***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[00david00]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

 

[RustyShackleford]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

We might just be confused on what each person is saying

not all journalist are the same.

Bots can't replace every type of journalist. But they could replace some, and that is driven by a basic principle or capitalism.

Yes, humans might still right your investigative articles, but bots maybe right your blurb saying President Trump spoke at the UN.

Replacing some journalist and replacing the entire field of journalism are two different things.

 

[gry60]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

I did not say that journalists are being replaced by bots. i said it is possible, and part of the reason why it is possible is the way capitalism operates. All of that hinges on whether developers like the people at Automated Insights will be able to create software that can replicate the style of a human writer. They can already produce stories faster than your typical journalist. It remains to be seen if they can write as well or better.

 

[deleted]

The SPLC today released two reports documenting how President-elect Donald Trump’s own words have sparked hate incidents across the country and had a profoundly negative effect on the nation’s schools.

Joined by human rights and education leaders at a press conference in Washington, D.C., the SPLC called on Trump to take responsibility for his actions and to repair the damage he had caused.

“Mr. Trump claims he’s surprised his election has unleashed a barrage of hate across the country,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “But he shouldn’t be. It’s the predictable result of the campaign he waged. Rather than feign surprise, Mr. Trump should take responsibility for what’s occurring, forcefully reject hate and bigotry, reach out to the communities he’s injured, and follow his words with actions to heal the wounds his words have opened.”

In Ten Days After, the SPLC documents 867 bias-related incidents in the 10 days following the presidential election. Among them: multiple reports of black children being told to ride in the back of school buses; the words “Trump Nation” and “Whites Only” being painted on a church with a large immigrant population; and a gay man being pulled from his car and beaten by an assailant who said the “president says we can kill all you ******* now.”

In After the Election, The Trump Effect, the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance project details the findings of an online survey of more than 10,000 educators since the election. Ninety percent reported that their school’s climate has been negatively affected, and 80 percent described heightened anxiety and concern among minority students worried about the impact of the election on their families.

The teachers described an increase in the use of slurs and derogatory language, along with disturbing incidents involving swastikas, Nazi salutes and Confederate flags. More than 2,500 said they knew of fights, threats, assaults and other incidents that could be traced directly to election rhetoric.

Since the election, approximately 675,000 people have signed SPLC petitions calling on Trump to distance himself from white nationalists and other extremists and to dump Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist and counselor.

“President-elect Trump’s first commitment to the American people was to be a president for ‘all Americans’ and to ‘bind the wounds of division’ in our country,” Cohen said. “He needs to make good on that pledge by taking decisive action.”

Cohen was joined at the press conference by Wade Henderson, president, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Brenda Abdelall, charities program director, Muslim Advocates; Janet Murguia, president, National Council of La Raza; and Randi Weingarten, president, American Federation of Teachers.

New SPLC reports reveal alarming pattern of hate incidents and bullying across country since election

 

[3am scholar]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

 

[harlemtothebronx]

But then I gotta walk to the library and ****. Can't someone just read the news to me?

 

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:



not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

I did not say that journalists are being replaced by bots. i said it is possible, and part of the reason why it is possible is the way capitalism operates. All of that hinges on whether developers like the people at Automated Insights will be able to create software that can replicate the style of a human writer. They can already produce stories faster than your typical journalist. It remains to be seen if they can write as well or better.

Jesus Christ.

Automation will be our undoing.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

 

[00david00]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

I did not say that journalists are being replaced by bots. i said it is possible, and part of the reason why it is possible is the way capitalism operates. All of that hinges on whether developers like the people at Automated Insights will be able to create software that can replicate the style of a human writer. They can already produce stories faster than your typical journalist. It remains to be seen if they can write as well or better.

see last sentence.

