The thing that makes the Gamestop issue news is that it is an example of Man Bites Dog. No one notices if the headline is: insider elite hedge fund manager destroys pension fund and makes billions. That's normal.

You are absolutely correct, but in general, and for this conversation, the overall winners are governments and corporations, the losers, small business and individuals (just like its been for the past 50 years). — synthesis

I agree with your assessment of corporations. Governments in the US have taken a huge hit since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's, so you are wrong there in the long term. I will agree that the governments have done much better than small businesses and lower wage workers during the pandemic that had to shut down completely, but being a smaller loser is not being a winner. You are correct that the elite who didn't have to shut down were essentially neutral, like it didn't happen. Though they have been big winners since the 1980s.

It depends on the group. I think it is illogical to take account of statistical differences between groups if the existence of those groups can be easily questioned. Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. But should someone like Kamala Harris get reparations on the basis of her “race”, even though she is (according to her father) the descendant of a slaver? — NOS4A2

Interesting. I mean it's interesting that when replying to my post about updating initial discriminatory practices (based on group knowledge) when updated with individual information, you used an example using individual information.

As to your specific query, why bend over backwards to use an example that has little to chance of happening in the best case, then use as your specific example a case that is by your admission, the opposite of the best case?

So I would answer thusly: as a thought experiment, I see your Vice President Harris point, but as policy, it is commonplace for criteria to inclusionary rather than exclusionary.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that. — Darkneos

Rather than call those who have died as "the dead" think of them as the non existent. Basically in the last 13 billion years you were nonexistent, but you may exist here for about 80 years. A relatively insignificant amount of time. If you decide at age 19 to end it all instead of existing until the age of 80, that seems like a big difference, and it is to your parents, but if you eschew them and want to look at the issue philosophically (here on the Philosophy Forum), as a statistician will point out, your time of non existence of 13 billion years plus or minus 30 years is nothing whereas your time of existence of 19 vs 80 years is statistically significant.

It is psychologically difficult for most to justify paying today for something that will be needed "in the future". Pair that with leaders who can't/won't lead and you get what you get.

the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. Again, there are tens of millions of lives that need to be put back together. There are unbelievable numbers of people with mental and emotional issues and the financial toll has been incalculable.

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything. Most corporations seemed to have weathered the storm OK — synthesis

It is a false assumption to refer to the response in the singular. As we all know the previous administration didn't take the lead (I am stipulating that tweeting is not leadership) so things were left to the states. The states handled things very differently from one another. Where I live, we have the 4th lowest infection rate, so the medical part has gone way, way better than average. OTOH, perhaps businesses have done worse than average, though I have seen no data to support this notion.

State and local governments (who rely on income and sales taxes) have taken huge hits, so any idea to the contrary is just wrong.

As to corporations, the airlines, travel/hospitality industries and any brick and mortar retail is either dead or dying.

There is little difference between so-called positive and negative racial discrimination, in my view. In each case, one adopts a perverted racial taxonomy, a race hierarchy, and applies it to actual people. To give preference to one racial group is to do so at the expense of other racial groups, with little care for the actual flesh and blood individuals involved. Positive racial discrimination is not contrary to racism. It is the continued application of racism. — NOS4A2

You are referring to favoring one race vs favoring a different one and calling that positive and negative. I agree with you that in the moment both are negative. However, Real Life is more nuanced. One issue is taking into account longer periods of time than just this moment. Another is that most racism that takes place is neither positive nor negative, it takes into account the fact that on average, there are differences between groups. Not necessarily among individuals.

Is it logical or illogical to take into account a real statistical difference between groups when dealing with an individual in that group? Not to stick with this difference when updated with individual information, but to start off in the absence of individual data/experience?

I refuse to acknowledge the notion that “speech has consequences” beyond the immediate physical effects, for instance the movement of breath from the mouth or the application of ink to paper. Since no one but myself can control my motor cortex, I believe the activities you described are the consequence of other, more personal factors. But I can understand the folk psychology of the notion.

The problem with this notion, as I see it, is that if speech is to be blamed for political skirmishes or violence, it can be blamed for any and all opposite effects. If you and I hear the same speech, but you go out and riot while I go home and read a book, we remain ignorant to the real reasons why you did one thing and I did another. Free speech becomes the innocent victim. — NOS4A2

Should fraud be illegal? It's often only speech after all.

Is skin-color not used as a marker of race? It is, as are other biological factors.

Let’s get this out of the way, then. Do you believe people should be discriminated against on the basis of race? — NOS4A2

Lots here, (though almost none of it addressed by my post).

Sure, many substitute skin pigmentation for race and base discrimination on it, that is (somewhat inaccurately) referred to as "racism". It is a small subset of the larger topic of "discrimination".

Many discriminate based on race (among many other things), that is not necessarily negative. However, you stipulated: "… discriminated AGAINST...", which, of course is negative by definition, so I am against that.

There are many examples of racial discrimination that are not negative (and I am not against those).

Children!! My guess is there is a lot of commonality here. Firstly, everyone discriminates. The alternative would be to operate in human interactions randomly, which no one does. Thus not all or even most discrimination is negative. Codified discrimination (especially race based) is almost universally condemned (publicly). This wasn't always so and is a description of progress over time. Currently in the West most racism is peer to peer and thus while institutional in many cases, is not codified.

What is missing? What we,humans, cannot accept or imagine that this artificial intelligence can do?
Isn't it that this transhuman, artificial epistemology machine is going to redefine what we belief we are?

What is missing is the subjective part of the human interaction. Not dissimilar how watching a movie that features an actor is not the same as interacting with the actor, regardless if the movie is in High Def or not.

Sounds like a mod felt it was "hate speech" whereas I agree that it seems to be based on ignorance as you mention.

Exactly, TV networks and publishers exist, but are not the modern equivalent of the Illuminati (like some portray the GAFAMs)

Knowledge is power. You can be as easy or as difficult to monitor as you choose to be.

I would say that "all politics in the media are extreme" but moderates don't make the news. It is a perception thing.

Agree about the numerous possible meanings. Generally folks refer to either romantic or family based aspects of love, though technically it includes others.

There are interesting French cave experiments where folks live away from time cues. Turns out that the natural biological clock runs on a slightly longer than 24 hour day. That is folks will choose to go to sleep later and later until they are sleeping during the external "day" and choosing to be awake at "night".

I don't disagree with you (or him). But in my experience insults and attacks, while somewhat effective against beginners, is also a beginner's strategy. Anyone can make someone feel bad by being mean to them. You know you are an expert when you can make folks feel bad by being nice to them.

I classic example of paralysis by over-analysis. Not uncommon in youth where there is an abundance of intelligence and a lack of wisdom. One benefits from the appreciation that there is just the present, not a future (what appears to be the "future" is just what the present will be in the future, it is not a separate thing). Thus contemplating what you will leave behind after you are no longer here, has no actual meaning for you, let alone a reason to change your present outlook.

GFA (not A & M so much) are the equivalent of TV Networks in the 60's. Where are the networks today? Nowhere. What is social media going to be in 50 years? Potentially nowhere.

An excellent illustration of folks' mistaken understanding of what is private information and what is public.

Speaking of lawyers, nice try in smokescreenism, but:
1) Obama had been a sitting US senator, thus had experience in government
2) Therefore your erroneous reference to "...no experience..." is at best mistaken
3) Since Obama had experience he could not (by definition) claim to be superior to McCain because he had no experience (like POTUS 45 did)
4) You do bring up an interesting separate issue: many insiders, like George W Bush, claim outsider status. I agree it is psychologically interesting, perhaps we can start another thread on that topic.

Jut so you know there is a movement on the Pro circuit to have let serves go (just like during a rally), though to be fair it is out of an interest to shorten matches.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts correctly. My issue is not a comparo of one level of experience vs another, it is the idea that having no experience at all is a selling point for a candidate. As you already know, Obama didn't sell himself as superior to McCain because he had served in the Senate for a shorter time period.

I don't have a problem with the arithmetic, rather with the central premise. That is, while many label human experiences as suffering and joy, and seek to eliminate the suffering, statistically one could just as easily label the sum total of the negative and the positive over a lifetime as "average" or normal. After all suffering and joy are relative not absolute terms. One person's agony is another's below average day. And just as the unrealistic kids in Lake Wobegon are all above average, it is an error to lament the shape of a bell curve.

Identifying a negative facet to a complex situation is not sufficient to label it as negative. IRL essentially all complex issues have negative as well as positive attributes. Decision making is based on weighing relative risks, not trying to find a risk-free path.

Is spaying a bad thing? Is euthanizing unwanted dogs a bad thing? If the OP had proposed vasectomies instead of castration, that would be an interesting discussion, but spaying, yes or no has pretty much been resolved.

I have to hand it to you, your logic is internally consistent. Though whether a cloud fairy is this or that has almost no practical application.

Vulnerable means: can get the disease. Invulnerable is synonymous with immune, the vaccinated plus the recovered. Since those among the vulnerable who will require a hospital bed and those won't is unpredictable, your immune system description while fun to muse about, has no practical application.

Social distancing is a crutch while we wait for the vaccine to solve the problem, so neither of us thinks it is the solution.

Several things: first, we don't need to "kill" viruses, we just need to deprive them of hosts. Thus viruses don't need to be "attack"ed. That's the value of social distancing. Your first statement is self-contradictory, since the "vulnerable" population IS the "healthy" population. The invulnerable population is a combo of the vaccinated and those who have recovered.

I agree with term limits for the executive branch for two reasons, to prevent a monarchy and because in our system, until recently, presidential candidates had a lot of government experience. No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job.

The competition between sportsmanship and winning is as entertaining as any other (artificial) dichotomy. As opposed to the OP, both are actually lionized in pro sports, though one loudly and the other wistfully.

It is an error to propose that he alternative for a domesticated animal is to be wild (since they're not wild animals) rather it is to not exist.

If you address a "subjective" issue like aesthetics, statistically, psychologically and neurologically, there are clearly objective aspects to it. However since a portion of the mix is based on life experience and those are quite varied, it will appear almost random and thus resemble a wholely subjective entity.

Another unrelated complication is that there is the phenomenon of painful stimuli triggering a positive response, which though quantifiable, makes the final analysis appear random as it cancels out tradition evaluation.

The lesson (came to fruition in the early 21st century) is that the balance inherent in democracy, that is that the top of the pyramid has fewer votes than the bottom, can be gotten around since the rabble can be fooled into voting against their own best economic interest.

Twitter effectively deposed him awhile back.

Oh, I'm sorry, not trying to be cagey. POTUS 45 is the most obvious recent example, (for those who follow news).

No I don't have any information on the OPC, apparently it was hacked awhile back so maybe it's getting repaired?

Unfortunately other than age trends, it is difficult to categorize immune system strength before illness. I agree with you about the recovered and the vaccinated, scientifically, but psychologically it would lead to a two tiered system in a situation that is already tribalistic, so I agree that it is more practical to continue as we are doing until hospitalization numbers drop.

I have an example worse than the current Congress...

A couple of things. First the current mutations are covered quite nicely by the vaccines. Secondly, the difference in hospitalization rate between those over 80 and those between 40 and 79 is about 3 to 1. So younger folks are not as "immune" as your analogies (?) imply. At the same time, the total number of those 40 to 79 is much higher (140 million vs 10 million).

Basically we are going to get to herd immunity. You get there through a combo of exposure to illness and vaccination. The higher percentage of illness, the higher the deaths. In 11 months the US has 24 million known illness exposures and in one month 12 million vaccinated. Obviously we can vaccinate way, way faster than the virus spreads with halfa55sd attempts at containing it. The US has the 12th highest death rate, so most countries are going to get to herd immunity with fewer relative deaths than the US. Sad, really.

If you (like I do) feel that factory farming is immoral you won't support it. This is separate from the issue of random employees of a factory farm abusing animals, which is not a practice of legitimate farming of any kind.