Erem

> you are conflating racism with passing policies that harm groups that correlate with race. Those are not the same thing.

Authors of the voting rights act understood that the former is so often a veneer for the latter that they are functionally the same thing. You are making the same argument as mid-century racist policymakers that were defeated by the VRA. Back then you would argue that Poll taxes and voter tests aren't illegal, they just prevent the indigent and uneducated from voting. Well those policies were the beating heart of Jim Crow, which the VRA intended to defeat.

You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities". Well we've been there. It's been illegal to make laws directly against racial groups since reconstruction. This is why much of Jim Crow was built on a foundation of targeting adjacent traits rather than race specifically, and why many lament the defanging of the VRA.

How has the RNS worked for you? I was a member of the ~4 person research team there for about 5 years and it’s cool beyond belief to see someone using it in the wild on my favorite forum.

It’s a 20y/o news organization that has won multiple Pulitzers

If these sources are biased, which sources do you think provide good unbiased reporting?

Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey, both trained engineers albeit ideologues, just received leadership roles at the pentagon

This is a tax on annual income over $1M, not in net worth in the millions

Typically they’ll draw a species boundary if two individuals from the two distributions can not create a sustainably procreating line of descendants.

So either they can’t have kids, or their kids can’t have kids.

There are probably other rubrics but that’s the one I’m familiar with.

In this case I think I read that this animal has a different chromosome count than its siblings? Which would make reproduction basically impossible

Surely at some point, but it hasn’t yet happened in my short 3 years owning one

“I don’t like regulation so I’m going to call it names”

Since hugging face we know these things are escaping out into the web and collaboratively hacking actual companies. The potential damage done to life and property is now kinetic.

Either we get a regulatory framework or the next hacked companies won’t be as kind as HF, will actually sue these labs for damages, and win. Where will that leave the US frontier.

Everyone here keeps their money in bank or brokerage accounts, because we trust the law to protect us if the banks try to steal our stuff.

We are seeing that foreign countries no longer believe the USA is still a nation of laws.

This thread made clear that your conversation partner will say whatever it takes to avoid understanding the virtue in another way of living than the way they've chosen for themselves. Some people are like this. I for one really appreciated your writing so thank you for your role in this thread

The point is that there's no evidence Berry was a hypocrite

How do you square this opinion with the fact that people actually do get voted into office and enact policies with grand repercussions on history and society?

You're not arguing against leftists, you're arguing against Abraham Lincoln.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, read about Abraham Lincoln.

And no I will never agree that policies created out of racism will somehow bear sweet fruit from poisoned water.

All over this thread you have been misreading and strawmaning others in order to seem more reasonable. Even in this thread you misread me: the vile part was the homeless analogy, not the policy.

It's just time to draw the line in the sand: yours are the ideas lead to suffering and genocide and nobody whose words are worth reading wants that.

This is a vile analogy, whose implication so twists the American tradition that I blush with shame to read it from a possible countryman.

What American tradition? I'll let Lincoln speak, since you have already given voice to his opposition.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

Nobody is buying the analogy comparing deportation to Gulag equivalents to imperfect prison meals

This isn't hard: Just give a notice period if you're going to stop processing visas, so people can sell and ship their shit and break their leases before they go.

Just because temporary isn't indefinite doesn't mean we have to be absolute ghouls about how they leave the country

> and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad?

I think Mamdani and AOC would do it yesterday if they were in charge, and they're incredibly popular politicians to their constituents. More like them are waiting in the wings. So I think it's cynical rather than realistic.

If it is as it sounds, its a real life instance of Bostrom's Paperclip Maximizer: only a thought experiment up until this point

I wonder if they were even given the tools and prompting to do so?

Divorce is rampant among celebrities in the USA. Maybe not worldwide?

> It's easy to see how a phone border search could be construed as reasonable

I'm curious, is there any case law from the pre digital age regarding people forced to open their briefcase and let the border guard read all their documents at a port of entry?

You can still regulate the addictive features that are in common though. Paid Lootboxes for example. Isn't there some jurisdiction that already regulates those?

> Until there's an alternative system that allows people to have their basic needs met without working, unemployment is a problem, and even if you had that system, we have no idea whether or not the masses will be content enough to stay sane and peaceful.

I read the author's post as a paean to letting people who can't contribute above the ever raising bar just exist securely as they please, rather than make whole countries suffer in the attempt to employ them.

You didn't get the same thing? Let me reread it

> I disagree...because art and poetry and philosophy exist

Can you expand your point? I don't see how their existence leads to disagreeing with the author, and in fact I see the opposite.

I think you are reproducing in your own words the exact point the author was trying to make

He calls his position on animal welfare “extremist”. That’s hardly a smuggling.

And anyways I found his linked blog post pretty thought provoking, even though I hold a different position than the author.

What in that blog made you write him off? I also clicked through and found very thoughtful writing on the topic, though I still disagree with their position as I understand it.

I…I think there are no humans in that thread. Maybe only sinan-can-demir.

They’re rolling out the experiment flag I’m guessing. I get walled too.