and, honestly?

frankly?

we don't send kids to trial when they say mean things. we scold them, we say "they're just kids" and we hope it works.

if it doesn't work, in the end, we might blame ourselves.

but we largely don't generate consequences out of this.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i mean, we don't want to think of ai in these fragile terms, right.

we want to convert ai into god....

...but if we're going to anthropomorphize the ai, the right way to do it is not as full fledged uber mensch, but as naked and crying new born child, that needs to be taught all the same things we do.

we can speed this up by hardcoding it. but, we still have to do it.

http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/ZELQZNY/forbreat.txt

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

well, you have to program humans to speak politely, too, don't you?

we just don't come out of the womb as well-adjusted and polite. we need to get grounded a few times....

you can be misanthropic about it, but it should only strike you as an unnecessary task if you've never spent any time around humans before; your misanthropy is justified, but you should have gotten over this as a functional block in high school.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

the robot doesn't understand what it is saying.

it really is as easy as installing a ban list.

and, it actually shouldn't have taken microsoft more than a few minutes to make the edit, and fix the problem.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

to be clear: the example where the ai repeated back nazi slogans could have been easily prevented by installing a ban list in the ai. intent isn't the point, here. it was an oversight by the programmers.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html

jgmeet singh must cut his beard.

is teaching the next generation how to survive when they're homeless the government's idea of an approach to automation?

in all honesty, this doesn't bother me, at the very low grade levels. they're kids.

just so long as they get back to math when they're done recess, however educational recess might be.

no praying, though.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8140445-a-school-with-trees-and-snow-instead-of-desks/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

this is surprisingly technically right.

i suspect one of these guys has an advanced technical degree..

this is a category error, but i suspect it's one we're going to see all over the place.

so, when a robot speaks, who or what is speaking? is it the robot? or is it the programmer?

if you've never programmed anything, you might be forgiven for looking at a robot speaking, and saying "this speech belongs to the robot". it's all very anthropomorphical, so it's easy for us to trick ourselves.

but, a robot is no more in control of it's speech than a cartoon character is. and, do you argue that homer or ariel or spongebob or fred fucking flintstone deserve free speech? no - because we know that cave men and talking sponges and mermaids and high school dropouts with mansions don't actually exist in real life, that their speech was written by a human entity.

we then argue that the humans deserve speech rights, through the medium of the characters they've created. and, we all agree on this point.

similarly, robots do not say anything they were not programmed to. even the ones using the ai we have are unable to actually think: they can only repeat what they've been programmed to repeat, via whatever instruction, from whatever heuristic. so, the question we need to ask is whether programmers deserve free speech rights through the medium of the characters they create inside the robot. and, the answer is that they do - because they are human beings, and this is innate.

as an easily confused human, you just need to get that reality clear to you: that this robot speaking to you is not a legal person, does not have a self, and is only capable of saying what it's been told to say. once you do that, you see it's a non-issue.

and, you also know who to go after should the robot be programmed problematically.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html

jgmeet singh must cut his beard.

increasing property taxes is also just about the only thing i can think of that might actually get prices down a little.

remember: the housing bubble cannot burst in canada due to functional regulatory oversight. it has to come down slowly, via market forces.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/02/16/time-for-toronto-to-slip-out-of-its-tax-straitjacket.html

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

justin trudeau's a journey fan.

ahahahahahahahahahahaha....

https://thewalrus.ca/the-justin-trudeau-i-cant-forget/

jameet singh must cut his berard.

it's well understood that justin trudeau was passed over for michel trudeau, and about the only reason i can imagine pierre doing that is if he knew.

jgmeet singh must cut his beard..

yeah.

i think margaret would have done better than old man castro.

like, maybe, somebody her age.

whoever trudeau's father was, he was clearly a good looking man. maybe a high school crush, or something.

(the remaining brother is, i believe, thought to have been the son of a russian diplomat, at the least he is quite visibly russian, while the deceased brother may have been legit). 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4032280/justin-trudeau-is-not-fidel-castro-son/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i mean, that's why i'm opposed to religion - because it's intolerant, and i won't tolerate it.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

no, seriously.

if you can come up with an ideology that you think is less tolerant than islam is in 2018, let's hear what you think it is.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

i mean, if you're going to argue that you shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, muslims should really be your number one target.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

religion is really just another word for intolerance.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

but, keep in mind, that i would argue that all religion - not just including, but especially islam - is inherently and irreversibly intolerant.

so, my idea of stamping out intolerance is not fighting for rights for muslims, but fighting against the influence of religious bigotry.

...which isn't to say that muslims don't deserve the same rights as everybody else, so much as it is to say that i don't accept the concept of "religious freedom" as anything more than doublespeak for the intolerance that comes packaged in religion.

i would consider myself more in the spirit of where these groups originated than the people on the ground are. and, i'm avoiding them precisely because they're not representing an anarchist left at all, but a post-modern authoritarian right.

the left doesn't stand up for religious rights, it fights to get rid of religion.

and, the left doesn't use the state as a tool to implement it's policies, it fights to eliminate the state altogether.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

antifa, huh? so, what are you about?

using state power to eliminate my enemies.

(said no anarchist, ever)

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

but, on the question of tolerating intolerance?

there are two points here:

1) should we tolerate the intolerant? no.
2) should we use the state as an arbiter in the matter? no.

people advocating the use of state power to stomp out intolerance have lost the plot.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

to clarify: i'm broadly opposed to capital punishment, on the "what if we're wrong?" foundation of legal liberalism.

but, all rules require exceptions.

and, god's crimes are literally beyond parallel in scope and documentation.

could god receive a fair trial? certainly not. doesn't matter...

if we can prove a god exists, then we can find a way to stop it from existing, further; to an extent, proving that god exists is the same thing as disproving that what we're labelling god is actually immortal.

the only open question in my mind is "how do we actually physically end god's existence?".

of course, killing god will not put an end to faith. but, at least we can point to the historical record, label them flat-earthers and move on.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

why should we show mercy to a god that has shown no mercy to us?

i'm not interested in "morals".

i'm interested in logic.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

the likelihood of god existing is so low as to be negligible.

but, rare events happen.

and, if we somehow find out that a god does exist, we should try it for war crimes and, when convicted, execute it accordingly.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

to put it another way...

my views are so much more radical than manson's, and even were as a teenager, that he just struck me as another way to articulate the status quo.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

there will be almost no mention of manson in the alter-reality, because i am not and never have been a fan of his.

i was 15 when antichrist superstar was released, a fan of nin and corgan, and deeply anti-conformist, but i don't think i've ever listened to it all the way through. if i ever have, it was by accident, at a party.

first of all, the music is just not very interesting.

but, i don't think the fan base cares much about how boring the actual music actually is.

the flat truth is that i just thought marilyn manson was stupid. i didn't find him interesting or challenging on any level, and what he said was less thought provoking to me and struck me more as just flat out daft.

my opinion hasn't changed at all over the years.

i probably wouldn't have been able to articulate this at the time, but this is the difference: i was an atheist from a very, very young age. not a satanist. an atheist. so, he actually struck me as just promoting another ideology that needed to be broken down. and, if you want to tell me that satanism is not a religion, i'm going to have to take the opposite position in a debate on it.

like, i need to be clear: when i heard him speak, i heard an ideological enemy rather than somebody on my side of things. he wasn't telling people to think for themselves and rely on empiricism and science, he was just giving them an alternate means of brainwashing and trying to work them into another kind of ideology.

i was as opposed to manson's views as i was opposed to any other religionist's views.

i guess i was smart enough to see through it from the start.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

"confidence" is just a politically correct term for stupidity brought on by ignorance.

it's nearly as catastrophic a trait as faith.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i'll give you a hint, though: you need to search for england, and not britain, because this issue is so old that britain didn't even exist yet.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

do i have to write you a 50 page essay that documents chinese attitudes towards chinese-british trade agreements over the last 500 years, or can you go to the library yourself?

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i would suspect that justin trudeau gets his perceptions about chinese culture from yoga classes, new age "literature", fortune cookies and bad hollywood movies.

useful

fucking

idiot.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

china does not sign agreements.

the reason china does not sign agreements is that it does not want to be bound by them.

so, the chinese have no military alliances, no trading agreements and no allies - because they don't see themselves as a part of an interconnected world, but as an independent voice that can never be integrated.

the british appear to be unable to understand this.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

the british have been trying, and failing, to sign a trade deal with china for 500 years.

you think an oil pipeline is going to do it?

have you ever read a book before?

fucking idiots...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

rather, what christy clark is doing is unprecedented - she's supposed to shut up and get lost. she has no business weighing in on this, and should be roundly condemned for it.

but, i'll give you the answer: the reason is that the federal government wants to sign a trade deal with china.

but the reality is that this pipeline is not going to get a deal with the chinese, who will take the oil and laugh at us for destroying our country for their benefit.

i'll say it: trudeau and notley are simply useful idiots.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/02/11/exactly-trans-mountain-national-interest-prime-minister/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i think this battle was lost 20 years ago, when dubya was installed in a coup, but don't expect me to fall in line with the agenda to shut down democracy in america.

http://theconversation.com/government-regulation-of-social-media-would-be-a-cure-far-worse-than-the-disease-92008

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

if you were looking for a way to split the misogynist component of the ford vote, you'd have to run somebody that much more obnoxious. and, short of running his brother's corpse, i'm not sure that this is even an option.

what province does kevin o'leary live in?

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

the re-entrance of patrick brown is unlikely to alter the outcome of the race.

he was probably the party's best candidate in the general. but, he won the leadership by campaigning on the right, and then sharply turned to the centre. of course, it's hard to take the guy seriously when he runs on the right for votes in the party, then runs in the centre for votes in the general - the only conclusion to draw from that is that we don't know if he's on the far right or in the centre.

i'm going to suggest that his platform shouldn't have been taken all that seriously in the first place, and you'd no doubt see see a return of "primary brown" if he were to win.

but, the conservative base is not known for cheek-turning, and is unlikely to see a reason to take gambles when it has clearer options in front of it.

maybe he eats into mulroney's numbers just that much more, but i already think she's out of it. but, i don't even think he eats into elliot's numbers.

but, i should address the other gender argument. if a 75% female pool helps ford, shouldn't a 60% pool scale him back? well, not unless you think there are moderates voting for ford because they're misogynists. and, while i don't doubt that ford attracts some misogynists, they're not moderates, and they would not prefer brown. that is, i'm sure the identity vote is there, but it's not going to jump to brown. the key idea about tga being so key to ford's victory is that the women she's peeling away from mulroney and elliot are extremists, not moderates.

don't misunderstand me: i'm glad he's fucking with the process. and, given the circumstances, i actually kind of think that the leadership race is the right place for him to clear his name, in a kind of a "you made your bed...." kind of way.

if you're going to take him down in a back room, having him denounce you back in public is really quite retributive, isn't it?

but, he's neither going to win, nor is he going to change the outcome of the race.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

canada is an economic union that no longer makes any sense.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

confederation, as we understand it, has no future.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

alberta's interests are to maintain a high dollar and market access for a product that cannot be produced sustainably.

this harms the rest of the country, both economically and environmentally; the rest of the country's interests are to keep the dollar low to boost exports of less catastrophic commodities, from food items to marijuana to lumber to whatever else.

so long as we remain under economic union, we have no choice but to harm each other.

there are not any policies that can fix this. these are two sides of the same scale. and, we will continue to be at each others' throats until our ruling class figures that out.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.