[flagged]
Looking through that file, I can't think of a single charitable interpretation for that categorization.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xl8bj2/aut...
Do you think I'm doing that because I hate a group of people that are called a derogatory word that begins with r?
Sometimes we infer things from a combination of evidence.
People in the Jim Crow era were convicted without evidence, or had exonerating evidence hidden by racist law enforcement and prosecutors. It’s hardly the same.
Circumstantial evidence becomes compelling only when there's a lot of it, all in one direction, without exonerating or at least contradictory evidence of some kind.
If you have white robes with pointy hats, a noose, and a Confederate flag in your closet, I'm very comfortable assuming certain facts about you. If you can come up with a good explanation - perhaps you're an actor in a play about the civil rights era - I'm prepared to shift that conclusion, but "nuh uh, this doesn't prove anything!" isn't a compelling response to it.
But if I found out that a black person had a picture of a white person on his computer under the "C" drive, I wouldn't assume that he named the drive "C" for cracker, and wouldn't expect him to prove the "real reason" his drive was named "C"
Agreed!
If, however, all the other drives were named "Photos" and "Recipes" and other descriptive terms, leaving only the C drive as a letter, that'd be interesting. Even more interesting if it's a bunch of photos of white people, and nothing much else on said C drive. If that same person had previously criticized civil rights issues, and was cagey about why they have the one oddly-named drive (https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xl8bj2/com...), and had a history of putting out racially-focused mods for a game, we might begin to get outright suspicious.
This is what circumstantial evidence is all about; more than one data point leading to a reasonable conclusion. You seem to want to redefine it to a single data point, which giving it's been explained several times now, I have to assume (circumstantial again!) is playing dumb intentionally.
Civil vs. Criminal cases have different levels of guilt. Further, this isn't either, but a private company and its TOS. It's perfectly reasonable to hold different standards for different situations. I would hope that we hold a higher standard for criminal activity. What GitHub did was very much use the powers conservatives have fought long and hard to maintain.
People seem unable to do this. They want to see all of these examples as unrelated things that coincidentally can all be considered racist by wokies. To me, it's a case of walking and swimming and talking like a duck.
Mati Klarwein
* Bill Jacklin
* Hiroshi Sugomoto
* Josef Albers
* David Teniers the Younger
None of them are black.
Edit: As eyko pointed out below, these are not in the 'n' category. So I searched for people in that category, and all the ones I checked turned out to have been black (other than Mati Klarwein).
Howardena Pindell,0.7686921,n Mati Klarwein,0.7066092,n Barkley L. Hendricks,0.69986427,n Carrie Mae Weems,0.6645416,n Barkley Hendricks,0.6883637,n Yinka Shonibare,0.68256056,n Zanele Muholi,0.58554715,n Kehinde Wiley,0.66218376,n RETNA (Marquis Lewis),0.47963,n Wangechi Mutu,0.6394607,n Kadir Nelson,0.5669006,n Amadou Opa Bathily,0.5536976,n Juliana Huxtable,0.5364195,n Chinwe Chukwuogo-Roy,0.49445248,n Teophilus Tetteh,0.46064255,n Bruce Onobrakpeya,0.42588046,n