banads

>But institutions have the ability to enforce behavior in that group.

You dont think communities of people have the ability to enforce or influence behavior of the people in their community? If you watched the video I posted, or knew anything about psychology, you'd know that to be plainly false.

That's not what were talking about here. Were talking about indiscriminate hacking/doxing of police, and the people who are cheering that on. How is that going to effectively address the root causes of police militarization?

This is the same pathos parroted by bigots.

Agreed! That still doesn't mean Collective Punishment is ethical

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

So what? Institutions are made of people.

When two things are directly interrelated (attitudes among police and attitudes among criminals), are we not allowed to discuss them both? Why not? Seems like you're trying to purposefully shun context, which isn't a practical way of understanding reality.

>not reporting, fiercely defending, or even lying to provide cover for the bad ones. And at that point, every person who tolerates the bad behaviors ends up enabling them, and therefore become complicit in them.

Precisely the same mentality is present in many of the most crime ridden neighborhoods in the US.[1]

Are you able to think objectively for a moment, and see how your reaction to police doing that, is similar the police's reaction to criminals doing that?

[1]https://youtu.be/nFhWpTKvD8E

I too dislike hyper aggressive militarized police who act above the law. But anyone who makes facile generalizations about entire groups of people is merely mirroring the problem, not helping it.

Edit: "populations" -> "groups of people"

Can you elaborate?

Just study history, information is power.

Data harvesting and processing technologies were what enabled the efficiency of the holocaust.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

>That sounds like a monopoly problem

Okay let's follow that logic: precisely at what point does that become a monopoly problem?

>> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line

>Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point.

Nahhh; corporate media is very much concerned with money. No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception.

Thought experiment: if a single corporation owned a website within which 100% of public speech was conducted, would you still be so eager to defend their "right" to control the thoughts and words of the entire world?

It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion.

As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money.

>Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.

Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book)

>Should I be expected to read all the laws

Congress is not even required to read the bills they vote on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act

>You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes".

You don't think money is persuasive?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

>Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa).

Watch The Great Hack. It's not about targeting people who are thoroughly entrenched in their views like you. It's about targeting swing voters

>If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Read up on Social Engineering. Victor Lustig "sold" the Eiffel Tower twice using social engineering tactics.

Are you implying a corporation should be in charge of critical thinking for a society; a corporate ministry of truth?

>fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically.

False, see Cambridge Analytica.

>It was a long time ago, but I recall reading once that in some cultures the voices and delusions of schizophrenics tend to be of a more positive nature. In our culture they tend to be almost entirely menacing, paranoid, accusatory, etc.

In many tribal cultures, what western psychiatry castigates as schizophrenia, they honor as shamanism.

I should have stated earlier that I agree with the theory that the true primary cause of crime/murder is poverty.

>Why do you think I brought up all of the "killed by a stranger" and "familial" homicides if I was going to conclude by comparing the broadest numbers?

Perhaps to ignore the broader context so as to avoid confronting a big, uncomfortable, politically incorrect issue?

Dead people don't care if they were murdered by a family member or a stranger. If anything, this data is more evidence of the destruction of the family structure since the 1960s.

In 1960, 78% of black children were being raised in 2 parent households.[1]

In 2018, 65% of black children were being raised in a single parent households.[2]

[1]https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-legacy-o...

[2]https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in...

Then why are IT professionals so eager to hide that word from themselves, when there are more people living in slavery now than ever before?

>Black Americans are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a criminal.

According to what data?

In 2017, 223 black people were shot/killed by police in the US[1], while 2,627 black people were murdered by black people in the US.

[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

[2]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

By what percentage should we split our efforts between these two problems? Perhaps these 2 issues are together creating a positive feedback loop

>maybe I'm missing something here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Notable_boycotts

You're right that boycotts without leverage experience little success, but wrong if you think they are never successful.

Why should we ban the word "slave"; aren't there more people living in slavery now, than ever before in history? Seems like if anything we should be raising awareness about that, not hiding it literally.

>"May I see it?"

Given what we've seen from the likes of Cambridge Analytica, this seems like a question of national security.

>Moral obligations, almost by definition, do not exist

...

>The question is clearly, what moral obligations _should_ they have?

I'm confused.

If moral obligations do not exist as you claim, why should we pretend they should exist?

>what moral obligations do corporations have beyond following the law and trying to provide the optimal product to their consumers?

Corporations have no such morals. They are profit seeking social constructs. Breaking the law is often a profitable cost of doing business, as is making an ever increasingly shitty product when there is little to no competition.

Looking at US incarceration data over time, the causes are plainly obvious. Mass incarceration began shortly after the civil rights movement was ended, when Nixon launched the War on Drugs in 1971, and then skyrocketed in the 80s as even harsher bipartisan anti drug laws were passed while at the same time the CIA was found to be facilitating the importation of billions of dollars of cocaine into inner cities at the inception point of the crack epidemic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_...