|
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. |
On December 30 2017 06:35 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 06:14 IgnE wrote:On December 30 2017 05:29 mozoku wrote:On December 30 2017 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2017 04:49 mozoku wrote:
The bigger issue I have is that this assumption that more educated people are somehow almost always right and people should just listen then to rather than engaging in a discussion themselves.
I certainly think that education is beneficial, and I surely find myself closer to agreement with educated people more often than uneducated ones. But, among modern society's most academically and professionally successful, formal education makes up a tiny fraction of their knowledge base--even for PhDs in their own field. The reason is that formal education is designed for the masses, and is terribly inefficient as a result. Nearly anyone intellectually capable of getting a PhD (a group almost certainly at least 5-10x as large as actual PhD holders) can self-learn much faster than they learn in classroom (especially in the age of the Internet). This is probably a factor (among others) why obtaining a PhD is largely a self-directed process.
Given this, the requirement that one ought to have a PhD on a topic to contribute is sort of idiotic, especially given the factors that I discussed in my last post. Also idiotic is the left's reverence for academic intellectuals as if their being "an academic" or "having a PhD" gives them sort of magical powers or divine right to speak on a subject.
Obtaining a PhD is useful for obtaining knowledge on a specific topic, and is certainly one way to develop one's critical thinking skills. The problem is that obtaining a PhD is neither necessary nor sufficient for obtaining either (although it can definitely be a useful indicator given a lack of other information), so treating them as qualitatively different from anyone else is senseless. And just like everyone else, they need to treated with appropriate skepticism surrounding motivations, selection/survivorship bias, effort level in a discussion, etc.
More broadly, most educated people (PhD or otherwise) have questionable critical thinking skills and are ignorant on most topics. Obviously the same is true and moreso for uneducated people. Consequently, the fact that a majority of "educated people" believe anything (a common rejoinder of the left) provides little evidence that it's actually correct. This isn't to say that a panel of actual experts on their topic of expertise shouldn't be listened to though (e.g. global warming).
As someone that is 1) a "Leftist" and 2) intimately involved in academia and educated circles for the better part of a decade, you seem to be making another boogeyman to argue against in an effort to artificially construct some kind of "crisis" to equivocate the problems that the discourse on the right has by saying, "see? The left is just as bad too!". When talking about anything politically related, I never see anyone say "you have to have a Ph.D. to contribute to a topic", and there isn't this idea that only Ph.D's should contribute to a conversation. You seem to just be simply making this up. I also rarely, if ever, see anyone say, "educated people believe this, so it must be true". As an aside, there is a qualitative difference between saying, "educated people think X about tax/social/educational policy" and "there is a scientific consensus on climate change", so let's not jump down that rabbit hole. And no, citing one random tweet doesn't make it so. That's another staple logical fallacy that conservatives like to pull out. Just because random person here or there thinks that only Ph.D's should be able to discuss topics doesn't mean that idea has any kind of influence in progressive discourse. This discussion literally started from someone saying along the lines of "if anything here has a PhD on racial injustice, they're free to talk about it. Otherwise the discussion will be doomed" and making a more general statement along those lines. I'm not constructing a boogeyman here, it was literally written several pages back. Academia and academics are probably the most respected institution and career in left-leaning circles, and several of their most prominent recent politicians have been academics. It's not at all a construction of mine to assert that academia holds an unrivaled place in the leftist hierarchy of institutions. More importantly, I'm speaking more to a generally misplaced emphasis on formal education on the left than I am to specific points--which you're trying to pigeonhole my post into. To act like there's no educational elitism that occurs on even this (left-leaning) forum is ridiculous--everything rural, religious, and high school educated is bad. It's obvious to the point where it's pretty apparent that your denials are defensive and biased. Especially when you pair it with, of all things, an implied denial of the replication crisis. it's less about the credential than it is about how someone spends their life. a professor who has control of his time and can pursue intellectual inquiry fairly freely (putting aside other job requirements) will have spent more time critically engaging with any particular issue than people who are very bright but have to spend ~40 hours a week (the best, most creative hours at that) thinking about and doing their employers' work. a phd-holder who goes to work for goldman sachs will obviously not, then, have spent much more time thinking about abstract, public issues than any other member of the regular workforce. consider also how much focus is required to do a lot of the most important reading. people working stressful jobs all day rarely have the mental, disciplinary energy to come home and read and synthesize high-level writing. a benefit of getting a phd is simply the benefit of time; time for sustained inquiry and thought Yes I actually very much agree with this, and it's why I've been careful to never make the claim that, assuming freedom from overt biases, ulterior motives, etc., someone in their spare time is likely to be as knowledgeable as a professor or PhD in their area of expertise. I've never tried to argue that academia is useless or worthless. My point is that some level skepticism of academics is justified, just as it is with everyone else. There's nothing mystical about academics that means their opinions are definitive, which is the impression I sometimes get when these "lol there's no conservative intellectuals" discussions come up here. The implication is usually that this is some indicator that leftist positions are objectively more correct. Which is a terribly flawed argument.
