[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4589

File: 1577221271540.png (17.86 KB, 306x409, 306:409, Capture _2019-12-24-12-47-….png) ImgOps Google

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/white-supremacist-propaganda-swells-to-record-levels-on-campuses-11561654393

Every mainstream article attests that there is huge focus on recruitment among young especially in college.  And that its all on the rise in a big way.  And a huge problem.

Without advocating squelching free speech (any position purporting this will be considered a derailment), what can be done about this?

My opinion is that this is the product of our education system in the US (maybe others but i know only the US) and that we have to start there.  Obviously even if we did fix that, which we wont, its a bit late to deal with the existing problem.

So.  Lets have some ideas from brains with IQs between 1 and 200 and see if we can get some kind of positive perspective on a dismal problem.  Help!

 No.4590

I think it's our (often deliberately) broken education system.

Especially when it comes to critical thinking skills, which are opposed by various conservative and right-wing circles, typically under the excuse that they undermine parental authority or something like that. Which effectively means they undermine authoritarian rhetoric, hence the opposition from right-wingers and conservatives.

 No.4592

>>4590
Theres a much deeper history to that than most people know, but its actually undisputable that what you describe has been a very long running political effort including 100 years to accomplish compulsory education for all americans in order to facilitate that purpose.

Do you have any ideas how to begin to work on that problem?

How about the immediate problem?

 No.4593

File: 1577222368362.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 4aecbceb7a7f8f87a7852d79e8….png) ImgOps Google

Better education for kids would be a start, certainly.

 No.4595

>>4592

I'm thinking more in recent decades where the concept of dismantling public education became popular amongs conservative ideologues who advocate for public schooling to be replaced with a "voucher system" for private schools.

To that end, many conservative controlled states (Texas being a big example) have often deliberately undermined the effectiveness of their state's public education systems.

 No.4599

>>4595
I remember the push for private school vouchers and as a kid with no hope of escaping public education, i saw that as an attempt to abandon me in a ghetto with zero chance while the affluent escaped to be scientists and business tycoons.

Now i wonder about my assumptions then.  I was indoctrinated to still think my jokes about public education's true intent were sarcasm and not so close to the truth.

 No.4600

Proper education would be the place to start, yes.

 No.4601

>>4589
Better economic opportunities for lower-class white humans.  It is easier for humans to be generous when there is a lot of prosperity to go around.  In times of privation, many humans tend to stick to their 'tribe' and try to exclude others.  Oursourcing and automation leading to job loss probably play a major role in the growth of racist ideologies.

 No.4602

>>4601
I think I'd agree with that.  Where white supremacy is evil, you can't excuse it because someone is lower-class, however it probably has something to do with insecure whites looking for -- perhaps feeling they need -- something inalienable on which to hang worth.  Or at least that is the base, another class of white supremacy comes from leaders who enable supremacist ideas in the insecure for power.  That should be attacked too, unless attacking leaders is disrespectful, in which case, I guess not?

 No.4616

>>4589
Would help if there wasn't a general sort of mainstream acceptance that it's ok to bash on white people. This is anecdotal, but i remember multiculturalism being pretty cool back in the 90s. I was entirely on board, it was a bunch of people coming together with different strengths and backgrounds to solve problems ala captain planet or magic schoolbus. These days, that's not really what i associate with it. White supremacy rears it's head, i think, when white people feel defensive. There was no need to feel defensive when we had magic-school-bus multiculturalism, but when the huffington post puts out an article about how white men shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, even if it eventually gets retracted, it clearly shows some level of rising hostility. Here's an archived version of the post.
https://archive.md/lmHPC#selection-1745.184-1751.197
This isn't a joke article, or a mischaracterized hitpiece. This is what huffpo published themselves, and their editor defended. Yes it was retracted and she was fired, but the message is sent. There are people out there who would see white people suffer, who wish white people very serious harm. In light of something like this, is it any wonder some people are feeling defensive? It's even more complicated by the fact that this never really happened during slavery or the civil rights era. So this threat only really reared it's head, in a way, as a result of civil rights. People only started bitching once they got power. So it's kindof a logical step to try and rein things back, if only for your own protection. As things like racial quotas move forward, there are very real disadvantages that are coming down the line, and the direction is clear, as things "progress", white men suffer more and more. Now, a lot of that is likely a result of evening scales, but i think there's plenty of it out there that's just vengeful for vengeance sake. It's reasonable to feel wronged, but at the same time, it's not like every individual white person wronged you, so when you use language that includes them, and implies harm against them, of course some people will get defensive and angry.

