the US would not be a party to?
I think Obama made the right call.

Thanks for making my point. We cannot trust anything Vandana Shiva says. Before you know it, she'll be on RT.

As for your other BS argument: Better to have a legally binding agreement that the US would not be a party to, and then use that to blame the Republicans and let them pay a political price for it, so you can join that legally binding agreement next time. But Obama's role is to provide cover the Republicans, so that together they achieve what is best for those who give them wealth and fame in return.
 

It's not a bullshit argument.  On *any* issue, for a President to sign a treaty and then to have it fail ratification in the Senate is counter-productive.  Any issue, not just climate.  The failure demoralizes those in favor and empowers those in opposition.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2019, 11:08:03 AM »
On *any* issue, for a President to sign a treaty and then to have it fail ratification in the Senate is counter-productive.

Yes better to have a President who believes in something and then quits the battle field before the enemy has even left base camp. Real courageous. So totally convinced of his ability to negotiate what's best for the USA what's best for the world.

NOPE - QUITTING IS EASIER FOR WEAKLINGS (and Liars too btw)

BETTER for the global community to have a LEGALLY BINDING TREATY and a process to get as many countries onto it as possible than what exists today = NOTHING of VALUE

The USA didn't even stay in the "weak agreement" so what did Obama achieve?

NOTHING - NOT A THING .... except to make everything worse than it otherwise might have been - now and in the future. Obama the Quitter and I am not talking about cigarettes!!!

What is thread about anyway?
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2019, 11:28:58 AM »
On *any* issue, for a President to sign a treaty and then to have it fail ratification in the Senate is counter-productive.

Yes better to have a President who believes in something and then quits the battle field before the enemy has even left base camp. Real courageous. So totally convinced of his ability to negotiate what's best for the USA what's best for the world.

NOPE - QUITTING IS EASIER FOR WEAKLINGS (and Liars too btw)

BETTER for the global community to have a LEGALLY BINDING TREATY and a process to get as many countries onto it as possible than what exists today = NOTHING of VALUE

The USA didn't even stay in the "weak agreement" so what did Obama achieve?

NOTHING - NOT A THING .... except to make everything worse than it otherwise might have been - now and in the future. Obama the Quitter and I am not talking about cigarettes!!!

What is thread about anyway?

The alternative to a treaty requiring Senate ratification isn't nothing.  Effective agreements still happen. 

Here's an example of what happens when an a legally binding treaty fails in the Senate after having been advanced by a US administration:

Senate GOP rejects U.N. disabilities treaty
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/04/senate-gop-rejects-u-n-disabilities-treaty/

It's exactly what would have happened to the Paris Accord if it had been developed as a legally binding treaty.
The Obama administration developed and pushed for this Convention.  It would have protected disability rights around the world.  But it failed Senate ratification.  As a consequence all pressure evaporated for any other nation to pass it.  Supporters were demoralized.  Opponents were invigorated.

Is that the scenario you really would have preferred for the Paris Accord?

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2019, 11:47:08 AM »
On *any* issue, for a President to sign a treaty and then to have it fail ratification in the Senate is counter-productive.

Yes better to have a President who believes in something and then quits the battle field before the enemy has even left base camp. Real courageous. So totally convinced of his ability to negotiate what's best for the USA what's best for the world.

NOPE - QUITTING IS EASIER FOR WEAKLINGS (and Liars too btw)

BETTER for the global community to have a LEGALLY BINDING TREATY and a process to get as many countries onto it as possible than what exists today = NOTHING of VALUE

The USA didn't even stay in the "weak agreement" so what did Obama achieve?

NOTHING - NOT A THING .... except to make everything worse than it otherwise might have been - now and in the future. Obama the Quitter and I am not talking about cigarettes!!!

What is thread about anyway?

The alternative to a treaty requiring Senate ratification isn't nothing.  Effective agreements still happen. 

Here's an example of what happens when an a legally binding treaty fails in the Senate after having been advanced by a US administration:

Senate GOP rejects U.N. disabilities treaty
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/04/senate-gop-rejects-u-n-disabilities-treaty/

It's exactly what would have happened to the Paris Accord if it had been developed as a legally binding treaty.
The Obama administration developed and pushed for this Convention.  It would have protected disability rights around the world.  But it failed Senate ratification.  As a consequence all pressure evaporated for any other nation to pass it.  Supporters were demoralized.  Opponents were invigorated.

Is that the scenario you really would have preferred for the Paris Accord?