"now"

 

[IATT]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51131/trump-goldman-sachs/

 

[EddieDoyers]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

Hillary already conceded defeat a couple days after Trump won
It would be a bad look if she directly funded the recount

However, I still think Jill Stein is robbing folks here

 

[noskey]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

Hillary already conceded defeat a couple days after Trump won
It would be a bad look if she directly funded the recount

However, I still think Jill Stein is robbing folks here

She might be funding part of it. But don't underestimate desperate people and their willingness to blindly throw money or trust at their seemingly only solution. See: Trump voters.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

Hillary's people already said they looked into claims of voter discrepancies and found nothing, if they did they would have ask for an audit themselves. This is not her.

Jill Stein is finessing desperate liberals that think they have one last chance to make Clinton president over Trump.

And I guarantee all this money won't be used for the audit. Stein just scammed folk outta giving he Green Party a huge cash injection

 

[00david00]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

We might just be confused on what each person is saying

not all journalist are the same.

Bots can't replace every type of journalist. But they could replace some, and that is driven by a basic principle or capitalism.

Yes, humans might still right your investigative articles, but bots maybe right your blurb saying President Trump spoke at the UN.

Replacing some journalist and replacing the entire field of journalism are two different things.

You're reducing this to "fact: automation replaces jobs"

Yes that's true. That's not how we got here.

I said to buy a sub if auto-journalism is so concerning (because there is plenty of good journalism if you look for it, and you can/should support it if you value it). The point being that worthwhile journalism exists, you can support it, and it isn't being threatened by bots.

You said I was being dismissive of his concerns, and that he's telling us about legitimate effects to society. The two of you are not presenting the same effects.

The original logic that got us here, that I was replying to, was along the lines of:

Capitalism is the reason media is failing democracy.

Used as evidence: software replacing journalists today

Bonus: scary media future to think about where Black box media will manipulate us even more effectively. Aso possible due to capitalism.

Reality from the sourced article does not match the grand claims. Which is why I called it a reach.

 

[EddieDoyers]

I doubt anyone believes the money Stein raised is legit. You can't raise more money than your presidential campaign in just one month. This is Hillary support money that Jill's getting. Question is, why is this doing this?

Hillary's people already said they looked into claims of voter discrepancies and found nothing, if they did they would have ask for an audit themselves. This is not her.

Jill Stein is finessing desperate liberals that think they have one last chance to make Clinton president over Trump.

And I guarantee all this money won't be used for the audit. Stein just scammed folk outta giving he Green Party a huge cash injection

She's probably buying massive bags of weed with some of that money

Jill Stein in the cut looking like

 

[Belgium]

Here goes another 2300 scientists who should go kick rocks according to da wise words of Ninjahood

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rity-and-independence/?utm_term=.2e92788bde87

 
More than 2,300 scientists, including 22 Nobel Prize winners, have issued an open letter  to President-elect Donald Trump and the 115th Congress, urging them to “adhere to high standards of scientific integrity and independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental health threats.”

The letter underscores the extent to which many scientists, who have worked with the Obama administration to address climate change, pandemics and other major policy issues, are worried about whether Trump and his deputies will slash science funding and overhaul the way several federal agencies operate. While it does not directly refer to President George W. Bush’s eight years in office, many of the signatories spent years fighting the curbs imposed on federal scientists during that time.

Andrew Rosenberg, who directs the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy and whose group organized the letter, said he and other scientists have become concerned both by comments Trump made over the course of the campaign and some of the people who have been advising him on energy, the environment and public health.

“We need to make sure there’s not political manipulation of the science,” Rosenberg said, adding that part of the challenge he and others face is there is not an obvious point person on the transition team who is communicating with outside constituency groups. “It’s hard to figure out even who to have a conversation with. There doesn’t seem to be much of an opening.”

The list of distinguished signatories, who hail from all 50 states, includes medical scientists, physicists and many climate researchers. The Nobel laureates include Harold Varmus, who headed the National Cancer Institute under President Obama; David Baltimore, the former president of Caltech; and Mario Molina, who helped discover the role of chlorofluorocarbons in depleting the ozone layer. James Hansen, the longtime NASA researcher who had previously denounced George W. Bush’s administration for interfering with his ability to communicate publicly the science of climate change, also signed the letter.

The scientists represent a broad range of disciplines: At least 440 in biology, 350 in ecology, 180 in environmental science, 171 in earth science, 108 in chemistry and 40 in agriculture signed the letter.

In the past, Trump has questioned the connection between human activity and climate change, suggesting he would seek to withdraw from the accord forged last year in Paris that aims to cut the world’s carbon output over the next decade. In a New York Times interview earlier this month, however, the president-elect said, “I have an open mind to it” and said protecting air quality and “crystal clear” water was crucial.

Several of the men and women who are either advising Trump or are being considered for administration posts have questioned the current trajectory of federal scientific research. In an interviewlast week with the Guardian, former congressman Robert Walker (R-Pa.) said NASA’s Earth Science division should be defunded because it engages in “politically correct environmental monitoring” and the agency should focus on space instead.

“We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker said. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.”

Kathleen Hartnett-White, who used to chair the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and met this week with Trump at his transition headquarters in New York City, said in an interview with The Washington Post  in October that she did not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act because it does not pose a threat to public health.

“Carbon dioxide has none of the characteristics of a pollutant that could harm human health,” she said, adding at another point that when it comes to scientific predictions that the world could be on the brink of disastrous climate change, “We’re not standing on a cliff from which we are about to fall off.”

“I think all scientists are extremely concerned about what Trump might do to our scientific infrastructure,” said climate scientist Ken Caldeira, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science who signed the letter. “It takes decades to build up leadership in a scientific area, because you have to train people for many years. It would be very easy in just a couple of years to destroy what has taken many decades to build up.”

The letter released Wednesday echoes a previous one  released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, that was directed at Bush in 2004. The only difference is that at that time the Bush administration had governed for some four years and had come under fire for multiple science-related scandals. Here, by contrast, scientists are seeking to prevent them by articulating the principle that government researchers should be able to follow the evidence where it leads, and should be free to communicate their results to the public.

“Twelve years ago, the Republican president was . . . very crude in the way they dealt with science,” said Lewis Branscomb, a physicist at the University of California at San Diego and another of the statement signatories. “They very often had political people in the government rewriting reports that scientists in the government had written. That sort of thing happened.”

“And now we’re looking at the kinds of people that Trump is appointing, and we have no good reason to be optimistic about what they’re going to do,” Branscomb said. “We don’t know of course, and we’re not saying they’re going to do anything wrong. We’re simply telling them what we think is going to be important, and hope that they pay attention when they select the senior people in the various agencies that are dealing in science.”

If not, the science community will be watching, the letter cautions.

“We will continue to champion efforts that strengthen the role of science in policymaking and stand ready to hold accountable any who might seek to undermine it,” it concludes.

 

[RustyShackleford]

the claim was literally made that software is being used to replace journalists, bc capitalism.

Meanwhile in the article:

not a replacement for worthwhile journalism

We might just be confused on what each person is saying

not all journalist are the same.

Bots can't replace every type of journalist. But they could replace some, and that is driven by a basic principle or capitalism.

Yes, humans might still right your investigative articles, but bots maybe right your blurb saying President Trump spoke at the UN.

Replacing some journalist and replacing the entire field of journalism are two different things.

You're reducing this to "fact: automation replaces jobs"

Yes that's true. That's not how we got here.

I said to buy a sub if auto-journalism is so concerning (because there is plenty of good journalism if you look for it, and you can/should support it if you value it). The point being that worthwhile journalism exists, you can support it, and it isn't being threatened by bots.

You said I was being dismissive of his concerns, and that he's telling us about legitimate effects to society. The two of you are not presenting the same effects.

The original logic that got us here, that I was replying to, was along the lines of:

Capitalism is the reason media is failing democracy.

Used as evidence: software replacing journalists today

Bonus: scary media future to think about where Black box media will manipulate us even more effectively. Aso possible due to capitalism.

Reality from the sourced article does not match the grand claims. Which is why I called it a reach.

This was the comment that I responded too. Please note, he starts speaking about journalist, and expands it make a overall point about capitalism. His is the dismissive part that I pointed out, and the part the will affect all of society.

This was the original exchange:

I think automating journalism is going too far.

Its going way way way too far.