If we want to solve the problem, we need to have a real standard. Racism is racism, racism against whites is as much racism as racism against blacks or any other minority. Privileged is a discussion worth having, but it's not an excuse to dismiss anything a white person says. We need to treat each other as equals here, and not try to use privilege to rationalize hatred or revenge.

Economically, i think there's probably a lot of tension growing at the bottom. As more middle-class people are forced into lower-paying jobs with the shrinking of the middle class, and automation, immigration could very well be the scale that tips minimum wage workers into destitution. The bottom is getting worse and worse, so the white underclass is feeling reasonably economically threatened, and immigrants are the obvious target. If we could find a way to deal with the problem of a permanently-destitute underclass, we'd have made a huge step. I think we could start with fixing the horribly inbred and bloated education system for starters, so that people in the underclass could reasonably afford to get an education that would help them procure a job that would elevate them to middle class. Create more low-income housing.

I don't know if education would help that much, or at least, we need to be careful how we do it. For me, some education only made me more resentful of minorities at the time, because some white lady would preach to me about how bad i was for being a white man, and that made me feel defensive. The only thing that helped was seeing non-white people thinking she was an asshole, too, as well as finding non-white people who shared interest with me.

Though as a final aside, this is coming from the anti-defamation league, aka, the pepe-is-a-hate-symbol people, so i'd take anything coming from them with big, fat boulder of salt in the first place.

 No.4617

>>4616
>horribly inbred and bloated education system
What does it mean for an education system to be inbred? Or even bloated for that matter.

 No.4622

>>4617
Inbred in the sense that it's as much about who you know as merit. Teachers write their own textbooks, and seniority and tenure matter more than skill or substance ever could. Half of literary arts classes are just political activists who found a job that pays them to preach to people that have to listen, and half the professors write their own textbooks from pre-existing problems and then sell it for 4-digit prices. It's a damn cabal! Bloated in the sense that algebra problems, free online, have to be bought in textbook form for $1000, which will be outdated by an essentially-identical new issue every semester. Inbred in that the tenure system exists and that connections and seniority will always trump skill and ability, and locked behind enough paperwork to prevent healthy competition.

 No.4623

>>4622
>>4616
I guess I agree with a lot of this, but also disagree with a lot.

Regarding this culture war stuff I think you can say a lot about this, and obviously there's no hiding who you think primarily has some issues here. You can talk about how very radical lefty stuff is generally very radical and offensive, and I agree, to the extent that I think some people take hunts for social justice to a place that just doesn't make sense, and is only hurtful. But I also think it's really media amplification of this that does the majority of the legwork, in converting white supremacists. You are not likely to run into a single vocal radical, if you just live your life offline. The only place I've ever seen one is on the internet, and there is really zero political traction to policies that should discriminate against white people, while policies that discriminate against minorities at some level, have been routine for a long time, and there are still coming policies out that block minority voters and introduce school busing and all this kind of stuff. This gives me the feeling that these narratives that the whites are being suppressed/oppressed by all the progressives, are not really congruent with reality, but that they're created because media outlets are incentivized to play them up. Of course white supremacists also love these and will spread them anywhere they can, since they really do a lot to sell the ideology to newcomers.

The typical cycle of a piece of radical left media is something like

1: A small article is published with a very fringe and politically provocative message, probably to clickbait people.
2: The title and maybe the most offensive parts of the message are clipped and drawn out of context, and introduced as talking points in a white supremacist propaganda piece.
3: Friends of the white supremacist propaganda network and freeze peach advocates pick up on how much social media chatter there is about this outrageous lefty policy, start talking about it on their shows and websites, and further amplify the message.

The amplification of the most offensive talking points and ingoring anything which couldn't rouse strong emotions contributes to focusing everyone exclusively on these controversial issues, across the political spectrum, regardless of ideology, projecting an image of the political discourse that doesn't depict the reality of the political sentiment.

The way this process works, it also means you only need one or two tweets or articles a week to fuel an entire propaganda network, and of course, there will always be one or two controversial things that one can drag into the light. The system can function to delude and propagandize regardless of actual sentiment or political reality, and does so.