I think you misunderstand the role intellectuals play and why they're important. It's not about people having arguments online and owning each other, it's people driving political and cultural thought. Regardless of political spectrum, thinkers and intellectuals have been crucially important throughout all of history. Ideas men matter. They lead to long term change. But it seems like there's very few of them on the right these days, or if they're around, they're quiet about it. That's not a 'ha ha right wingers are dumb' that's a 'holy fuck, why aren't there smarter right wing people around'?
And yes I know how that sounds. There's plenty of smart right wing people. Of course there are. Paul Ryan is smart. Jeff Sessions is smart. Etc. etc. But they're not free thinkers. They're ideologically pigeonholed and they're fulfilling a given role that requires apparently to sacrifice anything and everything in the name of victory. Where are the right wing free thinkers? Why isn't it easy to say 'go check this guy out, his rigor and argumentation are sound and fantastic and he'll make you believe that there are better ways for the GOP to be one of these days'? In the UK I can point to Peter Hitchens, at least, who - while I disagree with him on a lot of things - at least strikes me as an intellectually rigorous man who isn't going to ever say 'that's okay because someone on my side of the political spectrum did it'.
I mean, isn't it telling that 'you rightists' respond by bitching about academia instead of just saying 'you n00b, check out this guy this guy and this guy and edumacate yourself'?
As for why it keeps coming up... It's genuine concern for the direction of society as a whole, because if an entire political spectrum becomes dominated by shrieking lunatics calling - most recently that I've seen - the FBI a KGB-esque criminal conspiracy and for people to be dragged out of there in handcuffs for the crime of doing the job they literally exist to do... that is a bad thing. And 'skepticism towards academics' doesn't fix it. The presence of sound, solid right wing intellectuals who might stand up and declare that this is all perfectly fine because aren't we supposed to be the people who believe in law and order actually would be a very healthy dose of reality. I'd love for there to be right wing guys who by all means blast left wing figures with great counterarguments and perspective from across the aisle, but turn around to Faux news and the Daily Mail and call them out on their hypocritical bullshit and say 'we're Conservatives, we're better than this'. Someone, somewhere, needs to get some goddamn standards, because we're sinking dangerously low. And I say 'we' because it's definitely happening in the UK as well, just not quite as badly. Yet.
It's not leftist bias to call a spade a spade. It's very worrying that the spade is even there to be called one in the first place, however.
|
On December 30 2017 05:29 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2017 04:49 mozoku wrote:
The bigger issue I have is that this assumption that more educated people are somehow almost always right and people should just listen then to rather than engaging in a discussion themselves.
I certainly think that education is beneficial, and I surely find myself closer to agreement with educated people more often than uneducated ones. But, among modern society's most academically and professionally successful, formal education makes up a tiny fraction of their knowledge base--even for PhDs in their own field. The reason is that formal education is designed for the masses, and is terribly inefficient as a result. Nearly anyone intellectually capable of getting a PhD (a group almost certainly at least 5-10x as large as actual PhD holders) can self-learn much faster than they learn in classroom (especially in the age of the Internet). This is probably a factor (among others) why obtaining a PhD is largely a self-directed process.
Given this, the requirement that one ought to have a PhD on a topic to contribute is sort of idiotic, especially given the factors that I discussed in my last post. Also idiotic is the left's reverence for academic intellectuals as if their being "an academic" or "having a PhD" gives them sort of magical powers or divine right to speak on a subject.
Obtaining a PhD is useful for obtaining knowledge on a specific topic, and is certainly one way to develop one's critical thinking skills. The problem is that obtaining a PhD is neither necessary nor sufficient for obtaining either (although it can definitely be a useful indicator given a lack of other information), so treating them as qualitatively different from anyone else is senseless. And just like everyone else, they need to treated with appropriate skepticism surrounding motivations, selection/survivorship bias, effort level in a discussion, etc.
More broadly, most educated people (PhD or otherwise) have questionable critical thinking skills and are ignorant on most topics. Obviously the same is true and moreso for uneducated people. Consequently, the fact that a majority of "educated people" believe anything (a common rejoinder of the left) provides little evidence that it's actually correct. This isn't to say that a panel of actual experts on their topic of expertise shouldn't be listened to though (e.g. global warming).
