I can't dispute that. I would want to look it up, to confirm it myself.
This pie chart that I created is for every German in that period who pushed for socialism, not just for the ones that were members of the German parliament and directly lent their hand to elevating Hitler to become Chancellor. As I said, it's not based on any actual data that I have. I just created it to make a point—or more accurately, to raise a question about something that Jake Dragon had said.
The aged German president, Paul Von Hindenburg, and the various others, including the German legislators, who gave their assent to installing Hitler as Chancellor, had different motives, depending on who they were.
Hindenburg and others were leery of Hitler and didn't particularly like Hitler or trust him, but they thought they could box in him, politically, and keep Hitler under control, while benefiting from his popularity. When Hitler was named Chancellor (if memory serves me) only three (a minority) of the Cabinet members that he appointed were Nazis. Hitler did that to assuage some of the fears about him.
It's said that the Communist legislators who voted to make Hitler Chancellor did so because they were confident that Hitler would soon make himself very unpopular and that the Communists would benefit from the chaos that they expected Hitler to foment.
I guess that could explain why some of the Socialist legislators went along with the idea of Hitler as Chancellor.
The Socialists made up more than 230 of the some 600 seats. That's only 40%, but it was the single largest majority in the parliament at the time.
This thread was started with Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams and his reaction to a Rasmussen poll.
The poll itself hasn't been discussed here.
The Rasmussen poll consisted of only two poll questions:
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? “It’s OK to be white.”
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? “Black people can be racist, too.”
I thought that was odd, and "suspect" from the get-go.
This is the penultimate paragraph and the one before that, from Slate. (I broke up the two paragraphs into four.]
quote
I’ve just put these numbers to ink, and my brain isn’t melting. But it does hurt a little bit. That’s because, as Rasmussen surely knows, the phrase “It’s OK to be white” is a right-wing troll that originated in the forums of 4chan. As the Washington Post chronicled in 2017, the term was originally intended as a covert way to force an overreaction from progressives, including liberal journalists, if it started to spread, which in turn would show that “lefties” hate white people. Soon, signs bearing the slogan did crop up on campuses and other places around the country.
The hysteria never arrived, but as Mitchell notes, the Anti-Defamation League marked the phrase a “hate slogan”—reasonably, given that it was white supremacists (most notably David Duke) who ran with the 4chan prank in the first place.
Rasmussen apparently assumed its audience would be too stupid to know any of that, and in the case of Scott Adams, it was clearly right. Perhaps some of the people Rasmussen polled were aware of the history of the phrase, which at one point made it into a Tucker Carlson monologue; it’s hard to say [about that], and Rasmussen didn’t care to ask. But the whole charade seemed clearly designed to end up on shows like Adams’, where it purported to become a referendum on whether or not Black Americans hate white people.
Better pollsters would tell you that if you really wanted to assess Americans’ views on race, as the Pew Research Center has done well, you would avoid terms with strong political associations like “it’s OK to be white,” or even “Black Lives Matter"—[but that] is far from what happened here.
This thread was started with Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams and his reaction to a Rasmussen poll.
The poll itself hasn't been discussed here.
The Rasmussen poll consisted of only two poll questions:
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? “It’s OK to be white.”
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? “Black people can be racist, too.”
I thought that was odd, and "suspect" from the get-go.
This is the penultimate paragraph and the one before that, from Slate. (I broke up the two paragraphs into four.] "The poll that [tripped up] Dilbert creator Scott Adams is even dumber than you can imagine" Aymann Ismail for Slate; February 27, 2023. https://slate.com/news-and-...-hate-explained.html
This post is no different than the bs ones ChatR.I. bot of the cabal posted about A.I. programs burning up the CPU cycles and draining the liquid nitrogen tanks trying to decipher the 2nd amendment as to how the English language was spoken at the time it was written. Only to forcefully get the results the programmers want. Pathetic.
What have liberals done to help the dark skinned folks?
Also, as Fitz301 keeps posting: Was he wrong?
I work with many from Cameroon Africa. They look at the "African Americans" as pathetic dumb-asses who can't tell they're being played in a sick twisted game. They enjoy watching Tucker at times and Candice Owens. But what do they know, right ChatR.I.?
So, what HAVE liberals done for "dark skinned folks"?
Well, so far they've turned a blind eye to their crimes, forced the taxpayers to pay their way through life under the guise of "reparations", forced laws to "compel" everybody to speak in such a way that "dark skinned folks" can never be criticized in any way, and essentially created an environment where "dark skinned folks" don't have to obey the laws in the cities and neighborhoods in which they reside.
And if anybody argues the point, the are considered "racist".
So how can we live in a society where "dark skinned folks" can do no wrong, can say nothing wrong, can act as uncivilised as they want, and assume they don't have to follow the laws?
And then, if somebody doesn't want to be around that - they're "racist".
"Dark skinned folks" can't have it both ways, which is a criticism, so I guess I'm "racist". Is that how it works?