Serious and thought out lefty ideas like universal healthcare, increased top marginal income tax, making oral rape /officially/ rape, and so on and so forth, are not controversial ideas, are largely supported, and make up the majority of the political change that lefties are pushing for.

You can argue that that's irrelevant because it still points to the point of discontent and what might be fueling the ideology, but I think it's good to think about how white supremacists could potentially wrong, or viewing the world from a skewed perspective, otherwise we're basically sympathizing and vibing with them, and that doesn't seem like a good place to be. I'm much more inclined to believe that if you're a genuine white supremacist, your primary motivator really is that you have a visceral hatred of minorities, and the sjw narrative is more of a scapegoat and rhetorical strategy, which you use to convert newcomers, and strengthen group cohesion. Event to the point where white supremacists and people within the propaganda network end up buying the narrative themselves, it is still very clearly a very intentionally designed narrative. This fits a lot more with the experiences I have with real white supremacists, offline and online.


I think the observation that there is /something/ wrong with the education system is very astute.

So, stepping away from your post for a bit I'll add my thoughts to the education talk...

I see a lot of people thinking that if everyone got an education everyone would be able to procure a job, and I think that doesn't play out that way in reality. I think automation and development in first world countres cannot allow that everyone has a job. It's economically infeasible and even today you see that probably the majority of occupations are very very expendable positions that could be performed easily by a machine, and it's not like there are amazing stem occupations waiting for just everyone that wants them. You could push more people through here, though for sure. In general, more medical staff is greatly needed, I know that much, and one way to maybe start solving shortages like this might be to make the education more affordable/accesible and also reduce this cycle of nepotism A.C talks about that does contribute to university inefficiency.

But I think that still kind of overlooks the large glaring issue of, there just isn't enough work at all for every individual in this stage of societal development. There are so many occupations were people just game the system or perform meaningless tasks, and even with these we have way too many leading idle and meaningless lives.

That's like a wider systemic issue, and has implications much further beyond white supremacy.

 No.4624

>>4623

>Regarding this culture war stuff I think you can say a lot about this, and obviously there's no hiding who you think primarily has some issues here.

Don't get me wrong, i'm really no fan at all of backwater hicks who think fossils are the work of Satan and resent the result of the civil war. It's a backwards, go-nowhere way of thinking. All they do is romanticize the past, there's no forward-thinking, and yes, many of them are just simply hateful and dressing it up with whatever justification they can. I have no affinity for that kind of person. It's not the way i want to see us go moving forward, not at all.

There's issues all around, but i don't think dismissing any and all criticisms of social justice as racist nazis is helpful, just as it's not productive to dismiss any discussion about inequality as SJW cucks. It's kindof the same idea, using dismissal and mis-characterization rather than tackling the points head-on. It's hard for me to even really criticize picking up pieces like that, though. Even if they're looking to push propoganda, well, they can't really knock the pins down if the left isn't constantly making themselves look like crazies. Of course there is always going to be fringe groups, but many sectors of the left, like the huffington post, really have no sense of moderation. A billion-dollar website is hosting an article, and the editor in charge defended it after pushback. Does that sound like fringe to you? To me it sounds about as successful and mainstream as it can get. If you want to talk about fringe, we need a way of quantifying fringe, but i really don't see that situation as being fringe in any reasonable sense of the word at all.  

>You can talk about how very radical lefty stuff is generally very radical and offensive, and I agree, to the extent that I think some people take hunts for social justice to a place that just doesn't make sense, and is only hurtful. But I also think it's really media amplification of this that does the majority of the legwork, in converting white supremacists.

Yes, but it would be a lot harder if the left didn't give them any tinder to light. I also think it would be helpful if we stepped back and defined what a white supremacist is.

>You are not likely to run into a single vocal radical, if you just live your life offline. The only place I've ever seen one is on the internet, and there is really zero political traction to policies that should discriminate against white people, while policies that discriminate against minorities at some level, have been routine for a long time, and there are still coming policies out that block minority voters and introduce school busing and all this kind of stuff.

I use to live in a very left state, and while it wasn't common, i did run into people like this. They do exist. It's not a problem, they generally just show up to protest something every now and then and are occasionally loud and irritating, not like they really have much power right now, but the sentiment is there.

