You mention them in the same breath. Why would you think I'm claiming you believe she's right wing? You equate the right and left and just wash your hands and pretend that's some sort of fair analysis. Talib doesn't have mainstream views. Doesn't mean she's extreme. Only if you portray her views in bad faith like saying she's an anti-semetic. Empathy for Palestinians isn't extreme it's just not the status quo. You confuse being extreme with not adhering to status quo policy positions. To me "extreme" implies stripping away empathy in analysis where things like dehumanization happens like dehumanizing migrants, college students etc. Who is Talib dehumanizing?
This is a subject that we have debated before but I'lll just point to the facts. We are seeing internal and system reform work without defunding the police. Chauvin and the other LEO with him were all convicted. Kimberly Potter was convicted and rather fast. That didn't seem possible years ago when Philando Castille was killed. Minneapolis while not defunding the police has a program now that dispatches health care workers to deal with mental health crisis than LEO. On top of that defund the police was soundly defeated in Minneapolis. As I've said about several things change is slow. Change is difficult. I think we both want the same thing for people to live free of fear and in safety from both LEO and crime. Where we differ is I don't just wish it and expect a revolution. I actually understand the difficulty in getting it and work to achieve it than just belly ache online.
On the political spectrum of elected Democrats she is on the outer extreme. Do you agree? Also where did I say she was anti-semitc or dehumanizing? This sounds like you're reading things into what I wrote and conflating this with others to continue an argument you have with others.
You passed by the dowsing rod guy when you go to train a bunch of dudes who haven't gone past their cowboys and Indians phase?
I haven't read everything in this thread, but I'll offer my quick take. I adhere to Newton's 3rd law of equal and opposite forces. In my view, the right perceives the left to support a certain version of trans issues (the "bad" version) at a level X, prompting them to push back at an equal level X. I believe this is largely influenced by media consumption, ranging from Fox News to Twitter. Essentially, they post in response to the perceived level of danger. Conversely, the left doesn't view the situation with the same level of concern, resulting in fewer posts. On this board, the discussion might quiet down if the left refrains from engaging with the right's perceived dangers. Let them be.
I felt like that already mostly happens. That's the thing. Most of the threads are posts by the same group of folks and they aren't the liberals.
Yes, you are right. Lots of them are just tweets after tweets. Really, the flood of tweets has made the D&D much less interesting. They are both boring and a bit annoying. I wish there was an "ignore Tweets" function.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police The law enforcement community is a cult at this point.
Discussion might quiet down and as is just don’t bother with a lot of what some right leaning posters seem fixated on. Beyond the D&D there is real world consequences to this type of rhetoric. The fear and demonization does lead to actual harm. A few years ago. In Texas a mass shooter traveled from Houston to El Paso because he wanted to kill Mexicans invading. There was also the case of someone who shot threatened a pizza parlor in DC because they believed Pizzagate. Also there have been a lot of attacks on Asian Americans over the “China Virus”.
Really and that’s typical of the law enforcement community? That’s something that I brought up or had anything to do with? Now look who’s magnifying a tiny incident into a much larger problem.
How many eyes go through the getting and analyzing of these wack job training methods to enter mainstream training in popular police training institutions? And I was providing an example?
Is this mainstream? Even that piece said that many forensic experts consider it dubious. honestly this sounds like the type of alarmist arguments that we’re criticizing the Right for making.
Perhaps, someone can build an AI agent to tackle misinformation 24/7. Then comes the AI agents war. OH well. (It is sad to see how some posters post with such confidence things that are clearly not factual or are wrong. Few have the energy to tackle constant waves of misinformation. It's much easier to spread misinformation than to correct it, so ... I'm good with the AI Agents overlord)
I’m going to assume you aren’t being serious about the AI agents overlord. I’ve long been concerned about the dangers of AI and I do feel it could be an existential threat. We have a hard time dealing with misinformation with weak AI I don’t know How we can handle strong AI. You saw the story I posted in the other thread about the Baltimore principal who was smeared with an AI generated audio recording making him sound like a racists. He got a lot of calls for His firing and even threats before it was discovered this was a fake by a disgruntled employee. We aren’t ready for what’s coming with deepfakes made by people skilled at covering their tracks.
Mainstream in the sense that it's part of the most popular nationwide law enforcement training program curriculums. So yes, mainstream, not in the scientific community. I can go over how half of forensic science is junk science from bite marks to 911 call analysis.
Is it a part of nationwide law enforcement curriculums? I’ve not seen anything like this used by MPD or the Minnesota BCA. If I recall correctly you live in Boston has Boston PD been using this? Does anyone in Houston know if HPD has been using this?
Definition: AI agents are similar to "bots"; but different from today bot in that they understand language and can respond with language. An AI agent with the job to identify misinformation and respond to it is very feasible. Creating misinformation is extremely easy. But correcting or responding to it is much harder - it requires research, fact-checking, analysis, and crafting an appropriate response that itself is not misinformation but conveys the message. There is almost a zero chance, even with things like community notes, that misinformation can be "checked". Humans, whether individual, groups, agencies, or community, cannot win, if you will, due to the mismatch in how easy it is to create one and how much harder it is to respond to one. AI agents can, though. They run at the speed of the internet, never need to rest (but do consume enormous energy). Therefore, I'm all for AI agent overlords, by which I mean AI agents released into the "wild" to detect and respond to information. Then, of course, that means AI agent wars. Bad actors and those who want to manipulate the public will release partisan or state-propaganda agents.
I agree AI can have the power to challenge misinformation but we know they have the power to create very powerful misinformation. The problem they I see is that AI are created and used by people. It’s not so much I don’t trust AI as I don’t trust people.
