This should hopefully be the last ever video filmed in my bedroom! I'm going down to one in-depth video every two weeks, and fingers crossed from now on they'll be filmed in a professional studio!
Philosophy Tube i like the bedroom, it feels homely to see all your books on the wall and have you talk to me from your own living space like it's coming from the heart
"The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal... Legality is not a guide for morality." That may sound overly libertarian, but I love this quote and quotes similar to it. EDIT: Okay, so it's not libertarian, it's anarchist.
@@tofu_golem Holocaust doesnt work with libertarianism at all. Slavery was an inconsistency with the libertarians because they didnt see black people as people, but post-racist cathegorization of personhood, slavery is completely incompatible with liberarianism.
@@unanarco-pacifista6796 the use of 'Liberal' to refer to a specific ideology predates the American use of 'liberal' to mean generally left wing. See Olly's series on Liberalism
Note that Rosa Parks is ALWAYS portrayed as having been an "elderly black woman", but she was 43 years old at the time of her arrest. Really makes you think. 🤔
@@hechatoncheires yea they didnt put as much activist support behind her bc I believe she was a teen mom so the press would have demonized her enough to stop the movement
If Rosa Parks had listened to Jordan Peterson... She would still be cleaning her room before becoming politically active. The audacity of her to think she can interfere with the "natural" hierarchy.
JP isnt against public disobedience. he says clean your room FIRST. RP obviously knew what she was doing and did so effectively. She was part of a group of people working together and planning the best way to create positive change and she was selected by this group in which she was proactive to do the job. If you think that is inconsistent with what JP says, I think you have a narrow vision of it.
There's definitely a point to be made about how neoliberal capitalism pushes the deeply harmful idea that the way to make society better is to make it more "efficient", rather than by understanding the actual issues and dismantling the systems that give rise to them. Like yes, technology can give us wonderfully powerful tools, but those tools are less than useless if they are in the hands of callous people who's idea of progress is "the status quo but more and faster".
How do you mean? The truth is no unjust system can ever be done away with without innocent deaths, but innocent deaths happen everyday in huge numbers due to the system. So, it becomes a question of what is in the best interests of everyone? If the powerful were to stand down, no one would ever need to die - but they won't do that, so THEY make death inevitable. The system will make you feel as though death is justified in the best interests of the collective as well - they do that everyday with the wars they wage, or the cuts they make to essential services - or just the general chaos they breed due to oppression and inequality. I assume that is what you are asking. I just cannot think of one example of systemic change that didn't cause some deaths. It happens one way or another. It always has.
IKilledTheKat "actual issues and dismantling the systems that give rise to them." *It's impossible to dismantle what others want. It's not impossible to do something else and forget about using Neoliberal Capitalism. Create something new.*
+IKilledTheKat The only problem is that those on the far left are actively trying to dismantle systems with only naive or worse no real ideas on what to replace those systems with. It's an idealistic child's method of trying to improve society
As a kid I had a rule-only break one rule at a time-to do otherwise, I thought, would be anarchy. As an adult, the "only break one rule" rule, is the one rule I break. I'm an anarchist.
@@stm7810 What's the difference between a cop and a pig? One's a beautiful, clean, intelligent, respectful, caring, and otherwise good soul, with some messy habits and a bad press. the other is a cop
When you established the idea that some laws actually need to be broken for the purposes of activism and fixing bad laws, that broke my brain. It was a revolutionary idea to me, thank you!
Rosa Parks is one of those interestog figures that when you know just a little about her, she sounds impressive. Then as you learn just a little more, she sounds a little less impressive (afterall, she was a plant on that bus). But as you keep learning, she becomes WAY more impressive than you ever thought. Harriet Tubman was another one like that. Few people know about her entire career as a spy for the Union during the Civil War.
I thought people might mistake my meaning and take offense when none was intended. Clearly, Rosa Parks was awesome. This was not the mistake in meaning I expected though. I don't know how good her sense of humor was, but I imagine she would get a chuckle out of that. It does suit her last name though.
Parks was not a plant on that bus. She really was riding home from work. Her protest was premeditated only in the sense that she had thought about what she would do if she found herself in that situation. She deliberately sat in the first row behind the whites only section, which increased the likelihood that at some point during the trip she would be in the last row of the whites only section. In one account of the incident she revealed that she considered moving as requested before her resolve hardened at the last moment and she moved from her aisle seat to the window and settled in.
Around 10:10 you Name the company palantir as a developer of policing software. The palantìr are the magical stones in LOTR that sauron uses to spy on the free people. If that isn't just both the perfect irony and counterargument against those types of software...
THANK YOU so much for mentioning that Rosa Parks wasn't just "some tired lady on the bus." So many people don't know how much hard work she did, simply because the narrative of a lone, tired woman deciding on her own, in the moment, not to give in to an unjust law plays better than the story of a hard working, politically active woman making a carefully calculated plan to get those laws changed. Credit should be given not just for her bravery, but for her patience, sharp mind, and the work of everyone else in the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP who helped her set-up and carry out the Montgomery bus boycott.
@@TheSecondVersion That's only if the USA had the tech, which if I recall, they don't since only Japan did. Granted, I've only watched the first two seasons and the movie, so things might have changed since then.
😧. Sadly, I am not surprised that predictive police has been implemented already. People are like "Tech can solve all our problems." And not realize the widespread problem of racism and bigotry. Some just actively hate when you bring it up.
SomeRandomGeek "And not realize the widespread problem of racism and bigotry." *That, literally, is a bigoted statement. Perhaps think of something useful to others instead.*
jose ocampo "Weapons of Math Destruction" *A poor political book where the author puts her pretended mathematical outcomes ahead of the organizations looking for a different outcome that has nothing to do with here subjective opinions.* *e.g. Her "complexities of elite college admissions systems" isn't complex it's where rich people meet rich people.*
Nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophy here, but a little audio trick to make your left-panned baseline sound a bit more natural next time is, instead of only playing it in one ear, you can play it in both at similar volume, but split the two sides and have the right-panned track play about 0.003 seconds later. It simulates the sound getting to one ear first and then to the other side, so your brain guesses the sound came from the left ;)
Regarding the "predictive policing" algorithm... Even if your system was completely unbiased it would fail. Experiments have shown that such predictive algorithms can accurately predict human events *only* if the people involved don't use the results. Once the information from the algorithm feeds back into the data the algorithm needs to make predictions, the entire system falls apart.
@The Compiler - The fact that the algorithm is hidden is irrelevant, because the results of the algorithm are visible to users. Look at it this way, the algorithm is trying to predict what the user will click on, but the algorithm also helps *determine* what the user will click on (by making some videos easier to click on than others,) so it is inherently self-defeating (or in this case, self-fulfilling.)
Daniel T. Oh I see. Can I say this is because the kind of system for which the algorithm was design itself changes when the algorithm interacts with it? But then what if we get the algorithm good at predicting first, and then use that knowledge to enable it to minimize its own impact when introduced in the system? Like for example a voice recorder- If I don't like my voice when I hear it played back to me, I'll change the way I talk. But what the recorder can do is, learn how I sound like for a while. Then when I start using it, it will monitor for any deviation from what it learnt and accordingly change the way it plays back my voice so that eventually it plays my voice back in the same way it sounds to me inside my head and thereby I don't change the way I speak.
It sounds like you see the problem now. As for your second question, it depends if the meta-system (the system under study and the algorithm) is self-reinforcing or not. A predictive policing system is not self-reinforcing. As an example: In a research project, a system was written to predict traffic jams in a particular city. It was able to learn the patterns and predict jams with something like a 98% accuracy. However, once they started announcing the algorithm's predictions on the radio, then drivers avoided the predicted intersections and as a result the algorithm's predictions were all wrong, the jams happened in places not predicted by the algorithm. It is logically impossible for the algorithm to adjust in that situation. Strange loops are paradoxes that can't exist in real life.
Daniel T. Ah I see the difference now. If I try to apply my example to this case- The city is me, the voice is the traffic, the forecast is the voice playback, and the changed traffic pattern impacted by the forecast is me changing my voice while recording. And the voice recorder changing the recording to match the voice in my head is like the prediction showing a false forecast in such a way that the actual outcome matches its initial forecast. And I think here lies the difference between policing and voice recording, the system cannot be dishonest about policing like it can about voice playback. Is there any other difference I'm missing?
I would recommend reading the book series Arc of a Scythe, which examines a society in which “infinite computational power” has been discovered, death has been ‘cured’, but all attempts to leave earth have failed. Now, a cloud-based AI named the Thunderhead maintains the society akin to a god, all-present, all-knowing, etc; but he executes personal restraint and allows humans to have privacy, allows them to break the law, because he understands rebellion is a natural function of life. There is a cult, named the Tonists, who think there is a certain tone to the universe, and refuse to use any technology to keep themselves alive and thus they die natural deaths. It’s a really good read and explores some pretty creative and original societal ideas.
Andrew Leslie I’m still on the second book, and I honestly love it so much! Not sure if spoilers, but in the beginning of the second book the Thunderhead itself bends the rules to help the protagonists in their goals, because it sees the corruption of the world governments as extremely harmful to humanity, which it’s sworn to protect. E.g. it can’t talk to the protagonists for legal reasons, so it enlists the help of a cadet by giving him riddles and having him figure out it’s message after he leaves police custody. It’s a stupendous moment seeing even the ultimate lawgiver break the rules when it knows the rules aren’t helping.
*BREAKING THE LAW! BREAKING THE LAW!* *BREAKING THE LAW! BREAKING THE LAW!* I don't really have points of discussion from this video... this was a very "oh... yeah that makes sense" kind of episode.