>This gives me the feeling that these narratives that the whites are being suppressed/oppressed by all the progressives, are not really congruent with reality, but that they're created because media outlets are incentivized to play them up. Of course white supremacists also love these and will spread them anywhere they can, since they really do a lot to sell the ideology to newcomers.

I kindof think it's both ways. I think white supremacists certainly do feed off that, and that certain right-leaning news outlets amplify and exaggerate to push their own agenda; However, that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem. That doesn't mean that, say, racial discrimination against whites is taken as seriously as racial discrimination against other racial groups. That kind of discrimination against whites also doesn't mean there's not hardened forms of institutionalized racism that target minorities, both can exist simultaneously, both are a problem. One certainly does not solve the other.

1: A small article is published with a very fringe and politically provocative message, probably to clickbait people.
2: The title and maybe the most offensive parts of the message are clipped and drawn out of context, and introduced as talking points in a white supremacist propaganda piece.
3: Friends of the white supremacist propaganda network and freeze peach advocates pick up on how much social media chatter there is about this outrageous lefty policy, start talking about it on their shows, and further amplify the message.

Yes and no... That certinaly can be the pattern, and does happen, but the huffington post is a billion-dollar company with huge amounts of traffic, it is not fringe, so this sort of thing is progressively becoming more mainstream. This is kindof what i mean when i say i think it's both ways. It both is a slow, creeping problem that should be addressed, and also not the Armageddon that certain right-wing outlets proport it to be.

>Serious and thought out lefty ideas like universal healthcare, increased top marginal income tax, making oral rape /officially/ rape, and so on and so forth, are not controversial ideas, are largely supported, and make up the majority of the political change that lefties are pushing for.

So then where's the dismissal of things like the huffpo article? I agree with you, but there's very little opposition of the most radical of leftist ideas on the left. That makes me feel like they're less opposed to it as a whole, and more that they don't think the Overton window is where it needs to be yet for them to push for it. Dismissing the radicals also allows them to know exactly how to shift the overton window as well. We're essentially giving the radical left free rein over the overton window. It's an excellent attrition strategy, and i think if we just dismiss "radicals" while not holding the overall ethos to those points, they inevitably win that battle of attrition.

This isn't an exclusively left thing, just a tactic, but one the left is doing far better at than the right. Nostalgia is the only thing fueling the far right at the moment, and i think that's destined to fail, it's a road that goes nowhere.

There are things i can agree are good to push for on the left. I think implementing some aspects of socialism as the bottom falls out on the economy is easily the most sensible way to move forward as a whole, and there's many other points i can definitely get behind.

>You can argue that that's irrelevant because it still points to the point of discontent and what might be fueling the ideology, but I think it's good to think about how white supremacists could potentially wrong, or viewing the world from a skewed perspective, otherwise we're basically sympathizing and vibing with them, and that doesn't seem like a good place to be.

Personally, i think sympathy for any position is important, even if just for a bit. I don't think dismissal ever helps us. Everyone is coming from somewhere. Many of those places are stupid shit places that don't gel with reality, decency, or morality, but understanding how we got from point a to point b i think is always helpful. I think we can both sympathize and condemn.

>I'm much more inclined to believe that if you're a genuine white supremacist, your primary goal really is that you have a visceral hatred of minorities, and the sjw narrative is more of a scapegoat and rhetorical strategy. This fits a lot more with the experiences I have with real white supremacists, offline and online.

I think that certainly exists, but is not exclusively the case. Hard to say exactly what the ratios are.

>I think the observation that there is /something/ wrong with the education system is very astute.

>So, stepping away from your post for a bit I'll add my thoughts to the education talk...

>I see a lot of people thinking that if everyone got an education everyone would be able to procure a job, and I think that doesn't play out that way in reality. I think automation and development in first world countres cannot allow that everyone has a job. It's economically infeasible and even today you see that probably the majority of occupations are very very expendable positions that could be performed easily by a machine, and it's not like there are amazing stem occupations waiting for just everyone that wants them. You could push more people through here, though for sure. In general, more medical staff is greatly needed, I know that much, and one way to maybe start solving shortages like this might be to make the education more affordable/accesible and also reduce this cycle of nepotism A.C talks about that does contribute to university inefficiency.

I do generally agree that everyone isn't going to realistically be employed as we move closer and closer towards a post-scarcity society. Personally, i think that as we get better at creating wealth, we should just control our population, provide large amounts of welfare with our gains, and allow everyone to follow their passions. If education isn't the key to that though, we should be upfront about it. Too many people are being sold a bill of goods, and buying into that myth, that education will provide you with a better job, is causing a lot of very real harm. We could probably solve that with reforming schools to better define their purpose, being focused at what they're suppose to accomplish, and punished if they fail to do that, but i feel like that's not really politically feasible unless businesses and employees find a way to properly communicate skill without educational institutions acting as a gatekeeper. It's going to be near-impossible to implement politically, so i honestly think our best bet is for free market economics to push businesses and employees away from education. Things seem to be moving the opposite way though, with more credentialism rather than less. I have no idea why businesses are acting this way, especially if employment is as great as so many people claim it to be right now. I don't know where the dice are going to land on that one moving forward.

>But I think that still kind of overlooks the large glaring issue of, there just isn't enough work at all for every individual in this stage of societal development. There are so many occupations were people just game the system or perform meaningless tasks, and even with these we have way too many leading idle and meaningless lives.

>That's like a wider systemic issue, and has implications much further beyond white supremacy.

I 100% agree. I'd say the problem is the inevitable collapse of the lower class. I think some forms of socialism are easily the best solution to this problem, as we, as a somewhat necessary boon of the problem, have excess resources we can use to support those displaced. The problem kind of packages itself with the solution. Left to free-market economics, the whole thing, ironically, collapses under the weight of it's own success. The tricky part is how to implement the transition.

 No.4626

>>4624
>the huffington post is a billion dollar company
this is a bit misleading. Huffpost is a part of a billion dollar conglomerate. It's definitely one of the most popular political sites, though. Look, again, I don't think the climate is nearly extreme enough to justify this kind of backlash, and I don't think there's any amount of politeness or good faith tone that would stop a white supremacist propaganda network from disseminating. Their rhetoric is just not contingent on the opposition in the slightest, they'll find whatever examples they need or fabricate them.

>So then where's the dismissal of things like the huffpo article?
I think the left doesn't like to talk about this because it's a charicature of their beliefs, and giving the ideas any credence makes it seem like they are actually relevant, which they are not.

If you come away with the impression that leftists are just waiting for the overton window to shift to start suppresing the whites... well there might be a few people like that, but I think that's a misreading. Again, I've never met anyone that wants this, and my friend circle is like 100% leftists.

>Personally, i think sympathy for any position is important, even if just for a bit. I don't think dismissal ever helps us. Everyone is coming from somewhere. Many of those places are stupid shit places that don't gel with reality, decency, or morality, but understanding how we got from point a to point b i think is always helpful. I think we can both sympathize and condemn.
Yeah... maybe. I would hesitate to give any credence to these ideas myself... But I can recognize that they are people that have been mislead or wronged in life, and are angry, and that it is a factor driving them. That's about as far as I go on the sympathy wagon. But you make it sound like they are just rational actors reacting to a stimulus. And I wanted to point out that you know, there is this whole propaganda network aspect to it, they are being misled, and there is a genuine hatred behind the ideology.

>just control our population
just control the population 4head

yikes okay. Care to elaborate on that one before I assume the worst?

 No.4627

>>4626
RE: population control, I mean more on a voluntary level, just that if we use excess resources to all have 20 kids, the numbers don't crunch the same way, and we could fall back into scarcity again, I'm not talking China, more people deciding to pursue passions instead of spending their extra time and resources making more people.

 No.4629

File: 1577786118647.jpg (4.8 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20191230_171549.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Deciding to spend your own time more productively than overproducing an abundant commodity like more offspring, is certainly a more voluntary approach than the term "population control" rearing its head in every conversation.

What sort of alternative things are people supposed to spend their time and resources on, and how would such choices be made more mainstream in cultural values?

 No.4633

>>4629
People could create art! They could master a sport! They could build giant boats that look like sea serpents, Or devote their time to the furthering of human knowledge! They could explore space and the deep oceans! Or they could just all get vasectomies/have their tubes tied and harmlessly fornicate the days away! I think humans have already proven we're pretty good at finding ways to occupy our free time in cool and fun ways, we already do it a lot! I bet if we lived post-scarcity, we'd be even better at it! There would be no need for making movies appeal to every single demographic, for instance, and you could just make exactly what you wanted without worrying if you're alienating a lucrative market! Hell, the early disney properties that established the bedrock disney still rests on today, lion king, sleeping beauty, ect, were all created in similar circumstances, giving creative people resources and creative freedom. Imagine the disney boom in the 90s, but never-ending. Every year we'd get 10 movies on par with the overall quality of the lion king. It wouldn't be the same for all people, but everyone would have something that spoke to them.