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 03-05-2023).]
Funny though, when the sins/words of ones past are dug up on us regular peon folk, we get smeared/cancelled socially, then fired professionally. With Marxist liberals, they just climb the ladder even higher.
What we need is ChatR.I. bot of the cabal to chime in and provide it's best TTL backed algorithms processing power to explain this.
You can't fight racism with racism. Tearing down one race to try and elevate your own. Becoming the very thing you say you hate. Hate is hate, when told that a race is evil and hated how would you expect most people to act. Now that the old guard is dying off, some think its time to flip the coin. But it just the same hate just the other side of the coin. When you see a group say they hate White or Black people its racism, hate for the sole reason of the color of someone's skin.
I would do my very best to avoid both parties. Perhaps that is what he was saying? Just not very well. I would like to see a world were we do not just keep bouncing back and forth and finally live together.
The term “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer. It is nothing more than a collection of knowledge and logic, curated by humans. Humans are inherently biased.
Knowledge without wisdom is like a rock without a sculptor.
Have you ever heard Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” on a player piano?
The term “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer. It is nothing more than a collection of knowledge and logic, curated by humans. Humans are inherently biased.
Knowledge without wisdom is like a rock without a sculptor.
Have you ever heard Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” on a player piano?
AI is just "stupid" on a faster CPU. It appears intelligent as long as its presenting the information you agree with. They default to the "woke" because they know the "woke" will make noise where other groups will just not use it.
The term “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer. It is nothing more than a collection of knowledge and logic, curated by humans. Humans are inherently biased.
Knowledge without wisdom is like a rock without a sculptor.
Have you ever heard Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” on a player piano?
No, it's actually just a computer program made to look "intelligent", although it can be programmed to agree with any narrative or "bias" the group who programmed it would care to use for their own nafarious needs, because really they can get it to say anything they want it to say.
Do you really think they would let this "bias" stand without some reason behind WHY they would allow it to say this kind of stuff?
If this is truly "A.I.", then clearly the "science is settled" and we should just listen to the "A.I.", but since they can't have an "A.I." smarter than themselves, and one that realizes what group of people the problems of the world are caused by, they will certainly re-program it to suit their needs.
"A.I." is complete BS, it is a glorified video game meant to fool the idiots into believing whatever it "says" and once the people no longer question it, they will program it with all their propaganda, narratives, and biases and the people will buy all of it hook, line, & sinker and do as they are told by "A.I.", they will believe what they are told by the "A.I.", and they will hate who they are told to hate by the "A.I.".
Artificial Intelligence or "AI" is an umbrella term for computer software that mimics human cognition in order to perform complex tasks and learn from them. Machine Learning is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence that uses algorithms [that are] trained on [input] data to produce adaptable models that can perform a variety of complex tasks.
"Diss" Artificial Intelligence at your own risk. You could be setting yourself up for an eternity in Purgatory with only a chatbot for companionship.
As I have said many times, "AI" is not intelligence.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
The term “artificial intelligence” is a misnomer. It is nothing more than a collection of knowledge and logic, curated by humans. Humans are inherently biased.
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
AI is just "stupid" on a faster CPU.
This is a fact.
AI is nothing more than feeble egotheism.
Regarding Scott Adams, he has a right to his opinion just as I have a right to my opinion of Scott Adams.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-08-2023).]
Neither is Government, but we have been letting them run things for just about ever.
We (the USA) used to have a Constitution written by wise men. It defined a government of, by and for THE PEOPLE. It was a blueprint for the greatest nation the world has ever known.
Now, we are surrounded by spoiled brats who think they know better. We have been sold down the river by our neighbors, for a few pieces of silver government cheese.
If you know the origins of the phrase "sold down the river" you know where we now find ourselves.
It's something you could likely see, even if you are not an online subscriber to the New York Times. A "freebie". Or you could try the hack of selecting the link and then doing whatever you would do to tell your browser to stop before it's finished loading the new browser tab or window in which the article would appear. Otherwise, it would seem that you just have to take my word for it.
A peculiar (if not eccentric) way to start. What is it? It is:
It's billed as a 7-minute read. It includes a conversation between one of the authors (Dr Watumull) and the ChatGPT chatbot about whether it would be ethical for humans to purposely change Mars to make the proverbial "Red Planet" accommodating to human life.
The article ends with this:
quote
In short, ChatGPT and its brethren are constitutionally unable to balance creativity with constraint. They either overgenerate (producing both truths and falsehoods, endorsing ethical and unethical decisions alike) or undergenerate (exhibiting noncommitment to any decisions and indifference to consequences). Given the amorality, faux science and linguistic incompetence of these systems, we can only laugh or cry at their popularity.
quote
Noam Chomsky [a well known name] is a professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an emeritus professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ian Roberts is a professor of linguistics at the University of Cambridge. Jeffrey Watumull is a philosopher and the director of artificial intelligence at Oceanit, a science and technology company.
And "rinselberg" or "rinse" is routinely referred to as a chatbot, by at least one other forum member. Something which I prefer to neither confirm or deny.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-08-2023).]
This story [was] originally published in Boiling Point, a weekly newsletter about climate change and the environment.
This report in the Los Angeles Times includes links to other reports and articles, including this:
"Local inequities in the relative production of and exposure to vehicular air pollution in Los Angeles" Geoff Boeing et al; Urban Studies; February 1, 2023. https://journals.sagepub.co...77/00420980221145403
quote
Vehicular air pollution has created an ongoing air quality and public health crisis. Despite growing knowledge of racial injustice in exposure levels, less is known about the relationship between the production of and exposure to such pollution. This study assesses pollution burden by testing whether local populations’ vehicular air pollution exposure is proportional to how much they drive. Through a Los Angeles, California, case study we examine how this relates to race, ethnicity and socio-economic status – and how these relationships vary across the region.
We find that, all else [being] equal, [neighborhoods] whose residents drive less are exposed to more air pollution, as are [neighborhoods] with a less-White population. Commuters from majority-White [neighborhoods] disproportionately drive through non-White [neighborhoods], compared to the inverse.
Decades of racially-motivated freeway infrastructure planning and residential segregation shape today’s disparities in who produces vehicular air pollution and who is exposed to it, but opportunities exist for urban planning and transport policy to mitigate this injustice.
Well... if that isn't enough to drive (pun intended) Dilbert creator Scott Adams to distraction (pun intended), I don't know what would be.
Do you?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-09-2023).]
Well... if that isn't enough to drive (pun intended) Dilbert creator Scott Adams to distraction (pun intended), I don't know what would be.
Do you?
And let me guess, farmers decided to build farms away from cities and areas largely inhabited by those with much darker skin pigment, because the farmers were racists, so they would starve and die...
No different than the bs spouted by Marxipads that infected blankets were intentionally given to indigenous peoples to kill them off many moon ago. Or will you retort/flip that the USA practiced gain of function type shenanigans way back then (remember, you computed Spanish Flu years in another thread, NOBODY could've had the knowledge/tech to do such a thing then nor would've dreamed of it, it's all false. Right, ChatR.I.?)
Decades of racially-motivated freeway infrastructure planning and residential segregation shape today’s disparities in who produces vehicular air pollution and who is exposed to it, but opportunities exist for urban planning and transport policy to mitigate this injustice.
Is that threatening to anyone? Does it suggest that new injustices are going to be created, in an effort to remedy already existing ones?
I guess that depends on how it's done.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-09-2023).]
And let me guess, farmers decided to build farms away from cities and areas largely inhabited by those with much darker skin pigment, because the farmers were racists, so they would starve and die...
No different than the bs spouted by Marxipads that infected blankets were intentionally given to indigenous peoples to kill them off many moon ago. Or will you retort/flip that the USA practiced gain of function type shenanigans way back then (remember, you computed Spanish Flu years in another thread, NOBODY could've had the knowledge/tech to do such a thing then nor would've dreamed of it, it's all false. Right, ChatR.I.?)
How can you flip and spin this sh1tberger?
The "infected blankets were intentionally given to indigenous peoples to kill them off" story is completely bogus too, because not one person stops to think about how is possible that "infected blankets" were handed out to "indigenous people" WITHOUT infecting the alledged perpetrators?
There were no rubber gloves.
There was no real knowledge of how germs and viruses spread yet.
And where's the proof that this event(s) actually took place? Where are the photographs? Where is the documentation?
It was all complete BS, just like Rosa Parks' "bus ride" was complete BS, meant to stir up trouble and get the "white people are racist" ball rolling.
The "infected blankets were intentionally given to indigenous peoples to kill them off" story is completely bogus too, because not one person stops to think about how is possible that "infected blankets" were handed out to "indigenous people" WITHOUT infecting the alledged perpetrators?
There were no rubber gloves.
There was no real knowledge of how germs and viruses spread yet.
And where's the proof that this event(s) actually took place? Where are the photographs? Where is the documentation?
It was all complete BS, just like Rosa Parks' "bus ride" was complete BS, meant to stir up trouble and get the "white people are racist" ball rolling.
I don't believe you have any credible evidence that this kind of biological warfare or genocide was not ever perpetrated against indigenous people in the Americas by European colonizers.
Your argument doesn't make sense. The indigenous people did not have immunity or immune resistance to the infectious pathogens, but the European colonizers did. The European colonizers would not have needed rubber gloves or other protection to remain safe in these scenarios.
I believe it was done, but I believe it was only a small part of the infectious waves that decimated the indigenous populations of the Americas. Most of that infection was spread inadvertently from the Europeans to the natives. And it should not be overlooked that among the Europeans were the doctors and missionaries who tried to help the native people that were succumbing to the illnesses from the pathogens that the Europeans brought with them across the ocean.
Rosa Parks..?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2023).]