As someone that is 1) a "Leftist" and 2) intimately involved in academia and educated circles for the better part of a decade, you seem to be making another boogeyman to argue against in an effort to artificially construct some kind of "crisis" to equivocate the problems that the discourse on the right has by saying, "see? The left is just as bad too!". When talking about anything politically related, I never see anyone say "you have to have a Ph.D. to contribute to a topic", and there isn't this idea that only Ph.D's should contribute to a conversation. You seem to just be simply making this up. I also rarely, if ever, see anyone say, "educated people believe this, so it must be true". As an aside, there is a qualitative difference between saying, "educated people think X about tax/social/educational policy" and "there is a scientific consensus on climate change", so let's not jump down that rabbit hole. And no, citing one random tweet doesn't make it so. That's another staple logical fallacy that conservatives like to pull out. Just because random person here or there thinks that only Ph.D's should be able to discuss topics doesn't mean that idea has any kind of influence in progressive discourse. This discussion literally started from someone saying along the lines of "if anything here has a PhD on racial injustice, they're free to talk about it. Otherwise the discussion will be doomed" and making a more general statement along those lines. I'm not constructing a boogeyman here, it was literally written several pages back. Academia and academics are probably the most respected institution and career in left-leaning circles, and several of their most prominent recent politicians have been academics. It's not at all a construction of mine to assert that academia holds an unrivaled place in the leftist hierarchy of institutions. More importantly, I'm speaking more to a generally misplaced emphasis on formal education on the left than I am to specific points--which you're trying to pigeonhole my post into. To act like there's no educational elitism that occurs on even this (left-leaning) forum is ridiculous--everything rural, religious, and high school educated is bad. It's obvious to the point where it's pretty apparent that your denials are defensive and biased. Especially when you pair it with, of all things, an implied denial of the replication crisis.
At this point you're just spouting vague claims with no real basis. "It's obvious" doesn't cut it.
Give me a significant example of a politically related discussion where the left tries to silence dissenters based off of education credentials that we can use as a common example to discuss. Until then, you're just making long paragraphs about nothing concrete.
As for "denying the replication crisis", I never denied it wholesale (and the irony of the fact that in that argument you appealed to your educational authority is priceless). I was combating your alarmist ranting where you, again, tried to falsely equivicate and make an issue bigger than it is as a distraction. Not that im surprised with your interpretation, considering your post history.
|
On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door?
Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address?
Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point.
|
On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point.
Related: Isn't one of the police's no. 1 tricks for getting blatantly guilty cops off scot free to put them on trial for the wrong type of murder? 1st degree in US law - correct me if I'm wrong - requires motive and premeditation, doesn't it? And if the officer is not guilty of the crime they're tried for they can't then be retried using the right grade of murder, be it 2nd or 3rd or however many you have?
|
Wow, are there criminal statutes specific to swatting? They should get harshly punished. As should the murderous policeman involved here.
|
On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point.
Doesn't voluntary manslaughter requires some form of provocation or passion, while extreme reckless disregard for life, even if the target is not explicitly known, does generally fall under murder. An attempted mass-shooter doesn't man-slaughter someone.
Besides, what possible other conclusion can one come to than the predetermined willingness to kill someone at that household irrespective of circumstances if opening the door was enough to get the officer to fire?
The man, unarmed, opened a ----ing door and a 7-year police veteran killed him. If you think that constitutes the above provocation or passion, then IDK what to say. I hope I'm never within a 100 miles of you when you get mildly frightened and/or annoyed.
If you are going to bother to correct me while completely missing the point, at least have the courtesy to not be wrong.
EDIT: For clarity, that second paragraph is exactly the point I was making in the first post.
|
On December 30 2017 08:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point. Doesn't voluntary manslaughter requires some form of provocation or passion, while extreme reckless disregard for life, even if the target is not explicitly known, does generally fall under murder. An attempted mass-shooter doesn't man-slaughter someone. Besides, what possible other conclusion can one come to than the predetermined willingness to kill someone at that household irrespective of circumstances if opening the door was enough to get the officer to fire? The man, unarmed, opened a ----ing door and a 7-year police veteran killed him. If you think that constitutes the above provocation or passion, then IDK what to say. I hope I'm never within a 100 miles of you when you get mildly frightened and/or annoyed. If you are going to bother to correct me while completely missing the point, at least have the courtesy to not be wrong. EDIT: For clarity, that second paragraph is exactly the point I was making in the first post.
Murder needs to be pre-planned. If he came to the door wanting to kill the first guy to come out hes then yes Murder, but good luck proving that.
2nd degree requires malicious intent (to harm but not kill, that would make it 1st degree).
