@interesting it's too stupid not to be real. Twitter(dot)com and add
'
/CNN/status/1156916257834381312
'
First response is entertaining though
'
Side note - still not a fan of this "no urls in the comments" thing
So my special needs cousins' elementary school was targeted by Hamas missiles--this gets maybe a day or two of attention--but according to that CNN article ROBOTS being RACIST gets WEEKS of attention? Has the fucking world gone insane?
I'm done, I just cant. I'm turning off my phone and binge watching Friends for the rest of the night. I just can't deal with any more insanity tonight.
Unfortunately stupid joined with trigger words sells. I was going to post a link to a cat video but the url things have gotten even more severe and now it outright deletes comments when you try to post them. -_-
Ok- so even their own lead in makes it SEEM like they mean “white” monotone- but from what I gather they are talking about “white” as in flesh tone. It’s somewhat confusing as they reference white robots like EVE from Wally who are white white- but they also say pink (white) and say “humanoid robots.” So im not 100% sure but I will say this either way:
Many cultures, even those with naturally darker skin, have cultural bias towards lighter skin tone compare to darker tones among the same race. Even Europeans historically favored pale “white” skin to tanned “white” skin. It’s believed the shift to tan being in has to do with how pale skin would once be more rare and a sign of wealth whereas now having the ability and income to be outdoors is a sign of wealth and or health. Who knows though? Even the actual monotone colors black and white- white is often preferred as light is to dark in a room. I don’t think we can say this is racist by itself.
What IS interesting in their study though- is that when shown rapid moving video images and given a light gun, participants were told to shoot any robot they saw holding a gun. The participants were more likely to shoot a black colored robot with no gun, than a white robot with a gun. Now- I don’t know the test well so I can’t say it isn’t flawed- and there are many ways the test could itself be set up so that a bias would occur simply because of how it is done, such as making black robots easier to see or placing black robots right after white so that slow reactions would cause the person to mean to shoot the white armed robot but not act until the black robot was in frame. I can’t say.
But if we assume the test is well administered and designed- that’s very interesting. and either way it is worth studying. It doesn’t mean that racial bias is the motivator- or that it isn’t. But it does indicate there may be SOMETHING about how the eye works or the average brain works which makes it so that the black robot gets noticed or stands out or seems dangerous. I mean- the color “black” is often associated with evil and monsters and villains and creepy bugs and nighttime and demons so on and on. So maybe THAT is a factor- or the unknown it represents? Can’t say.
I think it’s irresponsible at this point in the research to say a seeming bias to one color is itself a sign of racial bias- but I think as a theory it is worth testing. Either way if there IS some kind of bias or response specific to robots- figuring that out could be key to designing and implementing robots in the future to serve people. Knowing bright green robots make people feel uneasy and turquoise ones put them at rest would be good to know for a robot care taker for example.
But if a bias does exist in robots it’s worth looking into wether such bias translates to humans and how. Figuring that out and the root could help us deal with such biases. Although black cats were long held in bias too- and the most popular color for dogs is reddish browns, with red haired dogs averaging faster adoptions than others.
It’s also worth noting that the bias they believe they observed between very dark and light tone robots? When they introduced robots of intermediate tones between the two the bias in the experiments almost completely disappeared. So while there’s lots of interesting data I think it’s premature to say that people are racist against robots. When it comes to flesh colored robots designed to look like actual humans- I think it’s natural to assume the same biases people have concours or subconsciously towards other humans would show themselves. I THINK- but that’s a question their study didn’t try to answer so it’s just a guess and actual data could contradict that.
Say why did they make all of the cleaning robots like Roomba black ? I need to gather a few dozen people together and shut down a freeway , you know, so that the people stuck there will have sympathy for my cause.
I hate racism, I hate the real nazis and the modern nazis , to hell with the kkk, but I get static for hating Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA witch are both terrorist groups , I believe in equality for everyone but I think modern feminism has taken a huge dive into hate. I really believe racial tension was less in the 80 & 90s. I really thought that things would have gotten better but it seem like race relations went into reverse around 2000 and keep getting worse . I think some of the shit the media pulls ,hurts both blacks and whites.
To clarify my views on race, on of my girls had a date for a school dance and was afraid to tell me that the guy is black. We were sitting and watching tv together and bullshiting about all kinds of stuff. She asked me what I thought of one of their sister's friends who happend to be dating one of their other friends. I told her that he was a good guy and I wish her older sister was dating him instead of the piece of shit that she was dating who was white. She was absolutely shocked. I told her I would rather see you with a decent black guy than a piece of shit white guy. That's about how racist I am. Each person has to be judged on their own merits, not the color of their skin.