YES - if that is the truth and the reality of it then YES. I am sick of fakes Steve. And pussies. 

Look I have a totally different take on this things Steve. America is not the Sun ... the rest of the world does not have to revolve around it.

Yes they do, yes they choose to even though they do not have to. But it doesn't not change the rightness of the basic principle or the logic of it.

If people get "demoralized" about the US Senate not passing something then -- they need to grow some balls (even the women) and get real. Seriously what a bunch of sooks.

There is the old saying OK - if you cannot handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. C'ya Obama. I honestly see him as a weak pussy - honestly I do - I think it should be obvious, but it is not. If is not a weak pussy then this should prove to everyone that he instead was a total Fraud - a double agent if you will. 

If people are going to fold to give up to cry on other people's shoulders when the "project gets tough" and when setbacks arise then it is mush better to cull them out of the program a because it opens up the doors for NEW people who might actually be capable of fighting and winning the tough battles to join the team and take the project forward.

I don't have a problem with you Steve .. I am merely saying what I think and believe about the subject.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 11:52:12 AM by Lurk »
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2019, 11:57:34 AM »
On *any* issue, for a President to sign a treaty and then to have it fail ratification in the Senate is counter-productive.

Yes better to have a President who believes in something and then quits the battle field before the enemy has even left base camp. Real courageous. So totally convinced of his ability to negotiate what's best for the USA what's best for the world.

NOPE - QUITTING IS EASIER FOR WEAKLINGS (and Liars too btw)

BETTER for the global community to have a LEGALLY BINDING TREATY and a process to get as many countries onto it as possible than what exists today = NOTHING of VALUE

The USA didn't even stay in the "weak agreement" so what did Obama achieve?

NOTHING - NOT A THING .... except to make everything worse than it otherwise might have been - now and in the future. Obama the Quitter and I am not talking about cigarettes!!!

What is thread about anyway?

The alternative to a treaty requiring Senate ratification isn't nothing.  Effective agreements still happen. 

Here's an example of what happens when an a legally binding treaty fails in the Senate after having been advanced by a US administration:

Senate GOP rejects U.N. disabilities treaty
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/04/senate-gop-rejects-u-n-disabilities-treaty/

It's exactly what would have happened to the Paris Accord if it had been developed as a legally binding treaty.
The Obama administration developed and pushed for this Convention.  It would have protected disability rights around the world.  But it failed Senate ratification.  As a consequence all pressure evaporated for any other nation to pass it.  Supporters were demoralized.  Opponents were invigorated.

Is that the scenario you really would have preferred for the Paris Accord?

YES - if that is the truth and the reality of it then YES. I am sick of fakes Steve. And pussies. 

Look I have a totally different take on this things Steve. America is not the Sun ... the rest of the world does not have to revolve around it.

Yes they do, yes they choose to even though they do not have to. But it doesn't not change the rightness of the basic principle or the logic of it.

If people get "demoralized" about the US Senate not passing something then -- they need to grow some balls (even the women) and get real. Seriously what a bunch of sooks.

I understand your point.  Better to have a legally-binding treaty that the US is not a part of than an agreement with no teeth for anyone.  But the existing Paris agreement *has* motivated a large number of nations and several US States to take their obligations seriously.

I think we'd not have even this much progress had Obama worked for a binding treaty that then failed in the US.  That wouldn't just have been embarrassing, it would have prompted most nations to say "if the US won't even agree to its own treaty, why the hell should Poland [insert any nation's name]?

Instead, we have at least an agreement that almost all other nations have committed themselves to.  It's not sufficient, but the Paris agreement wouldn't have been sufficient even if it were legally binding.

I think the Convention on Rights of the Disabled is a good example of what would have happened to the Paris agreement in the alternative, treaty, scenario.  It accomplished less than a non-legally binding agreement would have.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2019, 01:59:49 PM »
I think the Convention on Rights of the Disabled is a good example of what would have happened to the Paris agreement in the alternative, treaty, scenario.  It accomplished less than a non-legally binding agreement would have.

Don't you see how weak your analogy is? There isn't an increase in disabled people, most people don't care about it because they or their children aren't affected by it (or will be in the future), it's low on the political agenda. AGW, however, gets progressively worse, the science gets more robust every day, around the globe effects have started to become undeniable and the future could very well be dire for everyone, more and more people are aware of the problem, 'left' and 'right'.