 No.4634

File: 1577866576140.png (311.12 KB, 1280x1308, 320:327, pinkie_pie__shocked_vector….png) ImgOps Google

>>4633
Yes but people also do all sorts of awful things to each other for gains other than economic.

How will your utopia balance the limitations and the liberties and without economic gain wtf drives innovation.  I just dont see any of this addressed in any of the "imagine" forecasts, nor any path from here to there that has any sort of probable outlook.

Btw happy near year!  

 No.4639

>>4634
>Yes but people also do all sorts of awful things to each other for gains other than economic.

Sure, but i think with enough resources, we can mitigate that a LOT! A huge portion of crime has some economic element to it, whether that be growing up in unfortunate conditions, or having to commit crimes to survive, ect.

And, honestly? I wouldn't mind if the human element was removed a bit from the justice system. We end up with a lot of bad results based on that. A powerful computer that could interpret the law in a logical and fair manner would make a lot more sense, imho. We certainly wouldn't get so many brock turners.

>How will your utopia balance the limitations and the liberties and without economic gain

With the resources derived from post-scarcity status. Most of the traditional questions of balance of liberties and limitations become moot when everyone has essentially infinite wealth.

>wtf drives innovation.

Curiosisty, hobbyism. I wouldn't mind things moving a bit slower. We're moving at a break-neck speed right now, and it's not really helping anyone at the end of the day. Hell, we could just have ai doing all the innovating for us.

>I just dont see any of this addressed in any of the "imagine" forecasts, nor any path from here to there that has any sort of probable outlook.

It's certainly unlikely. The most likely solution is a destitute underclass which eventually dies off due to lack of resources, taking the upper class with it, who will, by that time, not really have any options to stop it, and it will result in total economic collapse. But, to me, my scenerio is a much better outlook for post-scarcity, so hell, maybe i can hope a bit.

Happy new year!

 No.4654

>>4639
I'll violate every rule laid down by a computer with my last dying breath.  Just, no.

When we have infinite resources, thats just that much more duct tape and rope in our personal sociopathy kits with zero incentive for teamwork.  I dont see "post scarcity" in itself as solving basic human meanness.

>scarcity
Is the new year.  Suffer happily, fellow bacteria.

 No.4657

>>4654
The computer would interpret the law, not make it, the idea being you would get judged for how much you broke the law and the circumstances, not punished based on what judge happened to be prosiding over the case and what mood they happened to be in that morning. Still, I understand your sentiment on an emotional level.

 No.4661

>>4657
Then why not just have a computer be Dictator and get it done with.

Edit: for some reason i dont seem able to post on townhall without being hostile. :(

 No.4681

>>4661
What? Humans would still make the laws. The computer would just enforce them in a logical and even manner. Dictators both make and enforce the laws. The computer would only function to enforce laws that humans make.

I'm just pretty sick of the rule of law being essentially meaningless when it's enforced in such a random, scattershot manner. Either money essentially is the law, as poor people get jailed for tickets and rich people can get 3 months in jail for raping passed out people, or it's just a matter of the judge's fucking mood. As we are right now, the written law doesn't mean anything, we might as well not have written law. Cops will kill you because they're scared, and then only get a paid vacation for their trouble, but you can get away with whatever you want if you're rich, at the very least of raping a passed out woman. Would it really be so awful if we took all the corruption out of the equation and just had a computer coldly and logically look at the law, look at the situation, and decide what the law says to do in this situation? Would you rather we essentially operate under a cabal like we do now?

 No.4682

>>4681
Heck, the computer wouldn't even enforce them, just interpret them. If we don't like what it interprets, it means the law is bad, and we can change the law. Easy.

 No.4683

>>4681
If you had any practical legal experience then you would not need it explained to you the issues created by the way people make laws and how only qualified critical-thinking humans can interpret the pure bullshit that elected ignoramuses write down as law.

I feel your pain in regards to unifying enforcement to create a stable, understandable environment for us to participate in.

