|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2023 14:03:05 GMT
The death toll is now being reported as just under 25,000 in Syria and Turkey. What a horror.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 21, 2023 13:50:53 GMT
The Supreme Court is going to hear two important cases dealing with the very nature of the internet over the next two days.
Today's case looks at whether Google can be blamed for its algorithms recommending extremist content that allegedly helped inspire ISIS attackers to kill innocent victims (including the plaintiffs' daughter) in Paris in the mid-'10s. The plaintiffs' argument is that these algorithms are basically speech by YouTube itself.
Tomorrow's case as I understand it is from a different angle, with lawsuits against social media companies for not acting swiftly enough to remove extremist content that may have led to a 2017 shooting in an Istanbul nightclub.
These are important because historically online platforms have had more legal protections than traditional publishers, because they aren't acting in that capacity of curating content, but rather are a platform on which anyone can publish (i.e., more like a telephone company than a newspaper). This understanding is known as Section 230 (of the Communications Decency Act).
Changing the understanding of what internet platform providers are and do could lead to a dramatically different online world, one in which they may well very strongly restrict who can post, what, etc., to help them mitigate potential risks of lawsuits. In other words, it would not be a free internet, but at least in theory something more like newspapers deciding which letters to the editor (i.e., posts, websites, message boards, comments, or whatever) they want to publish, but having no obligation to publish any of them. Want to make your own website? Too bad: SquareSpace or Wix might choose not to allow you to do so, depending on what you're going to say. This isn't just about Facebook or Twitter, but the underlying architecture, the service providers, etc.
There are good arguments on all sides, as is usually true with every serious issue. But personally I lean towards a freer internet, an internet where social media sites, message board platforms, etc, are treated more like phone companies than content creators. And since I am a pretty strong believer in personal responsibility, I'm hesitant to cast too much blame on algorithmic recommendations regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 8, 2023 13:23:13 GMT
Scandinavian scientists announced they found the oldest printed reference to the Norse god Odin, which is on a golden disc found in what is now western Denmark. The disc, which has the inscription "He is Odin's man" (apparently in reference to a king or strongman pictured on the disc), dates back to the 400s AD/CE. One thing that I found interesting: I had no idea Odin worship wasn't much more ancient than that! I guess I have no idea why, but I just assumed it dated back far before the Common Era. (Maybe because written Norse history doesn't go back nearly as far as Middle Eastern history, so I just projected its early written history backward...) apnews.com/article/gold-god-odin-norse-denmark-buried-ca2959e460f7af301a19083b6eec7df4?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_11
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 25, 2023 12:12:09 GMT
I came across this article this morning, a look at those recurring topics of art versus artist, and what (if anything) is or should be art's relationship to morality. The article, " A Moral Education: In Praise of Filth" as published in the Yale Review, looks at the issues through the late novelist Philip Roth's mid-90s Sabbath's Theater.
Garth Greenwell made a perfect choice. Roth was in some ways as morally repulsive a figure as can be. He more or less was the inventor of the famous American Pie movie scene, having written in his 1969 classic novel Portnoy's Complaint a scene in which protagonist Alexander Portnoy, uh, makes love to a piece of beef. Roth, with his sex-obsessed novels and real life, has justifiably been argued to be a sexist, among other allegations. Sabbath's Theater is the perfect choice from Roth's catalog, too: it's the filthiest of the filthy, about a lecherous, adulterous puppeteer named Micky Sabbath. I remember reading it in shock in the late '90s, such as one scene when Sabbath masturbates over his deceased lover's grave, exclaiming "I'm fucking you, Drenka." I was reading this on a bus ride to or from work; I remember looking around, hoping nobody could see the smut I was reading. "He's a great, respected author!" I was thinking to myself and ready to spout. And he was. Roth was also among the greatest writers America has ever produced. He won a Pulitzer, two National Book Awards, a National Book Critics Circle Award, three PEN/Faulkner awards... Greenwell says of the issue: Greenwell discussses the value of such "offensive" art, how it was useful to him as a young, gay man trying to find his place in the world. He is roughly my age; while not gay, I relate very much to his perspective on the role, the value, the freedom of art. Later, linking a late '90s exchange on "political correctness" to today's arguments, he says: It's a worthwhile, if a little long, read ... if nothing else, to get more (funny, if disturbing) examples of Roth's nastiness!