So, what a smart politician does, one who has balls and actually wants to act in the interest of the people (and not concentrated wealth), is push for it, push for it hard, with overt threats to those who sabotage. Either your demand is met, or those who sabotage it, are made responsible for it and get to pay a political price for it during elections.

But Obama neither had balls or good intentions. He was Republican-lite and is now basking in his fame and fortune, the reward he got. And he can, because he's backed by so many 'reasonable' people like you, Steve. People who are not serious about AGW at all, and are a bigger obstacle than climate risk deniers.

Obama should have pushed for it hard, and then said to both the American people and the rest of the world: I really wanted to do this, but the Republicans in Congress have blocked it. They are responsible for the brunt of future AGW damages. Please, vote them out and replace them with real progressives who don't take corporate money, like I do.

Instead he said this:



And you go along with that corrupt idiocy, Steve! This is the direct cause of the Algorithms of Hate. But just keep continuing to defend Barack Obama and the rest of the neoliberal kleptocrats.

How do you expect to resolve a problem if you refuse to understand it? You are actively undermining both understanding and solutions with your polite trolling.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2019, 02:38:56 PM »

So, what a smart politician does, one who has balls and actually wants to act in the interest of the people (and not concentrated wealth), is push for it, push for it hard, with overt threats to those who sabotage. Either your demand is met, or those who sabotage it, are made responsible for it and get to pay a political price for it during elections.

But Obama neither had balls or good intentions. He was Republican-lite and is now basking in his fame and fortune, the reward he got. And he can, because he's backed by so many 'reasonable' people like you, Steve. People who are not serious about AGW at all, and are a bigger obstacle than climate risk deniers.

No, pursuing failing political strategies is what's not serious.
It takes 1/3 of Senators to derail a negotiated treaty.
Those 1/3 of red state senators will never *personally* see adverse consequences from voting down such a treaty.  That's because by the time Oklahoma and West Virginia and Texas voters come to their senses, those individual senators will likely have retired.

The serious strategy is to craft an agreement that the US government is able to sign on to, so those recalcitrant neanderthals won't have veto power.  Without a US signature on an agreement the US government was instrumental in crafting, few other nations would have signed on.

That's what happened with the Convention on rights of the disabled, a far less controversial and more widely-supported treaty.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2019, 03:05:13 PM »
No, pursuing failing political strategies is what's not serious.
It takes 1/3 of Senators to derail a negotiated treaty.
Those 1/3 of red state senators will never *personally* see adverse consequences from voting down such a treaty.  That's because by the time Oklahoma and West Virginia and Texas voters come to their senses, those individual senators will likely have retired.

The political price is paid by the GOP as a whole, not by a bunch of individual senators. Sooner or later that price is paid, and when it is - and Corporate Democrats do not stand in the way - you can take meaningful action very, very fast.

What you propose is wait, wait, wait, wait some more, not yet, not just, any time now, just around the corner, just wait some... Hey, where did y'all go?

Quote
The serious strategy is to craft an agreement that the US government is able to sign on to, so those recalcitrant neanderthals won't have veto power.  Without a US signature on an agreement the US government was instrumental in crafting, few other nations would have signed on.

They are not recalcitrant neanderthals who have veto power. They are serving concentrated wealth, and if you remain weak because you lack the strength of moral convictions based on universal principles (because you're corrupt, or unwilling to think things through due to various psychological denial mechanisms, or because your brain has fossilized due to old age), they will always find a way to thwart you. In fact, you make it easy on them.

Instead of obsessively focussing on the short term, where you just chase your own tail, you plan for the longer term (counting on AGW to help you out more and more, as time goes by). You make a demand and you stand by that demand, even if it isn't answered right away. Every time it isn't answered, you make clear who is responsible for that, but you keep fighting for that demand, clearly and unequivocally.

That's how you pull the Overton Window back and eventually get things done. Not by sustaining some arbitrary 'truth' that is actually conditioned propaganda (Medicare for all is too expensive, Green New Deal is too expensive, let's not do anything because the GOP), with polite words that are hollow, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

People who are serious about AGW, don't talk like you do, Steve. Because talking like you, results in nothing other than a continuation of the status quo. And the status quo is not going to solve AGW, let alone in time. You've already wasted 20-30 years of everyone's time that way.

Quote
That's what happened with the Convention on rights of the disabled, a far less controversial and more widely-supported treaty.

Again, the analogy is flawed at its core. It's because AGW is controversial that you need to push as hard as you can on it, because AGW convinces more and more people every year.

