Friday, June 23, 2017

The Hill

The Hill

Opinion: We may all want Apple Glasses after ARKit arrives

Opinion: We may all want Apple Glasses after ARKit arrives
Yes, ARKit on phones is just a foundation for when glasses of some kind come from Apple.

Against Murderism

Against Murderism
As always, a long (very long), but thoughtful essay. "Racism-as-murderism is the opposite. It’s a powerful tool of dehumanization. It’s not that other people have a different culture than you. It’s not that other people have different values than you. It’s not that other people have reasoned their way to different conclusions from you. And it’s not even that other people are honestly misinformed or ignorant, in a way that implies you might ever be honestly misinformed or ignorant about something. It’s that people who disagree with you are motivated by pure hatred, by an irrational mind-virus that causes them to reject every normal human value in favor of just wanting to hurt people who look different from them. This frees you from any obligation to do the hard work of trying to understand other people, or the hard work of changing minds, or the hard work of questioning your own beliefs, or the hard work of compromise, or even the hard work of remembering that at the end of the day your enemies are still your countrymen. It frees you from any hard work at all. You are right about everything, your enemies are inhuman monsters who desire only hatred and death, and the only “work” you have to do is complain on Twitter about how racist everyone else is. And I guess it sounds like I’m upset that we’re not very good at solving difficult cross-cultural communication problems which require deep and genuine effort to understand the other person’s subtly different value system. I’m not upset that we can’t solve those. Those are hard. I’m upset because we’re not even at the point where someone can say “I’m worried about terrorism,” without being forced to go through an interminable and ultimately-impossible process of proving to a random assortment of trolls and gatekeepers that they actually worry about terrorism and it’s not just all a ruse to cover up that they secretly hate everyone with brown skin. I’m saying that when an area of the country suffers an epidemic of suicides and overdoses, increasing mortality, increasing unemployment, social decay, and general hopelessness, and then they say they’re angry, we counter with “Are you really angry? Is ‘angry’ just a code word for ‘racist’?” I’m saying we’re being challenged with a moonshot-level problem, and instead we’re slapping our face with our own hand and saying “STOP HITTING YOURSELF!” People talk about “liberalism” as if it’s just another word for capitalism, or libertarianism, or vague center-left-Democratic Clintonism. Liberalism is none of these things. Liberalism is a technology for preventing civil war. It was forged in the fires of Hell – the horrors of the endless seventeenth century religious wars. For a hundred years, Europe tore itself apart in some of the most brutal ways imaginable – until finally, from the burning wreckage, we drew forth this amazing piece of alien machinery. A machine that, when tuned just right, let people live together peacefully without doing the “kill people for being Protestant” thing. Popular historical strategies for dealing with differences have included: brutally enforced conformity, brutally efficient genocide, and making sure to keep the alien machine tuned really really carefully. And when I see someone try to smash this machinery with a sledgehammer, it’s usually followed by an appeal to “but racists!” You say we must protect freedom of speech. But would you protect the free speech of racists? You say people shouldn’t get fired for personal opinions that don’t affect their work. But would you let racists keep their jobs? You say we try to solve disagreements respectfully through rational debate. But would you try to rationally debate racists? You say people should be allowed to follow their religion without interference. But what if religion is just a cover for racism? You say we need to understand that people we disagree with can sometimes have some good points. Are you saying we should try to learn things from racists? You say there’s a taboo on solving political disagreements by punching people. Are you saying that we can’t punch racists? The argument goes: liberalism assumes good faith and shared values. It assumes that, at the end of the day, whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, you can still be a basically good person. You can compartmentalize a few special beliefs relating to the Pope, and your remaining differences can be dissolved by the universal solvent of Reason. After everyone does this, you can invoke the wisdom of crowds via a popular election, and even if you don’t like the results you can at least understand where the other side is coming from. Some people prefer liberty to safety, other people prefer safety to liberty, but if the voters choose the wrong one then at least they’ve erred in an understandable way by preferring one real value to another. But if there’s some group out there who aren’t connected to normal human values at all, some group that’s deliberately rejected reason; if they’re willing to throw liberty and safety under the bus in pursuit of some kind of dark irrational hatred which is their only terminal goal – then the whole project falls apart. Dialogue based on mutual trust may be all nice and well when it’s supposed to help us choose the optimal balance between liberty and safety, but if you give a platform to the people whose only value is hatred, then they’re just screwing over everybody."

