You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more

Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.

In what world is that even a plausible outcome of this news? This feels non-sequitur by its pure absurdity. If they had a list of 1000 things they can do with this database, that would not even be on the list.

I understand you are talking about something which either interests you or is a cause you care about, but we’re talking about monumental governmental surveillance by a president many scholars are calling a fascist. This is not the time nor the place to discuss such matters and trying to have that conversation could easily be read as dismissing the plentiful and obvious concerns around privacy and safety of the American public.

Already not a fan of Palantir, this is pretty bad news

free chewy

wokepedia lmao what’s wrong with the world

I’m glad to see a lot of different people trying different models. I don’t think microblogging really has the capability of being nontoxic, but who knows? Maybe they’ll succeed where everyone else has failed. I certainly know we’re trying to have nontoxic social media around here, and we have plenty of issues at a much smaller scale.

I understand why you might be upset based on how they made a rather sweeping statement about the comments without addressing any content. When they said “a bunch of sanctimonious people with too much appreciation for their own thoughts and a lack of any semblance of basic behaviour” it might strike many as an attack on the user base, but I’m choosing to interpret it through the lens of simply being upset at people who are not nice. I could be wrong, and perhaps @sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al can elaborate on exactly who and what they were talking about.

Regardless, let’s try our best to treat them in good faith. Don’t let your own biases shape how you interpret people or their language. Please try to ask clarifying questions first before jumping to the assumption that they are a right wing troll.

yea fair enough

I mean, yeah? Are things so bad this isn’t obvious?

That’s just cherrypicking. Yes some people will review bomb. Others will make fake positive reviews to counteract people review bombing a game for being too “woke”.

In the end the only thing that even could matter is how people in aggregate work - and that’s easy to account for, you just readjust the distribution to be more spread out to get the “true” score of things.

This video seems more like clickbait than anything. I’m finding it hard to find anything worthwhile to engage with here even from a high level.

That’s not even worth addressing or bringing up, because they don’t understand science. It’s better to just call them racist, for being racist, because that’s what is happening here… racism

From another article on the same issue:

Buried within the list of issues is a reference to a display at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. The display, the executive order complains, “claims that ‘sculpture has been a powerful tool in promoting scientific racism’ and promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct.”

I’m brought to mind of the concept that any movement must have a peaceful branch for the system to acknowledge and meet demands for change as well as a “violent” branch to drive the opponents to the bargaining table. And within both of those is a need to take care of the community to enable them to continue to protest for change.

Completely agreed with this concept. I’ve been a big fan of multiple voices advocating for different things. It helps others understand where the center is or where the most agreement is likely to be. You need some people asking for everything in order to push in the direction of change, otherwise the people in charge will think what they have given up is satisfactory (or perhaps even too much).

I think where these protests will succeed or fail is community coming together to take care of each other, with a safety net so many more people will be able to participate and make their voices heard.

Yes I think general principles of anarchy apply here in that the more people you can get mobilized around a single issue and the more engagement you can get the more successful it will be. Entirely peaceful protests can drive huge change, but only when the government is a peaceful one who actively wishes to represent the people. The more corrupt and out of touch they get the less they will care about the constituency and the massive prevalence of voter disenfranchisement and a system of corruption which is increasingly run on money in the United States seems to suggest that it falls more closely in that latter bucket.

Yeah, I’ll have to check the book out to understand more.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.

I really wish this was in a proper paper, as I wonder how much selection bias is at play here. How is “achieving their goals” measured? What kind of governments are we talking about? What is “serious political change”? I have a lot of serious doubt that nonviolent protests do much against hostile governments. They are absolutely important, and true research has revealed they are much more effective at mobilizing people who agree with the protestors, but the research also shows that violent protests have a larger affect on folks who do not agree with the protestors because they cause actual harm and more forcibly bring people to the table to negotiate. But what exactly is considered violent is a difficult one to quantify and direct physical violence (injuring and killing others) is much less effective than non-human directed violence which is difficult to quantify and to define. Destruction of property, for example, is often considered a form of non-human directed violence which likely has a larger affect on change than human-directed physical violence because no one is directly injured and it creates a direct economic incentive for change to happen.

We have one rule here, it’s to be nice. Stop being antagonistic

This is how you make them listen.

“embrace of right-wing politics…” my dude he did a literal nazi salute multiple times, stating it this way is minimizing