Nothing is too far when it comes to unbrindled capitalism. Nothing.

It is ultimately about ratings and money, and without regulations, the scenario above is very possible.

People need to realize that capitalism is exploitative by nature and will only reward the owners of capital if they are not controlled.

So don't laugh too much about the obsolescence of ninjahood's livelihood. Your job might be next[emoji]128513[/emoji][emoji]128513[/emoji]

Find a paper/magazine or two with good journalism and reward it with a subscription, instead of consuming "bot" news if it worries you that much. Capitalism isn't going away.

Not his last two sentences.

He is making a point beyond journalism, we aren't all journalist, he is alluding to Ninja's job being under threat as a truck driver.

I'm not reducing the argument, I was discussing one of the original claims he made, that you seem dismissive of with you "Capitalism isn't going anywhere"

The source was one example of just that. You seem to be nudging the goal post a little here, especially when I conceded that we may have had our signals crossed.

 

[everysingletime]

I think automating journalism is going too far.

Its going way way way too far.

Nothing is too far when it comes to unbrindled capitalism. Nothing.

It is ultimately about ratings and money, and without regulations, the scenario above is very possible.

People need to realize that capitalism is exploitative by nature and will only reward the owners of capital if they are not controlled.

So don't laugh too much about the obsolescence of ninjahood's livelihood. Your job might be next[emoji]128513[/emoji][emoji]128513[/emoji]

Thanks for the concern breh.

I feel pretty safe about my job security. If they replace my job with machines then that means we have true artificial intelligence and humanity is screwed

 

[00david00]

If you go back a few more posts you will see what I'm talking about explicitly, along with the evidence/support I'm mentioning, which is why I was specifically talking about media and journalists. I probably picked a poor post to quote to make the point.

When you mentioned confusion I thought you meant in regards to defining journalism, replacing it, etc. Not moving the goal posts, I misunderstood the angle you were arguing from.

 

[AZwildcats]

I am still confused about what point Jill Stein is trying to prove with the recount efforts. She says she wants to show that there is a fair system in place, but I am not buying it. 

 

[rolaholic]

Also given the CIA's history, I believe NOTHING that they say It's not that I agree with Trump about ending the Iran nuclear deal, I just think the CIA has some ulterior motives for keeping it in place. I don't even know what they are; I just don't trust them at all

I agree and I've got no love for the CIA whatsoever ,they're not the only ones warning Trump against scrapping the deal though...

@samsteinhp: The chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tell Trump to not scrap Iran deal

https://t.co/oTSAZsIUTr

Even the Saudi's want to keep the deal for now

 

[everysingletime]

I am still confused about what point Jill Stein is trying to prove with the recount efforts. She says she wants to show that there is a fair system in place, but I am not buying it. 

She's using the money to buy drugs and bishes

She got everybody duped.

 

[RustyShackleford]

If you go back a few more posts you will see what I'm talking about explicitly, along with the evidence/support I'm mentioning, which is why I was specifically talking about media and journalists. I probably picked a poor post to quote to make the point.

When you mentioned confusion I thought you meant in regards to defining journalism, replacing it, etc. Not moving the goal posts, I misunderstood the angle you were arguing from.

Ok famb, gotcha

 

[AZwildcats]

 

I am still confused about what point Jill Stein is trying to prove with the recount efforts. She says she wants to show that there is a fair system in place, but I am not buying it. 

She's using the money to buy drugs and bishes

She got everybody duped.

I'm starting to lean towards that as well, just made the Green party a nice chunk of change 

 

[AEA18]

I am still confused about what point Jill Stein is trying to prove with the recount efforts. She says she wants to show that there is a fair system in place, but I am not buying it. 

If a fair system was in place then the alleged cheating wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

 

[00david00]

I am still confused about what point Jill Stein is trying to prove with the recount efforts. She says she wants to show that there is a fair system in place, but I am not buying it. 

She's an opportunist that made a political play. Brings huge attention to herself and the Green Party, while raising more than double her campaign total. Also wins her brownie points with some on the left that were upset about her comments regarding HRC up to the election.