EPTOn September 21 2017 02:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Odds that Trump is, behind closed doors, a straight up old fashioned white supremacist?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8791
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Odds that Trump is, behind closed doors, a straight up old fashioned white supremacist? | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
Trump needs some ice for that burn. Hopefully we will actually learn the answer to the question of Trump's finances when Mueller submits his report to DoJ. Trump is really sticking it to the DC elites on the behalf of the working class by having the working class pay his legal fees. The amount of money getting paid out in legal fees is insane. 130,000 to a bad lawyer who can't even keep his story straight on TV? (See Jay Sekulow's hilarious interview with Chris Wallace, where Sekulow blatantly contradicts himself and Wallace calls him on it.) I wonder what the Trump Corporation is. It's not the Trump Organization, which has been around forever and does the branding deals and the real estate stuff, with some Russian money laundering sprinkled in. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:10 Plansix wrote: Like, do they think we are that stupid? These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. | ||
Falling
Canada11504 Posts
On September 20 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote: You act like they have to hold it like a single-issue voter would. I gave the example of women who think it's evil but a necessary evil in modern society. Also, others that are personally pro-life, but don't think government has a role limiting it for the rest of society. The question is if you think the actual people holding the other view are so scummy that you could never love them. I'm sure if you dig deep, you can find other compromises that mean you don't have to find a philosophical middle ground to every debate (kind of a regressive way to view a relationship, if you ask me), just the agreement that you're not going to try to argue the other out of it every year. They need not be single-issue voters, but man is that an issue! There's a lot of political things- let's say publicly funded healthcare that one could disagree with spouse, or maybe green initiatives vs small government but not let those political difference get in the way of a good marriage. But the difference we are talking about is no small thing if the difference of view is between fundamental rights of body autonomy vs murder. And I think it reveals, like a tip of an iceberg, a whole range of beliefs and values that are very much opposed. Also, others that are personally pro-life, but don't think government has a role limiting it for the rest of society. I think, this is generally describing a pro-choice person- they chose life. Because unless they are hardcore anti-statists, at a bare minimum most people think a role of government is to prevent murder (or at least to seek justice when it occurs)- if one philosophically believes government has no role in limiting for the rest of society, I would guess they don't really think it's baby murder... barring a wild anti-statist appearance. (Hence my qualifier- "one wonder just how dearly they hold either of those positions really".) I'm all for mediation and talking out differences with everyone- but we don't marry everyone (we haven't quite found the free love of the hippies just yet). And so as marriage is generally fairly exclusive and at least semi-long lasting, I find it quite reasonable that such a sharp difference of views (which likely belies other very strongly held and mutually exclusive views) as reasonable grounds to not view the other as a marriageable partner... from both sides | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Trump needs some ice for that burn. Hopefully we will actually learn the answer to the question of Trump's finances when Mueller submits his report to DoJ. Trump is really sticking it to the DC elites on the behalf of the working class by having the working class pay his legal fees. The amount of money getting paid out in legal fees is insane. 130,000 to a bad lawyer who can't even keep his story straight on TV? (See Jay Sekulow's hilarious interview with Chris Wallace, where Sekulow blatantly contradicts himself and Wallace calls him on it.) I wonder what the Trump Corporation is. It's not the Trump Organization, which has been around forever and does the branding deals and the real estate stuff, with some Russian money laundering sprinkled in. I think my most wished for item of the Trump presidency is the public learning that he's not a billionaire but is actually in the red. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote: yeah, i'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt on this. given the scale of their operation, i think it's more likely that whatever algo or tool they have generating the categories did it with zero human intervention, and that their filter just didn't catch it for one reason or another. That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. On September 21 2017 12:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote: These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote: Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else.That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote: Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The question isn't if the officer will be charged or convicted. We know the answer to that: No and No. The question is if he will get to keep his job? Prediction: likely. Note: I get people might not like the sources, but this is one of the few places writing about this. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9046 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote: They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On September 21 2017 13:33 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/splinter_news/status/910665218484834304 The question isn't if the officer will be charged or convicted. We know the answer to that: No and No. The question is if he will get to keep his job? Prediction: likely. Note: I get people might not like the sources, but this is one of the few places writing about this. When authorities arrived at Sanchez’s home investigating a hit-and-run, they found him on the porch carrying a metal walking stick. A walking stick! On his own porch? Reason for quick execution if you ask me. Imagine how scared and under duress these officers were. /s | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45729 Posts
