Random News not worthy of own thread

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Len5
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu, 30. Jul 09, 12:54

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Len5 » Mon, 29. Mar 21, 14:59

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 23:21
Len5 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 22:55
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 21:21
Of course, an all white jury for all white cops charged with beating a black man... hopes are not high for justice. I do hope, though, that this gets more attention either way.
So... are you expecting injustice based on the colour of the skin?
Hardly unprecedented, especially in cases like this. And given the high frequency of racism displayed in St. Louis, odds are not good. So, no, not really.
I'm familiar with the narritive.
So based on something that's based on assumptions. Never mind.

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by clakclak » Mon, 29. Mar 21, 15:59

Len5 wrote:
Mon, 29. Mar 21, 14:59
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 23:21
Len5 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 22:55

So... are you expecting injustice based on the colour of the skin?
Hardly unprecedented, especially in cases like this. And given the high frequency of racism displayed in St. Louis, odds are not good. So, no, not really.
I'm familiar with the narritive.
So based on something that's based on assumptions. Never mind.
Are you also familiar with the long history of allegations against the St. Louis police department, not only from citizens, but even from black officers?
article from 2020 inlk below wrote:One of the nation's largest black police organizations is throwing its support behind a St. Louis law enforcement watchdog group that's accused the city's police department of fostering systematic racism.

The 9,000-member National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers released a statement praising the St. Louis Ethical Society of Police for calling out instances of alleged racism in the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, including blacks being passed over for promotions or being assaulted by white officers.

The Ethical Society of Police, created in 1972 to combat racism in the department, also voiced support for embattled St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who filed a lawsuit this month against the city and its police union alleging a coordinated, racist conspiracy to drive her from office.[...]
https://abcnews.go.com/US/national-blac ... d=68611060


Here are a few other highlights:

2021: St. Louis police officer calling black people the N-Word

2020: Barton [St. Louis Police Chief] Acknowledges Racial Divide In St. Louis County Police Department

2019: St Louis prosecutor refuses to accept cases from police officers accused of racism

2019: St. Louis sergeant says there are white supremacists on police force
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
red assassin
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
x3

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by red assassin » Mon, 29. Mar 21, 16:11

BaronVerde wrote:
Mon, 29. Mar 21, 12:18
A, ok, so not yet floating on its own and able to get out of the way.
Properly freed now:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56567985
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Mon, 29. Mar 21, 20:31

Len5 wrote:
Mon, 29. Mar 21, 14:59
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 23:21
Len5 wrote:
Sun, 28. Mar 21, 22:55

So... are you expecting injustice based on the colour of the skin?
Hardly unprecedented, especially in cases like this. And given the high frequency of racism displayed in St. Louis, odds are not good. So, no, not really.
I'm familiar with the narritive.
So based on something that's based on assumptions. Never mind.
Yeah... try familiarizing yourself with history, instead.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 09:01

Population in the US is so mixed compared to most western countries I'm impressed by how big racism is there. It means a very large portion of the population is composed by bad people or easily mind-controlled people (or both). Calling "blacks" a minority (edit: I mean, a numerical minority) in the US is just a lie, from my point of view.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 09:27

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 09:01
Population in the US is so mixed compared to most western countries I'm impressed by how big racism is there. It means a very large portion of the population is composed by bad people or easily mind-controlled people (or both). Calling "blacks" a minority (edit: I mean, a numerical minority) in the US is just a lie, from my point of view.
Well, no, not exactly. In the US, 76% of the population is white, 13% is black. The term "minority", in this case, means anything below 50%. The way population trends are going, whites are going to become a minority race in the US in 20-30 years, though will still be the largest demographic for some time still.

