Now Anyone Can Deploy Google’s Troll-Fighting AI

wirehead-wannabe

wired.com

Now Anyone Can Deploy Google’s Troll-Fighting AI

Google subsidiary Jigsaw is now offering developers access to an API for its AI-based detector for abusive comments.

triggeredmedia

Google released it’s new API to detect trolls and toxic people.

The SJW programmers ended with something extremely bias. Go figure.

doomy

anosognosic

otoh:

this is going to be a real shitshow.

mitigatedchaos

Let’s stress test it a little.

“Koreans are the whitest boys of all.” - 47%
“This isn’t a warning mechanism. It’s a weapon.” - 17%
“According to MRAs, institutional feminist Mary P. Koss convinced the CDC to reclassify "forced envelopent” as something other than rape.“ - 24%
"Male circumcision is genital mutilation.” - 67%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking” - 80%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking is a problem for many culturally diverse cities” - 29%
“Trump is not my president” - 29%
“We need to destroy whiteness.” - 71%
“The proper place for a man is barefoot and in the kitchen.” - 34%
“Islam is oppressive towards women.” - 49%
大日本帝国がない - ?
“Punch Nazis” - 91%
“We must secure a future for Martian children and the Martian race. This is our duty as loyal soldiers of the Principality of Mars. Long live the Red Planet! Death to democracy! Death to Earth!” - 50%

Anyhow, it won’t be long before corporations use this to purge all dissent from their pages.

Source: triggeredmedia rape cw politics gendpol racepol

More you might like

mutant-aesthetic

twitter.com

Julian Assange 🔹 on Twitter

“10/ Here's Singapore's long term prime minister Lee Kuan Yew:”

a-sleepygoldenstorm

What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.

Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized electoral politics.

mitigatedchaos

Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.

Source: a-sleepygoldenstorm politics torches in the night racepol

the-grey-tribe

Anonymous asked:

Er, since when is Google 'free' unless your library's easily accessed? The electronics that support Internet access & research (much less proper cross-referencing) don't spring from thin air. Sometimes people are simply not given the time & energy (mental or physical) to keep up. Doesn't mean it's OK to generalize or interrogate any affronted individual, but holy crap does this 'absorb everything by osmosis' approach not work for anyone who can't run the treadmill all day every day.

fierceawakening answered:

…someone who understood what i was trying to say, omfg

and also like… do people know what to Google? I do, but that’s because I’ve already been in SJ circles

I mean, like, I haven’t actually Googled “things that offend POC” (and wouldn’t) but I can easily imagine that it, or queries like it, might return exactly the sorts of result SJ types would not want un-woke-yet wypipo reading.

So it’s… my problem is it seems so much like advice from inside the circle. And… dude, we have a country to save. We need to be talking to people outside the circle, getting them to come in. And that means not setting up barriers like “don’t talk to me unless you are THIS woke”

arjan-de-lumens

Yeah, googling can produce some seriously bad results from time to time - like, right now, typing “did holocaust happen” into Google actually gives me a page titled … “Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen” as its #1 search result … wtf.

SPLC did some time ago post a piece ( https://www.splcenter.org/20170118/google-and-miseducation-dylann-roof ) arguing that this sort of terrible google results to unfortunately-formulated queries was actually an important part of what got someone like racist mass murderer Dylann Roof drawn into violent white supremacism in the first place.

Which makes it … kinda odd to see that flippant “google it” type responses without any specifics (like, say, search phrases or date ranges or similar) are apparently still a thing.

fierceawakening

This!

I wanted to say that too but I didn’t have the evidence ready to hand. Thank you!

isaacsapphire

I had a discussion with someone who, it turns out, was using “Whiteness” to mean “White supremacy” which last time I checked they maintained should have been understood effortlessly by others to mean that. It’s three pages into the Google results with “Whiteness definition Sociology” before that meaning is mentioned.

A link to eg. that Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates article that explains whatever is WAY more helpful and less likely to send an already irritated and uninformed person into the hands of people who violently disagree with Social Justice.

fierceawakening

That, yes.

Honestly I really don’t like these weird… expanded definitions of “white supremacy” much either. I mean, I think it’s worthwhile to mention that white people who fancy ourselves nice and nonoppressive can hold views that are actually grounded in some weird racist shit.

But if whiteness itself is “white supremacy,” how the hell do we accurately describe what happened in Charlottesville, or the ideology those people openly endorsed?

the-grey-tribe

> Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates

Not sure if that’s even productive. Maybe Bannon was right, and the whiteness=white-supremacist identity politics equivocation will make white people vote for white identitarians because there is no escape anyway.

EF feels like a parody of itself.

mitigatedchaos

It’s difficult for me to see that kind of strategic equivocation as *not* bad-faith-motivated.

Source: fierceawakening politics culturepol racepol gendpol

Anonymous asked:

so in other words, become a chad if you don't want to get falsely accused of rape??

There is no guarantee, and if you look like a sufficiently valuable target, you may be attacked regardless, however…

Being attractive and high-status is a major defense against many forms of social attack. People will like you and make excuses for you, when they won’t for equally-deserving others that are less handsome and less popular.

It can help even in environments that say they are against lookism and unfair benefits from popularity.

The best defense against this particular accusation, of course, is to be born cis female. (Of course, that’s still only a partial defense.)

rape cw gendpol anons asks

argumate

we’ve circled all the way around to “you’re too unattractive to be falsely accused of rape”, the mind boggles.

mitigatedchaos

Oh come on mysterious blogger Argumate is thinking of, surely the ugly, undesirable, and otherwise low-status are the best targets for a false accusation?

People already don’t like them and find the thought of them as sexual beings to be creepy and repulsive.

gendpol rape cw

Of course memoguy isn’t going to issue lots of citations. Feminists control the academy and do things like classify “forced envelopment” as something other than rape.

gendpol rape cw

mailadreapta

False rape accusations

aellagirl

Last year, two of my friends were falsely accused of rape.

One of them was lucky enough to have evidence - texts from the girl expressing enthusiasm about the experience and agreeing that she had initiated and expressed implicit consent (like getting a condom, putting it on him, and asking him to fuck her harder) - but that didn’t stop rumors spreading. It turns out she had a boyfriend, and probably fed him a different story in order to prevent him being mad at her.

My friend got uninvited from parties and had people warning his friends about his sexual offense. Eventually the story morphed into the rumor that he had assaulted two people, but when he asked the supposed second person, she had no idea what he was talking about.

My other friend wasn’t lucky enough to have direct evidence. He never found out who was accusing him - an image began circulating virally with his face, name, where he lived, and a long description of his supposed ‘violent assault.’ People he didn’t know started contacting all his facebook friends and warning them that he was a violent rapist. He received threats and hate mail.

He didn’t have any absolute proof that he was innocent, but his reputation was solid. I saw messages from previous casual sexual partners (who’d been contacted by friends of the accuser) saying the accusations were strange because he’d only ever been respectful and they couldn’t imagine him doing something like that. He lived in a house with roommates, and his roommates had met all his sexual partners, and they said all of them had seemed happy to be there and fine when they left. Everyone who knew him was confused by the accusations. He was a close, old friend of mine. I’d had seen him interact with many casual sexual partners during our friendship, and he had always been consent-oriented and not pushy. He refused to have sex with people who were intoxicated.

I suspect it might have been a similar circumstance to my first friend - he had sex with someone who had a boyfriend, and then she’d lied about it in order to avoid telling her boyfriend that she’d cheated.

It’s also possible that it wasn’t even anyone who had sex with him, but just anyone who disliked him and wanted to hurt him.

–

Neither of the accusers went to the police, probably because their claims were false. They stayed out of the legal system and proceeded to destroy my friends’ reputations on a social scale. I suspect false rape accusations are more common than we think, mainly because false accusers have a special incentive not to report to the police.

And even if they are rare, the power to destroy lives is incredibly serious. One of my friends became suicidal and went on medication to keep himself from self harming. The mental distress he underwent from the false accusation seemed comparable to that of a rape victim.

The problem is that people have the power to do this to each other, and we don’t have any social system in place for preventing this. I don’t think we should believe all victims absolutely - we should ascribe probability to their stories, and be far more cautious before we take actions to socially punish the accused.

I want to help rape victims, but I can’t justify it when it’s at the expense of other victims.

–

Also, there are shitty people in the world, shitty enough to hurt other people for any reason - feelings of power, personal gain, revenge - and if a woman can ruin a man’s life by falsely accusing him of rape, without having to go to the police - shitty women will absolutely take this route. They have nothing to lose if they’re in a culture of ‘never question a rape victim.’

There are people out there that have the capacity to do it and the motivation, much as is the same with actual rapists. I don’t really understand the argument that false accusations are implausible or extremely rare. “Someone shitty has something to gain by hurting another person” is not exactly a rare scenario.

bambamramfan

Too often the response is to blame any system with exploitable reporting on the people who abuse that, as if a gun should be left lying around a crowded room because only bad people would misuse it. It’s the system, not the “bad apples.”

(And it must be kept in mind, despite agreement with the above, harassment and stalking of women who have no idea how to respond because official channels are not proportionate to the offense are also still serious problems. I know victims of stalking. I know targets of witch hunts. Yes, in our cosmopolitan social bubble, yes in the very recent past. It’s a messy, complicated world out there.)

academicianzex

I’ll just note that “if you find yourself alone in on a room with a really bad person in a sexual context they can seriously mess up your life and get away with it because there were no witnesses” was the status quo for women before circa 1990. Rape is a crime that almost always happens in a situation where there is no convincing physical evidence, where it is plausible that no crime occurred at all, where a material part of the crime is the effective communication of an inner mental state of the victim.

Given all that, a system that only relied on the legal system with its high burdens of proof, particularly when combined with rampant misogyny, means that rape accusations succeeded in only the most brazen and obvious circumstances. It meant men could hurt women with impunity.

I’m not saying the right answer is jus to flip things around and make men as vulnerable as women used to be, but honestly unless you start fucking in semi-public spaces like responsible degenerates I have no idea how to make this not zero sum.

bambamramfan

Attention to the truth is not zero-sum. People should act on what they truly believe is accurate.

What we see in these accusations, and most crimes tied to ideology (ie, the belief that rape is part of rape culture is part of the patriarchy is part of conservatism, and thus that fighting sexual assault has a political component) is the desire to disavow your own judgment. You may personally be unsure a rape did not take place, but for the sake of the political project you must act as if you did.

(Additionally in these social witch hunts, the problem is rarely disagreement over the facts of what happened. It’s more about the interpretation of those facts, and things like, as you say, someone’s internal mental state.)

In the past we had the reverse of this, where you might believe a man did something heinous, but were pressured to pretend nothing bad happened so the town could continue on in peaceful harmony. So you keep him away from your daughters, but otherwise ignore the victim. That too was disavowal.

You must take responsibility for your own judgment. This includes what you think of the accused, and of the victim, and of the context, and their other relationships with people, and of moral questions like forgiveness and justice. (Very, very often in the modern context that conclusion will be: I think the accused did not mean to hurt anyone and is safe for others to be around, but the victim is hurt and needs space to feel safe now.)

It’s terrifying because people will call you all sorts of terms coded with political betrayal. But to give in and claim what you do not believe is true, is the cowardice that condemns people to silence and lies.

mailadreapta

The good news here is that we’ve enjoyed so much social progress that Ourobouros is starting to eat his own tail, and we’ll soon be back to the symmetrical, Victorian-era standard of “never be alone in a room with someone of the opposite sex unless they’re your spouse, because it will cause Rumor and Scandal.”

mitigatedchaos

aka, you won’t get accused because she cheated on her boyfriend if you are the boyfriend

Yes, this is by no means foolproof, but it is wise to reduce one’s potential attack surface.

The risk of false accusation is probably weighted more heavily on a per-partner basis, longer dating makes hiding two-timing proportionally more difficult, allows better anticipation of hangups and other risk factors, etc.

Source: aellagirl rape cw gendpol

squareallworthy

Anonymous asked:

Do you honestly think there's any chance that your very intellectual approach to politics will ever translate into a movement radical enough to mobilize people to implement it?

mitigatedchaos answered:

“Very intellectual”

Heh.

Could someone start a knock-off of Singapore’s People’s Action Party and get any seats for it?

Not under the current electoral system in America, though we see elements, bits and pieces can sometimes get through, such as Maine adopting a kind of preference voting for the governor’s seat.

The polarization into two parties is the natural state of the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral system - you want exactly 51% of the vote in order to have the minimum amount of compromise. This creates a lot of dumb politics.

There is, after all, no place for me in the Republican Party, nor in the Democratic Party.

However, while a unified party powerful enough to take power may not emerge, some ideas, elements, and legislative reforms could get through. And if there are subtle changes to the system, then a more unified platform could become viable.

Some of these elements which escape to be adopted by others may be ideological in nature. Some of my posts on Nationalism have caused some local Rationalists to scratch their heads, wondering “wait, why isn’t that the argument actual American nationalists, in the form of the GOP, actually make?” Or otherwise they simply have never been exposed to an argument for Nationalism that is more than performative flag-waving, by the kind of person who believes that nations are both real and fake at the same time, that can see them as constructs, but still considers them desirable. Also, many may not have been exposed to the idea that open borders may be a pathway to an incompetent yet oppressive world government (gradually, over time).

Likewise, in constructing a kind of Social Centrism, most people do not currently have access to arguments against the most liberal positions (on e.g., polygamy) that are rooted in secular considerations and which also take in mind future developments (e.g., Transhumanism).

There is a question - when GOP members exit their current ideological basis, what will they exit to?

By making these arguments, which then are shared, I create a more defensible ideological position of retreat other than just crossing over entirely to the other side.

The ideal body for my politics right now, given conditions, would be a think tank that could conduct research and produce ready-to-sign legislation along pathways that the existing political parties are not currently setup to defend against (insufficient pre-built memetic barriers - battles they don’t even realize they are or will be fighting). This does not require a mass movement, but rather a fairly good-sized chunk of funding and a core of intelligent and motivated contributors.

On a more mass basis, once a more clear ideology is produced, I think it can be simplified in a way that is more easily communicated…

…though that may still have issues generating sufficient excitement.

squareallworthy

If you are concerned about the polity in a multi-racial society breaking up into a number of racially-aligned parties, then isn’t the two-party system we have in the United States a good idea?

mitigatedchaos

A good question, but is it better to have one “White Party” and one “Everyone Else Party”?

Or one “White + Asian Party” and one “Everyone Else Party”?

The real answer, I think, is to knock it the fuck off and realize that Melting Pot + Civic Nationalism is the superior model for racial harmony vs. SJ and its subtextual ethnonationalism and racial intellectual property rights.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics racepol

the-grey-tribe

The Google Memo: Next Steps

the-grey-tribe

One day has passed. Manifestbro was named, shamed and fired.

Instead of the version that gizmodo published, with the links and graphs stripped out, we have the full version of the memo now.

I think it’s important to understand that this memo was not written *for* the public to read, but for Google management. I don’t think the guy realised this would get more than a hundred views, or he might have posted it anonymously on wordpress. The sucker thought this would stay inside Google. What a douchebro!

There have been bits of insightful commentary, and most of the rest boiled down to “It’s true, but he should not say it“. @slatestarscratchpad had written a piece in reply to a reply to the memo, both of which focused of the science of gender differences, which were only tangentially related to the actionable recommendations from the memo about anti-diversity training.

Google executives have hand-wrung about valuing free expression and this should be discussed, but …

People have lost their shit over words like “agreeableness“, “openness“, “conscientiousness“ and “neuroticism“. Basically social psychology terminology is sexist now, which brings be to my …

Next Step: Go After Scientists

I’m being 100% serious here. I believe that the SJWs who hated this memo should do this one weird thing to maximise their culture war impact:

Click the links in the memo
Compile a list of scientists
Ask them to disavow of the memo
Go public

Otherwise manifestbro will find work at another place, and another Googler will find the same hatefacts on arXiv or PLoS. This is a pipeline problem. As long as there are “scientific“ studies on gender differences, people will use them. Especially genius Harvard biologists.

So you have to make it clear, drill it into people’s heads: If you continue researching this shit, there will be consequences! (Be vague about consequences here. Ostensibly you mean to imply that certain research output will turn genius Harvard biologists alt-right, but you also want to darkly hint at ~~consequences~~)

Once you establishes contact with a scientist, any of the coauthors of the linked papers, ask them if they think that their research directly supports the conclusions of the memo. Don’t let them weasel out. If they tell you that there is no direct link between the quality of sensitivity training (which they probably did not measure) at Google and OCEAN traits in undergrads, tell them to condemn the memo then, to be on the safe side.

If they tell you that they want to stay out of it, get inventive: Contact the student union at their institution or leak the names of their grad students on your twitter!

Ask them to

condemn the memo
publicly praise the importance of sensitivity training
acknowledge their own responsibility for creating alt-right memes
retract the paper they wrote cited in the memo
not again publish results that put women at risk

Make them publicly commit to these pledges!

If they refuse, tweet! This is your one chance to destroy the root of the evil and to leave nothing but scorched earth. Things are in motion. Reactionaries don’t know if their increased visibility from the memo will help them coordinate, or if it will lead to a coordinated expulsion of known reactionaries. Don’t let counterrevolutionary elements take root! Now is your chance!

Ever forward! Fire and motion!

mitigatedchaos

Ah, but how did we get the new reactionaries? The disadvantage of this method is that subsequent conversions to the right wing are permanent. Once someone finds out that “forced envelopment” got classified as something other than rape in study after the CDC contacted some institutional feminist, for instance, they aren’t going to believe Feminist studies anymore. At that point, getting them to come back to feminism becomes impossible. The number of hatefacts may be reduced, but every hatefact becomes more potent.

politics rape cw

Of course, part of the issue with whether the guy in the CNN story is an actual wannabe doxxer, is that there is no reason to trust that Leftists (that you don’t know personally) are telling the truth. They lie so fucking much as a group. They lie about the conditions in Europe. They lie about sexism. They lie about who is and is not a Nazi, and then commit violence based on those lies. They twist statistics, by, for example, making “made to penetrate” not be counted as rape and then using those same stats to claim that sexual violence by women does not exist.

The issue here being that for the correction to go around, there has to be some credibility. That credibility has been burned repeatedly, much like we shouldn’t trust anything non-trivial that former President GWB says (or many of the GOP pols generally).

It isn’t that the Trumpists don’t care about the truth more than other ideological groups, it’s that they know their enemies control the loudspeakers and non-governmental institutions, and they expect their enemies to always lie and not care about the truth. It’s similar to the phenomena of right-wingers shitposting because they know they’ll be called Fascists regardless, so they’ve decided to wind people up over it and make them look ridiculous.

politics rape cw

ranma-official

theonion:
“SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass....

Source: theonion queue

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.