AfterEpictetus
25d ago
I mean, how did people not see that "racism is power + prejudice" basically pattern-matched to bog-standard anti-semitism?
The woke crowd, for a long time, basically ignored Jews and the Japanese as groups within the US. These two groups being counter examples that oppression was the cause of groups having bad/low SES outcomes. The Jews having a multi-thousand year history of it and the Japanese being put into camps and having most of their assets stripped from them during WWII. Both groups doing reasonably well post-war.
There were some attempts at addressing this with talk about the "model-minority myth", but the default was to just not bring it up for a very long time.
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
I work for a software consultancy that has recently gone heavily for building an "AI accelerator" for clients.
Full disclosure, I just moved from GPU based image generation (non-AI) to embedded, I'm trying desperately to avoid working on the AI projects. Take my comment with a big grain of salt, as I'm definitely biased.
They are definitely useful. Mostly as a way for executives to summarize and interrogate quarterly reports. They're probably going to replace several data analysis teams whose jobs have been building Power BI dashboard for the past 10 years.
The hype cycle is definitely real, but most clients have wanted the chat bots built as a box checking exercise, and have no idea what they actually want out of it (based on in-depth conversations with people on the AI accelerator teams). I expect the trough of disillusionment to hit hard and cancel most of these projects.
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
I think you may have misunderstood my argument.
if you violate a custody order you are more likely to be judged unfit
I agree with this. P(judged unfit | violate order) is significantly higher. Hence my comment about requiring a trial.
But we're talking about a theoretically individual case. Statistics don't matter to the individual.
Let's take someone who was given no custody and has a child in an unsafe situation. A few days out of that situation might be better than none. I'm not sure that parent is automatically irresponsible.
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
You have statistics on overturning custody agreements to back that up?
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
I disagree. If the court got it wrong somehow, no responsible parent would let their kid stay in an unsafe situation just because the law said they had to.
Of course plenty of irresponsible parents think they're responsible, so it's almost impossible to tell from the outside without an investigation and trial.
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
If you believe in objective morality, or at least morality provided by something external (probably god), that's not automatically a problem.
In fact, the fact that they wouldn't share these moral sentiments would be a pretty good case that they are not honorable
AfterEpictetus
1mo ago
this anthropomorphising of animals is and pretty much always will be extremely suspect
I agree in general, but moral judgement does seem like the one area where this could be justifiable, at least for some moral frameworks.
AfterEpictetus
2mo ago
I don't think you're wrong, exactly, but I think you're ignoring an important dimension of the disagreement. That being the distinction between positive and negative rights (freedom from vs freedom to).
The traditional American view of rights is almost entirely negative, and each of the amendments in the bill of rights that grants a specific right frames it as a negative right (generally the right to be free from some government action).
Rights during/post FDR tend to be framed as positive rights (new deal/great society), or possibly "entitlements".
Your distinction is important, but I don't think it can be understood properly without examining the underlying disagreement about rights.
AfterEpictetus
3mo ago
The median deportee entered the US without any visa. I would consider this a purely civil matter.
I believe this is incorrect. What you describe is a criminal matter (illegal entry). The median illegal immigrant has overstayed a legal visa, which is indeed solely a civil matter
Is that true for state/city governments? I'm reaching back a lot here, but I thought a lot of the laws the government uses here required the torturing of the commerce clause that was common between ~1940-2000 and didn't apply to government agencies themselves.
Of course, plenty of government positions do background checks for their own reasons, but I thought there was a big difference in this particular case.
More options
Context Copy link