phos's recent activity
-
Comment on A world for all of us, not just the billionaires in ~life
-
Comment on Migrants and refugees are good for economies: Analysis of thirty years of data from Western Europe refutes suggestions that asylum seekers pose a financial burden in ~finance
phos LinkInteresting, thanks for posting this. Sadly I think anti immigration sentiment ignores economics for the most part. Still, one can hope. I'd have liked to see the breakdown by immigrant origin....Interesting, thanks for posting this. Sadly I think anti immigration sentiment ignores economics for the most part. Still, one can hope.
I'd have liked to see the breakdown by immigrant origin. It'd be interesting to see which country produces the most valuable immigrants so to speak. It's probably reasonably difficult to do that though.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos Link ParentGood luck tomorrow, I hope it goes well :-) Are you going off to university this year? If so, what subject are you doing?Good luck tomorrow, I hope it goes well :-)
Are you going off to university this year? If so, what subject are you doing?
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos Link ParentIt's a pure maths paper, differentiation, integration etc. Here's an example paper.It's a pure maths paper, differentiation, integration etc. Here's an example paper.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos Link ParentThanks for the advice, it means a lot to me :-)Thanks for the advice, it means a lot to me :-)
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos Link ParentOut of interest, are you working towards making humans an interplanetary species? It's something that's interested me for a while, though I doubt I'll end up working in the space industry.Out of interest, are you working towards making humans an interplanetary species? It's something that's interested me for a while, though I doubt I'll end up working in the space industry.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos Link ParentPure Mathematics. I'm retaking this one since I didn't do brilliantly last year. I'll probably end up with an A instead of an A* (+) which isn't exactly bad but I've underperformed academically...Pure Mathematics. I'm retaking this one since I didn't do brilliantly last year. I'll probably end up with an A instead of an A* (+) which isn't exactly bad but I've underperformed academically for basically all of school and I've got no one to blame except me. I despise how lazy and weak I am. It's just getting a bit much tbh. I have large amounts of both narcissism and self loathing which means I'm not satisfied with myself unless I achieve the best possible result so I'm always disappointed in myself.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
phos LinkI'm not in a brilliant way at the moment. Got an exam tomorrow which I'm going to fail, meaning I'll go to my second choice university which is a bit of a bummer. I'll be going travelling soon so...I'm not in a brilliant way at the moment. Got an exam tomorrow which I'm going to fail, meaning I'll go to my second choice university which is a bit of a bummer. I'll be going travelling soon so hopefully I can use that to clear my head a little.
-
Comment on The ACLU retreats from free expression in ~humanities
phos LinkThe Article text (sorry I thought the referrer link worked)The Article text (sorry I thought the referrer link worked)
The American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm “marginalized” groups by undermining their civil rights. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,” the ACLU declares in new guidelines governing case selection and “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities.”
This is presented as an explanation rather than a change of policy, and free-speech advocates know the ACLU has already lost its zeal for vigorously defending the speech it hates. ACLU leaders previously avoided acknowledging that retreat, however, in the apparent hope of preserving its reputation as the nation’s premier champion of the First Amendment.
But traditional free-speech values do not appeal to the ACLU’s increasingly partisan progressive constituency—especially after the 2017 white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The Virginia ACLU affiliate rightly represented the rally’s organizers when the city attempted to deny them a permit to assemble. Responding to intense post-Charlottesville criticism, last year the ACLU reconsidered its obligation to represent white-supremacist protesters.
The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”
In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case. Fundraising and communications officials helped formulate the new guidelines.
One half of this balancing test is familiar. The “impact of suppressing speech”—the precedents that suppression might establish, the constitutional principles at stake—is a traditional factor in case selection. But, traditionally, the ACLU has not formally weighed the content of speech and its consistency with ACLU values in deciding whether to defend it.
Tension between competing values isn’t new to the ACLU. Given its decades-old commitment to defending civil rights and liberties, the organization has long navigated conflicts between equality rights and freedoms of religion, speech and association. The guidelines assert that “no civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other.” But it’s clear that free speech has become second among equals. Where is the comparable set of guidelines explaining when the ACLU should decline to defend gay-rights claims that infringe on religious liberty or women’s-rights cases that infringe on due process?
The speech-case guidelines reflect a demotion of free speech in the ACLU’s hierarchy of values. Their vague references to the “serious harm” to “marginalized” people occasioned by speech can easily include the presumed psychological effects of racist or otherwise hateful speech, which is constitutionally protected but contrary to ACLU values. Faced with perceived conflicts between freedom of speech and “progress toward equality,” the ACLU is likely to choose equality. If the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU’s balancing test, it would greatly expand government power to restrict speech.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for example, the ACLU defended the First Amendment rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader prosecuted for addressing a small rally and calling for “revengence” against blacks and Jews. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Clarence Brandenburg’s conviction, narrowly defining incitement to violence as speech both intended and likely to cause imminent illegal action. Brandenburg made an essential distinction between advocacy and action, which progressives who equate hate speech with actual discrimination or violence seek to erase.
The ACLU would be hard pressed to take Brandenburg’s case today, given its new guidelines. The organization hasn’t yet endorsed a ban on hate speech, or a broader definition of incitement. The guidelines affirm that “speakers have a right to advocate violence.” But even if Brandenburg managed to pass the new balancing test for speech cases, some participants at his rally were armed, and, according to the guidelines, “the ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.”
All this is the ACLU’s prerogative. Organizations are entitled to revise their values and missions. But they ought to do so openly. The ACLU leadership had apparently hoped to keep its new guidelines secret, even from ACLU members. They’re contained in an internal document deceptively marked, in all caps, “confidential attorney client work product.” I’m told it was distributed to select ACLU officials and board members, who were instructed not to share it. According to my source, the leadership is now investigating the “leak” of its new case-selection guidelines. President Trump might sympathize.
-
Comment on Would you visit Westworld? in ~tv
-
Comment on The ACLU retreats from free expression in ~humanities
phos LinkThe Article The document in question Summary: From the Journal It's probably important to note that this document was leaked, the ACLU didn't release it to the public. They're currently...Summary:
From the JournalThe American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm “marginalized” groups by undermining their civil rights. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,” the ACLU declares in new guidelines governing case selection and “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities.”
This is presented as an explanation rather than a change of policy, and free-speech advocates know the ACLU has already lost its zeal for vigorously defending the speech it hates. ACLU leaders previously avoided acknowledging that retreat, however, in the apparent hope of preserving its reputation as the nation’s premier champion of the First Amendment.
It's probably important to note that this document was leaked, the ACLU didn't release it to the public. They're currently investigating the leak apparently. In my mind the secrecy is the worst part of this. If you're going to move in this direction, it'll make things much easier if you publicise policy changes.
The document itself is a bit of a mixed bag, with some bits that support one view and some that support the other.
(Possibly) important quotes from the internal document:
We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If
the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it
agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose
credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to
mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not
defending that speaker. Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects
everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech
rightsSo it looks like they are reaffirming that they will still defend controversial applications of free speech. They then go on to say that because of their limited resources, they'll pick cases that are more in line with their values, though still supporting some controversial cases. They do say that they won't support gun carrying protesters (fair enough), people that promote violence:
Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence: The First Amendment is
not absolute, and in particular, does not protect intentional incitement to imminent violence,
conspiracy to commit violent acts, true threats directed at specific individuals, physical
obstruction of the exercise of constitutional rights, or intentional destruction of private or
public property. Speakers have a right to advocate violence and hate so long as it does not
fall in the above narrowly defined categoriesObviously time will tell what they mean by this. The bit the WSJ seem to focus on is this consideration given:
The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression: Our defense of
speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which
we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are
contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which
the speech will occur. At the same time, not defending such speech from official suppression
may also have harmful impacts, depending on the breadth or viewpoint-based character of
the suppression, the precedent that allowing suppression might create for the rights of other
speakers, and the impact on the credibility of the ACLU as a staunch and principled
defender of free speech. Many of these impacts will be difficult if not impossible to
measure, and none of them should be dispositive. But as an organization equally committed
to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of
our actions, for constitutional law, for the community in which the speech will occur, and
for the speaker and others whose speech might be suppressed in the future.Basically, they want to do mostly cases that support their own beliefs, but they will do more controversial ones, because that sets a bad precedent. I'd advise reading the whole document, it's not that long.
META: is this sort of post allowed in news? Apologies if it's off topic.
EDIT: Oops, didn't mean to post this as a comment.
-
The ACLU retreats from free expression
26 votes -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk
phos Link ParentI know quite a few far left anarchist types who own guns. Obviously just an anecdote but stillI know quite a few far left anarchist types who own guns. Obviously just an anecdote but still
-
Comment on US expected to disengage from UN's Human Rights Council in ~news
phos Link ParentTrue, on the other hand, the UNs lack of power is what makes it what it is. If it intervened more I think it would have a lot less support.True, on the other hand, the UNs lack of power is what makes it what it is. If it intervened more I think it would have a lot less support.
-
Comment on US expected to disengage from UN's Human Rights Council in ~news
phos Link ParentWould you deny that the HRC has a preoccupation with Israel over other countries? They've condemned Israel more times than every other country combined. I'm not sure anyone would say that's...Would you deny that the HRC has a preoccupation with Israel over other countries? They've condemned Israel more times than every other country combined. I'm not sure anyone would say that's representative.
I agree with Ban Ki-moon who said in a 2007 statement:
The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.
I think the US is incredibly stupid for leaving but I don't think the HRC is very good at its job either.
-
Comment on Ellen Pao - The perverse incentives that help incels thrive in tech in ~tech
phos Link ParentBecause it's a biological imperative to reproduce? I understand what you're trying to say here, people shouldn't feel entitled to sex and intimacy. That being said, incels are always going to...There's more to this world than just fucking. People should figure that by themselves, but apparently, they can't. And I don't fully get why.
Because it's a biological imperative to reproduce? I understand what you're trying to say here, people shouldn't feel entitled to sex and intimacy. That being said, incels are always going to exist in some form, I personally think we should focus on making them as harmless as possible.
-
Comment on Joshua Schulte (of Vault 7 leaks) has been indicted for leaking CIA secrets in ~tech
phos LinkThis is what I expected to happen and he should have expected it too. Leakers very rarely prosper, particularly in cases like this. The documents were interesting but it's not like they revealed...This is what I expected to happen and he should have expected it too. Leakers very rarely prosper, particularly in cases like this. The documents were interesting but it's not like they revealed anything that people didn't already know. The interesting part for me was the specifics i.e. codenames, programming guides etc.
He was an idiot for looking at CP and even more of one for storing it on his computer. I'm continually surprised by how stupid some people manage to be.
-
Comment on Anyone else here involved/interested in Formal Verification? in ~comp
phos LinkI've been meaning to get around to looking into it, but there's so much else I want to explore first. Cool stuff though, especially Coq. There looks like some good resources on learning it...I've been meaning to get around to looking into it, but there's so much else I want to explore first. Cool stuff though, especially Coq. There looks like some good resources on learning it [here].(https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/)
-
Comment on Should user statistics be publicly viewable? in ~tildes
phos LinkI'm a firm believer that more data is better so yes. As long as it doesn't cut into development time too much.I'm a firm believer that more data is better so yes. As long as it doesn't cut into development time too much.
-
Comment on Who was excited to pick a cool username? in ~tildes
phos LinkYeah, it's the nicest part of being on a website early, you get the cool usernames.Yeah, it's the nicest part of being on a website early, you get the cool usernames.
I disagree with the article but that's by the by. This section however, caught my eye, simply because there are many things wrong with it:
First off, both the examples aren't even in Eastern Europe. Germany is considered to be Central Europe. Hungary is often too (it's cited as being in central europe in wikipedia for instance). Secondly, Eastern Europe suffered from both fascist invasions and communist governments, however communist regimes have had a longer lasting negative impact, due to the longer time they were in power. For instance, Ukraine got fucked over during the russian civil war, fucked over during the holodomor, fucked over by the nazis in world war 2, then fucked over by the post wwii communist regime again. You could have just said authoritarianism and that would have been better. As for examples, Jarosław Kaczyński would probably have been a good example.
I understand Sanders is like many americans and gets confused about aspects of Europe, but stuff like this doesn't fill me with confidence. Being somewhat informed isn't that hard.