Excellent video! I study Urban History, and the problem you discuss in this video is often called "the statistical portrait of crime." The idea is that over-surveillance and "efficient" predictive policing of exclusively black communities made it seem to the broader public like African Americans were more likely and thus, as many white politicians argued through essentialism, predisposed to crime. In actuality, the government was simply oversampling from specific racial communities to create a false portrait of crime, which was exacerbated by discriminatory police departments that stopped, punished, and incarcerated black people at demonstrably higher rates than whites. Most people don't really know this part of our history, even though it is instrumental to the construction of the current American punitive state. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend Hinton's From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America. It's a hard read but very informative on this issue.
It's interesting that you talk about the "popular image" of Rosa Parks just being a tired woman who didn't want to give up her seat. I can't remember that ever being the prominent descriptor of her, at least where I live in the US (California). I wouldn't put it past other states (let alone other cities maybe) to teach different narratives, but I was never truly unaware that her protest was an actual calculated move. This probably serves as a microcosmic example of how the civil rights movement (as well as many other historical events) are subtly distorted or "re-explained" in ways that can slip under the radar way too easily.
The only time I've seen this image of her was in the movie Barbershop from 2002 which was a successful comedy film. Though the barber in the film (played by Cedric the Entertainer) was challenged and is more or less your typical loud village idiot Civil right activists were livid at the time but if this image has stuck maybe they had every right to be.
Ryan Young "but I was never truly unaware that her protest was an actual calculated move." *No, it was a movement taking credit for what was already popular. They could have done nothing and the same thing would have been accomplished.* "the civil rights movement" *The branding of a Civil-Rights-Movement™ to take credit for what was popular. Analogous to Plagiarising™.*
I remember back in 2012 I used to go on school trips now to central London every 2-3 weeks. Never once, I have spotted a policeman with a gun back then. Now I see policemen with M16s and stuff patrolling all major stations essentially daily(Victoria/charing cross/cannon street and a few major tube stations). (I'm in a central London university, hence my frequent visiting) It's probably a response to the more frequent terror attacks which I am fine with the extra policing for. But it does make me wonder how far will their policing go in the name of "stopping/preventing" terrorism. After 9/11, the NSA was given free reign to carry out unconstitutional spying on basically anyone that seems suspicious in America. We have a similar NSA-style department here in the UK. How many of our rights are people willing to give up to "ensure their ̶s̶u̶b̶m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ safety".
The argument from the side which wants to give the government more rights to gather intel within its own borders is usually something like "If you aren't doing anything illegal, what do you have to fear?" This video shows why that is a poor argument.
Vermoo303 yeah man. Its a crazy time we are living in. Many issues need addressing but because of agendas pushed by the media no one will ever stand up to it because they will dig up anything and everything to silence you. Henry cavill (superman actor) is being dragged through the mud just because he is now cautious when he talks to wahmen to avoid false accusations. Its difficult being a regular person anymore going about their day. You have to be an ally to refugees or you are a racist. You need to be an ally to lgbtq+otherwise you are mysogenistic homophobic pig. You need to be quiet when Conservative or opinions that may slightly tend to criticise one population over another such as stabbings or affirmative action.
Vermoo303 yeah I know that there will be people smart enough to find amazingly creative ways to protest. Thats probably why the government are trying to crack down on the Internet. Its one of the easiest ways to organise a protest against the government. Just look at Turkey and China. There even arguments talking about how the UK is on track to pass China on internet censorship. That essentially makes organising mass protests impossible. I like the TV show Mr Robot. Its quite an interesting take on how people could protest should they lose faith in the people who run the world.
Mr Rishi The Cookie "But it does make me wonder how far will their policing go" *As far as is popular.* "Now I see policemen with M16s and stuff patrolling all major stations" *Because it's popular.* "How many of our rights are people willing to give up..." *As many, as is popular.*
D May I don't think that's entirely true. They are trying to pass new hate speech laws and laws forcing Internet companies to regulate speech if the public knew about how bad these laws are, then they would be against it. It is the BBCs job to be an objective Medi outlet and call out the bullshit laws they are trying to push in all aspects. But they don't. So they never garner the outrage they should. The word popular implies people knew what's going on. However, I don't think most people know.
I remember being taught that Rosa Parks was actually tired and didn't want to move when I was in school, and later when I learned that it was a staged demonstration I felt betrayed. But not by my education, by Parks herself. I thought that the NAACP of the time played dirty and rewrote history to spin Rosa Parks as an innocent old lady to hide their malicious agenda. I felt like the protest was fake, totally ignoring that I also learned at the same time her protest was a recreation of something that actually happened to a teenage girl. I hope it goes without saying, but eventually I realized how wrong I was to react that way. I reflect on that reaction a lot, to this day it's a terrifying feeling to remember.
"she was the secretary of the NAACP no less" in my GCSE history we studied the American Civil Rights movement a bit, and I still don't know what the NAACP was. Obviously I am equipped to google it now, but some constructive criticism, not everyone is going to know what that stands for, it might have been better to include a bit more information in the script.
Weapons of Math Destruction goes into how AI codifies our discriminatory impulses in a really great way if anyone wants any further reading. Going back and watching some of the older stuff. Love the cute song at the end!
7:18 Abi: "Let's imagine that you and I are software developers, and we've written a new computer program that's going to help the police." Me (literally a software developer working for a state university's police research center, writing computer programs to help the police): (sweats)
I wish all highschools had to these videos as a part of everyone's educational curriculum. Especially given today's climate of propaganda, automated algorithms and gross misinformation.
Legal system, like any other system/institutions should evolve and accommodate space for it to be stretched beyond it's existing limits. To say that the current system is flawless is to say that Humans are perfect when they're born and are not going to evolve any further... So yes, breaking the rule/law, may be necessary, to convey to the law makers, loud and clear, that the society has evolved and change the law accordingly..
Kemal Koçak lol Death to Liberalism!!! Death to the NeoMcCarthyist McResistance™!!! 💀 💀 💀 All hail Left Unity!! Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and Libertarians will have Socialist Revolution! ✊💓
I believe there's already a form of media that explores exactly what you're talking about. It's an anime called "Psycho Pass." Give it a watch, it's critically acclaimed.
I think a good example of how "perfect law enforcement" can go haywire is actually the way the game Skyrim handles theft. Say you pick up an apple one of the NPCs owns, and they see you do it. It doesn't matter if you just clicked on the apple accidentally, or if you were actually planning on eating it or walking out of their shop with it. The MOMENT you pick it up, you have committed a crime, and the game immediately tries to enforce punishment. This is absurd, of course, but, if you were being really technical about it, yeah: in the real world, just picking up someone else's personal property without asking COULD be interpreted as stealing. Now, obviously, you could consider reprogramming the game so that NPCs gave you a little more leeway about picking up their property, but that's kind of missing the point. Consider another videogame scenario: entering a restricted area in the game. In the real world, that's the equivalent of trespassing, which is something you are physically capable of doing despite it being illegal. In a videogame, barring glitches, you literally cannot enter a restricted area. Now, it's easy to imagine a real-world scenario where you might want to trespass - say there's a severe blizzard and you need to seek shelter. In a videogame, you cannot do that. And, while being sent back to a respawn point in a videogame isn't exactly a moral issue, it WOULD be an issue if that kind of unbreakable enforcement was applied to laws in the real world. My point is just agreeing with the video's point, really. Thinking about law like it's a rigid system along the lines of a computer program doesn't really work. And that's not even just because of issues related to civil rights, or cases where laws might be considered unjust. Even in cases where laws are fully justified, there needs to be some leeway in how they are enforced, or things get really weird.
I disagree with you about software developers not being willing to admit the problems of bias. As a professional developer with a keen interest in ethics and artificial intelligence, I can assure you that these are conversations that are being had in the community. The exact problem that you mentioned is routinely used as the prototypical example of this problem, so you must be aware that this is in the field's collective consciousness. You identified the problem that computer algorithms could entrench our current morals into an unchangeable system. However, the incentives you talk about aren't as clean cut as you suggest. Developers of these systems are under huge scrunity from the academic community. Arguably the most influential books on AI safety, Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, talks about the importance of designing AIs that are correctly aligned so as to not forever lock-in the values of the current generation.
Good timing. I needed this video right now I think. I was struggling with my commitment a little bit but yeah, Rosa Parks was much braver than I'll ever be and I can at least afford to get into a little bit of trouble for a good cause Or well, more trouble anyway, I'm already in trouble lol
I was thinking a couple weeks ago about the problem of civil disobedience in law, and it is a problem because we're essentially saying "it's okay to break the law if you REALLY disagree with it which is a problem in a democracy where law is understood to have the consent of the governed behind it, if you'll forgive my foray into rank liberalism. I came up with a possible solution, which is to say that the law isn't actually a list of things that you cannot do. The law is actually the CONSEQUENCES for certain actions. For example, the law isn't "You can't steal" the law is "if you steal we get to lock you up for a few years in a small cell. I think there are a lot of implications to this idea. First, it actually means that dissenters in the case of civil disobedience aren't actually breaking the law. They're committing the radical act of following a law that is not meant to be followed, thereby calling attention to it. So, for example, when there was a law that black people had to be arrested for sitting in the front of the bus, Rosa Parks and others followed this law and got arrested for sitting in the front of the bus and brought attention to an unjust law. Dissent from a law, then, isn't just about whoever disagrees with it, but who is willing to pay the cost of doing something that the law assigns consequence to. This also has implications about the problem of selective enforcement and laws that appear facially neutral. In many states in the US if not all it is illegal to hang a car air freshener from your rear view mirror. However, lots of people do this and almost nobody is pulled over for it. However, in the recent case of Duante Wright, Wright was pulled over by Minnesota police for, among a few other minor issues, having an air freshener hanging from his mirror. He was "accidentally" shot when the officer apparently thought she reached for her taser to shock him, but actually reached for her gun and shot him to death. Black people are twice as likely as white people in the US to be incarcerated for drug offenses, despite the fact that white people and black people use drugs at about the same rate. Under my view of what the law is this means that the law is far more severe for black people as a whole than it is for white people, even though a standard reading of the law would indicate that it is racially neutral. The other problem is that, in this model of law which is transactional and consequence-based, the law is much harsher for poor people than for wealthy people. I think most of us here know that this is true, but again, the law as written wouldn't show you this. But if the law is something like "if you can't pay us $10,000 then you have to stay in jail until your trial, that's just a law that for poor people. Overall, this system isn't necessarily a problem. Criminal law is far too varied, nuanced and unique to each case for there to be uniform sentencing. Judges take a lot of factors into account when they decide what the law is (and in my model they do decide what the law is) and that's probably a good thing. Stealing the resources of a nation of people should obviously be given a much harsher sentence than stealing a loaf of bread, for example.
Love the video, although I kinda feel like you straw manned legal positivism a bit. As someone who leans towards legal positivism myself, I do agree with allot of what you said, but I also do have very good and complex reasons for believing what I do. A RUclips comment isn't really the best place to go into all those reasons but as a sample of one I feel that treating criminals who committed the same crime differently based on factors not directly related to the crime is fundamentally unjust to those who didn't get let off easily. Who's reasons were not adequately explained enough or suffered poor legal representation or were just from the wrong demographic. Naturalism in my mind opens up the door for racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. I've sort of explained that badly but like I said this isn't the best place to discuss these things.
Stellar, as always :) One thought I had whilst watching this (along with your Hague lecture!) was that it sounds as though the goal of these predictive policing programs is to deal with specific types of crime, or at the very least their methodology seems like it will prioritize some crimes over others. Por ejemplo, the dearth of "white collar" criminal convictions is almost certainly going to bias any program against considering those crimes a priority. It feels like the corollary privilege that will be created at the expense of communities of color.
Psycho-Pass also is a series about a software like the one you describe. My perspective on laws is that you don't break them by committing a crime. The law on theft states that if you acquire something without a legal justification, you have to pay a fee or go to prison for a defined time. What we in the West call "law" is the boundary of socially accepted violence by the government. However, if the violence of the government loses social acceptance, the state loses power. This is why the law often leaves enough wriggling room for judges to apply it in a way that reinforces social acceptance. Growing up in these societies, we are trapped by the idea that the law is the arbitrator of justice. Thus, we feel morally obliged to abide the law. I also say that social change happens in two ways: if the law punishes acceptable behavior or if it fails to punish unacceptable behavior. Thus, the human element prevents change. If it becomes obvious that the law enforcement is racially biased, we can blame the people who enforce the law - individually or as a group. Thus, you just have to exchange some personnel and not change anything.
I think that social norms are more heavily enforced than even the regular law. Most of us don't really care when we see someone breaking the regular law unless it's something really bad, but social norms are so ingrained in us from a very young age that it is likely that a whole community will come down on someone who breaks them. I know from years of personal experience.
Same here Most don't care about speeding or animal abuse or smoking or drinking or cheating in jobs But will break down if their religion is insulted or they see their leaders harmed or if they see BDSM This is understandable, especially in India, where religious conflicts are on
I think this has an interesting connection to the three types of rules: Moral Rules: You should follow them for the benefit of everyone, but you will probably break them every now and then. Legal Rules: You need to follow them if you don't want to be punished, but they can be impractical and immoral. Conventional Rules: You should consider whether to follow them or not. I think the first two types are easy to understand, however the third on can take some time. It's things like what is acceptable to wear, which side of the road is driven on, things that always have to have some standards, but in another society, they could be completely different. Moral Rules should never be willingly broken. Legal Rules should be broken when they oppose moral rules. And Conventional Rules are made to be broken, as long as it's sensible to do so. You shouldn't drive on the wrong side of the road, that's simply dumb, but you can wear skirts even as a man. You may be unpopular if you do so, but if it makes you happy...?
I've heard the expression "letter of the law" & "spirit of the law" used (in the US) Is this what Hart & Dworkin were discussing or is it something else? These videos about The Law are very thought provoking.
John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice' is one of my staple political phil books. That said, Rawls would say, yes, some laws need to be broken. Of course, there are conditions under which his theories would say this is the case. They must be broken only if the motive is toward an end that is just and if there is a likelihood of success in overturning bad precedent. And remember, John shot first.
Scalia said that for the interesting cases, there is no need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. For those cases, there is very little law to rely on. He also said that for the other 99% of what they do, you have to be the kind of person who can get excited by the minutia of admiralty, so yeah, you need to be a lawyer.
When a 16 year old activist is kickass and shares your last name and you realize you've probably been a major disappointment to your possible distant relation.
I wonder how the idea of creating laws that can be broken applies to education.What responsibilities do we have when educating young people about the law and how to interact with it? What historical lessons do we impart about the law in our nations? Because undoubtedly What we teach as a nation in regards to the law will affect how our citizenry view the law. We of course want people to follow our laws assuming they are good but also be willing to protest unjust laws. I think that makes for a hard balance at least from an educational standpoint.
Oooo I wrote a paper on the use of blackbox algorithms to predict criminal recidivism rates for my philosophy of AI class! Easily the most fun (and horrifying) paper I've ever researched.
"How completely should we enforce this law" is an interesting question. I think you raise some good points about the problems with total enforcement, but there are also problems having to do with partial enforcement. If we're only going to partially enforce laws, should we partially enforce some laws or all laws? How about laws against murder and rape? If we're being serious about the possibility of our moral ignorance, then maybe we can't apply it selectively. We'd have to admit that we could be wrong about any of our laws. Surely, we must think, a society which chooses to not save someone from murder or rape can't be a good one, but again--that could be our moral ignorance talking (I prefer to think it's not!) Of course, the idea that we should only partially enforce laws might also be born of our ignorance. And so, should we only partially enforce our law about partial enforcement? Lastly, like you said, partial enforcement opens the door to a whole new arena of potential for discrimination. Should we partially enforce laws more in some neighborhoods, and less in others? Even with total enforcement, legal change is still possible. It just has to be done within the bounds of the law. But I agree that this is sometimes not enough. Some laws do need to be broken. However, deciding which laws to allow to be broken is no easy task. Great topic and video!
this is a really interesting argument. i would agree - i would even argue that in a society in which all laws are just, this would still be necessary. for instance - in my opinion, the only crimes should be violations of another person's rights. one of those rights is that of personal property, so we need to have laws in place to prevent theft. however, taken to its conclusion, a society that blindly enforces laws against theft will criminalize a starving person for stealing bread, instead of providing them with food as a compassionate society should do. essentially, the law needs to leave space for circumstance, and for understanding, and for different ways of interfering if interfering must be done. robots would not make good cops, and they would make even worse judges.
TL;DR: Power can be wielded by judges, tech companies, the police etc.. but the people subjected to these decisions choose nothing, so representative democracy is just aristocracy with more steps. People have no say in how, when or why the rules that shape our reality are created. The closest thing we have is the ability to elect some people based on who did the best propaganda for a specific demographic. To call this democracy is absurd, people are choosing nothing and the only power available to them is to refuse to work, nothing else. A judge detached from day to day reality chooses who should be punished based on his own rules.The people choose nothing but the appearance of their new king, we have no gravitas and no say in how when or why our society will change, so a representative democracy can't be called a democracy, it's just a method to validate the aristocracy while making people feel like they matter. We do not matter in this type of society and technology is making that painfully obvious every day.
just wanna use youtube I don't think that's true. I think people _think_ it's true, and are therefore apathetic towards politics (if not in interest/discussion then in practice). If enough people actually did something about it, like write to their representatives (MPs and the like) more would actually be done. Although saying that, I'm one of those people so... who am I to talk, y'know?
I don't know if I would go that far. I think it's possible to replace corrupt politicians with principled representatives who listen the people that voted for them. That's what the upcoming mid-term elections in the US are all about. I also don't agree with your characterization of judges choosing "who should be punished based on his own rules", you're neglecting the rule of law and the notion that judges are beholden to the spirit of a given law if not the way the law was written. There are also juries of course and lets not forget the court of appeals or the supreme court. You may say 'but those laws were written by out of touch aristocrats and I suppose there may be a certain about of truth to that but what would the alternatives be? Either rules written by the mob or rules written by a single leader- one just wouldnt be effective, the other is just tyranny. I'll agree that our agency is limited, particularly by corruption, but we do have some power and at least a portion of it comes through representative democracy.
Your algorithm is only as good as the data you feed it. I learned this in my machine learning course, and as far as I know, that's pretty much the standard. If a software developer fails to account for this, or, in case this is not possible (which is irritatingly common), at the least mention it, they're bad at their job.
Ollie, I know this video is 7 months old and you probably won't see this. But I recently discovered your channel in the last few days . In light of today's shooting in New Zealand, along with my ever present lurking on /pol/ and other alt-right spaces to witness the rapid growth of facism in America's youth, combined with the fact that my college degree doesn't matter outside of checking a box for my career. I've decided to change my major from Computer Science to Philosophy with a focus on Morals, Politics, and Law, in the hope that someday I can positively contribute to the political and philosophical discourse in some way. While I know I will most likely never have the impact of yourself and other left leaning personalities, I hope that I can influence at least a few people.
Just have to jump in here... As a software developer who works on machine learning algorithms.... many of use do think about how to avoid encoding bias.
Sorry, I return to review this video because I was hoping you might comment on Gayatri Spivak and the double bind; however, I noticed that you said scrabble never got so intense in your house to require violent punishment for breaking the rules...have you ever seen Ken Park, the film? There is an eery act in that movie related to scrabble and violence...Cheers!
Things I am looking into at the moment (1,200 words); I thought I would blow my own load by announcing to the inter-web some projects I am trying to get into (that won’t earn me any money and probably won’t achieve anything - yeh, I am looking at Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus”). I’m not sure I can be bothered to do these projects though. In fact. I am not sure I can be bothered to even type this. In fact I gave up finishing to eat a sandwich, which is kind of why I am doing this - if my motivation to eat my lunch returns, then this thing I am typing will be shorter. My health isn’t amazing. Took my legs through the burn just to walk a few miles today. I have been adjusting to sitting in a chair - rather than lying on the floor - with a chronically bad back: to celebrate status of floor to chair, I have taken up reading philosophy! There is a pop culture series on philosophy by William Erwin. I had been researching philosophy etc. But I hadn’t really done the basics properly. I thought, if I read some mainstream philosophy before I went off on a tangent. Then that would be a good thing! So I am reading “The Matrix and Philosophy”, “Terminator and Philosophy”, and “Alice in Wonderland and Philosophy”. They’re ideal for me. I am not much of a reader. And these books present things in small neat sections of only a hand full of pages at a time. I am terrible at focus: so am reading all three books simultaneously. Enjoying them anyway! Some more introductory philosophy comes from Prof. Richard Brown on RUclips with an approx 20 hour video series (mainly focusing on “consciousness”). Prof Gregory B. Sadler is also proving useful. Also checking out a small RUclipsr “Ontic Philosophy” for a Nietzsche/Judith Butler approach (I struggle to accept Butler when it comes to Gender Identity but Butler, Foucault, Camus and many other post-structuralist Post Modernist philosophers have been influenced by Nietzsche… So I am checking them out for that reason). Some more in depth stuff… …I am reading a 250 page thesis someone has done on the influence of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky on Albert Camus - looking at Nihilism and Transcendence. I am interested in Camus as someone who rejected a lot of the post war existentialism of figures such as John Paul Sartre and “second wave feminist” Simone de Beauvior. And also Camus’ concept of “the absurd”. Then I am going to try and get through Camus’ “The Rebel”. “Entropy” is perhaps something that appears to go against Nietzsche’s cosmology (which seems similar to the eternal circular universe from Hindu and Buddhism). There seems a lot of interest in Entropy at the moment - entropy is required to give us “time” (otherwise there is nothing in the laws of physics for which way time should flow - forwards or backwards?). And also Entropy is probabilistic which gives it uses when applied to psychological states such as "anxiety". “Socionics” was developed from looking at psychology from the principles of entropy and was used extensively in the soviet union. An interesting paper that has come to my attention is a co-authored paper by Jordan Peterson (yes - that Jordan Peterson) entitled “Psychological Entropy: A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty-Related Anxiety” - or, EMU (Entropy Model of Uncertainty). I’m probably not qualified. But I think the larger the society. The more progressive the taxation (or other means to fulfill the same aim) needs to be. And the greater diversity there should be (otherwise you have everyone chasing the same thing - however you want to represent that). I’d even steal Jordan Peterson’s “80:20” rule just justify this (and point out that in our present society we are far from having an “80:20” wealth distribution - by using network theory and also pointing out how “critical”, or prone to collapse, our present society is). With regards “diversity”… I wasn’t looking at the paper because it was contributed to by Jordan Peterson. But because I am actually reading up on subjects relating to Entropy - whether it be answers to cosmological questions about the arrow of time and expansion of the universe, applications to psychological anxiety (relating to the paper above), or approaches based on Aušra Augustinavičiūtė thoery of “Socionics” (combining Jung’s personality types with information metabolism - applied extensively in Russia). Though I don’t know how deeply I want to get into to be honest - there’s no insentive for me to be an expert xP. “Entropy of economics” is also an interesting area to look into. Touched upon by Jeremy Rifkin video lecture for Vice on youtube called “the third industrial revolution” (sustainable growth and entropy). The paper above is probably the basis for Jordan Peterson’s “12 rules for life: An Antidote to Chaos” - or at least, authored with the same intent in mind I would guess. “Chaos” being left of centre or LGBTQI ect or just being a woman who doesn’t want to wear against her choice hyper feminine stereotypical clothing just to earn some money. The paper references “Cybernetics” which has been criticised in Adam Curtis’ “All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace”. Others such as Prof. Philip Moriarty (and Sam Harris) criticise the way that Jordan Peterson, in their view, mis-uses scientific concepts relating to physics for example - likening Peterson’s approach to that of Deepak Chopra’s use of concepts from Quantum Physics, which they also try to discredit. I expect someone knowledgeable in information theory (Paul Mason? - author of “Post Capitalism”) would also have criticisms of the way Information Theory is used in the paper? I am not an expert I don’t know? I would consider myself on “The Left” but I don’t align myself with Neo-marxism - from my understanding at present anyway… I am not an extentialist or a materialist (or anything that existed previously like “Hegelianism”). And I feel that looking into such areas as the paper describes above from a leftist perspective - which, may already be out there, but I just haven’t found it yet? - could be a way in from my perspective? I don’t know? - there’s an interesting programme by PBS that looks at “Chaos”, which would seem to refute the approach of the paper above: an interesting section in the last ten minutes of the hour long program on “Chaos” by PBS featuring a Jacob Reese-Mogg look-a-like no less (???) that looks at the role of chaotic brain patterns in creativity and consciousness. In cosmological terms. Entropy tends to spread out energy (it is related to the quantum mechanics concept of “entanglement/spooky action at a distance”). Gravity tends to promote “Chaos” - such as fractal like structures. It is probably true that disorder increases as entropy and chaos increase. But at the same time chaotic fractal structures can store an enormous amount of information: data storage systems designers are looking at fractals for hard ware storage (software storage already uses fractal to compress data). It can be argued that the structure of our brains represents a fractal nature of storing information. So there is lots to be said about the positives of what might be percieved as an “untidy room”! I may not bother doing any of the above. But if I do I’ll try and post the results somewhere? Time to finish that sandwich I guess XP
This reminds me of something I read a while ago, how facial recognition technology and other applicable tech things are racist against people of color? If true(every bit of info I consume online is always taken with a grain of salt) I think it would make for some interesting content! And yeah keep up the good work!
This should hopefully be the last ever video filmed in my bedroom! I'm going down to one in-depth video every two weeks, and fingers crossed from now on they'll be filmed in a professional studio!
Philosophy Tube Press F to pay respects to your bedroom.
Will you be taking the book shelf with you, I'm kinda used to it
Philosophy Tube i like the bedroom, it feels homely to see all your books on the wall and have you talk to me from your own living space like it's coming from the heart
Hoping the book shelf comes along!
Like everything, your argument requires context. "Is rule of law made to be broken" is literally a meaningless question when divorced from context.
"The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal... Legality is not a guide for morality."
That may sound overly libertarian, but I love this quote and quotes similar to it.
EDIT: Okay, so it's not libertarian, it's anarchist.
How does that sound libertarian? Most libertarians are in favor of those things as long as they're being done by wealthy white people.
That's absolutely libertarian in the original lefty sense before the term was seized in the English language by neo-liberals
@@tofu_golem Holocaust doesnt work with libertarianism at all. Slavery was an inconsistency with the libertarians because they didnt see black people as people, but post-racist cathegorization of personhood, slavery is completely incompatible with liberarianism.
@@unanarco-pacifista6796 the use of 'Liberal' to refer to a specific ideology predates the American use of 'liberal' to mean generally left wing. See Olly's series on Liberalism
@@testosteronic yeah I know
Note that Rosa Parks is ALWAYS portrayed as having been an "elderly black woman", but she was 43 years old at the time of her arrest. Really makes you think. 🤔
Makes you think we're not supposed to recognize the success of deliberate activist defiance.
The story of Claudette Colvin could be called the true story of Rosa Parks. Claudette was 15.
@@hechatoncheires yea they didnt put as much activist support behind her bc I believe she was a teen mom so the press would have demonized her enough to stop the movement
she also wasn't black; she was native american
Chukwunonso Okoro Source?
If Rosa Parks had listened to Jordan Peterson... She would still be cleaning her room before becoming politically active. The audacity of her to think she can interfere with the "natural" hierarchy.
+Jaxon Garside 🦞 LOBSTER WORLD 🦞
JP isnt against public disobedience. he says clean your room FIRST. RP obviously knew what she was doing and did so effectively. She was part of a group of people working together and planning the best way to create positive change and she was selected by this group in which she was proactive to do the job.
If you think that is inconsistent with what JP says, I think you have a narrow vision of it.
+Alejandro Gangotena issa joke
@@cosmicjenny4508 one can never know, it´s the internet xD
Well, Rosa Parks was a successful attorney by the time of the bus incident. Her room was pretty clean.
There's definitely a point to be made about how neoliberal capitalism pushes the deeply harmful idea that the way to make society better is to make it more "efficient", rather than by understanding the actual issues and dismantling the systems that give rise to them. Like yes, technology can give us wonderfully powerful tools, but those tools are less than useless if they are in the hands of callous people who's idea of progress is "the status quo but more and faster".
How far would you go with dismantling said systems, tho?
So you're against the Max Power way of life?
How do you mean? The truth is no unjust system can ever be done away with without innocent deaths, but innocent deaths happen everyday in huge numbers due to the system. So, it becomes a question of what is in the best interests of everyone? If the powerful were to stand down, no one would ever need to die - but they won't do that, so THEY make death inevitable.
The system will make you feel as though death is justified in the best interests of the collective as well - they do that everyday with the wars they wage, or the cuts they make to essential services - or just the general chaos they breed due to oppression and inequality.
I assume that is what you are asking. I just cannot think of one example of systemic change that didn't cause some deaths. It happens one way or another. It always has.
IKilledTheKat "actual issues and dismantling the systems that give rise to them."
*It's impossible to dismantle what others want. It's not impossible to do something else and forget about using Neoliberal Capitalism. Create something new.*
+IKilledTheKat
The only problem is that those on the far left are actively trying to dismantle systems with only naive or worse no real ideas on what to replace those systems with. It's an idealistic child's method of trying to improve society
As a kid I had a rule-only break one rule at a time-to do otherwise, I thought, would be anarchy. As an adult, the "only break one rule" rule, is the one rule I break. I'm an anarchist.
Then you're not trying hard enough.
Left Unity! Death to Liberalism! ✊💓💀
acabacabacabacabacabacab. 👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖👮🐖
@@gaybroshevik4180 What's the difference between a cop and a pig?
As a vegan I wouldn't kill a pig.
@@stm7810 What's the difference between a cop and a pig? One's a beautiful, clean, intelligent, respectful, caring, and otherwise good soul, with some messy habits and a bad press.
the other is a cop
When you established the idea that some laws actually need to be broken for the purposes of activism and fixing bad laws, that broke my brain.
It was a revolutionary idea to me, thank you!
Now I need to hear a duet between Contra and Ollie
"lets attack aggressively"
Rosa Parks is one of those interestog figures that when you know just a little about her, she sounds impressive. Then as you learn just a little more, she sounds a little less impressive (afterall, she was a plant on that bus). But as you keep learning, she becomes WAY more impressive than you ever thought. Harriet Tubman was another one like that. Few people know about her entire career as a spy for the Union during the Civil War.
I can now only think of Rosa Parks as a plant riding a bus, refusing to switch seats, because she was, well, a plant.
I thought people might mistake my meaning and take offense when none was intended. Clearly, Rosa Parks was awesome. This was not the mistake in meaning I expected though. I don't know how good her sense of humor was, but I imagine she would get a chuckle out of that. It does suit her last name though.
Jumi I imagine a fern
Parks was not a plant on that bus. She really was riding home from work. Her protest was premeditated only in the sense that she had thought about what she would do if she found herself in that situation. She deliberately sat in the first row behind the whites only section, which increased the likelihood that at some point during the trip she would be in the last row of the whites only section. In one account of the incident she revealed that she considered moving as requested before her resolve hardened at the last moment and she moved from her aisle seat to the window and settled in.
I like to imagine that the true story of Rosa parks was depicted in that episode of The Boondocks
Around 10:10 you Name the company palantir as a developer of policing software.
The palantìr are the magical stones in LOTR that sauron uses to spy on the free people. If that isn't just both the perfect irony and counterargument against those types of software...
THANK YOU so much for mentioning that Rosa Parks wasn't just "some tired lady on the bus." So many people don't know how much hard work she did, simply because the narrative of a lone, tired woman deciding on her own, in the moment, not to give in to an unjust law plays better than the story of a hard working, politically active woman making a carefully calculated plan to get those laws changed. Credit should be given not just for her bravery, but for her patience, sharp mind, and the work of everyone else in the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP who helped her set-up and carry out the Montgomery bus boycott.
Your crime and policing example is the exact scenario of the anime Psycho Pass which I highly recommend.
"Psycho-Pass: USA" would measure "Hue" as the literal color of your skin, and calculate your "Blackness Coefficient"
@@TheSecondVersion That's only if the USA had the tech, which if I recall, they don't since only Japan did. Granted, I've only watched the first two seasons and the movie, so things might have changed since then.
😧. Sadly, I am not surprised that predictive police has been implemented already. People are like "Tech can solve all our problems." And not realize the widespread problem of racism and bigotry. Some just actively hate when you bring it up.
SomeRandomGeek Spread this idea! I was one of those people till I watched this video!
I mean... tech _could_ solve most of our problems but people act like it'll be really simple to make it happen.
SomeRandomGeek "And not realize the widespread problem of racism and bigotry."
*That, literally, is a bigoted statement. Perhaps think of something useful to others instead.*
It's tech so it will take into account all the fake calls
Super Minor Note: Here in America, the NAACP is pronounced "N Double A C P" when talking about it pretty much universally.
Doesnt mean its right... more syllables
Weapons of Math Destruction is a great book on the misuse of mathematics that leads to inaccurate algorithms.
Seconding this. Part 3 in this video is basically the Cliff's Notes version of Math Destruction.
I may just have to get it for the title alone.
jose ocampo "Weapons of Math Destruction"
*A poor political book where the author puts her pretended mathematical outcomes ahead of the organizations looking for a different outcome that has nothing to do with here subjective opinions.*
*e.g. Her "complexities of elite college admissions systems" isn't complex it's where rich people meet rich people.*
Nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophy here, but a little audio trick to make your left-panned baseline sound a bit more natural next time is, instead of only playing it in one ear, you can play it in both at similar volume, but split the two sides and have the right-panned track play about 0.003 seconds later. It simulates the sound getting to one ear first and then to the other side, so your brain guesses the sound came from the left ;)
bamischijfje123 I'm not sure how common-practice it is because someone probably thought of it before I, but I'm sure glad you like it!
Regarding the "predictive policing" algorithm... Even if your system was completely unbiased it would fail. Experiments have shown that such predictive algorithms can accurately predict human events *only* if the people involved don't use the results. Once the information from the algorithm feeds back into the data the algorithm needs to make predictions, the entire system falls apart.
Daniel T. Probably why RUclips hides algorithms from users
@The Compiler - The fact that the algorithm is hidden is irrelevant, because the results of the algorithm are visible to users. Look at it this way, the algorithm is trying to predict what the user will click on, but the algorithm also helps *determine* what the user will click on (by making some videos easier to click on than others,) so it is inherently self-defeating (or in this case, self-fulfilling.)
Daniel T. Oh I see. Can I say this is because the kind of system for which the algorithm was design itself changes when the algorithm interacts with it?
But then what if we get the algorithm good at predicting first, and then use that knowledge to enable it to minimize its own impact when introduced in the system?
Like for example a voice recorder-
If I don't like my voice when I hear it played back to me, I'll change the way I talk.
But what the recorder can do is, learn how I sound like for a while. Then when I start using it, it will monitor for any deviation from what it learnt and accordingly change the way it plays back my voice so that eventually it plays my voice back in the same way it sounds to me inside my head and thereby I don't change the way I speak.
It sounds like you see the problem now. As for your second question, it depends if the meta-system (the system under study and the algorithm) is self-reinforcing or not. A predictive policing system is not self-reinforcing.
As an example: In a research project, a system was written to predict traffic jams in a particular city. It was able to learn the patterns and predict jams with something like a 98% accuracy. However, once they started announcing the algorithm's predictions on the radio, then drivers avoided the predicted intersections and as a result the algorithm's predictions were all wrong, the jams happened in places not predicted by the algorithm. It is logically impossible for the algorithm to adjust in that situation. Strange loops are paradoxes that can't exist in real life.
Daniel T. Ah I see the difference now. If I try to apply my example to this case- The city is me, the voice is the traffic, the forecast is the voice playback, and the changed traffic pattern impacted by the forecast is me changing my voice while recording.
And the voice recorder changing the recording to match the voice in my head is like the prediction showing a false forecast in such a way that the actual outcome matches its initial forecast.
And I think here lies the difference between policing and voice recording, the system cannot be dishonest about policing like it can about voice playback.
Is there any other difference I'm missing?
It worries me when people say they are all law and order. History shows law can be unjust and order can be intrusive.
I would recommend reading the book series Arc of a Scythe, which examines a society in which “infinite computational power” has been discovered, death has been ‘cured’, but all attempts to leave earth have failed. Now, a cloud-based AI named the Thunderhead maintains the society akin to a god, all-present, all-knowing, etc; but he executes personal restraint and allows humans to have privacy, allows them to break the law, because he understands rebellion is a natural function of life. There is a cult, named the Tonists, who think there is a certain tone to the universe, and refuse to use any technology to keep themselves alive and thus they die natural deaths. It’s a really good read and explores some pretty creative and original societal ideas.
Andrew Leslie I’m still on the second book, and I honestly love it so much! Not sure if spoilers, but in the beginning of the second book the Thunderhead itself bends the rules to help the protagonists in their goals, because it sees the corruption of the world governments as extremely harmful to humanity, which it’s sworn to protect. E.g. it can’t talk to the protagonists for legal reasons, so it enlists the help of a cadet by giving him riddles and having him figure out it’s message after he leaves police custody. It’s a stupendous moment seeing even the ultimate lawgiver break the rules when it knows the rules aren’t helping.
*BREAKING THE LAW! BREAKING THE LAW!*
*BREAKING THE LAW! BREAKING THE LAW!*
I don't really have points of discussion from this video... this was a very "oh... yeah that makes sense" kind of episode.
Excellent video! I study Urban History, and the problem you discuss in this video is often called "the statistical portrait of crime." The idea is that over-surveillance and "efficient" predictive policing of exclusively black communities made it seem to the broader public like African Americans were more likely and thus, as many white politicians argued through essentialism, predisposed to crime. In actuality, the government was simply oversampling from specific racial communities to create a false portrait of crime, which was exacerbated by discriminatory police departments that stopped, punished, and incarcerated black people at demonstrably higher rates than whites. Most people don't really know this part of our history, even though it is instrumental to the construction of the current American punitive state. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend Hinton's From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America. It's a hard read but very informative on this issue.
It's interesting that you talk about the "popular image" of Rosa Parks just being a tired woman who didn't want to give up her seat. I can't remember that ever being the prominent descriptor of her, at least where I live in the US (California). I wouldn't put it past other states (let alone other cities maybe) to teach different narratives, but I was never truly unaware that her protest was an actual calculated move. This probably serves as a microcosmic example of how the civil rights movement (as well as many other historical events) are subtly distorted or "re-explained" in ways that can slip under the radar way too easily.
The only time I've seen this image of her was in the movie Barbershop from 2002 which was a successful comedy film. Though the barber in the film (played by Cedric the Entertainer) was challenged and is more or less your typical loud village idiot Civil right activists were livid at the time but if this image has stuck maybe they had every right to be.
South Carolinian checking in. I didn't know she was a committed activist until college. We were always taught that she was just tired
Ryan Young "but I was never truly unaware that her protest was an actual calculated move."
*No, it was a movement taking credit for what was already popular. They could have done nothing and the same thing would have been accomplished.*
"the civil rights movement"
*The branding of a Civil-Rights-Movement™ to take credit for what was popular. Analogous to Plagiarising™.*
Something is wrong with this D May chud.
The Exegete "Something is wrong with this D May chud."
*I accept your well demonstrated obedience and unthinkingness.*
Hey Philosophy Tube, can you make an episode about Noam Chomsky's philosophy? Covering topics such as manufactured consent.
He talks about that book about 3 minutes into his October reading recommendations from last year ruclips.net/video/ykEzGQnVEQk/видео.html
I remember back in 2012 I used to go on school trips now to central London every 2-3 weeks. Never once, I have spotted a policeman with a gun back then. Now I see policemen with M16s and stuff patrolling all major stations essentially daily(Victoria/charing cross/cannon street and a few major tube stations). (I'm in a central London university, hence my frequent visiting)
It's probably a response to the more frequent terror attacks which I am fine with the extra policing for. But it does make me wonder how far will their policing go in the name of "stopping/preventing" terrorism. After 9/11, the NSA was given free reign to carry out unconstitutional spying on basically anyone that seems suspicious in America. We have a similar NSA-style department here in the UK. How many of our rights are people willing to give up to "ensure their ̶s̶u̶b̶m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ safety".
The argument from the side which wants to give the government more rights to gather intel within its own borders is usually something like "If you aren't doing anything illegal, what do you have to fear?"
This video shows why that is a poor argument.
Vermoo303 yeah man. Its a crazy time we are living in. Many issues need addressing but because of agendas pushed by the media no one will ever stand up to it because they will dig up anything and everything to silence you. Henry cavill (superman actor) is being dragged through the mud just because he is now cautious when he talks to wahmen to avoid false accusations. Its difficult being a regular person anymore going about their day. You have to be an ally to refugees or you are a racist. You need to be an ally to lgbtq+otherwise you are mysogenistic homophobic pig. You need to be quiet when Conservative or opinions that may slightly tend to criticise one population over another such as stabbings or affirmative action.
Vermoo303 yeah I know that there will be people smart enough to find amazingly creative ways to protest. Thats probably why the government are trying to crack down on the Internet. Its one of the easiest ways to organise a protest against the government. Just look at Turkey and China. There even arguments talking about how the UK is on track to pass China on internet censorship. That essentially makes organising mass protests impossible. I like the TV show Mr Robot. Its quite an interesting take on how people could protest should they lose faith in the people who run the world.
Mr Rishi The Cookie "But it does make me wonder how far will their policing go"
*As far as is popular.*
"Now I see policemen with M16s and stuff patrolling all major stations"
*Because it's popular.*
"How many of our rights are people willing to give up..."
*As many, as is popular.*
D May I don't think that's entirely true. They are trying to pass new hate speech laws and laws forcing Internet companies to regulate speech if the public knew about how bad these laws are, then they would be against it. It is the BBCs job to be an objective Medi outlet and call out the bullshit laws they are trying to push in all aspects. But they don't. So they never garner the outrage they should. The word popular implies people knew what's going on. However, I don't think most people know.
I feel like I can trust this guy in the law, I mean him and his dog stopped a lot of criminals in the past so you know he knows what's up.
"Scrabble never got that serious in my house."
It was Trivial Pirsuit
I remember being taught that Rosa Parks was actually tired and didn't want to move when I was in school, and later when I learned that it was a staged demonstration I felt betrayed. But not by my education, by Parks herself. I thought that the NAACP of the time played dirty and rewrote history to spin Rosa Parks as an innocent old lady to hide their malicious agenda. I felt like the protest was fake, totally ignoring that I also learned at the same time her protest was a recreation of something that actually happened to a teenage girl. I hope it goes without saying, but eventually I realized how wrong I was to react that way. I reflect on that reaction a lot, to this day it's a terrifying feeling to remember.
As Roddenberry once said, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."
That's why the reign of Qin Shi Huang was so wrong
Legalism is adverse to logic
"she was the secretary of the NAACP no less" in my GCSE history we studied the American Civil Rights movement a bit, and I still don't know what the NAACP was. Obviously I am equipped to google it now, but some constructive criticism, not everyone is going to know what that stands for, it might have been better to include a bit more information in the script.
I really like these videos on jurisprudence. I wish there were a channel similar to this one that centered around them.
Interesting time to watch this in the U.S. during a lil binge session
Another good one! I'm going to miss looking at that bookcase though.
Weapons of Math Destruction goes into how AI codifies our discriminatory impulses in a really great way if anyone wants any further reading.
Going back and watching some of the older stuff. Love the cute song at the end!
7:18
Abi: "Let's imagine that you and I are software developers, and we've written a new computer program that's going to help the police."
Me (literally a software developer working for a state university's police research center, writing computer programs to help the police): (sweats)
disgusting
i am going to share this on YouTwitFace! its awesome! great work!
MeisterHaar I ser what you did there
MeisterHaar I ser what you did there
"The rules of scrabble never got that serious in my house"
Unsub
I would love to see some sort of collab between you and level1techs around the intersection of technology and government.
The further back I go in this library, the more of these covers I like. Where can I buy the album?
I wish all highschools had to these videos as a part of everyone's educational curriculum. Especially given today's climate of propaganda, automated algorithms and gross misinformation.
Okay So yes I recommend these videos to everyone because they are really great
"gross misinformation"
*Most of this video is misinformation.*
@@dmay3391 , state your points
Legal system, like any other system/institutions should evolve and accommodate space for it to be stretched beyond it's existing limits. To say that the current system is flawless is to say that Humans are perfect when they're born and are not going to evolve any further... So yes, breaking the rule/law, may be necessary, to convey to the law makers, loud and clear, that the society has evolved and change the law accordingly..
This is especially relevant now
Liked the cheeky little jam at the end there!
I was recently detained for protesting the trump/putin summit and somehow this felt really... relevant. thank you!
Kemal Koçak lol Death to Liberalism!!! Death to the NeoMcCarthyist McResistance™!!! 💀 💀 💀
All hail Left Unity!! Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and Libertarians will have Socialist Revolution! ✊💓
Hey, thank you so much!
Quality work man! Keep it up! I always learn interesting points of view and ideias in your channel.
rebuttal for 3:10
Hackers are looking at these "unbreakable" laws/systems, and buddy, we are gonna break the fuck out of them.
Thank you, you are doing the good work
Speaking of software development, I would love to see a video on the philosophy of free and open source software, copy-left licensing, and such.
clicked this so fast
I believe there's already a form of media that explores exactly what you're talking about. It's an anime called "Psycho Pass." Give it a watch, it's critically acclaimed.
I think a good example of how "perfect law enforcement" can go haywire is actually the way the game Skyrim handles theft. Say you pick up an apple one of the NPCs owns, and they see you do it. It doesn't matter if you just clicked on the apple accidentally, or if you were actually planning on eating it or walking out of their shop with it. The MOMENT you pick it up, you have committed a crime, and the game immediately tries to enforce punishment. This is absurd, of course, but, if you were being really technical about it, yeah: in the real world, just picking up someone else's personal property without asking COULD be interpreted as stealing.
Now, obviously, you could consider reprogramming the game so that NPCs gave you a little more leeway about picking up their property, but that's kind of missing the point. Consider another videogame scenario: entering a restricted area in the game. In the real world, that's the equivalent of trespassing, which is something you are physically capable of doing despite it being illegal. In a videogame, barring glitches, you literally cannot enter a restricted area. Now, it's easy to imagine a real-world scenario where you might want to trespass - say there's a severe blizzard and you need to seek shelter. In a videogame, you cannot do that. And, while being sent back to a respawn point in a videogame isn't exactly a moral issue, it WOULD be an issue if that kind of unbreakable enforcement was applied to laws in the real world.
My point is just agreeing with the video's point, really. Thinking about law like it's a rigid system along the lines of a computer program doesn't really work. And that's not even just because of issues related to civil rights, or cases where laws might be considered unjust. Even in cases where laws are fully justified, there needs to be some leeway in how they are enforced, or things get really weird.
Tacitus: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
I disagree with you about software developers not being willing to admit the problems of bias. As a professional developer with a keen interest in ethics and artificial intelligence, I can assure you that these are conversations that are being had in the community. The exact problem that you mentioned is routinely used as the prototypical example of this problem, so you must be aware that this is in the field's collective consciousness.
You identified the problem that computer algorithms could entrench our current morals into an unchangeable system. However, the incentives you talk about aren't as clean cut as you suggest. Developers of these systems are under huge scrunity from the academic community. Arguably the most influential books on AI safety, Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, talks about the importance of designing AIs that are correctly aligned so as to not forever lock-in the values of the current generation.
"Breaking the Rules" accompanied by a generic guitar riff?
I guess Judas Priest would have caused a copyright strike?
Interesting. This is a good complement to (or even a prototype of?) that "Big Data" video he made later on.
This makes me think of the activism around fracking in the uk at the moment and the three guys that were arrested for protesting it.
Great video as always, my only addition to the comments is that with a green t shirt and goatee you look like Shaggy from scooby doo, which is great
Good timing. I needed this video right now I think. I was struggling with my commitment a little bit but yeah, Rosa Parks was much braver than I'll ever be and I can at least afford to get into a little bit of trouble for a good cause
Or well, more trouble anyway, I'm already in trouble lol
I f***in love Minority Report. It's such an awesome film.
So pre-crime is real. Now I'm gonna be even more disturbed by that film when I was before.
Incidentally this video was already starting to remind me of Minority Report before you mentioned it.
I was thinking a couple weeks ago about the problem of civil disobedience in law, and it is a problem because we're essentially saying "it's okay to break the law if you REALLY disagree with it which is a problem in a democracy where law is understood to have the consent of the governed behind it, if you'll forgive my foray into rank liberalism.
I came up with a possible solution, which is to say that the law isn't actually a list of things that you cannot do. The law is actually the CONSEQUENCES for certain actions. For example, the law isn't "You can't steal" the law is "if you steal we get to lock you up for a few years in a small cell.
I think there are a lot of implications to this idea. First, it actually means that dissenters in the case of civil disobedience aren't actually breaking the law. They're committing the radical act of following a law that is not meant to be followed, thereby calling attention to it. So, for example, when there was a law that black people had to be arrested for sitting in the front of the bus, Rosa Parks and others followed this law and got arrested for sitting in the front of the bus and brought attention to an unjust law.
Dissent from a law, then, isn't just about whoever disagrees with it, but who is willing to pay the cost of doing something that the law assigns consequence to.
This also has implications about the problem of selective enforcement and laws that appear facially neutral. In many states in the US if not all it is illegal to hang a car air freshener from your rear view mirror. However, lots of people do this and almost nobody is pulled over for it. However, in the recent case of Duante Wright, Wright was pulled over by Minnesota police for, among a few other minor issues, having an air freshener hanging from his mirror. He was "accidentally" shot when the officer apparently thought she reached for her taser to shock him, but actually reached for her gun and shot him to death.
Black people are twice as likely as white people in the US to be incarcerated for drug offenses, despite the fact that white people and black people use drugs at about the same rate. Under my view of what the law is this means that the law is far more severe for black people as a whole than it is for white people, even though a standard reading of the law would indicate that it is racially neutral.
The other problem is that, in this model of law which is transactional and consequence-based, the law is much harsher for poor people than for wealthy people. I think most of us here know that this is true, but again, the law as written wouldn't show you this. But if the law is something like "if you can't pay us $10,000 then you have to stay in jail until your trial, that's just a law that for poor people.
Overall, this system isn't necessarily a problem. Criminal law is far too varied, nuanced and unique to each case for there to be uniform sentencing. Judges take a lot of factors into account when they decide what the law is (and in my model they do decide what the law is) and that's probably a good thing. Stealing the resources of a nation of people should obviously be given a much harsher sentence than stealing a loaf of bread, for example.
5:06 You've never played Scrabble with my Gramma!
Love the video, although I kinda feel like you straw manned legal positivism a bit. As someone who leans towards legal positivism myself, I do agree with allot of what you said, but I also do have very good and complex reasons for believing what I do. A RUclips comment isn't really the best place to go into all those reasons but as a sample of one I feel that treating criminals who committed the same crime differently based on factors not directly related to the crime is fundamentally unjust to those who didn't get let off easily. Who's reasons were not adequately explained enough or suffered poor legal representation or were just from the wrong demographic. Naturalism in my mind opens up the door for racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. I've sort of explained that badly but like I said this isn't the best place to discuss these things.
Stellar, as always :) One thought I had whilst watching this (along with your Hague lecture!) was that it sounds as though the goal of these predictive policing programs is to deal with specific types of crime, or at the very least their methodology seems like it will prioritize some crimes over others. Por ejemplo, the dearth of "white collar" criminal convictions is almost certainly going to bias any program against considering those crimes a priority. It feels like the corollary privilege that will be created at the expense of communities of color.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson
Psycho-Pass also is a series about a software like the one you describe.
My perspective on laws is that you don't break them by committing a crime. The law on theft states that if you acquire something without a legal justification, you have to pay a fee or go to prison for a defined time. What we in the West call "law" is the boundary of socially accepted violence by the government. However, if the violence of the government loses social acceptance, the state loses power. This is why the law often leaves enough wriggling room for judges to apply it in a way that reinforces social acceptance. Growing up in these societies, we are trapped by the idea that the law is the arbitrator of justice. Thus, we feel morally obliged to abide the law.
I also say that social change happens in two ways: if the law punishes acceptable behavior or if it fails to punish unacceptable behavior. Thus, the human element prevents change. If it becomes obvious that the law enforcement is racially biased, we can blame the people who enforce the law - individually or as a group. Thus, you just have to exchange some personnel and not change anything.
+1 for the closing Johnny Cash pasitche that provides some glamour among the academia.
I think that social norms are more heavily enforced than even the regular law. Most of us don't really care when we see someone breaking the regular law unless it's something really bad, but social norms are so ingrained in us from a very young age that it is likely that a whole community will come down on someone who breaks them. I know from years of personal experience.
Same here
Most don't care about speeding or animal abuse or smoking or drinking or cheating in jobs
But will break down if their religion is insulted or they see their leaders harmed or if they see BDSM
This is understandable, especially in India, where religious conflicts are on
I'm curious that, as an Asian, where would I seat myself in a bus in the 50s according to the rules?
That is debatable
I think this has an interesting connection to the three types of rules:
Moral Rules: You should follow them for the benefit of everyone, but you will probably break them every now and then.
Legal Rules: You need to follow them if you don't want to be punished, but they can be impractical and immoral.
Conventional Rules: You should consider whether to follow them or not. I think the first two types are easy to understand, however the third on can take some time. It's things like what is acceptable to wear, which side of the road is driven on, things that always have to have some standards, but in another society, they could be completely different.
Moral Rules should never be willingly broken.
Legal Rules should be broken when they oppose moral rules.
And Conventional Rules are made to be broken, as long as it's sensible to do so. You shouldn't drive on the wrong side of the road, that's simply dumb, but you can wear skirts even as a man. You may be unpopular if you do so, but if it makes you happy...?
"Always be a good boy. Don't ever play with guns" - Johnny Cash. Great ending man
You look like Shaggy 🤨😂
I've heard the expression "letter of the law" & "spirit of the law" used (in the US) Is this what Hart & Dworkin were discussing or is it something else? These videos about The Law are very thought provoking.
John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice' is one of my staple political phil books. That said, Rawls would say, yes, some laws need to be broken. Of course, there are conditions under which his theories would say this is the case. They must be broken only if the motive is toward an end that is just and if there is a likelihood of success in overturning bad precedent. And remember, John shot first.
Scalia said that for the interesting cases, there is no need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. For those cases, there is very little law to rely on. He also said that for the other 99% of what they do, you have to be the kind of person who can get excited by the minutia of admiralty, so yeah, you need to be a lawyer.
When a 16 year old activist is kickass and shares your last name and you realize you've probably been a major disappointment to your possible distant relation.
It's never too late to be a kickass activist! XD
Maybe it's just me, but Scrabble absolutely got that intense at my house 😂
I wonder how the idea of creating laws that can be broken applies to education.What responsibilities do we have when educating young people about the law and how to interact with it? What historical lessons do we impart about the law in our nations?
Because undoubtedly What we teach as a nation in regards to the law will affect how our citizenry view the law. We of course want people to follow our laws assuming they are good but also be willing to protest unjust laws. I think that makes for a hard balance at least from an educational standpoint.
We should teach young people to break the rules if they see them unjust
That ending song was amazing
Fully Automated Fascism ??? yikes .
Oooo I wrote a paper on the use of blackbox algorithms to predict criminal recidivism rates for my philosophy of AI class! Easily the most fun (and horrifying) paper I've ever researched.
Green suits you, good choice. New fan binge watching, btw.
I just wanted to thank xxx swagmaster420 xxx. My favorite patreon name so far.
As an activist i enjoyed this video alot. Keep up the good work!
you look like shaggy from scooby-doo in this bc of the green shirt, though great video!
"How completely should we enforce this law" is an interesting question. I think you raise some good points about the problems with total enforcement, but there are also problems having to do with partial enforcement.
If we're only going to partially enforce laws, should we partially enforce some laws or all laws? How about laws against murder and rape? If we're being serious about the possibility of our moral ignorance, then maybe we can't apply it selectively. We'd have to admit that we could be wrong about any of our laws. Surely, we must think, a society which chooses to not save someone from murder or rape can't be a good one, but again--that could be our moral ignorance talking (I prefer to think it's not!)
Of course, the idea that we should only partially enforce laws might also be born of our ignorance. And so, should we only partially enforce our law about partial enforcement?
Lastly, like you said, partial enforcement opens the door to a whole new arena of potential for discrimination. Should we partially enforce laws more in some neighborhoods, and less in others?
Even with total enforcement, legal change is still possible. It just has to be done within the bounds of the law. But I agree that this is sometimes not enough. Some laws do need to be broken. However, deciding which laws to allow to be broken is no easy task. Great topic and video!
this is a really interesting argument. i would agree - i would even argue that in a society in which all laws are just, this would still be necessary.
for instance - in my opinion, the only crimes should be violations of another person's rights. one of those rights is that of personal property, so we need to have laws in place to prevent theft. however, taken to its conclusion, a society that blindly enforces laws against theft will criminalize a starving person for stealing bread, instead of providing them with food as a compassionate society should do.
essentially, the law needs to leave space for circumstance, and for understanding, and for different ways of interfering if interfering must be done. robots would not make good cops, and they would make even worse judges.
This video could easily be called "Why representative 'democracy' is the greatest lie of our age".
just wanna use youtube I am unable to think how to make that connection.
Could you explain that further?
TL;DR: Power can be wielded by judges, tech companies, the police etc.. but the people subjected to these decisions choose nothing, so representative democracy is just aristocracy with more steps.
People have no say in how, when or why the rules that shape our reality are created. The closest thing we have is the ability to elect some people based on who did the best propaganda for a specific demographic. To call this democracy is absurd, people are choosing nothing and the only power available to them is to refuse to work, nothing else. A judge detached from day to day reality chooses who should be punished based on his own rules.The people choose nothing but the appearance of their new king, we have no gravitas and no say in how when or why our society will change, so a representative democracy can't be called a democracy, it's just a method to validate the aristocracy while making people feel like they matter. We do not matter in this type of society and technology is making that painfully obvious every day.
just wanna use youtube
I don't think that's true. I think people _think_ it's true, and are therefore apathetic towards politics (if not in interest/discussion then in practice). If enough people actually did something about it, like write to their representatives (MPs and the like) more would actually be done. Although saying that, I'm one of those people so... who am I to talk, y'know?
I don't know if I would go that far. I think it's possible to replace corrupt politicians with principled representatives who listen the people that voted for them. That's what the upcoming mid-term elections in the US are all about.
I also don't agree with your characterization of judges choosing "who should be punished based on his own rules", you're neglecting the rule of law and the notion that judges are beholden to the spirit of a given law if not the way the law was written. There are also juries of course and lets not forget the court of appeals or the supreme court. You may say 'but those laws were written by out of touch aristocrats and I suppose there may be a certain about of truth to that but what would the alternatives be? Either rules written by the mob or rules written by a single leader- one just wouldnt be effective, the other is just tyranny.
I'll agree that our agency is limited, particularly by corruption, but we do have some power and at least a portion of it comes through representative democracy.
Love the song at the end 😁
Your algorithm is only as good as the data you feed it. I learned this in my machine learning course, and as far as I know, that's pretty much the standard. If a software developer fails to account for this, or, in case this is not possible (which is irritatingly common), at the least mention it, they're bad at their job.
I need to hear an Oliver Thorn Classic Country cover album
Ollie, I know this video is 7 months old and you probably won't see this. But I recently discovered your channel in the last few days .
In light of today's shooting in New Zealand, along with my ever present lurking on /pol/ and other alt-right spaces to witness the rapid growth of facism in America's youth, combined with the fact that my college degree doesn't matter outside of checking a box for my career. I've decided to change my major from Computer Science to Philosophy with a focus on Morals, Politics, and Law, in the hope that someday I can positively contribute to the political and philosophical discourse in some way. While I know I will most likely never have the impact of yourself and other left leaning personalities, I hope that I can influence at least a few people.
Just have to jump in here... As a software developer who works on machine learning algorithms.... many of use do think about how to avoid encoding bias.
Loved the Folsom Prison parody at the end 😂
Sorry, I return to review this video because I was hoping you might comment on Gayatri Spivak and the double bind; however, I noticed that you said scrabble never got so intense in your house to require violent punishment for breaking the rules...have you ever seen Ken Park, the film? There is an eery act in that movie related to scrabble and violence...Cheers!
Things I am looking into at the moment (1,200 words); I thought I would blow my own load by announcing to the inter-web some projects I am trying to get into (that won’t earn me any money and probably won’t achieve anything - yeh, I am looking at Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus”).
I’m not sure I can be bothered to do these projects though. In fact. I am not sure I can be bothered to even type this. In fact I gave up finishing to eat a sandwich, which is kind of why I am doing this - if my motivation to eat my lunch returns, then this thing I am typing will be shorter.
My health isn’t amazing. Took my legs through the burn just to walk a few miles today. I have been adjusting to sitting in a chair - rather than lying on the floor - with a chronically bad back: to celebrate status of floor to chair, I have taken up reading philosophy!
There is a pop culture series on philosophy by William Erwin. I had been researching philosophy etc. But I hadn’t really done the basics properly. I thought, if I read some mainstream philosophy before I went off on a tangent. Then that would be a good thing!
So I am reading “The Matrix and Philosophy”, “Terminator and Philosophy”, and “Alice in Wonderland and Philosophy”. They’re ideal for me. I am not much of a reader. And these books present things in small neat sections of only a hand full of pages at a time. I am terrible at focus: so am reading all three books simultaneously. Enjoying them anyway!
Some more introductory philosophy comes from Prof. Richard Brown on RUclips with an approx 20 hour video series (mainly focusing on “consciousness”). Prof Gregory B. Sadler is also proving useful. Also checking out a small RUclipsr “Ontic Philosophy” for a Nietzsche/Judith Butler approach (I struggle to accept Butler when it comes to Gender Identity but Butler, Foucault, Camus and many other post-structuralist Post Modernist philosophers have been influenced by Nietzsche… So I am checking them out for that reason).
Some more in depth stuff… …I am reading a 250 page thesis someone has done on the influence of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky on Albert Camus - looking at Nihilism and Transcendence. I am interested in Camus as someone who rejected a lot of the post war existentialism of figures such as John Paul Sartre and “second wave feminist” Simone de Beauvior. And also Camus’ concept of “the absurd”. Then I am going to try and get through Camus’ “The Rebel”.
“Entropy” is perhaps something that appears to go against Nietzsche’s cosmology (which seems similar to the eternal circular universe from Hindu and Buddhism).
There seems a lot of interest in Entropy at the moment - entropy is required to give us “time” (otherwise there is nothing in the laws of physics for which way time should flow - forwards or backwards?). And also Entropy is probabilistic which gives it uses when applied to psychological states such as "anxiety".
“Socionics” was developed from looking at psychology from the principles of entropy and was used extensively in the soviet union.
An interesting paper that has come to my attention is a co-authored paper by Jordan Peterson (yes - that Jordan Peterson) entitled “Psychological Entropy: A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty-Related Anxiety” - or, EMU (Entropy Model of Uncertainty).
I’m probably not qualified. But I think the larger the society. The more progressive the taxation (or other means to fulfill the same aim) needs to be. And the greater diversity there should be (otherwise you have everyone chasing the same thing - however you want to represent that). I’d even steal Jordan Peterson’s “80:20” rule just justify this (and point out that in our present society we are far from having an “80:20” wealth distribution - by using network theory and also pointing out how “critical”, or prone to collapse, our present society is).
With regards “diversity”…
I wasn’t looking at the paper because it was contributed to by Jordan Peterson. But because I am actually reading up on subjects relating to Entropy - whether it be answers to cosmological questions about the arrow of time and expansion of the universe, applications to psychological anxiety (relating to the paper above), or approaches based on Aušra Augustinavičiūtė thoery of “Socionics” (combining Jung’s personality types with information metabolism - applied extensively in Russia). Though I don’t know how deeply I want to get into to be honest - there’s no insentive for me to be an expert xP.
“Entropy of economics” is also an interesting area to look into. Touched upon by Jeremy Rifkin video lecture for Vice on youtube called “the third industrial revolution” (sustainable growth and entropy).
The paper above is probably the basis for Jordan Peterson’s “12 rules for life: An Antidote to Chaos” - or at least, authored with the same intent in mind I would guess. “Chaos” being left of centre or LGBTQI ect or just being a woman who doesn’t want to wear against her choice hyper feminine stereotypical clothing just to earn some money.
The paper references “Cybernetics” which has been criticised in Adam Curtis’ “All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace”.
Others such as Prof. Philip Moriarty (and Sam Harris) criticise the way that Jordan Peterson, in their view, mis-uses scientific concepts relating to physics for example - likening Peterson’s approach to that of Deepak Chopra’s use of concepts from Quantum Physics, which they also try to discredit.
I expect someone knowledgeable in information theory (Paul Mason? - author of “Post Capitalism”) would also have criticisms of the way Information Theory is used in the paper?
I am not an expert I don’t know?
I would consider myself on “The Left” but I don’t align myself with Neo-marxism - from my understanding at present anyway… I am not an extentialist or a materialist (or anything that existed previously like “Hegelianism”). And I feel that looking into such areas as the paper describes above from a leftist perspective - which, may already be out there, but I just haven’t found it yet? - could be a way in from my perspective?
I don’t know? - there’s an interesting programme by PBS that looks at “Chaos”, which would seem to refute the approach of the paper above: an interesting section in the last ten minutes of the hour long program on “Chaos” by PBS featuring a Jacob Reese-Mogg look-a-like no less (???) that looks at the role of chaotic brain patterns in creativity and consciousness.
In cosmological terms. Entropy tends to spread out energy (it is related to the quantum mechanics concept of “entanglement/spooky action at a distance”). Gravity tends to promote “Chaos” - such as fractal like structures. It is probably true that disorder increases as entropy and chaos increase. But at the same time chaotic fractal structures can store an enormous amount of information: data storage systems designers are looking at fractals for hard ware storage (software storage already uses fractal to compress data). It can be argued that the structure of our brains represents a fractal nature of storing information.
So there is lots to be said about the positives of what might be percieved as an “untidy room”!
I may not bother doing any of the above. But if I do I’ll try and post the results somewhere?
Time to finish that sandwich I guess XP
This reminds me of something I read a while ago, how facial recognition technology and other applicable tech things are racist against people of color? If true(every bit of info I consume online is always taken with a grain of salt) I think it would make for some interesting content! And yeah keep up the good work!
I knew she was an activist but for some reason (I'm sure the framing around it) had it in my mind that that came after. Thanks for the correction.
i already know which rules i'm gonna break today. wish me luck!
What's the end music? I recognize the tune but I love these lyrics and want a full version.
"If you are very intelligent you already know where this is going"
My uncultured ass: 👁️👄👁️
5:51 Chessboard setup wrong. 0/10. Uninstall your internet. Please excuse me, will now have to smashup my apartment in a violent rage.
first thing i heard in this video was
"werewolf"
happy halloweeen