But i think the indemic miscarriage of justice that minimum sentencing guudelines (instituted to do exactly what you propose) have created should illustrate how attempts to mechanize enforcement has had the exact opposite effect.

No, looking at laws created by people coldly and logically cannot create utopia.

Only dystopia.  This is logically concluded here and if you still disagree then it is you who cannot see this rationally, but entirely emotionally.  And that, i can well understand my friend.

Your judge computer cannot.  Its that simple.

 No.4701

>>4682
but aren't you then immediately back to human interpretation? I feel like then when the alghorithm starts spitting out racially and class-biased judgements bigots can be like, well look the computer said so so it must be justified, when in reality it does that because it was built by racially and class-biased humans.

 No.4705

>>4701
It would be human interpretation that everyone could see and pay attention to, publicly visible. Not some backwater court room run by a biased, crooked judge who is largely free from scrutiny simply based on lack of eyes on the situation.

 No.4706

>>4705
>everyone could see
Ah a spectacle, yes pillorying etc is great for justice

> backwater court room run by a biased, crooked judge

Well i think we see that in truth, you despise human intellugence and think somehow you can trust a fake intelligence created by the same disgusting sloppy flesh brains that brought you backwater crooked judges in the dark.

How do you imagine we can create a computer that is more just than its creators?  Wishful thinking?

And just how will biased, circus-loving people watching interfere with said computer when they dont like it?  Its the same public that wants that crooked judge to hang someone, anyone, so they feel civilized.

Adding in a fake judge doesnt fix anything but introduces a lot of really scary possibilities.

Edit:  also there is a tremendous amount of scrutiny of those proceedings.  Theres a public gallery.  Theres judicial review.  Whats missing is resources for due process for the economically dusadvantaged, so put your crazy computer money there instead if you want to help things for regular people.

 No.4707

>>4706
>How do you imagine we can create a computer that is more just than its creators?  Wishful thinking?

Oversight. I think bad results end up happening because judges know what they're doing isn't the right decision, but that they've got enough local authority and enough of a lack of eyes on them that they do it anyway. I don't think the judge who let brock turner off easy did it because he thought it was the correct application of justice, i think he did it either because he was being bribed, he had some bias against this woman or for turner, or some other personal reason not related to how he thinks the law should be applied. A computer with open-source code wouldn't have that issue. We can make good laws, so it's just a matter of making sure they actually get used and it's not just a clusterfuck of inconsistent enforcement. If all eyes are on the computer and what it does, than all we have to do is put in the best of humanity and leave out the worst. Leave out any affinity to a particular race/gender/ect, leave out desire for money or fame, just pure logic. Every line of code would be tied to it's coder, so the moment a coder tries to program something evil, they're on blast immediately, and because it's centralized, there will be eyes on it all the time, and shit like that won't slip through the cracks.

Yes we have public gallery and judicial review, but they're slow and clunky, and won't be applied to the however-many judges just like Michael Aaron Persky there are out there who pull shit like that but don't reach media fame. It's not a very efficient system.

 No.4708

>>4707
>>4706

So here's a good way of thinking about it. Do you think there is value in a republic? Of informed representatives working on behalf of citizens? Do you think the average congressperson is not more able to make informed decisions about political matters than the average citizen? The computer here would essentially be the perfect representative. It would have all the values we want it to have, while being perfectly informed, and, if we allow it to be, totally unbiased. If you feel like a republic is a terrible way of conducting government, then fair enough. I disagree, but you may have your reasons, and they may be reasonable. If you do not think that a republic is useless, than there stands my argument for computerized public servants. They are potentially the perfect representatives.

 No.4709

>>4707
Well, if dictating uniform sentencing from on high, executed coldly regardless of circumstance, creates "justice" then mandatory sentencing guidelines would have done exactly that instead of the opposite.

How far are you willing to take this?  Let Roe v Wade be decided by your fone?

>judges act without regard for oversight
This is simply untrue.  I have argued issues before several trial court judges who follow the high court to avoid being overturned even though they personally disagree.  Your opinion is not supported by fact.

>>4708
I haven't taken a position on representative government.  However, the complete spaghetti the legislatures in this country produce really doesnt support your argument about politicians being more capable to make law then regular people.

Your assumption that representatives work "on behalf" of citizens also isnt supported by any facts.  Politicians spend many times their salary to get elected.  They work for their financial backers, not their constituency and frankly you should check your assumptions before making arguments.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]