@itsamemaria I hope my essay made things clear. Some times I don't communicate complete thoughts through typing, I think that I typed something that I hadn't .
Oh yeah my wow was at the stupid headline from CNN.. butvthanks for sharing, I totally agree with you. And thisbis an example. I hate tacism too, but Robots are part of it now too? Really? Not to mention the idiotic twitter aars when something that is not is made into racism. Yesterday I heard something from Joe Rogan podcast that is completely true. Real outrage about important stuff it is not going to be taken seriously if sompe people cry wolf about stupid stuff.
1Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
Classic, CNN is asking a legit question based on actual science, and for some people it's like a dog whistle in a frequency that only they can hear, so they cut off the piece of the posting that actually hints to the actual science behind it and declare it the typical SJW whining and ridicule it. IUn this respect It's helpful of course to confuse something you sit on to take a leak or dump to something specifically mimicking a human being, like in the (cut-off) picture.
Of course most people would just look at it and say: yup, makes sense, then look at the science behind and say: wow, really, this does make sense.
You do realize the guy in the post was not calling toilets robots and that it was a completely separate comparison, right?
'
I mean, obviously when you are already inflamed and want to lecture people on their world views, it's helpful to confuse someone actually calling a toilet a robot with someone making a separate comparison for the sake of humor (like in the picture). That way you can tell everyone what a horrible human being they are without actually acknowledging that maybe they DID read the science and STILL disagree.
'
As an aside - the Japanese have been building sex dolls that look like the Japanese (or like anime characters) for quite a long time. Have you tried explaining to them what pieces of garbage they are for doing so? I'm sure they'd appreciate your insights
5
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
Oh I love it how you're lecturing me not to to lecture people. You are one of the least reflecting persons I've ever met, and one of the least capable of reading. True president material.
Oh, and I know ONE person who has definitely not looked up the bit of science mentioned above. And now go lecture your hamster or whatever.
What?
'
I mean.... What?
'
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you deliberately misunderstand them (ie: toilets = robots), ignore any points they make, hurl unfounded accusations at them, and then bring their hamsters into it. Granted, that may make you politician material, which is apparently a concern(????), but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
'
Your first comment really implied you wanted people to acknowledge your point of view as the right one, and it helps if you can convince them you're not just spouting nonsense. Just a thought.
@halfdeadhammerhead I've read through a lot of your comments. I think you care very deeply about your beliefs and you're very passionate about communicating those beliefs, but you run into trouble with the tone you use--you come across as extremely aggressive and condescending. If you worked on the tone you used, you might see your discussions with people on this website lean in a much more positive direction.
No no way. I don't always agree with @halfdeadhammerhead but I love the responses. The tone is sarcasm and some of the insults are great. Plus, once in awhile there's a word or two thrown in that I have to look up, and I like expanding my vocabulary even if I suck at spelling . I have been on the receiving end of some of those insults. I agree with @xvarnah's positition in this meme's comments, sorry about that halfdeadhammerhead
@popsy tbh I found the dog whistle bit clever but after that it kind of devolved for me into a lot of projection and then I feel @interesting's comment comes into play.
'
It doesn't help that as far as I can tell no one mentioned SJW's, and he was making a lot of his statements based on the possible misunderstanding that Crowder was referring to toilets as robots, and the assumption (presented as fact) that people hadn't read the science side of CNN's clickbait.
'
At that point it lost all credibility to me, and his sheer tone and approach was not grounded anywhere in attempting to have a civilized conversation about it. He comes in guns blazing and I've found often gets very huffy when people respond in kind. Not an attack on him (though apparently he'd be fine with that?), just my genuine observation. He had an opportunity to defend his side, but instead fell into the usual tactic of citing irrelevancies, which largely undermines any point he might have made
Plus he brought my hamster into it. I don't have a hamster, but if I did, that's a line you don't cross. He's a lovely hamster and fully appreciates any lectures I give him
Lol. A good read. @xvarnah- I don’t mean this to be insulting or combative, and I can’t speak for hammerhead- but I think you did what you accused hammer of doing. When I read their response about toilets and robots it reads to mean as sarcastic hyperbole. Not that they actually believe a person confused a toilet and a robot- but using that as an example of the sort of attitude that many actually have in which they would compare the two perhaps even in half jest. The point behind that being that the comparison misses the point- that it implies the factor in the study and the supposed racism is directed towards RGB color pallets of inanimate objects instead of the fact that it’s referring to projection of bias towards anthropomorphized machines.
The overall point I saw was similar to one I made above in which the study indicates a bias towards humanoid robots of flesh tone pallets primarily, and raises questions about bias wether racial or through other perception or cognitive operation towards darker flesh tones.