3e degree is 2nd but with circumstances that "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed"
Involuntary manslaugher is neglect that leads to someone dying, which is the mostly likely conviction your going to get.
Tho drawing a gun kinda muddies the "did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions"
|
He isn't wrong. Malice is required for a murder charge. Taking someone's life with the absence of malice can only be manslaughter.
But it that is being nitpicky. These are still government protected killings where the officer's errors will be glossed over by the state. Intent doesn't matter much to the dead father.
|
|
|
On December 30 2017 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 08:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point. Doesn't voluntary manslaughter requires some form of provocation or passion, while extreme reckless disregard for life, even if the target is not explicitly known, does generally fall under murder. An attempted mass-shooter doesn't man-slaughter someone. Besides, what possible other conclusion can one come to than the predetermined willingness to kill someone at that household irrespective of circumstances if opening the door was enough to get the officer to fire? The man, unarmed, opened a ----ing door and a 7-year police veteran killed him. If you think that constitutes the above provocation or passion, then IDK what to say. I hope I'm never within a 100 miles of you when you get mildly frightened and/or annoyed. If you are going to bother to correct me while completely missing the point, at least have the courtesy to not be wrong. EDIT: For clarity, that second paragraph is exactly the point I was making in the first post. Murder needs to be pre-planned. If he came to the door wanting to kill the first guy to come out hes then yes Murder, but good luck proving that. 2nd degree requires malicious intent (to harm but not kill, that would make it 1st degree). 3e degree is 2nd but with circumstances that "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed" Involuntary manslaugher is neglect that leads to someone dying, which is the mostly likely conviction your going to get. Tho drawing a gun kinda muddies the "did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions"
That's exactly the point I'm making, irrespective of how it would be charged, can you infer anything other than intent to kill if you just shoot the first person who steps through the door? I'm saying that 3rd degree doesn't make any sense, there is no reasonable cause or provovation (EDIT: barring the call itself). The officer deliberately shot the person who stepped through, with no additional information. Nothing about this is "neglect". You don't draw and fire a weapon, the sole purpose of which is to kill things, at another human, and go "oops neglect lel".
|
On December 30 2017 09:46 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:On December 30 2017 08:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point. Doesn't voluntary manslaughter requires some form of provocation or passion, while extreme reckless disregard for life, even if the target is not explicitly known, does generally fall under murder. An attempted mass-shooter doesn't man-slaughter someone. Besides, what possible other conclusion can one come to than the predetermined willingness to kill someone at that household irrespective of circumstances if opening the door was enough to get the officer to fire? The man, unarmed, opened a ----ing door and a 7-year police veteran killed him. If you think that constitutes the above provocation or passion, then IDK what to say. I hope I'm never within a 100 miles of you when you get mildly frightened and/or annoyed. If you are going to bother to correct me while completely missing the point, at least have the courtesy to not be wrong. EDIT: For clarity, that second paragraph is exactly the point I was making in the first post. Murder needs to be pre-planned. If he came to the door wanting to kill the first guy to come out hes then yes Murder, but good luck proving that. 2nd degree requires malicious intent (to harm but not kill, that would make it 1st degree). 3e degree is 2nd but with circumstances that "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed" Involuntary manslaugher is neglect that leads to someone dying, which is the mostly likely conviction your going to get. Tho drawing a gun kinda muddies the "did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions" That's exactly the point I'm making, irrespective of how it would be charged, can you infer anything other than intent to kill if you just shoot the first person who steps through the door? I'm saying that 3rd degree doesn't make any sense, there is no reasonable cause or provovation (EDIT: barring the call itself). The officer deliberately shot the person who stepped through, with no additional information. Nothing about this is "neglect". You don't draw and fire a weapon, the sole purpose of which is to kill things, at another human, and go "oops neglect lel". I'm no lawyer, I just hear about to many murder charges getting thrown out.
But that is all assuming it even gets to a trial.
In some(lot/all? not sure) of the US, a cop 'feeling threatened' is all the justification he needs for lethal force. So the cop can simply claim that the man came through the door in what he perceives to be a threatening manner (doesn't matter if it actually was, so long as the cop claims he thought it was) and it was dark (or something) so he couldn't clearly see the hands and there could be a gun so boom, he shot as he is trained to do rather then take a second to assess the situation and wait for the victim to make his intent clear.
In the US police use of deadly force isn't even remotely close to a 'measure of last resort'. Which is why so much of this is a problem in the first place, its legal when it shouldn't be.
|
On December 30 2017 08:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 05:29 mozoku wrote:On December 30 2017 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2017 04:49 mozoku wrote:
The bigger issue I have is that this assumption that more educated people are somehow almost always right and people should just listen then to rather than engaging in a discussion themselves.
