Monday, November 21, 2016

The State _is_ hate speech.

Recently I viewed a video about the Palace Cinemas canceling the documentary "The Red Pill".  The fact that some potential visitors to Australia "spread hate" was mentioned and it was taken for granted that such should be banned.  The problem is that the organizaton banning these people in the fountain of hate speech, the mother lode, the cornucopia.  Think about what the government does.  It says that some people are so bad force, even lethal force, should be used against them.  Not only that but they are so bad that if you refuse to fund using force against them, or even fail to tell them where these people are so they can use that force, force should be used against you.  Again, depending on how much resistance is encountered this includes lethal force.

So before they ban anyone for hate speech they should immediately deport the entire government.

The defeat and betrayal of Eddie Mabo.

Non-Australians might need an explanation of who Mr. Mabo is, Australians will not, that's how famous he is.  People who don't know the name of their Prime Minister* know who Mr. Mabo is and that he won one of the most significant cases in land rights law.  Except he didn't. He lost.  So how is that I've never met anyone who thinks he lost?  Is everybody in Australia wrong but me?  Is it simply my massive ego combined with a refusal to admit error?  I don't think so because I know what Eddie Mabo wanted, and I know what he got.  I will explain the difference.

To start with understand that Mr. Mabo was not an "Australian Aboriginal" although he is from an Australian territory and is a native of that territory.  He is a "Torres Strait Islander" from the islands north of Australia.  The culture on these islands is different from that of mainland Australia.  They even have different flags to represent their people,   Mainland Aboriginals were hunter-gatherers** without land ownership as traditionally understood in Europe.  There were territories, belonging to particular tribes, but an individual person referring to "his" land would not make sense.  His people's land of course he'd know well and there would be no confusion.  Torres Straight Islanders on the other hand farmed and their land law was very different.

An example of the sort of way land was managed was this extract from a letter from Mr. Mabo to Mr. Dipoma.

"Your letters are full of what normally drops off in your toilet after a good feed. My adoptive parents claim me alone as their son. You have no claim for that land. Now I'm telling you to move out or you'll be thrown out by force. "
This is an extreme example of course but it shows the basis of Torres Strait Islander land law.  This is my land, get off it or I'll hurt you.  There's no mention of traditional ceremonial purposes, only of a) inheritance, b) ownership and c) potential violence if a) and b) aren't respected.  Eddie Mabo wanted something that is indistinguishable from free hold title. He didn't get this.  He never owned the land the should rightfully have inherited and his children didn't get it either after his death.  Instead tribes, mainly not Torres Strait Islander tribes, acquired completely novel and bizarre rights to some land.  These included a "right to negotiate" over development, not a right to veto it, or even be paid to allow it,  This was a fundamental betrayal of what Eddie Mabo was and wanted.  If he had been a white man his descendants would have had freehold title to his land.  He was betrayed in the most racist way possible.



*  Well it changes a lot so it's not a good test.

** With the exception of one possible aquaculture setup, the only example of a culture developing aquaculture before agriculture.  

Thursday, June 16, 2016

To Mary Emily O'hara during this trying (not for her but for others) time.

At this trying time of distress I have to say, "Boo-fucking hoo bitch".

You don't feel safe?  Really?  You're a woman.  Just by being born without a penis you halved the chance you would be murdered and took your chance of being physically assaulted down by a third.  

The attack that makes you so afraid overwhelmingly hit males.  Get over your intense self-involvement and realize THIS is why misogyny happens.  When women can't even comment on MEN being killed without the subject being how THEY feel it's as callous as you can get.  Reading your article was like a black woman in 1950s America listening to a white woman saying how afraid she is of being raped.  CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.  You are safe because you are a Western, white woman.  if any of those categories changed, then you'd have cause for worry.

My sympathies go out to the ACTUAL victims.  

Friday, April 01, 2016

Eric Zorn comes out for pushing journalists around, ironically he is one.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-melissa-click-missouri-assault-protest-perspec-zorn-20160128-column.html
"The behavior of University of Missouri assistant professor Melissa Click on Nov. 9 was disgraceful.
You've probably seen the viral video. It was shot by student journalist Mark Schierbecker, who was covering a campus protest over the administration's response to alleged incidents of racism, a protest being closely watched by the national media because it also involved a boycott by the Mizzou football team.
The video, shot from Schierbecker's perspective, shows him slipping inside a perimeter established by students on a university lawn,"
Which they had no right to establish.
approaching Click and identifying himself as a member of the media.
" "You need to get out! You need to get out!" she says, moving the lens of his camera away from her face with her hand."
Which is illegal by itself, an infringement of his civil right to record public events.


" After he refuses to leave, she loudly calls for "some muscle" to help her eject him from the area, then mocks his assertion that he has a right to occupy a public space.
Click's lack of respect for or apparent understanding of Schierbecker's press freedoms under the First Amendment was not only disgraceful given her position in the school's communications department, but it was also embarrassing for the university and counterproductive for the protesters, whose tactics, not their complaints, quickly became the focus of the national media narrative.
But it wasn't criminal."
Well the judge disagreed, as did the prosecutor. It was plainly illegal to forcibly remove someone from a public space or incite others to do so.


"At least that's what we all assumed as the weeks went by without a peep from prosecutors about Schierbecker's bleat that he'd been the victim of an assault."
Firstly why would the lack of prosecutitorial action mean something is legal? Secondly charges often take a while to file, why is it a surprise that she was charged now.
"Monday, however, 2 1/2 months after the fact, Columbia, Mo., city prosecutor Steve Richey charged Click with misdemeanor assault in the third degree.
It's a minor offense as such things go — the maximum penalty is 15 days in jail and a $300 fine but overkill nevertheless given that the students who came to Click's aid barely touched Schierbecker as they led him outside the protective ring of students with locked arms, where he continued filming."
No it's not overkill, as you yourself acknowledge she broke the law and used force. How is one of the most mild charges available overkill?
"Technically, yes, you can make the argument that Click broke the law."
As I said, you acknowledge that she broke the law. So why is it "overkill" to charge her?
"Under Missouri law, "A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if … the person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury or … the person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
It would be an assault, in other words, if the diminutive Click's call for "muscle" was an appeal for a group of protesters to come and administer a beating or some other kind of physical abuse to the student with the video camera. But was it?"
Well yes, because that's exactly what they did and Click didn't object. They literally pushed him around.


"Given the nonviolent nature of the protests to that point and the subsequent gentle bum's rush Schierbecker received"
The "bum's rush" is the use of force, it is physical abuse, so given the subsequent "gentle" bum's rush we can say she was doing exactly what the law prohibited.


" — students were calling him "bro" "
So what?


"as they tried to block his camera with their hands"
And also AS YOU ADMIT pushing him away.
" — that contention is dubious."
Actually it's confirmed.


"It would also be an assault if Click's efforts to get Schierbecker's camera out of her face, which seems to have included touching his hand judging from the images, was deliberately "offensive or provocative." "
Which they were. He was not being intrusive the camera was NOT "in her face".
"But were they? A fair viewing of the video suggests that, while Click was acting like a presumptuous ninny,"
No he was acting like a competent journalist.
" gently pushing aside the camera was more a defensive than aggressive act."
How? He was not beating people up with his camera. It is not "defensive" to use force to prevent recording public events.


"Click later apologized to Schierbecker for her "actions, language, strategies and behavior," but he did not accept the apology because, he said, "she did not seem entirely sincere."
"Laws against assault are meant to protect us from hostile, threatening, intimidating behavior that falls just short of physical violence, known as battery."
And that's exactly what Click did, if not more.


" They're not meant to protect us from every person who looks as us cross-eyed or warns us to get a move on or else."
Move on or else? What the fuck asshole, how is that not a fucking threat?
"They are certainly not meant to be used as bludgeons in political fights."
Which isn't happening here.
"Click's criminal offense, if any, was so minor that, in any other context — imagine similar circumstances but instead she was trying to escort a nosy interloper away from an outdoor wedding police wouldn't even file a report."
Firstly you don't know this. Secondly if you can't see why judges might view using threats and force to stop recording of a political protest more serious than to prevent filming a wedding you're an idiot. Do you really think that deliberate intimidation of the press isn't more serious than other offences.
"The "victim" would be told to get over himself."
Citation needed and so what?
"Here, the charges landed well after the fact and in the middle of a controversy over Click's professional fate that has split the campus and the state legislature, where Republicans are calling for her ouster.
And they resulted, Wednesday, in an emergency meeting of the university's board of curators that concluded with the announcement that Click "is suspended pending further investigation." "
What investigation needs to be done? She used force on the press, she should get the fuck out.


"As uncomfortable as I am with the idea of a communications department assistant professor creating controversy by displaying an arrogant disregard for the freedom of the press, I'm even less comfortable with the idea of a prosecutor using the cold letter of the law to play a role in resolving that controversy."

So you're admitting that she did break the law right? So why should she not be charged, because it has a political effect? So what? She is guilty and you basically acknowledge this.  

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Why Hanlon's Razor fails.

From rationalwiki:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Hanlon's razor is essentially a special case of Occam's razor. Occam's razor states that, assuming equal explanatory power, the simplest solution (formally, the one with fewest assumptions) should be preferred. Assuming intent is a pretty big assumption, but we all know that (other) people are idiots. "

The thing is that Hanlon's Razor ISN'T a special case of Occam's razor.  There is no actual evidence given that you need LESS assumptions to believe in stupidity than bad intent as a general principle.  Assuming intent isn't a really big assumption in all circumstances, in fact people have intent for all of their actions.  We do know that other people are idiots but we also aware that they act badly for their own benefit.  In fact we could reverse the rule and say "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.".  What does "adequately" mean in this context?  Well if it means "in a way that explains all facts better than any competing explanation" then the aphorism is redundant.  If it means something else it's simply wrong.  The fact that you can give an explanation based on stupidity that somewhat fits the facts isn't convincing if another explanation fits the facts better.

Say for instance we're trying to figure out the reason for a particular disastrous government policy.  Suppose that this policy was disastrous for poor working black people but relatively good for white, unioniZed, relatively well off workers.  Either the people who passed it didn't realize that this or they didn't care as long as it benefited white unionized workers.  Now Hanlon's Razor would have you believe the former as long as it was an "adequate" explanation.  But how would that be determined?  Unless we have full details of the IQs, education and training of all the people making the decision how would we know how stupid they're likely to be?  It would be one thing if legislation were made only by those who were utterly ignorant, but it's not .  We do know that legislation is however made by people who want the support of various groups, including white, unionized workers.  So they might well try to gain that support whether or not it was bad for poor blacks.  And this leads to another problem with Hanlon's Razor, it assumes stupidity isn't the result of motivation.  But we know that how much thought people people put into a subject depends on what they are motivated by.  Therefore a policy that harms somebody could well be the result of malice because their interest was ignored in the formation of the policy.