672 karma · joined May 16, 2012
Similarly, many (not all!) conservatives and liberals basically agree about the effects, positive and negative, of immigration. But one side doesn’t want those people here, and one does. You don’t need to have different beliefs about the world to be on exact opposite sides of that issue.
For the second example: Mullis is literally insane, and you can still find his opinions on YouTube, as you yourself found. Did you try uploading those lectures you found yourself? I’ll bet money that they won’t be take down (except maybe for copyright).
To be a little less charitable: this is a persecution fantasy. The right wing is not being silenced by YouTube.
I think one broad takeaway for me is that if tech cannot connect to the internet, it's often more pleasant to use.
The funny thing was that it kept trying to skip steps or simplify what it was doing. It also got completely confused when I asked it to extrapolate the pattern to new rhyme schemes, eg ABA BCB.
Ordinary people are capable of great evil when they limit their sphere of empathy.
For example:
> Floyd had high levels of drugs in his system, COVID-19, and was complaining about breathing in the car before there was a knee on him.
That makes it much more important not to use a chokehold.
> Chokeholds are also a very standard and typically non lethal form of getting a suspect under control.
This is relevant to whether Floyd's killing was an aberration; the protests were predicated on the assumption that it was not, and that police in general use unnecessary force.
> There’s no evidence of race playing a part in this incident (no evidence of motive)
As per https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic..., a higher proportion of unarmed black men are shot by police than unarmed white men. So whether or not THIS CASE was race-related, there is a racial aspect to the problem.
> or it even being an instance of police brutality (standard and typically safe procedures were used)
"Typically safe" is arguable; Floyd was not the first man killed by a chokehold in completely unnecessary circumstances, where there was no imminent need to subdue the person being arrested (see Eric Garner). But again, this is the problem. Pointing out that it's common looks like an argument against it, but it's really not.
> because of these complicating factors. The news media focus, social media virality, sustained legal protests, and sustained violent rioting have corrupted people’s ability to judge this situation rationally, to the point that people overestimate the number of unarmed black people killed by police by over 50x (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...)
This number is based on a database that documented cases where we know that police have killed someone, we know that person was black, and the police have said the person was unarmed. The police's judgement on what constitutes "unarmed" may not be the same as that of the people polled.
I personally am unbothered because this is a document for curriculum designers with real explanations of their arguments, and I doubt that it will encourage a culture-wide opposition to, for example, "right answers." I'm not sure how someone, meaning to avoid racism, would problematically de-emphasize right answers. To my mind, the only likely negative result would be ineffectual scolding. But I'm open to being proven wrong.
(Please note that one or two examples of teachers being unjustly fired is not terrible persuasive, in the same way as one or two marijuana-related deaths is not evidence that marijuana is a society-wide epidemic.)