You basically have no argument. You're just mindlessly repeating unoriginal, self-fulfilling prophecy BS. And then people are surprised that Algorithms of Hate are so successful.

Martin, is this thread going anywhere new? Or shall I just close it down? At least now you know Vandana Shiva is peddling GOP propaganda, smearing Saint Obama, and she's anti-GMO, which is pushed by Putin to destroy America. So, there you go.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2019, 04:26:46 PM »
No, pursuing failing political strategies is what's not serious.
It takes 1/3 of Senators to derail a negotiated treaty.
Those 1/3 of red state senators will never *personally* see adverse consequences from voting down such a treaty.  That's because by the time Oklahoma and West Virginia and Texas voters come to their senses, those individual senators will likely have retired.

The political price is paid by the GOP as a whole, not by a bunch of individual senators. Sooner or later that price is paid, and when it is - and Corporate Democrats do not stand in the way - you can take meaningful action very, very fast.

What you propose is wait, wait, wait, wait some more, not yet, not just, any time now, just around the corner, just wait some... Hey, where did y'all go?

Quote
The serious strategy is to craft an agreement that the US government is able to sign on to, so those recalcitrant neanderthals won't have veto power.  Without a US signature on an agreement the US government was instrumental in crafting, few other nations would have signed on.

They are not recalcitrant neanderthals who have veto power. They are serving concentrated wealth, and if you remain weak because you lack the strength of moral convictions based on universal principles (because you're corrupt, or unwilling to think things through due to various psychological denial mechanisms, or because your brain has fossilized due to old age), they will always find a way to thwart you. In fact, you make it easy on them.

Instead of obsessively focussing on the short term, where you just chase your own tail, you plan for the longer term (counting on AGW to help you out more and more, as time goes by). You make a demand and you stand by that demand, even if it isn't answered right away. Every time it isn't answered, you make clear who is responsible for that, but you keep fighting for that demand, clearly and unequivocally.

That's how you pull the Overton Window back and eventually get things done. Not by sustaining some arbitrary 'truth' that is actually conditioned propaganda (Medicare for all is too expensive, Green New Deal is too expensive, let's not do anything because the GOP), with polite words that are hollow, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

People who are serious about AGW, don't talk like you do, Steve. Because talking like you, results in nothing other than a continuation of the status quo. And the status quo is not going to solve AGW, let alone in time. You've already wasted 20-30 years of everyone's time that way.

Quote
That's what happened with the Convention on rights of the disabled, a far less controversial and more widely-supported treaty.

Again, the analogy is flawed at its core. It's because AGW is controversial that you need to push as hard as you can on it, because AGW convinces more and more people every year.

You basically have no argument. You're just mindlessly repeating unoriginal, self-fulfilling prophecy BS. And then people are surprised that Algorithms of Hate are so successful.

Martin, is this thread going anywhere new? Or shall I just close it down? At least now you know Vandana Shiva is peddling GOP propaganda, smearing Saint Obama, and she's anti-GMO, which is pushed by Putin to destroy America. So, there you go.

There's no need for personal insults.
The question at hand was whether it was a mistake to craft the Paris accord as an agreement, rather than a legally-binding Treaty.
I pointed out that crafting it as a Treaty would hand veto power to 31+ Senate neanderthals.
Nobody seems to dispute that such a treaty would have failed ratification, rather than the Agreement being signed by virtually every country on earth.

Crafting it as a Treaty, it's said, would mean the neanderthals paying a price. . . eventually.
That's the wait, wait, wait option.  That's not what people who are serious about climate change seek.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2019, 04:44:32 PM »
There's no need for personal insults.

Indeed, I felt insulted when you repeated that inane analogy.

Quote
The question at hand was whether it was a mistake to craft the Paris accord as an agreement, rather than a legally-binding Treaty.

It wasn't a mistake, it was done on purpose. Have you watched that video I just posted where Obama brags about how much oil was produced while he was president, much of it fracked no less?

Quote
I pointed out that crafting it as a Treaty would hand veto power to 31+ Senate neanderthals.
Nobody seems to dispute that such a treaty would have failed ratification, rather than the Agreement being signed by virtually every country on earth.

An agreement that means nothing and hasn't led to any progress. It's all just a facade, and now the US isn't even in the weak agreement, which is also partly due to Obama's failure to aspire to his beautiful speeches. Brilliant strategy, Steve.