I certainly think that education is beneficial, and I surely find myself closer to agreement with educated people more often than uneducated ones. But, among modern society's most academically and professionally successful, formal education makes up a tiny fraction of their knowledge base--even for PhDs in their own field. The reason is that formal education is designed for the masses, and is terribly inefficient as a result. Nearly anyone intellectually capable of getting a PhD (a group almost certainly at least 5-10x as large as actual PhD holders) can self-learn much faster than they learn in classroom (especially in the age of the Internet). This is probably a factor (among others) why obtaining a PhD is largely a self-directed process.
Given this, the requirement that one ought to have a PhD on a topic to contribute is sort of idiotic, especially given the factors that I discussed in my last post. Also idiotic is the left's reverence for academic intellectuals as if their being "an academic" or "having a PhD" gives them sort of magical powers or divine right to speak on a subject.
Obtaining a PhD is useful for obtaining knowledge on a specific topic, and is certainly one way to develop one's critical thinking skills. The problem is that obtaining a PhD is neither necessary nor sufficient for obtaining either (although it can definitely be a useful indicator given a lack of other information), so treating them as qualitatively different from anyone else is senseless. And just like everyone else, they need to treated with appropriate skepticism surrounding motivations, selection/survivorship bias, effort level in a discussion, etc.
More broadly, most educated people (PhD or otherwise) have questionable critical thinking skills and are ignorant on most topics. Obviously the same is true and moreso for uneducated people. Consequently, the fact that a majority of "educated people" believe anything (a common rejoinder of the left) provides little evidence that it's actually correct. This isn't to say that a panel of actual experts on their topic of expertise shouldn't be listened to though (e.g. global warming).
As someone that is 1) a "Leftist" and 2) intimately involved in academia and educated circles for the better part of a decade, you seem to be making another boogeyman to argue against in an effort to artificially construct some kind of "crisis" to equivocate the problems that the discourse on the right has by saying, "see? The left is just as bad too!". When talking about anything politically related, I never see anyone say "you have to have a Ph.D. to contribute to a topic", and there isn't this idea that only Ph.D's should contribute to a conversation. You seem to just be simply making this up. I also rarely, if ever, see anyone say, "educated people believe this, so it must be true". As an aside, there is a qualitative difference between saying, "educated people think X about tax/social/educational policy" and "there is a scientific consensus on climate change", so let's not jump down that rabbit hole. And no, citing one random tweet doesn't make it so. That's another staple logical fallacy that conservatives like to pull out. Just because random person here or there thinks that only Ph.D's should be able to discuss topics doesn't mean that idea has any kind of influence in progressive discourse. This discussion literally started from someone saying along the lines of "if anything here has a PhD on racial injustice, they're free to talk about it. Otherwise the discussion will be doomed" and making a more general statement along those lines. I'm not constructing a boogeyman here, it was literally written several pages back. Academia and academics are probably the most respected institution and career in left-leaning circles, and several of their most prominent recent politicians have been academics. It's not at all a construction of mine to assert that academia holds an unrivaled place in the leftist hierarchy of institutions. More importantly, I'm speaking more to a generally misplaced emphasis on formal education on the left than I am to specific points--which you're trying to pigeonhole my post into. To act like there's no educational elitism that occurs on even this (left-leaning) forum is ridiculous--everything rural, religious, and high school educated is bad. It's obvious to the point where it's pretty apparent that your denials are defensive and biased. Especially when you pair it with, of all things, an implied denial of the replication crisis. As for "denying the replication crisis", I never denied it wholesale (and the irony of the fact that in that argument you appealed to your educational authority is priceless). I was combating your alarmist ranting where you, again, tried to falsely equivicate and make an issue bigger than it is as a distraction. Not that im surprised with your interpretation, considering your post history.
Well, 52% of scientists questioned in Nature think there's a "significant crisis", and 38% think there's a "slight crisis." A plurality of those in medicine estimate half of medical research isn't reproducible. Moving towards economics, sociology, and psychology, there's reasons to believe it gets worse. There's more spooky numbers if you want to read the full article.
Source
This Wikipedia page is worth a read as well.
This is also consistent with the known flaws in publication guidelines that numerous statisticians have pointed out repeatedly. Read Gelman's blog for about five minutes for a start on those.
Then you have the editor of a major journal (Susan Fiske) accusing them off "methodological terrorism" for pointing this stuff out. As if this is all supposed to be acceptable or something, considering it's largely funded with taxpayer dollars.
I'm sure you're right though and I'm just a fearmonger with an agenda.
|
|
|
On December 30 2017 09:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 09:46 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 09:00 Gorsameth wrote:On December 30 2017 08:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2017 07:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 30 2017 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 30 2017 06:26 Lmui wrote:In other news: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html Two asshats had an argument in CoD. One gave a false address to bait the other guy The other guy called in a hostage situation Police came, and shot the guy at the address. Just like that, two kids lost a dad who just opened the door to check on what was happening. It's the first deadly swatting that I'm aware of. Guns + poorly trained police + spoofable voip phones/numbers is a recipe for disaster This reminds me of LoL in that somehow no one thinks any of this is their fault or that they did anything wrong. Feel like there's a better chance of both gamers catching manslaughter charges than there is of the police facing any consequences though. The worst part is, to call shooting an unarmed person answering the door "manslaughter" is already more than the gun-wielding idiots deserve. If you shoot the first person to come open the door on sight, that is murder. "On call and fearing for my life" doesn't ---- cut it. Even if you think it's a hostage situation, how the ---- do you know it's not a hostage being sent out? How do you just jump in with no further information other than the single call ready to shoot? But you are right, time and again this year there's a thin blue line over which the law will not step (and long prior, but this year has had some beyond ridiculous cases). Government funded murder right there. EDIT: Officer who fired the shot was apparently a seven year veteran on the force. Which is just... how... seven years and you just shoot the first person to open the door? Voluntary manslaughter is also known as third-degree murder. Unless you think they maliciously hated a stranger at that address? Your problem appears to be names and sentencing guidelines, if you've looked them up at this point. Doesn't voluntary manslaughter requires some form of provocation or passion, while extreme reckless disregard for life, even if the target is not explicitly known, does generally fall under murder. An attempted mass-shooter doesn't man-slaughter someone. Besides, what possible other conclusion can one come to than the predetermined willingness to kill someone at that household irrespective of circumstances if opening the door was enough to get the officer to fire? The man, unarmed, opened a ----ing door and a 7-year police veteran killed him. If you think that constitutes the above provocation or passion, then IDK what to say. I hope I'm never within a 100 miles of you when you get mildly frightened and/or annoyed. If you are going to bother to correct me while completely missing the point, at least have the courtesy to not be wrong. EDIT: For clarity, that second paragraph is exactly the point I was making in the first post. Murder needs to be pre-planned. If he came to the door wanting to kill the first guy to come out hes then yes Murder, but good luck proving that. 2nd degree requires malicious intent (to harm but not kill, that would make it 1st degree). 3e degree is 2nd but with circumstances that "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed" Involuntary manslaugher is neglect that leads to someone dying, which is the mostly likely conviction your going to get. Tho drawing a gun kinda muddies the "did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions" That's exactly the point I'm making, irrespective of how it would be charged, can you infer anything other than intent to kill if you just shoot the first person who steps through the door? I'm saying that 3rd degree doesn't make any sense, there is no reasonable cause or provovation (EDIT: barring the call itself). The officer deliberately shot the person who stepped through, with no additional information. Nothing about this is "neglect". You don't draw and fire a weapon, the sole purpose of which is to kill things, at another human, and go "oops neglect lel". I'm no lawyer, I just hear about to many murder charges getting thrown out. But that is all assuming it even gets to a trial. In some(lot/all? not sure) of the US, a cop 'feeling threatened' is all the justification he needs for lethal force. So the cop can simply claim that the man came through the door in what he perceives to be a threatening manner (doesn't matter if it actually was, so long as the cop claims he thought it was) and it was dark (or something) so he couldn't clearly see the hands and there could be a gun so boom, he shot as he is trained to do rather then take a second to assess the situation and wait for the victim to make his intent clear. In the US police use of deadly force isn't even remotely close to a 'measure of last resort'. Which is why so much of this is a problem in the first place, its legal when it shouldn't be.
The police force will back the BS story about how the man moved threateningly or something, so yeah, I do think it will be thrown it if it ever got to court, but that doesn't change the fact that it was murder unless you give the cop the benefit of the "literally seeing things" doubt.
I wouldn't be surprised if this never gets to trial sadly.
As you say, anything goes. It's a shoot first ask questions later extravaganza and were I living in the US I'd avoid police more thoroughly than high crime areas (I live in a country with enough crime to be quite confident in this statement). Most criminals only want your stuff and aren't likely to use government sponsored bullets to get it if you don't make them think it's necessary. Many police on the other hand have the mindset of people with literally nothing to lose but a paid vacation should they happen to decide that you don't get to live anymore.
If these things were taken seriously, if it was even possible to get charges to stick to officers, they'd always think "is pulling this trigger worth a potential life in prison?" That idea takes a lot of reckless disregard for life away, because your own is on the line. They wouldn't just go to people's flats and houses and just shoot them unprovoked, they'd take that second to assess, because "playing it safe" and just shooting a slim-chance potential threat doesn't work in the game theory anymore. I can't gut punch every person who steps towards me slightly on the sidewalk because they might want to mug me (not all that improbable in many places I've walked). Cops who kill people with the same reasoning should never see the outside of a cell.
|
On December 30 2017 10:11 Plansix wrote:What if we can replicate the evidence proving the existence of the replication crisis Also: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/I think the panic about the crisis may be a bit premature. It should be looked at critically. Not used as some sort of final proof that mordern science is all bullshit.
Premature? There's been a steady (and huge) stream of increasing evidence for the past ~6 years about it. This isn't something that came up yesterday.
Even more damning is the theoretical evidence, tbh. The p < .05 publication bar (though there's recently a movement to change it) is comically low for the power of most experiments involving humans, and you can demonstrate that without even doing an experiment (using simulations on randomly generated assumptions). And that doesn't even take into account the all of the incentives (and options!) to nudge your results past that bar.
That article is mostly junk btw imo. I have respect for Nate Silver's work (as I've said before), but some of the other writers who publish on his site are pretty subpar imo.
If I had to make a comparison, I'd say a lot of the people claiming there isn't a replication crisis are doing some Donald Trump-type alternate reality-ism. And honestly, it makes a lot of sense to do so from their perspective. The replication crisis has the potential to destroy a lot of careers of influential academics, and they're acting like anyone else does when faced with that threat.
Hell, I worked with people from other departments when I was in graduate school who did a bunch of this stuff (multiple hypothesis testing, garden of forking paths, etc.) and didn't even know it was wrong. This stuff was ubiquitous until pretty recently.
Look up Brian Wansink. This guy was a "field leading" scientist out of Cornell (Ivy League!) academic who made a career out of this stuff, and only got caught because he was so ignorant of his pervasive methodological errors that he was exposed because he fucking blogged about it.
Another hoot is the $25B annual revenue for-profit journal industry that charges people to read papers written by academics (paid by universities) that do experiments funded by tax-payers--and their margins are better then Apple lol. No wonder, considering they don't foot the bill for their own product.
Source
Obviously science is useful and we shouldn't stop doing it, but this is a real mess and it needs to be thoroughly cleaned up.
|
Investmentless Growth:
An Empirical Investigation
We analyze private fixed investment in the U.S. over the past 30 years. We show that investment is weak relative to measures of profitability and valuation — particularly Tobin’s Q, and that this weakness starts in the early 2000’s. There are two broad categories of explanations: theories that predict low investment along with low Q, and theories that predict low investment despite high Q. We argue that the data does not support the first category, and we focus on the second one. We use industry-level and firm-level data to test whether under-investment relative to Q is driven by (i) financial frictions, (ii) changes in the nature and/or localization of investment (due to the rise of intangibles, globalization, etc), (iii) decreased competition (due to technology, regulation or common ownership), or (iv) tightened governance and/or increased short-termism. We do not find support for theories based on risk premia, financial constraints, safe asset scarcity, or regulation. We find some support for globalization; and strong support for the intangibles, competition and short-termism/governance hypotheses. We estimate that the rise of intangibles explains 25-35% of the drop in investment; while Concentration and Governance explain the rest. Industries with more concentration and more common ownership invest less, even after controlling for current market conditions and intangibles. Within each industry year, the investment gap is driven by firms owned by quasi-indexers and located in industries with more concentration and more common ownership. These firms return a disproportionate amount of free cash flows to shareholders. Lastly, we show that standard growth-accounting decompositions may not be able to identify the rise in markups.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2_gutierrezphilippon.pdf
Good thing our job creators are getting tax breaks so that they will have more money available for investment.
