I wish all this moderation would be flipped around. Just allow people to filter the content they see. We should have a system similar to movie content ratings to make it easier instead of manually muting keywords like on Twitter.
Then there is no controversy and everyone can get along.
I don't think it's wise to encourage people to silo themselves away into echo chambers - experience would seem to indicate that in the long run, it leads to more even controversy and even less getting along. We need to tackle issues collectively, as a society.
And racism is an "issue". It's not like profanity or sex - something that's to be avoided in polite company but fine among consenting adults. It's not fine. Hiding it from view - letting the racists all be racist together while the anti-racists remain oblivious - makes it worse, not better.
OK I am not a racist. Let me just affirm that. Here is my question- what if the tenets of racism - that race is tied in some fundamental way to a profile of abilities and deficits- is right? It's a possible world. Ethnically Jewish people could just be born with more verbal ability than whites. That is not impossible.
My point is this. By demanding a world in which some things cannot even be spoken of (except by critics) you're amputating our ability to know reality.
If people with your opinion in the 1800s had achieved the type of dominion over others you now seek, there would not be womens right and there would not be gay rights and there would not be equal rights.
The built-in assumption of your post is- we have reached a point of final knowledge about the physical universe and what is and is not possible in it. All further inquiries are a sort of crime.
This is exactly the attitude the old Soviet Union took towards evolution and Mao took towards, well everything really. It's the grand totalitarian error at its core, irrespective of what claims it makes for itself.
Race is a socially constructed category. The idea that someone is a different "race" just because they look different is not supported by biology. In all metrics there is more variation within a group than between groups. So the "tenets of racism" have been decisively disproven many times over.
The problem with defeating these in the marketplace of ideas, so to speak, is that their propagation has nothing to do with logic. People who believe them would find a way to dismiss any logical counterargument. The only way to squash it, arguably, is to prevent it.
Not to mention the fact that people who are targeted by these ideas, which deny their humanity, are going to feel hurt and excluded in any space that allows it. So preventing that from happening is a real-time, concrete concern.
This is Mao telling me I'm reactionary. It's Freud telling me I am going after his theories because I am projecting and have an Oedipal Complex.
You missed the point I was making. When 23andMe tells me I'm Jewish and I share 99% of my profile with fellow Jews whether or not "race is a social construct" used by some people for nefarious ends, the facts remain where they are.
Some ethnicities suffer from certain diseases at a rate far exceeding other ethnicities. That's genetic. That's the action of, in some cases a defect on a single gene. If you want to say those people are not a race, then fine, I'm not inclined to argue with you.
The point is that the possibility that shared genetic profiles are responsible for abilities and disabilities- which is something in the neighborhood of what bad racists are leveraging for effect, is not completely impossible.
I appreciate the anti-racist ethos. All humans are equal in my eyes merely for the fact of being human, full stop, no exceptions. It is still possible that genes control abilities and deficits and that shared genes result in shared outcomes. That is still a reasonable hypothesis and in the cse of outright maladies, more than a hypothesis.
If you want to have good outcomes, including societal outcomes, you need to know what is causing the outcomes you have. You cannot dictate causality; it needs to be discovered. Dictating causality looks like this:
I understand what you're saying, but I'm just telling you it's a scientific fact that race is a social construct in the sense that on all the relevant metrics that are usually talked about, like intelligence, ability, etc, there is more intragroup variation than intergroup variation.
That's not a particularly useful sense. There's more variation in height amongst men and women than between them too, but we're still perfectly happy to say that men are taller than women.
bad analogy. the height variance (not absolute bounds) in each sex is probably smaller than the difference in mean height. whereas this is not true of other metrics like intelligence
And why should that mark the Authoritative Threshold on whether a statistical skew counts as a "social construct"?
And if we crunched the numbers and falsified your assertion? Would you really turn on a dime and accept that okay, it's a social construct that men are taller?