You don't shift the Overton Window by being polite, pleasant and reasonable. You shift it by fighting for radical strategies that are commensurate with the problem (if you can call a weak legally-binding treaty that). If you don't even try, if you defend people who give up, not because it's politically expedient, but because they serve the interests of a minority (and their own), you will have to wait forever, and the science clearly shows that you don't have forever.

Your generation had it wrong, you invested your hopes in people who scammed you. Now either stop gaslighting and support the younger generation while they are paying for your mistakes, or just go find some neoliberal forum to discuss CNN Truth with the other conservatives.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2019, 05:53:15 PM »
Here we go again?

What happened to all the:

Quote
one-liners/paragraphs with max. 3 sentences

mentioned in the OP?

Did I mention the white bear in the room?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2019, 11:27:30 PM »
I understand your point.  Better to have a legally-binding treaty that the US is not a part of than an agreement with no teeth for anyone.  But the existing Paris agreement *has* motivated a large number of nations and several US States to take their obligations seriously.

I don't agree. And with Obama walking back the strength of the agreement/treaty has not helped one bit. The US states that are still on board hasn't been motivated by any weaker Paris Agreement - they are motivated by science and logic and a shared collective responsibility!

Quote
I think we'd not have even this much progress had Obama worked for a binding treaty that then failed in the US.  That wouldn't just have been embarrassing, it would have prompted most nations to say "if the US won't even agree to its own treaty, why the hell should Poland [insert any nation's name]?

Your rationale makes no sense. The US has left the agreement and the system has not collapsed as a result. If it was full Treaty with binding actions or else XYZ gets done to your country, and that failed to be ratified by the USA that makes no differecne at all to those who did Ratify it.

Those nations that are sane wiht sane people not being run be deniers as is the case in the USA, Australia, Canada, Saudi ARabia and Russia etc need to stick to their guns. A massive majority f nation states get the point - they all need to go hard and if that emans soime nations decide to exclude themselves then so be it - then the sane nations need to set in place serious impositions upon those recalcitrant INSANE nations that impact them and their people if veyr serious ways economically and in every other sahred human endeavour - in bilateral trade and in the United nations and to EXCLUDE those nations from every international body beyond climate chnage issues.

They need to suffer badly for their recalcitrance until they fold and their people elect a better government (and a Senate that will ratify a UNFCCC Treaty) or in the case of nations like the Saudis a national revolution toward sanity.

Obama et al made the Paris agreement worse not better - he's the problem not the cure! The rest of the world should not be cowtowing to the lowest common denominator that is guided by the insanity of the US Senate full of climate science deniers and rank idiots and utterly corrupt lying politicians from both sides.

No one wins when weak people agree with idiots!

Quote
Instead, we have at least an agreement that almost all other nations have committed themselves to.  It's not sufficient, but the Paris agreement wouldn't have been sufficient even if it were legally binding.

meaning - no difference - it's not sufficient but would not be sufficient if there was an enforceable  Treaty either? That's silly thinking imho.

If only 150 nations developed a hard ass Treaty without the input of denier nations or Obama then they get to set HIGHER more sane targets to be achieved that are enforceable. For the fools to get back in then they automatically must meet higher standards to begin with - and they need to be shown that unless they do rejoin then they will have NO ACCESS to selling their wares to any of those 150 nations and those 150 nations will not support them in any way on any topic geopolitical until they do. and I really mean ANY issue from bilateral to the UNSC votes.

Like shut down their banks, and increase diplomatic exchanges embassies and no military support either etc. Don't buy arms from them. Anyone in the Treaty cannot buy fossil fuels from the either or sell it to them.

This is what "sanity" looks like to me. Others will of course disagree and that's OK and understandable - my argument is not with you personally - but with the current geopolitical system and status quo. It's inexcusable. 

Quote
I think the Convention on Rights of the Disabled is a good example of what would have happened to the Paris agreement in the alternative, treaty, scenario.  It accomplished less than a non-legally binding agreement would have.

Not comparable, not a good example of the seriousness of climate change. I am for a Zero Tolerance approach. Australia is in the Paris agreement but it may as well not be as their targets are utterly pathetic even if they achieved them. Nations like that should be kicked out until the get real - and the people of Australia need to feel the effects of not being IN the UNFCCC real quick.

eg Qantas barred from landing rights globally, their coal, iron ore, bauxite and farming produce BANNED by all UNFCC nations. This is how serious the UNFCC collective needs to get. IT needs to become more powerful and effective than the WEF, the G7/8, the G20, the OECD, the WTO, the Arab nations, OPEC, the EU and NATO and more powerful than America itself or the next idiot or coward they elect as President! 
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2019, 11:41:15 PM »

So, what a smart politician does, one who has balls and actually wants to act in the interest of the people (and not concentrated wealth), is push for it, push for it hard, with overt threats to those who sabotage. Either your demand is met, or those who sabotage it, are made responsible for it and get to pay a political price for it during elections.