ACLU releases video of brutal beating of motorist by enraged cop

ACLU releases video of brutal beating of motorist by enraged cop
Nothing to see here, just good police work – says any police apologist.

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault
They didn't do enough to stop it.

Lisa Tozzi on Twitter

Lisa Tozzi on Twitter
Man lacking self control lacks self control.

They're Wrong About Everything

They're Wrong About Everything
Yes. "Events are turning me into a radical skeptic. I no longer believe what I read, unless what I am reading is an empirically verifiable account of the past. I no longer have confidence in polls, because it has become impossible to separate the signal from the noise. What I have heard from the media and political class over the last several years has been so spectacularly proven wrong by events, again and again, that I sometimes wonder why I continue to read two newspapers a day before spending time following journalists on Twitter. Habit, I guess. A sense of professional obligation, I suppose. Maybe boredom. The fact is that almost the entirety of what one reads in the paper or on the web is speculation. The writer isn't telling you what happened, he is offering an interpretation of what happened, or offering a projection of the future. The best scenario is that these theories are novel, compelling, informed, and based on reporting and research. But that is rarely the case. More often the interpretations of current events, and prophesies of future ones, are merely the products of groupthink or dogma or emotions or wish-casting, memos to friends written by 27-year-olds who, in the words of Ben Rhodes, "literally know nothing." There was a time when newspapers printed astrology columns. They no longer need to. The pseudoscience is on the front page."

CEO Worked Way Up From Son Of CEO

CEO Worked Way Up From Son Of CEO

Curbed Detroit

Curbed Detroit

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Lin-Manuel Miranda (@Lin_Manuel) posted a photo on Twitter

Lin-Manuel Miranda (@Lin_Manuel) posted a photo on Twitter

Federal judge blocks Trump from deporting Iraqi Christians

Federal judge blocks Trump from deporting Iraqi Christians

Officials Recommend 1-Day Suspension After Columbus, Ohio, Officer Is Caught Kicking Handcuffed Black Man in the Head

Officials Recommend 1-Day Suspension After Columbus, Ohio, Officer Is Caught Kicking Handcuffed Black Man in the Head
24 hour suspension. "Had I walked up to a random person (let alone a restrained person) and kicked him or her in the head, it would be recommended that I be put in jail for assault, I’m pretty sure, but I am not Columbus Police Officer Zachary Rosen. According to Raw Story, on Wednesday, the Columbus Police Department revealed that Chief of Police Kim Jacobs recommended the 24-hour suspension for Rosen. It is noted, however, that Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther said in a statement that the director of public safety will have the final say about whether to uphold the suspension, fire Rosen or choose another route of discipline. So now all eyes are on the director, I suppose."

Yashar Ali on Twitter

Yashar Ali on Twitter
Oh come on! 😱He's going to be doing town halls to discuss how to deal with sexual assault allegations?

White House Warns Reporters Not to Report on Instructions About Not Reporting on Thursday’s Press Conference

White House Warns Reporters Not to Report on Instructions About Not Reporting on Thursday’s Press Conference

Laci Green on Twitter

Laci Green on Twitter
Yes.

James Hohmann on Twitter

James Hohmann on Twitter
"I" will be the new "is".

Ana Navarro on Twitter

Ana Navarro on Twitter
No, it isn't.

Ronald Klain on Twitter

Ronald Klain on Twitter
Yes! This is how to do it! πŸ‘

Chris Murphy on Twitter

Chris Murphy on Twitter
Sad, but true.

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us.

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Silenced. Then She Silenced Us.
Feminism for some – if they have the right views. "Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards. In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political. That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam."