Exactly. If your fire-control system is trained on a dataset that (through carelessness or malice) has some bias, you could end up with a racist machine gun turret.
Agreed. But at the same time, a key part of normalization is constant exposure; people who are exposed to extreme views incessantly are less likely to recognize them as "extreme" than those who only see them once in a blue moon, and see them get moderated when they do.
This isn't even specific to extremist views or even politics in general; in all parts of life, from the foods people eat, to the religion they practice, to the music they enjoy: people will consider "normal" that which they constantly perceive.
The lack of transparency is really unfortunate. It makes this whole thread sorta ironic: there's a lot of hate in this thread (deserved or not) directed at larger social media sites, but at least those ones aren't both removing peoples' content and deliberately wasting their time by pretending to accept their posts.
My understanding is that push/pop from the front/back of linked lists are constant time, but that inserts in the middle necessitate looping through the linked list until you get to the correct index, which is a O(n) operation.
"Individualism" was never really implemented as "western" value; it was only ever a catch-phrase to defend the status quo by insisting those at the top "earned the right" to be there.
"Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem".
"Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone.
"Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced.
"Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because
1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric,
2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience.
Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.
None of these were actually faithfully followed, and they were indeed used as excuses. But they used to be viewed as ideals to work toward. Now there are circles where they are _only_ seen as excuses, and they really have been demonized.
You could make that case, but I do think that they ceased to be "ideals to work toward" before people started recognizing them as such. I.E. it was only after "colorblindness" advocates started using the term to shut down discussions of issues facing minorities that people started calling out "colorblind" rhetoric as disingenuous.
Mhm. December 10, 2017. Two days after the video was released.
#BLM Activists Call Attention To Graphic Video Of Daniel Shaver's Death At The Hands Of Arizona Police
Black Lives Matter is against police brutality of all forms and against all people.
Shaver isn't the only non-Black victim of police violence that BLM has been involved in supporting either. While their focus has always been Black people, they have never operated in an exclusive way at all.
> They wanted to _clarify_ it with the true fundamental principle.
I don't think that's an honest portrayal of the actual actions that took place or their motivations. In the context of disproportionate black deaths, mischaracterizing focusing on that specific issue:
1) does not inspire any positive change itself,
2) prevents positive change by demonizing those who are bringing awareness to and proposing solutions to the problem.
Rarely do you see the "all lives matter" crowd calling for increased police accountability; in fact, given their close association with Blue Lives Matter, I believe those who throw the slogan around tend to fight for quite the opposite.
Agree 100%. I essentially started going down the "Qanon" rabbit hole a few years before "Q" existed (the tropes have existed in right-wing circles for longer than the specific conspiracy theory has); part of my realization that it was wrong was noticing that the sorts of things I believed were promoted almost exclusively in places also rife with obvious racism, sexism, and antisemitism.