It’s irresponsible for them to declare it a finding of racism- the study doesn’t answer wether the observed subjects have a bias towards robots because of a bias in humans, or if there is a general color bias which applies equally to robots or humans or any other object.
That is to say- does racism in humans towards humans carry over and that is why the study seemed to observe a bias against darker tones in robots- or is there an underlying general bias which isn’t racial but color/tone dependent and humans might apply this bias to anything regardless of what it is simply because those tones are linked to such responses- with the correlation between certain “races” and those tones possibly being coincidental?
That's fair, guest_, although I don't read it that way at all haha. And if that was the case, then, again, he completely obliterated his chance to correct me, instead choosing to quash my dreams of ever running the white house.
'
Tbh I imagine racism in a racist human would be present and directed at humanoid robots as well.
'
But the implication that robots being designed to have lighter skin as an example of racism is, to me, bigoted in and of itself. Especially since most people involved in robotics in history are, likely, white or lighter skinned. Granted this is an assumption on my part, but all the robotics/design teams I've seen tend to largely consist of lighter skin tones - be it white, Asian, etc.
This is relevant because people like to see themselves mirrored in their work and surroundings. Actually, not just people: it's something observed in several animal species, including rats, and is actually survival based in it's origins.
'
My point is saying that someone designing a robot to have white skin makes that person a racist is no different than saying someone is homophobic because they wrote a character who wasn't gay. Maybe, in a minority of cases, that would be accurate, but the vast majority of the time it doesn't apply. They did it the way they did it because that's what occurred to them to do, not because they thought "hey, let's make sure we DON'T make a black robot, whatever happens."
'
Alternatively they may be marketing them to a largely whiter audience. Is it racist for someone to be more drawn to a light skinned robot? If that's the case, then isn't it equally racist for someone with dark skin to want a dark skinned robot?
Tbh it sounds like whatever science they've put into this, they could have pointed out their observations without using racism as a clickbait trigger.
'
It is, as you said, irresponsible on their part, and in my mind it GREATLY devalues the term "racism," which makes it that much harder for people genuinely being suppressed to be taken seriously or heard.
'
'
As a side note since I'm a bit scattered - I think I did mention your comments as being a better example of arguing the point without devaluing or going on the attack. If not then I meant to. I don't have a problem with people being on the other side - as with most things it all comes down to the presentation
hammerhead is just a fucking troll, same as dcottingham. In all my interactions with him, he came across as an extremely rude cunt, never adequately explained his positions, slighted and did not address my arguments, and always was the first to throw insults.
So fuck dealing with that guy. If he will not argue in good faith, and he never will, ignore the dumbass.
@xvarnah- I agree that the term racism is used often and imprecisely. Racism is a display of prejudice based on race, with a component being the belief ones own race is superior. Prejudice is a preconceived notion not based in experience or sound reason. That is clearly different than racial bias. Bias can be based in reason or not. Bias can involve experience or not, and bias doesn’t contain a component of superiority- merely preference.
One can display bias against people of a certain race without being racist- not saying a bias or racial bias is something to aspire to- but it’s not racist. It’s a matter of precision not moral judgment. It’s incorrect to call a pedophile a child molestor- one can be a pedophile for simply being attracted to children. You don’t even have to look at a single picture of a child- dressing an adult as a child because the idea of the child is a turn on would qualify one as a pedophile. To be a child molestor one must actually assault a child. The fact the distinction is important doesn’t mean it’s a defense or condones the thing- but it’s important to distinguish the terms lest we loose the precision of language to appropriately describe them.
Not only is it not racist it's genuinely present in every human being. It's our preferences, subconscious or not. What we're drawn to and what appeals to us is shaped by both our genes and our upbringing. Much like female superheroes or in video games. The creators of them were by and large males, targeting a male demographic. Their creation of male characters is not sexist, even if they continue to do so exclusively if that's what they want to do. It generally only really becomes sexism if they deliberately try and prevent, undermine, or falsely represent female characters.
'
Exclusion throughout creation does not undeniably equate to an "ism" anymore than inclusion guarantees to counter that.
'
Can use disney as an example here: they did have black characters in the original fantasia during the now censored centaur piece. However they are depicted as servants, ugly, spastic, or enslaved. Leaving them out of the other videos wasn't necessarily racist, but including them in this
Manner definitely was.
'
^ it seems unfortunate that that was literally about all I had left to say when I ran out of characters. So now it gets it's own comment
It begins to get a bit muddled but we lately agree. For instance- if all cartoons are made by ducks, because ducks are biased towards ducks, and all cartoons depict geese negatively- because ducks have a bias perception of geese- so ducks and geese growing up on those cartoons begin to believe that ducks are better than geese- that creation bias how now created a cultural bias which could become racism but isn’t necessarily racist...
But if the ducks are AWARE they are bias towards geese, and the ducks are AWARE that their bias is reinforcing or creating negative perceptions of geese- it isn’t racist for ducks to continue to do so necessarily- but it is no longer subconscious or unconscious bias either. It’s now a choice. Ducks can’t write as though they are geese but they can be mindful that their singular perspective can be expanded to better reflect a reality instead of a narrow view of things. More over, getting more geese to work in animation would add a geese perspective to things and allow geese to have some representation as well. Not just adding geese to have geese of course- but making it a point to hire qualified geese in positions where they can add their perspectives.
It only made him more powerful.
'
/CNN/status/1156916257834381312
'
First response is entertaining though
'
Side note - still not a fan of this "no urls in the comments" thing
Of course most people would just look at it and say: yup, makes sense, then look at the science behind and say: wow, really, this does make sense.
'
I mean, obviously when you are already inflamed and want to lecture people on their world views, it's helpful to confuse someone actually calling a toilet a robot with someone making a separate comparison for the sake of humor (like in the picture). That way you can tell everyone what a horrible human being they are without actually acknowledging that maybe they DID read the science and STILL disagree.
'
As an aside - the Japanese have been building sex dolls that look like the Japanese (or like anime characters) for quite a long time. Have you tried explaining to them what pieces of garbage they are for doing so? I'm sure they'd appreciate your insights
Oh, and I know ONE person who has definitely not looked up the bit of science mentioned above. And now go lecture your hamster or whatever.
'
I mean.... What?
'
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you deliberately misunderstand them (ie: toilets = robots), ignore any points they make, hurl unfounded accusations at them, and then bring their hamsters into it. Granted, that may make you politician material, which is apparently a concern(????), but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
'
Your first comment really implied you wanted people to acknowledge your point of view as the right one, and it helps if you can convince them you're not just spouting nonsense. Just a thought.
'
It doesn't help that as far as I can tell no one mentioned SJW's, and he was making a lot of his statements based on the possible misunderstanding that Crowder was referring to toilets as robots, and the assumption (presented as fact) that people hadn't read the science side of CNN's clickbait.
'
At that point it lost all credibility to me, and his sheer tone and approach was not grounded anywhere in attempting to have a civilized conversation about it. He comes in guns blazing and I've found often gets very huffy when people respond in kind. Not an attack on him (though apparently he'd be fine with that?), just my genuine observation. He had an opportunity to defend his side, but instead fell into the usual tactic of citing irrelevancies, which largely undermines any point he might have made
'
Tbh I imagine racism in a racist human would be present and directed at humanoid robots as well.
'
But the implication that robots being designed to have lighter skin as an example of racism is, to me, bigoted in and of itself. Especially since most people involved in robotics in history are, likely, white or lighter skinned. Granted this is an assumption on my part, but all the robotics/design teams I've seen tend to largely consist of lighter skin tones - be it white, Asian, etc.
'
My point is saying that someone designing a robot to have white skin makes that person a racist is no different than saying someone is homophobic because they wrote a character who wasn't gay. Maybe, in a minority of cases, that would be accurate, but the vast majority of the time it doesn't apply. They did it the way they did it because that's what occurred to them to do, not because they thought "hey, let's make sure we DON'T make a black robot, whatever happens."
'
Alternatively they may be marketing them to a largely whiter audience. Is it racist for someone to be more drawn to a light skinned robot? If that's the case, then isn't it equally racist for someone with dark skin to want a dark skinned robot?
'
It is, as you said, irresponsible on their part, and in my mind it GREATLY devalues the term "racism," which makes it that much harder for people genuinely being suppressed to be taken seriously or heard.
'
'
As a side note since I'm a bit scattered - I think I did mention your comments as being a better example of arguing the point without devaluing or going on the attack. If not then I meant to. I don't have a problem with people being on the other side - as with most things it all comes down to the presentation
So fuck dealing with that guy. If he will not argue in good faith, and he never will, ignore the dumbass.
'
Exclusion throughout creation does not undeniably equate to an "ism" anymore than inclusion guarantees to counter that.
'
Can use disney as an example here: they did have black characters in the original fantasia during the now censored centaur piece. However they are depicted as servants, ugly, spastic, or enslaved. Leaving them out of the other videos wasn't necessarily racist, but including them in this
'
^ it seems unfortunate that that was literally about all I had left to say when I ran out of characters. So now it gets it's own comment