|
On December 30 2017 11:32 mozoku wrote:Premature? There's been a steady (and huge) stream of increasing evidence for the past ~6 years about it. This isn't something that came up yesterday. Even more damning is the theoretical evidence, tbh. The p < .05 publication bar (though there's recently a movement to change it) is comically low for the power of most experiments involving humans, and you can demonstrate that without even doing an experiment (using simulations on randomly generated assumptions). And that doesn't even take into account the all of the incentives (and options!) to nudge your results past that bar. That article is mostly junk btw imo. I have respect for Nate Silver's work (as I've said before), but some of the other writers who publish on his site are pretty subpar imo. If I had to make a comparison, I'd say a lot of the people claiming there isn't a replication crisis are doing some Donald Trump-type alternate reality-ism. And honestly, it makes a lot of sense to do so from their perspective. The replication crisis has the potential to destroy a lot of careers of influential academics, and they're acting like anyone else does when faced with that threat. Hell, I worked with people from other departments when I was in graduate school who did a bunch of this stuff (multiple hypothesis testing, garden of forking paths, etc.) and didn't even know it was wrong. This stuff was ubiquitous until pretty recently. Look up Brian Wansink. This guy was a "field leading" scientist out of Cornell (Ivy League!) academic who made a career out of this stuff, and only got caught because he was so ignorant of his pervasive methodological errors that he was exposed because he fucking blogged about it. Obviously science is useful and we shouldn't stop doing it, but this is a real mess and it needs to be thoroughly cleaned up. Another hoot is the $25B annual revenue for-profit journal industry that charges people to read papers written by academics (paid by universities) that do experiments funded by tax-payers--and their margins are better then Apple lol. Source
I am not a statistician like our esteemed friend, mozoku, but having spent a little time in the lab, working with proteins and DNA, and trying to get reliable data, it was obvious to me a decade ago that reproducibility is a serious problem. I have spoken before about the some of the worst culprits (including diet science), and I agree with mozoku that that widely read 538 article is, in the words of slefin, not sound.
|
|
|
On December 30 2017 11:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2017 11:32 mozoku wrote:On December 30 2017 10:11 Plansix wrote:What if we can replicate the evidence proving the existence of the replication crisis Also: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/I think the panic about the crisis may be a bit premature. It should be looked at critically. Not used as some sort of final proof that mordern science is all bullshit. Premature? There's been a steady (and huge) stream of increasing evidence for the past ~6 years about it. This isn't something that came up yesterday. Even more damning is the theoretical evidence, tbh. The p < .05 publication bar (though there's recently a movement to change it) is comically low for the power of most experiments involving humans, and you can demonstrate that without even doing an experiment (using simulations on randomly generated assumptions). And that doesn't even take into account the all of the incentives (and options!) to nudge your results past that bar. That article is mostly junk btw imo. I have respect for Nate Silver's work (as I've said before), but some of the other writers who publish on his site are pretty subpar imo. If I had to make a comparison, I'd say a lot of the people claiming there isn't a replication crisis are doing some Donald Trump-type alternate reality-ism. And honestly, it makes a lot of sense to do so from their perspective. The replication crisis has the potential to destroy a lot of careers of influential academics, and they're acting like anyone else does when faced with that threat. Hell, I worked with people from other departments when I was in graduate school who did a bunch of this stuff (multiple hypothesis testing, garden of forking paths, etc.) and didn't even know it was wrong. This stuff was ubiquitous until pretty recently. Look up Brian Wansink. This guy was a "field leading" scientist out of Cornell (Ivy League!) academic who made a career out of this stuff, and only got caught because he was so ignorant of his pervasive methodological errors that he was exposed because he fucking blogged about it. Obviously science is useful and we shouldn't stop doing it, but this is a real mess and it needs to be thoroughly cleaned up. Another hoot is the $25B annual revenue for-profit journal industry that charges people to read papers written by academics (paid by universities) that do experiments funded by tax-payers--and their margins are better then Apple lol. Source I am not a statistician like our esteemed friend, mozoku, but having spent a little time in the lab, working with proteins and DNA, and trying to get reliable data, it was obvious to me a decade ago that reproducibility is a serious problem. I have spoken before about the some of the worst culprits (including diet science), and I agree with mozoku that that widely read 538 article is, in the words of slefin, not sound.
Now this is a convincing argument that doesn't revert back to a left vs right dynamic.
Is it a drop in quality due to increased volume? That there are more studies, causing more shit studies and less critical review? That by the time the previous study is proven to be poor, the group has secured funding for a new study?
|
On December 30 2017 11:32 mozoku wrote:
Another hoot is the $25B annual revenue for-profit journal industry that charges people to read papers written by academics (paid by universities) that do experiments funded by tax-payers--and their margins are better then Apple lol. No wonder, considering they don't foot the bill for their own product.
I'm in the arts so I can't usefully comment on the science stuff, but our publishing is similar enough for me to comment on this, and it absolutely baffles me. The estimates I've heard for commercial outfits gives them profit at around 35% (though there are claims of up to 50%). How have we been hoodwinked into allowing a massive industry to parasitically leech off research they don't pay for, reviewed by people they don't pay for, and sold to the very people who have just done all the work without pay so that they can use it to educate and produce more work that the publishing industry won't pay for but will sell back to them?
In short: why do commercial publishers exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