However, for the court case, it's absurd that they managed to pick a jury that's entirely white when the demographic makeup of St. Louis is 48% white and 43% black.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 10:32

13% isn't the definition of a minority, imho. Yes, it's a small number, but it's not so small. It's something like 40 million humans.
But, I guess, they're a much larger economical minority, and that's what really counts these days, apprently.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 11:19

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 10:32
13% isn't the definition of a minority, imho. Yes, it's a small number, but it's not so small. It's something like 40 million humans.
But, I guess, they're a much larger economical minority, and that's what really counts these days, apprently.
It's strictly a count of persons based on race. It's not a definition of worth or social class or anything else. Yes, they number in the millions but blacks do not account for more than 50% of the population. The same as republicans in both the senate and house are the minority, or that women are the majority and men are the minority in the US, and pretty much everywhere else.

Belonging to a minority group doesn't mean the person is somehow less than someone in the majority group or automatically designates some kind of subservience.

Of course, that doesn't account for how minorities are treated in the US. That's a whole other matter.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 13:12

'Race' is not a scientifc term, even in general biology it is just an informal expression of traits valid only in a context. In a human context it just manipulative and divisive.

Skincolour is very variable in all animal kingdom and among all species, for humans there is no black/white dichotomy, all shades in between exist (it is a huuuuge gene pool), and no statistics can be derived from that, doing so or using the term 'race' to distinguish a group of people from others bears the danger of 'racism' with all that is attached to it, division, discrimination, hate, mass-murder and genocide.

American language (and thus the search engine bubble) still uses the term 'race' just like other rudiments of a 'racist' society, in other languages (thinking of German and Spanish) it has been purged or is frowned upon and not being used in anthropologically relevant publications.

Yeah, trying to steer people (nobody specifically, I mean) away from sith thinking :-)

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 14:01

BaronVerde wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 13:12
'Race' is not a scientifc term, even in general biology it is just an informal expression of traits valid only in a context. In a human context it just manipulative and divisive.

Skincolour is very variable in all animal kingdom and among all species, for humans there is no black/white dichotomy, all shades in between exist (it is a huuuuge gene pool), and no statistics can be derived from that, doing so or using the term 'race' to distinguish a group of people from others bears the danger of 'racism' with all that is attached to it, division, discrimination, hate, mass-murder and genocide.

American language (and thus the search engine bubble) still uses the term 'race' just like other rudiments of a 'racist' society, in other languages (thinking of German and Spanish) it has been purged or is frowned upon and not being used in anthropologically relevant publications.

Yeah, trying to steer people (nobody specifically, I mean) away from sith thinking :-)
Maybe collecting census data is racist in itself. I know there was some light discussion on this point some time back. Regardless if it is or isn't, whether you want to call the identifier 'race', 'ethnicity', 'skin color', or whatever else, without the data points, there can be no proof of systemic racial inequalities without knowing the demographics of the people involved. To that point, I say it does far more good than harm when things like an all white jury is 17% more likely to convict a black man than a white man accused of the same crime, but that disparity disappears when at least one juror is black, are on the table.

If your argument is the US is racist, you won't see me disagreeing with you. It was certainly founded on white supremacy and that ideal persists today, especially among conservatives. But seeing that we aren't Faux News, it's highly unlikely we're going to change anyone's mind about it here.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 15:09

I think we basically agree, I just didn't want to attack specific people, that's why I stayed vague.

My argument is the concept of 'race' is artificial and belongs to the realm of determinism, belief and political manipulation, especially when limited to skin colour. Skin colour is not even a discriminating element because of its variability, irl there are no 'races' based on skin colour and no statistical argument can be derived from that. It is just pushing people into non-existent boxes for categorization, the term itself prepares discrimitatory thinking just by its use, that's why it should be avoided in relevant publications.

Or, skin colour is as much or less discriminating as hair or eye colour, length of toe nails, width of nostrils, relation of skull width to height (Ever heard of phrenology ? Nazis loved it ...). So I argue to just ignore it.

But yeah, among all societies, the US have a long way to go towards equality, and it doesn't seem to get better. Better education for everybody and for free !

--------------

Desparately searching a random news item ...

It is still not quite clear how and when humans reached the Americas back in the day. Bering strait, sea level low stand, ice cover, or from Oceania and Melanesia ?

Here's a work that fits into the picture of a mixed approach, migration over the sea in addition to the terrestrial way around the north, derived from a regional population in South America:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03 ... n-ancestry

We know people went by boat all the time, even Neandertals are thought to have had the ability:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
So much to "Neandertal thinking" ;-)

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 15:55

BaronVerde wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 15:09
It is still not quite clear how and when humans reached the Americas back in the day. Bering strait, sea level low stand, ice cover, or from Oceania and Melanesia ?
I thought I saw something about humans being around a lot longer, like back in the Pangea time period. There's certainly a lot of land animals that exist on multiple continents that predated known human interaction. It would stand to reason that the earliest evolution of humanity could have seen similar migration patterns. Would make sense if they were following food sources and got separated by continents before Pangea split apart.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by CBJ » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:03

Yeah, no. Your timescales are way, way out of kilter. Pangaea broke up about 175m years too long ago for there to have been humans.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:11

CBJ wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:03
Yeah, no. Your timescales are way, way out of kilter. Pangaea broke up about 175m years too long ago for there to have been humans.
That's true, that's when it started to break apart and took many millions of years to fully separate. I just have a vague recollection of an article I read that some evidence uncovered suggested humans were around a lot longer than previously estimated. Anyway, just offering it as a potential explanation. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and take a picture so we could all know for certain =p
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:23

Yep, just as @CBJ says, Pangea breaks up in the Jurassic, Homininae including humans, australopithecines, chimps emerge some ~7 million years ago. Humans, genus Homo is per definition related to actual stone tool use, which starts ~3My BP).

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:39

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:11
... I just have a vague recollection of an article I read that some evidence uncovered suggested humans were around a lot longer than previously estimated. ...
It might be that you mean Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern humans (AMH), whose dates have recently (oh, it's already 4 years back :roll: ) been pushed back by 100,000 years to ~300,000 years BP. The site is Jebel Irhoud.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:46

Millions of years are a lot of time to push them back, though.

For science, we should build a t-rex and see if it hunts humans. If it does, it means he sees them as preys, so humans were alive during those times.
Am I right? Yes? Ok, let's start building dinos!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:52

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:46
... Ok, let's start building dinos!
And spare no expense !
:D

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by Vertigo 7 » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 17:56

BaronVerde wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:39
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:11
... I just have a vague recollection of an article I read that some evidence uncovered suggested humans were around a lot longer than previously estimated. ...
It might be that you mean Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern humans (AMH), whose dates have recently (oh, it's already 4 years back :roll: ) been pushed back by 100,000 years to ~300,000 years BP. The site is Jebel Irhoud.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335
It very well could be. That's not something I actively follow. Just something that caught my eye once upon a time.

BTW, I did find a more plausible explanation. A supposed ice bridge that existed some 20k years ago connecting the Americas to Asia and provided a migration path for animals and nomadic hunters that could have followed.

The bridge is theorized to have existed until the end of the last ice age.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Random News not worthy of own thread

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 30. Mar 21, 18:47

Excellent point, @vertigo7, and it has for a cenrtury been the main hypothesis for how humans got to the Americas via Siberia.

Today - and with genetics at hand - that is all an ongoing discussion, with the 'classical' view setting the so-called Clovis culture as evidence for early human presence in the Americas, but they were already far south. All in all, the dates of find sites (some of the older ones vigorously disputed) and their geographical distribution doesn't quite fit the sea level fluctuations and climatic sequence at the end of the last glaciation and the early holocene.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat5473
And genetics as additional evidence paints a much more varied image. It probably wasn't only via the north, but also over the sea that humans reached America.

Recently (a year or 2 ago) I read a paper proposing that hunter gatherer groups didn't just use a continous land bridge, but hopped the islands. It was based on a find site on an Alaskan island, stone tool ensembles dating to 17,000 BP.

Apart from that, another find site called Chiquihuite Cave was claimed to document a human presence even 26.000 years ago, but that is heavily disputed (experts only :-)) and the evidence too weak for certainty. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and all that :gruebel:

I am not an expert in American prehistory, only following the news from time to time, but I'd generally colour me a hobby pre-historian 8) .

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”