I don't understand your argument. if you look at two bell curves for IQ and they look almost identical except for a slightly different mean, you're really going to go "okay that group is obviously smarter"? height is a different story - the curves are going to look much different. if you really don't want to get that then there's no point in continuing
That's true. There is more intra-group variation because within any group you have geniuses and you have morons, which is the widest spread you can have either intra-group or inter-group.
If every group is a bell curve, then the curves have similar variance and similar mean as well, and the variance within each group is larger than the difference between the means, and the differences are not big enough to say in a meaningful way that one group is smarter than another.
"Race is a socially constructed category" is a semantic argument, not a real debate point. An ethnicity indicates you are descended from some set of people, and share genetics and/or culture with them. A race is a group of people whose membership is almost entirely arbitrary. Just as an example, many (maybe most?) people who are Hispanic have some amount of Spanish heritage (the country, not the language). Spanish people are white in terms of race, though. It's an arbitrary boundary we've drawn. Ethnicities are actually tied to geneology, so they could potentially be useful.
I still get your point, though.
I think you're right in that abilities and disabilities can be genetic. It would make sense that groups that share genes could share abilities and disabilities. There are 2 things to note, however.
The first is that at this point in humanity's progress, I doubt that there are very many people who only belong to a single ethnicity. And each time people of different ethnicities procreate, each gene is effectively randomly taken from one of the two ethnicities. The chances of inheriting an entire multi-gene sequence from one parent is fairly low. That's why many of these genetic disorders are only common in communities that practice endogamy. For the wider population, unless you're descended fairly recently from someone that was a part of those communities, your chances are extremely low. I would expect that same here. If some ethnicity has an ability/disability, it would be common among an endogamous group of that ethnicity, but the chances for someone who split from that group several generations ago to have it is going to rapidly approach 0. One would expect that given random interbreeding between ethnicities, everyone would approach an average.
The second is that human behavior is extremely complex. Finding the causality for a delta in some ability is very hard to do. Most of the things we have traced back to genetics are binary. You have a disease, or you don't. There is no standard deviation on whether you have the disease or not, you either do or don't. Genetic diseases are also effectively immune to social factors. It doesn't matter how rich or poor, or white collar or blue collar you are; you can't get Tay-Sachs because you were discriminated against. Those add up to make it very hard to find the causality behind much of what we consider an ability. If one group ranks 10% higher in IQ tests, it might be because they're wealthy and everyone else is experiencing food shortages. Or they can afford better schools. Likewise, if another group can run 10% faster on average, it might be because they tend to work blue collar jobs and are in better shape than those of us that sit at a desk all day.
There are tons of factors that can affect physical and mental abilities. Genetics are likely one of those. If we can't even establish the causality, we certainly aren't going to be able to gauge the magnitude. Is it a drastic increase/decrease in ability, or is it a small change that is exacerbated by everyone overestimating it? It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we demonstrate some ethnicity can run faster, they'll start getting picked more to be professional athletes. Then more members of the ethnicity will attempt to become professional athletes, thus raising the average running speed and making the delta look more significant than it is.
Overall, I agree that genetics probably plays a role. I just think tracing it to an ethnicity is a) too difficult to be realistic, and b) not targeted enough to be useful. The cost of genetic testing will eventually fall enough to where we don't have to look at ethnicity to guess at what genes you have, we can just test everyone. Then ethnicity is irrelevant, it's entirely about whether you have the gene or not.
The point in saying "race is a socially constructed category" is to counter the ideology that says that "race is a meaningful categorization of people" and, in particular, "it says meaningful things about people's nature and abilities." While ethnicity does pass along, the traits that it carries with it are so scattered and superficial that it's not meaningful in most contexts to categorize people as such, genetically speaking (though of course they can become unified by how they are treated in society).
Analogy: having brown hair is a genetic trait. But it wouldn't make sense if we categorized people as "brown-hairs" because it's just not a meaningful category that says anything much about anything except the color of their hair.
I agree with your post overall. Especially wrt to intelligence I think that it's composed of thousands of microtasks some of which are specific enough, likely coming complete with dedicated brain functions, to be helped or hurt by genetics. If we knew what they were, we could develop compensatory strategies for each distribution of abilities / deficits.