On September 21 2017 12:14 Doodsmack wrote: Odds that Trump is, behind closed doors, a straight up old fashioned white supremacist? Nah he can't be... Remember that one time he said he had a black friend? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8072 Posts
On September 21 2017 13:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's not being reported heavily because he's not black. That's why and it's a shame. Cops really need to get hammered hard for shit like this. There is absolutely no excuse. I think part of the problem is that there is a deeply rooted militaristic culture in the US and a huge, unconditional (and misplaced in my opinion) respect for men in uniform that make people assume that soldiers or policemen are necessarily the good guys, leaving them the benefit of the doubt to completely unreasonable proportion. Granted, I come from a country where most people don't really like either the military or the police (most french folks don't really like too much uniforms and people who wear them in France), but at least those things don't happen here. In my opinion, this guy should be charged like a petty criminal who just murdered someone. As long as that doesn't happen in the US, nothing is gonna change. Shooting someone should be a last of the last resort action, when either the life of the policeman is objectively in danger, or when the target is threatening someone else's life. Everything else is a cold blood murder in my book and should be dealt with as such. Including letally shooting someone trying to escape. The police job is not to kill people unless absolutely necessary, period. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11816 Posts
Since i live in Germany, i will just compare Germany to the US. German police have killed a total of 365 people in between 1978 and 2014 according to this It is a bit harder to find statistics on US police killings since the US police doesn't actually track this stuff (Probably because it isn't important to them), but apparently there were about 800 so far in 2017 Of course, the US is bigger than Germany, so it is unfair to compare those raw numbers. If we correct by the number of people, a US-sized Germany would have 365*300/80 = 1370 people killed in between 1978 and 2014. So if we assume that the US police is not going to kill any more people in 2017, that would mean that US police kills about 20 times as many people as German police. That sounds like a problem to me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23910 Posts
On September 21 2017 20:59 Simberto wrote: Since anecotal evidence isn't that great, it is good to make comparisons to other countries. Since i live in Germany, i will just compare Germany to the US. German police have killed a total of 365 people in between 1978 and 2014 according to this It is a bit harder to find statistics on US police killings since the US police doesn't actually track this stuff (Probably because it isn't important to them), but apparently there were about 800 so far in 2017 Of course, the US is bigger than Germany, so it is unfair to compare those raw numbers. If we correct by the number of people, a US-sized Germany would have 365*300/80 = 1370 people killed in between 1978 and 2014. So if we assume that the US police is not going to kill any more people in 2017, that would mean that US police kills about 20 times as many people as German police. That sounds like a problem to me. The obvious one is that they need more training. It would frighten folks to find out how little training not just beat cops get, but detectives too. Or how shady and low-rent a lot of these "training" outfits are. I learned about "police experts" and my god, the whole thing is a scam. The labs have some standards, but something like an "expert fire investigator" is a joke. You would presume they would have some sort of idea about either architecture, engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, etc... or some kind of combination of the above.... Nope, know what it takes? A high school diploma, some time being any kind of cop and a "40-hour" course. Then you can later march into court and tell a jury that in your "expert opinion" (based off watching Backdraft and drunkenly clicking through an online course with your teenage son answering for you) that the fire was definitely arson. Funny thing though, if it's an insurance company needing an investigation, they'll only listen to real professionals, not cops. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22296 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On September 21 2017 20:59 Simberto wrote: Since anecotal evidence isn't that great, it is good to make comparisons to other countries. Since i live in Germany, i will just compare Germany to the US. German police have killed a total of 365 people in between 1978 and 2014 according to this It is a bit harder to find statistics on US police killings since the US police doesn't actually track this stuff (Probably because it isn't important to them), but apparently there were about 800 so far in 2017 Of course, the US is bigger than Germany, so it is unfair to compare those raw numbers. If we correct by the number of people, a US-sized Germany would have 365*300/80 = 1370 people killed in between 1978 and 2014. So if we assume that the US police is not going to kill any more people in 2017, that would mean that US police kills about 20 times as many people as German police. That sounds like a problem to me. You are missing a couple of quite important confounders there. But yeah, US as a society has a couple of problems. | ||
| ||
