Remember, I’m not saying they wouldn’t do it, just that they wouldn’t line up eyes open to take the fall if it goes sideways.
These are the people who in a very real sense give the government power against popular resistance. They’re not going to agree to commit a crime without at least an assurance that the people they’re doing it for go to the gallows with them.

Hell, the CIA put the name of the law they were violating right in the orders multiple times.

One of the few things I trust the military to do is to have the high ranking officials know what constitutes an illegal order, and to ask for a written order to cover their own asses.

I’ve got an alarming quantity. The saving grace is I don’t think I’m strong, say any of the weird shit, post the memes or have delusions about my fighting proficiency. And I’m not bald.

I used to be rather fit and I wrestled in high school. I’m fairly confident I could break free of someone roughly less skilled than me and maybe a hair stronger and flee. I’ve never been in a fight, I’ve been punched while boxing but was too disoriented to get a good hit back (first and only time boxing), and I’ve punched a friend in the face as the culmination to a funny conversation about how he’s never been punched in the face.

Flannel is really comfy, and I want to be the sort of person who goes on more hikes than I have time to.
I have no self delusions in the physical realm.

that’s because of racism. Racial inequality in policing isn’t caused by that clause though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_exception_clause

There are states that never allowed slavery that have the exception.

Well, it’s not explicitly there for racists. Punishing crime with labor has a long history, both in and outside the US.

The most common kind in the US is community service as used for a minor punishment in place of incarceration.
It’s by no means good, but the worst examples tend to disproportionately color the perceived level of injustice to it.

To make it even more WTF, the religions they have the most issue with don’t even have a different diety, just different people saying he told them an updated message on the rules of life.

Israel is required to exist for some interpretations of Armageddon in the Bible. They hate them, but they need Israel to exist because it’s central to moving forward with the end of the world and their gods cleansing of the forces of evil and the ushering in of a new world order.

So keep that fun fact in mind when you hear Christians being really pro Israel.

People who play sports games don’t even blink when you tell them you like strategy games in my experience.
Turns out people who enjoy pretending to manage a sports team don’t think it’s odd that someone might enjoy pretending to manage an army or empire. Or that people in general don’t usually think most hobbies are unusual, if you talk about them like a sane person.

They’re also just general 4chan Internet weirdo. I take it you’re thinking there’s a particular type of racism libertarians are more prone to? Probably “we don’t need racial discrimination protections, the market will punish it if people care”?

I think it was the soviets that had more of a prolonged track record of “state propaganda is lies” that worked to distance it from the notion of “propaganda is messaging” sense that’s technically usable.

Basically everyone has propaganda at the same time the Nazis did. It wasn’t until the soviets used it to spin things more in the way we associate with the modern sense that the term fell properly out of favor.

I mean, you’re entirely correct, but there’s also racial politics as in “race relations”. Like “why are we regressing on race based civil liberty protections and seeing an upswing in racial prejudice”.

Racial groups don’t have homogeneous political opinions, but they are often the subject of political opinions.

All that to say: there are many different ways to express a disgustingly inappropriate blend of racial and political opinions in a workplace, and we shouldn’t assume they picked any particular inappropriate way.

Ah, alright. :) sometimes these things are hard to tell in text.

I wouldn’t say it’s ignoring it. I’m incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I’m not as bothered by it happening: it doesn’t have real consequences.

If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can’t get around. You can’t go to a platform that doesn’t mind and keep going.

If the government leans on a company, first of all that’s still government censorship and it’s not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it’s still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there’s not really anything they can do.

There’s a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.

I’ve worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you’re willing to take that support request or if you’re letting your manager know you’re not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don’t want to help you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it’s wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.

I’m not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.

My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it’s wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don’t think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it’s still a political position and protected. But if the people you’re paying to host your shit don’t want anything to do with you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I don’t think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.

I also don’t think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.

I think there’s a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren’t welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there’s no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.

The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.

It doesn’t impact my reply, but I figured I’d let you know. :)

I’m against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche “you can’t threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods”.

I’m okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren’t a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what’s in your package, beyond what’s necessary to move it safely.
If you’re needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.

I don’t want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There’s plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.

I think you missed that the next portion of their statement was connected to the part you (inappropriately) added the missing word to.

They’re saying, essentially, that it’s important to learn math just for a rounded education, even if it lacks application. They’re saying closer to “even if we’re eating sushi, we still need fire”.

There’s a lot of different things that get pumped into “intelligence”. There’s “reasoning ability”, “knowledge”, “wisdom”, and a whole host of others, some in the category of traditional intelligence, and others around things like emotional intelligence.

Raw knowledge is something that schools can teach through memorization. You have facts. Memorization isn’t the best way to do it, since context and such can often make information stick better, but some things you’re eventually going to memorize, intentionally or not (I don’t calculate 6*6=36 every time).

Reasoning or analytical ability is much harder to teach, since you can’t really make someone more able to have insights and such.

Wisdom is something that can be trained I’d phrase it. I don’t think you can be taught it like you can a history lesson, but it needs to be trained like a sport. How to apply reason to a situation, how the knowledge you have relates to things and other bits of knowledge. Which things are important and which aren’t.

It sounds like you’re mostly taking what I’ve called wisdom, with a dash if introspection tossed in, which can play very well with wisdom. “How sure am I about this?” Is a question wisdom might make you ask , and you need to know yourself to know the answer.
Knowing how to question the right part of something, so that you’re not getting caught up in the little inconsistencies and missing the big one, or considering the wrong facts that are unimportant to a situation.
(A pet peeve of mine) Sometimes people will bring up statistics of race in relation to crime. People with perfectly good reasoning ability and knowledge will get caught up debating the veracity of the statistics, or the minutiae of the implications of how other statistics interplay to lead to those numbers, both in an attempt to deny the conclusion of the original argument.
The more wise thing to do is to question why this person is making the argument in the first place. Use your knowledge of society to know there are racists who want to convince others. Your reasoning to know that someone more interested in persuasion than truth can twist numbers how they want. Reject their position entirely, instead of accepting their position as valid and arguing their facts.

That feels like a quirk of your professor. You should look into using a definition used by the rest of the field. Your usage makes it seem like your listening too much to people who are trying to hype AI, and not enough to people who are building it or invented the field.

So, that’s a hilarious example to me. I know what you mean, but… Buffalo wings are a style of wing invented in Buffalo. It’s actually possibly the worst example you could have chosen because it’s actually right there in the name.

The name proves nothing, but in general I don’t think you need to prove that something is art if people are calling it art.
You’d think that in a thread about how a premade object can be presented as art and people accept it that people might understand that specific criteria for art is an amorphous and futile effort.

Well, in that regard I’d agree. I don’t think beauty and art are the same though. :)

Something is art, in my opinion, if it’s it’s presented as art or perceived as art. I think art is often more interesting if someone puts more thought, effort and skill into it. Beauty and aesthetics are a different thing.