That is one of the (many) reasons I always argue for fearlessly understanding the full measure of reality as opposed to practicing a new form of Lysenkoism called "we're all equivalent and interchangeable, so the problem lies elsewhere...".
In a sense, all pro-social behavior is a kind of learned compensation which counters an innate desire to just club that other fellow over the head. Compensating for a "lack" in your genes is the stuff civilization is founded on.
That said, this is just wrong:
> If we demonstrate some ethnicity can run faster, they'll start getting picked more to be professional athletes.
You aren't picked to excel; you're born to it and other peple observe that fact. If people were picked to excel then just anyone could be in the NBA. We have all run the 100 yd dash. We've all had opportunities to distinguish oureslves there. Not many of us did. Even fewer did and failed to notice this in themselves.
You can't socially engineer raw talent but you can impose conditions which overwhelm it. That is always a tragedy.
> By demanding a world in which some things cannot even be spoken of
Excuse me, I demanded no such thing. I thought it was fairly clear that I was advocating against censorship, which invariably forces people into deeper and less accessible echo chambers. How are we supposed to convince the racists that they're wrong if we can't even see them being racist, or talk to them about it?
I'm genuinely baffled as to how "let's not hide the racists from view" can be interpreted as "ban the racists". But you may not have been the only one, as I earned many downvotes for some reason.
Are these the only two options in the discourse? Turn our backs so that "everyone can get along", or pay "content moderators" to do it for us? Can we not, you know, let em talk and use our words?
I agree that this is the way we should go if we want to have moderation of content that also respects freedom of speech. However, I don't think what most people people want is just to not see racist comment online, they want to prevent/forbid racist comment online, even if they don't see it.
Otherwise Parler would never have been shut down like it was, people would simply ignore it. But instead, people go out of their way in order to silence Parler, even if it's not their community.
I don't think we should ignore platforms that call for violence, but is that what Parler did? AFAIK, only people using Parler was inciting any violence, not the people actually running and maintaining the service Parler.
Go ahead and complain to their service provider and see if they are violating their ToS.
The big difference is that Twitter and Facebook actually (poorly) police their content where Parlor refused to do anything to block calls to violence. They were warned and continued to violate the ToS and AWS decided to walk away from the relationship.
What good if having a contract if you aren't allowed to terminate it once a party violates it?
Only comment on the entire thread that makes sense.
It’s amazing that every comment seems to imply sinister motives to every action by every police officer, when the more obvious answer is that most police actually do their jobs well and there are circumstances they must deal with that commenters here are not privy to or want to perpetuate a narrative.
The same commenters of they met police or had friends who were police would think very differently. Police are dehumanized to the extent that people want to go out and attack them in the streets
I don’t think any officer goes out wanting to attack people and start fights. Look at videos of police. They stand in a line and have projectiles thrown at them and verbal abuse yelled at them. 90% of the time they have to stand there and do nothing. And if it gets too much they clear the protests.
The vast majority of society do not want to go yell at police in the street.
The biggest problem is takeovers of protests by anarchists and I don’t know the solution to this. If anarchists consistently escalate protests then it takes away people’s rights to protest. But I see this as a problem to be solved by protestors.
> Do cops think there are thugs cloaking themselves in fake press gear ?
Yes. Everyone has phones now. Everyone can claim they are press or they have a YouTube channel. These people don’t wear press gear.
A lot of the time the police are not suspecting press and they get more access so people claiming they are press are more of a threat, which is why they must verify.
Say you are trying to light a fire in a police station or break a barricade. Should police allow you to loiter and go wherever you want rather than stay with the crowd?
If you think it through you will realize that unless identification is done it creates immense risk.
Journalists will always complain on an individual level, but police are working on reducing threat level and maintaining order of a wider context.
> Law enforcement quickly identified media and escorted them to a line where they were asked for credentials and identification. Law enforcement took pictures of journalists' credentials and IDs as well as photos of the journalists’ faces.