But Obama neither had balls or good intentions. He was Republican-lite and is now basking in his fame and fortune, the reward he got. And he can, because he's backed by so many 'reasonable' people like you, Steve. People who are not serious about AGW at all, and are a bigger obstacle than climate risk deniers.

No, pursuing failing political strategies is what's not serious.
It takes 1/3 of Senators to derail a negotiated treaty.
Those 1/3 of red state senators will never *personally* see adverse consequences from voting down such a treaty.  That's because by the time Oklahoma and West Virginia and Texas voters come to their senses, those individual senators will likely have retired.


And yet are allowing those neanderthals to dictate to you and the UNFCCC what is possible - that's what irrational about your position which is held by many people. It does not follow STeve.

Again you are accepting the peculiarity of what happens in one country - the USA - to dictate how you personally think about the bigger issues. And the ethics morals of those issues. The USA is not the Sun - think rationally rather than be biased towards the Sun. see? You think it is fine and dandy that the exceptionalism of the USA is allowed to dictate what gets voted on and agreed by 190+ other nations - can you not see the failigns in such an approach that defies reality and gravity.

Here's an analogy that might work - when Kennedy said
Quote
"we are going to the Moon within 10 years ---- well we are going to try to get there, maybe we can't - so if it turns out that we can only get half way to the Moon - do a U turn and come back then that's just OK because MAYBE the US Senate won't fund us enough money for it ... actually if we can get 25% of the way there that'll be good enough too for now. maybe we can get all the way by 2050 long after I am dead."
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2019, 11:47:16 PM »
You make a demand and you stand by that demand, even if it isn't answered right away. Every time it isn't answered, you make clear who is responsible for that, but you keep fighting for that demand, clearly and unequivocally.


Um yeah.

Like the ANC and Nelson Mandela did. Like George Washington did even though he was a pretty bad general.

Isn't this obvious? Clearly not to everyone. Which is really sad and depressing to many and not just me.

Talking about "hate" - well I "hate" the UNFCCC - I think that "system" and the true believers in it who go there to "vote" are as useless as tits on a Bull.
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2019, 11:48:14 PM »

Again you are accepting the peculiarity of what happens in one country - the USA - to dictate how you personally think about the bigger issues. And the ethics morals of those issues. The USA is not the Sun - think rationally rather than be biased towards the Sun. see? You think it is fine and dandy that the exceptionalism of the USA is allowed to dictate what gets voted on and agreed by 190+ other nations - can you not see the failigns in such an approach that defies reality and gravity.

No, it's not fine and dandy.   The US has done many, many dreadful things.  In such cases, it would indeed be preferable for the rest of the world to say no.  My post, however, was an attempt to look at current reality,  In the post-WW II era, few "allies" have the stomach to tell the US where to go.  So what's the best strategy for the people to pursue in such an environment?  I don't think it's a simple question to answer.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2019, 11:54:18 PM »

Again you are accepting the peculiarity of what happens in one country - the USA - to dictate how you personally think about the bigger issues. And the ethics morals of those issues. The USA is not the Sun - think rationally rather than be biased towards the Sun. see? You think it is fine and dandy that the exceptionalism of the USA is allowed to dictate what gets voted on and agreed by 190+ other nations - can you not see the failigns in such an approach that defies reality and gravity.

No, it's not fine and dandy.   The US has done many, many dreadful things.  In such cases, it would indeed be preferable for the rest of the world to say no.  My post, however, was an attempt to look at current reality,  In the post-WW II era, few "allies" have the stomach to tell the US where to go.  So what's the best strategy for the people to pursue in such an environment?  I don't think it's a simple question to answer.

I agree. It's not easy. It's a real Bind to be in. Steve you are definitely being realistic given the circumstances. (pragmatic would eb the better word here) I get that. I know what you mean, grab what you can, keep moving forward in steps and keep pushing the cause. I get the practical (pragmatic) wisdom in that and it may be the best/only way to go.

My only point is is that it is not necessarily the only way to go or the best way to go "in hypothetical land" - now if I was at the UNFCCC in Obama's shoes pushing my approach chances are it would blow up in my face and everyone would leave. I get that. :)

But I would do it anyway - because there are other possibilities in outcomes - to get those in place is what will make all the difference in the world. It's worth fighting for and protesting about and having temper tantrums over. ;)

PS It's fine with me that you and others see it differently Steve. Like we don't really get a say in it anyway. It's not a deal breaker to me.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 02:14:28 AM by Lurk »
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2019, 12:05:30 AM »
A feeding frenzy of white bears in fact!

I don't suppose there's any chance we can have a reasoned discussion about Jakubowicz's paper in here is there?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2019, 12:24:25 AM »
It's not the topic of the thread, Jim. It's about what Vandana Shiva has said, relating to Cambridge Analytica (something I tried to discuss in the Russiagate thread a couple of months, but no one was interested, because Russia). I also referred to what Shiva said about Obama and the Paris accord in the preceding paragraph, to see if Martin Gisser still wanted to continue this thread, seen as it was based on someone who is spreading GOP propaganda (and his rule that you never should listen to that person anymore). Then SteveMDFP immediately jumped in to defend Saint Obama, and I posted a video to show how deluded it is to do that. And so on, round and round we go.

I want to give Martin Gisser the final word, as he deemed it necessary to open this thread, for whatever reason.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2019, 12:35:03 AM »
It's not the topic of the thread, Jim. It's about what Vandana Shiva has said, relating to Cambridge Analytica (something I tried to discuss in the Russiagate thread a couple of months, but no one was interested, because Russia).

I did wonder if I'd missed a reference of some sort in one of the numerous "political" threads I don't bother to read any more.

Perhaps I should start my own "Algorithms of Hate" thread instead?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2019, 12:48:11 AM »
It's not the topic of the thread, Jim. It's about what Vandana Shiva has said, relating to Cambridge Analytica (something I tried to discuss in the Russiagate thread a couple of months, but no one was interested, because Russia).

I did wonder if I'd missed a reference of some sort in one of the numerous "political" threads I don't bother to read any more.

Perhaps I should start my own "Algorithms of Hate" thread instead?

Go for it. And make another about the issues surrounding those Polar bears. Including the reticence of Russia to seriously get on board actions to address climate change the level of "denialism" in that country. Though there has been some recent shifts in attitudes about that as their society and economy has stabilised in recent years.

fwiw, imho, there is a constant and consistent theme (despite appearances/beliefs) that ties all the "political threads" back to action and inaction about climate change as per the known seriousness and urgency of the situation today. Yes there are disagreements which is natural and to be expected. That's why forums exist. :)

People love to disagree Jim, or don't you agree with that? Hehehehe that's a joke, ok? ;) 
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2019, 08:22:40 AM »
Good morning Lurk (UTC),

Go for it.

Perhaps there would be some overlap with Neven's existing "Social media" thread?

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2273.0.html

Quote
And make another about the issues surrounding those Polar bears.

I'll leave that to somebody else.

Quote
fwiw, imho, there is a constant and consistent theme (despite appearances/beliefs) that ties all the "political threads" back to action and inaction about climate change as per the known seriousness and urgency of the situation today. Yes there are disagreements which is natural and to be expected. That's why forums exist. :)

FWIW, IMHO, homo sapiens is a tribal creature. Who would have thought that Peter Hadfield is a closet libertarian for example?



Quote
People love to disagree Jim, or don't you agree with that? Hehehehe that's a joke, ok? ;)

Luckily I possess a very dry sense of humour. Whilst it's water off the proverbial duck's back in this instance some might consider your remarks at least mildly insulting?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2019, 10:34:41 AM »
Good morning Lurk (UTC),


Quote
People love to disagree Jim, or don't you agree with that? Hehehehe that's a joke, ok? ;)

Luckily I possess a very dry sense of humour. Whilst it's water off the proverbial duck's back in this instance some might consider your remarks at least mildly insulting?

That's interesting. Could you explain why some might consider my remarks at least mildly insulting? I quite like playing humorous words plays - lightens the day to flip normality on its end. One liners and haiku will be the death of us all. Each to their own, beauty in the beholder and all that. 

I think we all have at least a little bit of Libertarian in our closets Jim. Cheers
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2019, 11:45:08 AM »
That's interesting. Could you explain why some might consider my remarks at least mildly insulting?