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 27, 2023 17:56:54 GMT
Woman at the center of the Emmett Till killing has died:
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 8, 2023 14:14:30 GMT
Why AI Will Never Rival Human Creativityby William Deresiewicz. A bold statement (as the author says up front) about why AI can't rival "true" art, with a main premise being that AI is based on the most likely choices, while real art often reaches for less likely, or seemingly unrelated, choices. www.persuasion.community/p/why-ai-will-never-rival-human-creativity
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 8, 2023 15:12:38 GMT
If this is too sensitive or controversial - or uninteresting - to discuss, I understand. I can even delete it:
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 8, 2023 15:58:40 GMT
If this is too sensitive or controversial - or uninteresting - to discuss, I understand. I can even delete it:
I can't imagine it is too sensitive or controversial, a 50+ year old murder case? I'm actually astounded by how much the Manson case/situation is still considered newsworthy. I know it was a major story, but we've had so many cults and mass murderers since. Is it just the celebrity tie-ins? Or that it was maybe the first such thing to be in the TV age? As far as freeing the follower, I don't even really have an opinion. For that matter, I don't remember whether I had one about Lennon's killer going free, either. It certainly won't keep me up at night, though.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 8, 2023 16:20:41 GMT
I had to check, but Chapman hasn't been released.
I don't have strong feelings about Van Houten being released. I'm not sure what her role was (specifically), but even assuming the worst, she has served over 50 years and is in her 70s...I mean, I wouldn't advocate for her release, but it's not like she hasn't been punished or is currently a threat to society (presumably).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 12, 2023 0:41:04 GMT
So, Leslie Van Houten was officially released from prison after serving 53 years. I'm fascinated by this story, especially that the story isn't more widespread. I thought the story would be everywhere. I thought there would be much more outrage. I think just a few years ago there would've been. Maybe many of the people who lived through those times (the Manson story) have passed away and the new generations aren't as...captivated by it. Maybe society has changed in certain ways, especially with crime and violence.
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jul 12, 2023 0:54:42 GMT
So, Leslie Van Houten was officially released from prison after serving 53 years. I'm fascinated by this story, especially that the story isn't more widespread. I thought the story would be everywhere. I thought there would be much more outrage. I think just a few years ago there would've been. Maybe many of the people who lived through those times (the Manson story) have passed away and the new generations aren't as...captivated by it. Maybe society has changed in certain ways, especially with crime and violence. Surprised I haven’t heard about this. Can’t believe she spent so much time in jail. Manson literally controlled those women’s minds. Such a sad story. May Charles Manson rot in hell. He made Dennis Wilson’s life hell. Always wonder how much he influenced Dennis’ demise.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 12, 2023 0:57:21 GMT
So, Leslie Van Houten was officially released from prison after serving 53 years. I'm fascinated by this story, especially that the story isn't more widespread. I thought the story would be everywhere. I thought there would be much more outrage. I think just a few years ago there would've been. Maybe many of the people who lived through those times (the Manson story) have passed away and the new generations aren't as...captivated by it. Maybe society has changed in certain ways, especially with crime and violence.I think you're right and wrong, depending on the aspect. First, this is what I was trying to get at a few days ago. I think the older GenX and above generations just seem to care more about the Manson story in particular than those of us who are younger. I think that is true. It's just another mass murder, and the celebrity angle is less relevant because the celebrities involved don't mean much to people my age and younger. But I don't think it's that crime and violence are up. I think data mostly rejects that. (See Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now, which is a solid half-decade or more old by now, but really good on that front.) Despite a few rough years recently, we're still well below historical levels of crime and violence. I think the issue is more that the Manson murders were some early examples of crime involving celebrities in an era of mass media. And media pushing sensationalistic crime and violence stories has only increased (dramatically and consistently).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 12, 2023 1:14:57 GMT
So, Leslie Van Houten was officially released from prison after serving 53 years. I'm fascinated by this story, especially that the story isn't more widespread. I thought the story would be everywhere. I thought there would be much more outrage. I think just a few years ago there would've been. Maybe many of the people who lived through those times (the Manson story) have passed away and the new generations aren't as...captivated by it. Maybe society has changed in certain ways, especially with crime and violence.I think you're right and wrong, depending on the aspect. First, this is what I was trying to get at a few days ago. I think the older GenX and above generations just seem to care more about the Manson story in particular than those of us who are younger. I think that is true. It's just another mass murder, and the celebrity angle is less relevant because the celebrities involved don't mean much to people my age and younger.But I don't think it's that crime and violence are up. I think data mostly rejects that. (See Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now, which is a solid half-decade or more old by now, but really good on that front.) Despite a few rough years recently, we're still well below historical levels of crime and violence. I think the issue is more that the Manson murders were some early examples of crime involving celebrities in an era of mass media. And media pushing sensationalistic crime and violence stories has only increased (dramatically and consistently). Interesting. I wanted to address the three things I bolded. Yes, I agree that to some/many it was just another mass murder. Now I want to quickly skip down. I didn't mean to imply that, statistically, crime and violence are up, but I was referring mainly to the increasing mass shootings - which ties into the first point. Sadly, there are so many mass shootings these days (it seems like there's one a month) that the Manson one, in maybe today's younger generations' eyes, was just another one, albeit more grisly and not as methodical (I'm sorry if that appears insensitive; it's not, I just didn't know how to describe mass shootings).
And, I also agree that the celebrity angle (Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring and the others) is less relevant today because of the decades that passed. If a celebrity was murdered TODAY in that manner, it would obviously resonate more.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 12, 2023 10:53:08 GMT
Another part of this story that hasn't been mentioned much yet but I'm sure eventually will is Gavin Newsom's role. In the past, other governors in Newsom's position were faced with the same decision and probably gave it, oh, about ten seconds thought. I don't know if "guts" is the right term to use with Newsom not contesting Van Houten's parole and releasing a Manson family murderer...can you think of another/better term?
I wonder how this decision will affect Patricia Krenwinkel's future parole? Her post-conviction life in prison is similar to Van Houten's.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 18, 2023 12:05:38 GMT
I'm back with more Gallup poll info. This one has to do with favorability ratings of 9 of the past 11 U.S. presidents. Right away, that interested me: where are Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford!? Well, "This year’s poll, conducted June 1-22, includes nine of the past 11 presidents, excluding Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, about whom nearly 20% of Americans could not offer opinions in the prior survey five years ago." I find that remarkable: they have to exclude LBJ because too many people didn't know enough about him! Like him or loathe him, he's one of the most consequential presidents of the 20th century! JFK is far and away the most fondly viewed at 90% favorable, and is the only one with high favorability across the board at 92% from Dems, 90% from Independents, and 89% from GOPs. Otherwise there tend to be differentials of +/- 30 points between the parties, highlighted by a 91% rating of Trump by GOPs and 12% by Dems; and a 94% rating of Obama by Dems and 25% by GOPs. Also interesting is that eight of the nine have higher ratings now than they did when they left office. (Absence makes the heart grow fonder? Things are just getting worse, so you don't know what you've got until its gone? Can I think of a third dorky cliche or song lyric to use here?) The lone exception is Bill Clinton, down from 66% to 58%, which I think speaks to the Democrats' increasing shift toward progressivism rather than centrism and the country's stronger feelings against sexual misbehavior.
|
|