If the purpose of to get people to leave, then kettling them achieves the opposite. Having seen kettling used, I've yet to see an example where it was not abused as an authoritan means of punishing people.
So I don't buy the premise in the first place. In practice it's an authoritarian, abusive method.
If you have a legitimate reason to disperse people because elements are threatening violence, then disperse them - don't lock the those who are peaceful in with the violent elements.
This is more difficult than you expect. Police are drastically outnumbered in any crowd control situation. You can watch videos from Minneapolis riots where police just watch windows being smashed and shops being looted because they don’t have enough people.
It takes more than once officer to arrest someone too so things like Kettling need to be done for safety of everyone.
The rules are simple: if you get dispersion order it’s time to go. It’s not like they are not given a choice. I think a lot of people showing up to protests are just a bit unaware of the law. The number of times you see someone complaining about being asked to move on and they shout back that they are “on the sidewalk - can’t I just walk in my own city blah blah”. It’s just a misunderstanding of the law or a willingness to violate democratic law.
No, I fully expect it to be difficult. But that does not justify authoritarian abuses of power.
If you believe keeping everyone squashed together in a small space is safe, then you've basically admitted the crowd is not a risk to each other and can be contained, in which case there is not justification for it.
I don't care that the "rules are simple". Every authoritarian governments tends to have simple rules like that. That does not make this kind of authoritarian use of power justified.
You ignore the facts of this specific case. Anecdata indeed.
> Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington says throughout the night, and particularly from 8 p.m. onward, officers came under threat from a variety of new individuals who began to approach and contest the area around the police department with items like baseball bats, plywood, shields and "liquid products."
> There were reports of some protesters shaking the perimeter fencing, while lobbing objects over the fence at officers on the other side.
> Harrington outlined how attempts to breach the outermost ring of fencing by more belligerent protesters was handled with some amount of restraint, with officers repairing the breach and backing off rather than immediately proceeding to clear the area around the station.
You stop relying on blanket dispersal orders, curfews, other things like that. Arrest people for shooting, looting, throwing bricks, setting fires, you know, crimes that matter.
The journalists would see this as an impediment to them getting the "true story" (for whatever value of "X" that is) as it prevents them from "embedding" with the masses along with identifying the journo for violent actions. Not every "reporter" has a full camera crew.
That being said, there were examples of the vest you describe at the DC "insurrection", or at least I saw some some journos wearing neon-yellow reflective vests stenciled with "REPORTER" on the live feed.
Personally, I agree with you totally. Police & journalists should be clearly identified to better control things as it seems the default these days is to riot.
> While law enforcement leaders say they had hoped to continue facilitating the more peaceful elements of the demonstrations with a more distanced approach, there were pockets of aggressive behavior that posed a threat to officers, as well as attempts to breach the station's outer ring of fencing, which spurred action from law enforcement to clear the immediate area.
The protests became unlawful and rightfully so.
> A lot of journalists like myself were slow to leave the area,” Colt said. “We didn’t think we needed to, and we wanted to cover what was happening.”
> Colt described police then corralling protesters and media into one group and yelling for them to get “flat on our stomachs.”
Sounds like if you had the full context it wouldn’t be so outrageous.
How do we know people are press and not pretending to be to sneak behind police lines and set fire to the police station or things like that.
"Sounds like you enjoy the taste of boot" is trivially against the site guidelines regardless of what view the commenter holds or how right they are or feel they are or you feel they are. Anyone can see that, no matter how passionately they hold their opinions.
HN has had tons of comments about police brutality including tons from what I assume is a similar view to your own. For a while it was by far the most-discussed topic on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962.
The vast majority of people never have negative interactions with police and actually are thankful for them keeping their communities safe.
The ones that do have problems are those that resist arrest and detainment in a society where everyone is armed.
Hence, I wouldn’t know the taste.
I acknowledge the historical precedent but it’s been a long time since such things and I prefer to look at the facts of the situation at hand (as would be done in a court of law) rather than implying conspiratorial motives from history.
*killed by police