1) I have an Arctic Sea Ice blog of my very own. I'm an alleged "ASIF Governor" with 3688 posts to my name and counting. I've literally been here since day 1. I don't need your assistance when it comes to deciding when to start a new ASIF thread. Or not as the case may be.

Cheers!

Snow White
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2019, 12:56:42 PM »
That's interesting. Could you explain why some might consider my remarks at least mildly insulting?

1) I have an Arctic Sea Ice blog of my very own. I'm an alleged "ASIF Governor" with 3688 posts to my name and counting. I've literally been here since day 1. I don't need your assistance when it comes to deciding when to start a new ASIF thread. Or not as the case may be.

Cheers!

Snow White

Well there was no offence or insult intended, not that that would seem to matter to you at this point in time.... but whatever. I took both your comments as intended to be "light hearted" and followed that theme. A silly mistake in hindsight.

So, if I hear you correctly -  what you are saying is that this Perhaps I should start my own "Algorithms of Hate" thread instead? was a rhetorical question and you are insulted that anyone would dare provide an answer to you or make a witty retort to your good self? 

The same must (?) apply to this too - A feeding frenzy of white bears in fact! I don't suppose there's any chance we can have a reasoned discussion about Jakubowicz's paper in here is there?

OK, sounds reasonable. In some circles.

btw I know who you are, have been viewing the great white con blog for so many years I have lost count (but not so much the last year or so) plus I got much from your comments on the ICE section here for years as well. All good stuff and much appreciated even if secretly. Where have you been of late? (sorry I better not ask any more questions without permission)

But Jim, I can read your "post numbers" and "ASIF Governor" denotation without needing them to be repeated or pointed out to me. But thanks anyway Jim. I also can make typo mistakes so appreciated. :) Got a lot of respect for your work and your style. I also love your sense of humour which comes through your writings very clearly to me.

Anything else "you wanna get off your chest" mate? There I go again with the questions, sorry. Cheers and thanks for the heads up. I will remember it. :)
"You assist an unjust administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. [...] A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty."
Mahatma Gandhi - Non-Violent Resistance

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3794
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2019, 02:35:52 PM »
Got a lot of respect for your work and your style. I also love your sense of humour which comes through your writings very clearly to me.


Thanks for your kind words.

Quote
Anything else "you wanna get off your chest"?

No. When did you stop beating your wife?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2019, 04:29:53 PM »
The Obama Paris Agreement thing is a great example of the GOP's algorithm of hate that gave us Trump: Block any serious progress, let voters blame Obama.

Alas my Facebook examples have washed by and no new came up yet. People seem to click and share bullshit more often when it appeals to their hate, than when it feels good. (Hmmm, well, hate can also make you feel good.)

As hate will not go away anytime soon, we somehow should turn this tool around. No more Democrat-hating memes. Why not hating Republicans for a change?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 04:35:30 PM by Martin Gisser »

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2019, 04:44:55 PM »
Thread title is not my idea, but Vandana Shiva's:

And there was me thinking it must have been Andrew Jakubowicz's:

https://royalsoc.org.au/images/pdf/journal/151-1-Jakubowicz.pdf

The three (long) sentence conclusions, including but a single colon (and a pair of brackets):

Quote
Perhaps the Royal Society and the Academies, with their aspirations to link science with human prosperity and well-being, might well take on strategy development that looks to public policy based on science as a way forward (Came and Griffith, 2017).

A small group of mathematicians, philosophers, social scientists and others might workshop such ideas to contribute to crowd-sourcing resilience strategies, so that the algorithms that underpin social media in the future are not so conducive to the proliferation of hate: indeed, algorithms if not of love then at least of peace might eventuate.

Ultimately resilience requires strong networks that build active cells of knowledge, where racism can find no place to flourish.

Am I forgiven the clickable reference?

You are very much forgiven. Thank you for this find. Will read before bed.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6326
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Algorithms of Hate
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2019, 10:02:23 PM »
The Obama Paris Agreement thing is a great example of the GOP's algorithm of hate that gave us Trump: Block any serious progress, let voters blame Obama.

Then why do you open a thread based on the quote of someone who in the previous paragraph repeats GOP's algorithm of hate? You should never ever listen to anything that person says ever again.

Quote
As hate will not go away anytime soon, we somehow should turn this tool around. No more Democrat-hating memes. Why not hating Republicans for a change?

Because that's exactly what they want you to do, silly.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin