I’m a skeptic

Via a suggestion from Haunt Fox @Haunt_Fox I looked at a research paper claiming to show:

These findings illustrate the shooter bias toward both human and robot agents. This bias is both a clear indication of racism towards Black people, as well as the automaticity of its extension to robots racialized as Black.

See also Robots and Racism: New Study Suggests That Humans Apply Racial Biases, Stereotypes to Black and White Robots.

The study presented test subjects with a series of 128 images. Half contained a gun held by a person or robot. The other half had some other object being held. Half of the robots and people had a dark skin color and half were white. The test measured the response time of test subjects to make shoot/no-shoot decisions and their accuracy in making those decisions.

I found it “interesting” the researchers did not break out the supposed discovered bias by the various racial identities who participated in the study. Only seven subjects out of 163 in Experiment 1 identified as “Black or African American” so I could be persuaded this isn’t an adequate sample size. But 19 out of 172 subjects in Experiment 2 identified as “Black or African American”. I would think this should be a sufficient sample to test one or more additional hypothesis.

For example, were “Black or African American” people also biased against people and robots with dark skin tones? If these participants behaved essentially identical to “White, Caucasian, or European American”, “Hispanic or Latino American”, and “Asian American” participants then I would be strongly inclined to believe there was some aspect of the testing that caused what appeared to be the bias against dark skinned people and robots rather than actual bias. That is, unless it is claimed “Black or African American” people are also biased against their own race. From reading the study this could be true but it wasn’t made as clear as I would have liked it to be.

The authors did not mention doing this sort of validation of the test procedure and did not supply us with the raw data so that we could do this validation for ourselves. It would seem to me this is an obvious check on the validity of their experiment. If the racial identity of the subject did not correlate with the time required to make a shoot/no shoot decisions but there was a consistent bias toward shooting more quickly at black people and robots then doesn’t that strong imply it is an artifact of the testing rather than a bias of the subjects?

One could easily conclude they did not provide that information because it contradicted their predisposed conclusion. The study may well demonstrate the prejudice of the researchers rather than the prejudice of the study participants.

So, what could have the experiment measured rather than a racial bias? As suggested by Haunt Fox:

Just looking at the images of the targets it seems to me there are some serious visual-contrast issues that might prove major confounders.

The researchers supplied eight of the 128 images they used. Here are two of them:

image

image

As Haunt Fox observed there are significant contrast differences. The accuracy rates were generally slightly lower for the black people and robots. If the pictures above are representative then this is as expected. But if rapid identification of the gun in a low contrast situation contributed to time differences I would have expected the lower contrast images to take longer. This isn’t making sense.

I wonder about the 120 images they didn’t supply. Did they have contrast issues that were even worse and have some sort of bias not displayed in the pictures supplied? Were all the guns black? What about some chrome colored guns? Could an association of a dark skin colors with the presence of a gun have been created?

I’m skeptical this study tested what they claimed they were testing. I think there is a good chance they demonstrated their and/or test procedure bias rather than a “clear indication of racism” toward dark skinned robots.

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

You can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one – handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess – the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.

It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.

Kurt Schlichter
August 8, 2019
They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm
[Via email from Chet.

Stand up to them and tell them the adults are in charge. Temper tantrums from people that act like two year old’s and insults from people that act like they are in Junior High will be dealt with appropriately.—Joe]

Truth

Via Matthew Bracken @ Matt_Bracken:

The abuse of psychiatry was legendary:

See also Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.

Expect little difference if implemented here. What is going to be the default decision of a judge or psychologist? Risk letting a potential mass shooter keep their guns or risk an nonviolent person losing their guns?

The Hunt

I’ve been reading email and websites which claim there is a new movie coming out in which rich elites hunt “deplorables”/Trump supporters. From watching the trailers it’s not clear this is the actual theme. It’s possible The Hunt is a politically neutral take-off of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”. But that doesn’t match what The Hollywood Reporter and The Epoch Times claim:

The movie, “The Hunt,” from Universal Pictures, shows people hunting down “deplorables,” a term failed presidential contender Hillary Clinton used to describe supporters of Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Did anyone see what our [expletive]-in-chief just did?” one character asks others early in the movie, reported the Hollywood Reporter. “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”

According to the Reporter, the movie’s script features blue-state characters choosing to hunt red-state characters who expressed pro-life positions or were deemed racist.

Here are the trailers I have been able to find. You decide:

Quote of the day—Kalmoe and Mason

Items PV3 and PV4 from the CCES involve justifying violence by the inparty to
advance political goals. Terrorism, in other words. PV3 asks about violence today. PV4 asks
for responses if the outparty wins the 2020 presidential election, a hypothetical but realistic
scenario given recent alternation in party control of the presidency. Nine percent of
Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable.  However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties
approve of the use of violence – though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent
approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).
 

image

Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason
2019
Lethal Mass Partisanship:  Prevalence, Correlates, & Electoral Contingencies
[H/T to J.D. Tuccille.

The questions PV1 –> PV4 were as follows:

Political Violence
PV1
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messages to [Opposing party] leaders?
PV2
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe4?
PV3
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
PV4
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then? 
 
4 “Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.

I’m surprised by two things in this study.

  1. The number of people supporting violent threats and action is higher than I would have thought. I would have expected it to be not over one or two percent for any of the questions for either party. Sure, there are a lot of people advocating violence, but they are just a noisy, extreme, minority, right? Well… maybe not such a small minority after all.
  2. I would have expected a much bigger difference between the Democrats and the Republicans with the Democrats leading by at least a factor of two on every question. Aren’t Republicans the one who follow the process and the rules more so than the outcome?

That nearly one out of six Democrats and one out eight Republicans think violence is justified if the other party wins the presidency in 2020 I’m seriously hoping for a Libertarian win (yeah, right, only if the Democrats and Republicans kill each other off at some extremely drastic rate prior to the election) and planning on avoiding what probably will be “hot spots”.

With that high of percentage of violent people available to surround themselves with people are going to find the courage to “take action”. Regardless of who wins, the 2020 election could just be the spark that ignites CWII.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Reza Aslan @rezaaslan

You are “the depraved evil” we need to eradicate.

Reza Aslan @rezaaslan
Tweeted on August 4, 2019
[This was in response to this tweet:

We need to come together, America.

Finger-pointing, name-calling & screaming with your keyboards is easy, yet…

It solves not a single problem, saves not a single life.

Working as one to understand depraved evil & to eradicate hate is everyone’s duty. Unity.

Let’s do this.

Kellyanne Conway @KellyannePolls
August 4, 2019

What’s even more telling about the way this person thinks is this response when someone points out Aslan is “calling for the murder of @KellyannePolls”:

I understand why a gun freak would read this as threatening violence. It’s how you all think.

How can someone not conclude that someone calling for the eradication of another person or group of people is not a threat of violence? Ever read a speech given by a genocidal tyrant? That is exactly the type of language they use.

The answer is that to the political left even physical violence committed by them is considered “free speech” while insults against the political left are considered “violent rhetoric”.

Adults need to stand up and put these type of people in their place. Don’t buy his books, don’t take his classes, and use him as an example of present day people advocating for geocide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

The grand fallacy of the political left is that decisions are better made by third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Much of the 20th century has been taken up proving how tragically mistaken that theory is, all around the world. But those who want to be the third-party decision-makers remain undaunted.

Thomas Sowell
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[This is true in economics, personal ethics, self-defense choices, and all but a few special cases mostly covered by the enumerated powers given to the U.S. government in the constitution.

At this point I’m convinced it’s only a fallacy or mistaken belief on the part of the useful and professional idiots. Those who are smart enough to rise and retain political power have to know the truth.

Evidence for making the case for the 21st century will be little different from the 20th is Venezuela.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Disgusting anti-government violent rhetoric from Cherokee Guns in North Carolina. Threats against members of Congress, particularly minority members are and it is driven by the president’s racial rhetoric This is dangerous!!!

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
July 2019
Gun shop billboard mocks “the Squad,” calling four congresswomen “idiots
[This is the “Disgusting anti-government violent rhetoric”:

CherokeeGuns

There is nothing “anti-government”,“violent”, or a threat in this.

It’s to be expected. Anti-gun people lie all the time. It’s part of their culture.—Joe]

Power hunger

I find present day politics fascinating and scary. For example:

Bloomberg @business tweeted:

An emerging trend in this debate: Kamala Harris very clearly only wants to debate Joe Biden. Every time she’s been challenged by a lower-polling candidate, she takes it back to Biden

In response Ellen Pompeo @EllenPompeo tweeted:

Because she’s overconfident and believes he is her only competition

This was one of the responses:

Let me be very clear this was racist

The consensus appears to agree with the racist declaration despite the fact it is extremely clear there is no racism.

This is political correctness run amok.

I used to wonder how it was possible things could get so messed up in the USSR and Nazi Germany that they could execute people for speaking what most people knew to be the truth. Now I see the virulent roots of this growing in our country.

When those who insist they should have the power to control other people get most of what they want they don’t stop. They find more things and people they must control. In many people it appears hunger for power is never sated. Read The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One). Even when such people have the power to murder others on any imagined slight, and no matter how many they murder, the hunger cannot be satisfied.

Insist they obey the constitution. Vote them out, put adults in charge, and have a backup plan.

See also a previous post on this same topic.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Overarching, and across the world, is the fight over globalism. I’ve said in the end globalism will win, because it’s being driven by technological change at its root. The struggle isn’t whether we have transnational systems where the nation state plays a less important role: that will happen. The struggle is whether globalism will be a democratic movement that is controlled by the people for the people’s benefit, or whether it will be a aristocratic movement that benefits the transnational aristocrats. It’s been set up as the latter, and the people are, across the globe, calling foul.

The struggle over the RKBA is downstream of that fight, but what we’re seeing I think fits in the overall struggle. It’s a theme repeated throughout history that aristocrats do not like their subjects being armed. So it was practically inevitable that when the people started asserting themselves against this cultivated global order, the counter-reaction was the aristocracy returning to their traditional fears and anxieties about armed peasants. That anxiety is acting itself out among the pool of Democratic candidates.

Sebastian
July 31, 2019
What Money Can Buy
[He has a valid point.

The counter point is that 100 million people with 300+ million guns and billions of rounds of ammo can make themselves heard and respected…if they have the will to do so.—Joe]

Reaping the benefits of socialist governance

Seattle has admitted socialists on the city council and a terrible homeless problem which they insist on making worse. They are now reaping the benefits. The most recent is businesses leaving town:

Many Seattle businesses have petitioned the city regarding threats to both employee and customer safety. Now, one of the Puget Sound region’s most notable fast food chains — Dick’s Drive -In — is voicing those same concerns.

“The public safety situation that we’re in right now in Seattle is unacceptable,” Dick’s Drive-In President Jasmine Donovan told KTTH’s Saul Spady.

They already drove all the gun stores out of town. And, if they could, they would prohibit concealed carry. It is easy to conclude they are deliberately trying to destroy the city by making it impossible to defend yourself and inviting criminals to a specially prepared feeding ground..

We live in interesting times

Via Kevin.

I find this very interesting:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Democrats’ powerful campaign arm, has just abruptly purged half a dozen staffers. Why? Because they are white.

It appears that no one had anything against these particular staffers … except for the color of their skin. Although roughly half the committee’s full-time staff (13 of 27) were nonwhite, this was not enough for some Democratic members of Congress. They complained DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois had brought in too many white staffers when she won the position. And they put enough pressure on her that she sacrificed her loyal staffers to the god of diversity.

Slate says they resigned instead of being fired. So does The Hill. But they could have been given “an offer they couldn’t refuse” so it would give the DCCC a way to avoid legal action.

The Blaze has an interesting take on it.

That we have a major political party purging people from jobs because of the color of their skin forebodes some very interesting times ahead. That the people being discriminated against are the majority population is even more interesting. It would seem, long term, that will not end well for the minority engaged in racist discrimination.

Quote of the day—Milo Yiannopoulos @m

I would support a modest income tax rise to issue every citizen with a gun when they reach the age of 21.

Milo Yiannopoulos @m
Via Gab on July 30, 2019
[As amusing as I find this, I would like to think it is just as unconstitutional as government provided food, housing, and healthcare.—Joe]

Facts are irrelevant

Regarding the Gibson bakery next to the Oberlin SJW college stuff from a over a month. The bakery stopped a couple of shoplifters and prosecuted them. They ultimately plead guilty. The college encouraged, and some professors participated in, protests of the racism of the bakery owners. This libel and slander resulted in great economic and reputational harm to the bakery and owners. They sued and won millions of dollars from the college. See also here.

I found this in my overloaded queue of things to blog about:

Here’s Oberlin’s litigation position, from its court filings: “Gibson bakery’s archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests. The guilt or innocence of the students is irrelevant to both the root cause of the protests and this litigation.” Get that? Whether the students accused of shoplifting had actually been shoplifting or not was irrelevant to whether it was fair to accuse the store of racism etc for detaining the students as shoplifters. The fault lay with the bakery owners for daring to actually stop and prosecute shoplifters!

Wow! The college lawyers actual said that. Not only is chasing and detaining shoplifters “archaic” but the guilt of the students is irrelevant. An ordinary person who would claim this in my presence would get a laugh and an immediate dismissal from me as having crap for brains. But a lawyer, supposedly trained to respect the law, claiming this is mind boggling.

What color is the sky in their universe? What sort of twisted world view thinks they can get away with this? These are the crazy years prophesized of by Heinlein. Either this is the end of times for rational thought or it is the wake up call for the adults to take charge.

Quote of the day—MJ @morganisawizard

if who the president is actually scares you then clearly that office has way too much power

MJ @morganisawizard
Tweeted on July 24, 2019
[You would think this is obvious in hindsight and clearly applies equal to any of the half dozen or so political parties I can think of who conceivably could hold the office. But somehow there is a substantial number of people do not think it applies when one of their tribe is in power.

For some reason that scares me as much as the amount of power the president holds. How can people be so blind?—Joe]

The left is preparing for Civil War II

Via email from Chet.

‘If others have rifles, we’ll have rifles’: why US leftist groups are taking up arms

Armed antifascists groups say they want to protect events from malicious and potentially armed groups – an increasingly common phenomenon

The van lumbered down one of Seattle’s many steep hills. A half dozen people packed inside but despite the heat, most wore long pants and boots, and several sported black hoodies. The atmosphere was subdued, except for the occasional joke. It wasn’t so much tension as seriousness – there was work to be done.

The people in the van are members of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (PSJBGC). Their stated aim is to fight white supremacy and build community defense in America’s Pacific north-west, and their presence has become a fixture of protests in the Seattle and Tacoma areas, where the group is often invited to provide security against rightwing aggression.

We live in interesting times with multiple sides believing they have the moral high ground in a conflict of visions. When have we heard this before? Maybe in the 1860s?

Quote of the day—Cam Edwards

Once those activists believed the high court was on their side, their willingness to change their unconstitutional laws would vanish faster than you can say “come and take them”. Hopefully the Supreme Court sees through the transparent plans of the gun control activists and will move ahead with the New York City case.

Cam Edwards
July 23, 2019
New York City Still Trying to Avoid A SCOTUS Fight Over Gun Law
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Barr

The world in which most liberals live is one of magic and fairytales — where socialist systems have starved millions of people and destroyed every economy forced into its model, but which certainly will work the next time. It is a world in which using fascist tactics to silence opponents actually makes you an anti-fascist; and where presidential candidates can promise everything for everyone, and still have enough money left over to cut taxes. In this fantasy land, anything is possible if you just feel it to be true.

Bob Barr
July 24, 2019
The Elephant in the Gun-Control Room
[Via Matthew Bracken.—Joe]

When Prophecy Fails

Watch this (via Kevin):

Then read the book:

From a sociological perspective this is no different than a doomsday cult. And when the prophecy failed to materialize the reaction from the Democrats in their bubble is exactly as predicted:

Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen?  The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.  Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

Short of some religious faiths this has to be one of the largest instances of this phenomena in human history.

These people need intervention. If one or more of these five conditions is broken the hold of the cult on these people will be released. The question is whether we can accomplish this without ripping our nation apart.

Quote of the day—Greg Coppola

I look at search. And I look at Google News. And I look at what it’s doing. And I see Google executives go to congress and say that, “It’s not manipulated. It’s not political.” And I’m just so sure that’s not true.

Greg Coppola
Senior Software Engineer, Google Assistant
July 2019
[Also, a follow up from Coppola. He announces has been suspended from his job at Google. Then he goes on explore the hypothesis that Google News has a political bias using data science, with only publicly available information and tools.

Via email from Chet.—Joe]