> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]
So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
Absolutely: refusing to provide service to gays, when you provide the same services to other people just because they are not gay, is indeed literally intolerant, without your scare-quotes or any other qualification.
What's so hard for you to understand about that?
If you're trying to argue for some slippery weaselly nuanced non-standard definition of "intolerant" which excludes bigoted bakers that you just pulled out of your butt, remember that it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and also excuses gay couples for not tolerating homophobic bakers.
It's not my responsibility to provide you with the standard definitions of common English words, when you're obviously capable of googling them yourself, and obviously misunderstanding them on purpose, and obviously not arguing in good faith. Look it up on Wikipedia yourself.
The baker in your chosen example is very convenient in that they are clearly anti-gay. Consider the the real life examples of bakers who are allegedly happy to serve gay couples, but believe that baking a cake for a gay couple's wedding would be a speech act in which they do not wish to engage, or a hotel providing 'separate but equal' treatment to people of colour. These things strike me as problematic, but clearly were not obviously so to the legal system of the time.
I think you're likely to run into the general issue that people seldom phrase their motives so as to make themselves sound unreasonable or intolerant.
The baker's argument was that it wasn't the same service. They would have baked them a cake; but they didn't cakes with "jim and john's wedding" written on them, in the same way you wouldn't bake a cake with the 14 words on it, even if you'd bake a cake for Richard Spencer.
I don't bake cakes for Nazis, no matter how many words they want on it. Simple as that. Not even cupcakes. No nuances.
It's pretty obvious when the baker and their supporters start bending over backwards to make nuanced hypothetical situations and ridiculous unbelievable qualifications, that they aren't making good faith arguments. If their best and most honest argument is that their bible told them to be intolerant bigots, then that's their problem for choosing to take their marching orders from that particular bible, while choosing to do business in that particular state which bans discrimination. The fact that your bible tells you to do something illegal is certainly no excuse for stoning your wife to death or killing gays, either.
So we should have the conversation in which everyone has to make the best arguments they can, instead of trying to go recursively meta with the Paradox of Tolerance, accusing the gays of being intolerant of the baker's intolerance. Simply judge them all on the merits of their best arguments and intellectual honesty and willingness to address valid counter-arguments.
I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith.
Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity.
Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.
The Supreme Court already judged the anti-gay-marriage bigots on the merits of their arguments, and they were found lacking. They brought their best arguments, and they weren't good enough. That is evidence that supports my intuition. If you have some profound new anti-gay argument that nobody's already heard countless times already, they why don't you lay it on us and change our minds?
And yes, regardless of your distrust and disbelief in me, I have already logically thought about it a lot. I'm just not writing out every step of my logical thought process right now, and I won't or dang will ding me. So you'll have to take my word that I'm smart enough to figure it out logically for myself. Even most children can come to the same conclusions as I did, if they haven't been indoctrinated to hate.
I don't owe the anti-gay-marriage bigots the respect of rehashing and yet again arguing against their tired old disproven arguments and desperate Gish Gallops. It boils down to the bible told them to be bigots. They have no better arguments.
That's why the baker case is such a great example of how to properly resolve the Paradox of Tolerance.
>The Supreme Court already judged the anti-gay-marriage bigots on the merits of their arguments, and they were found lacking.
That differs from what happened in reality. The Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in favor of Phillip's right to refuse to bake the gay couple a cake. It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that found them to be discriminating. That ruling was overturned when brought in front of the Supreme Court.
>In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. [0]
Can you explain how you are balancing the notion of freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech here?
It sounds to me like you're are arguing that those rights aren't worth protecting for the baker and you are choosing to protect the customer's right to ... what exactly? What "right" is being protected in your analysis?
Only as long as it's intolerance of real, non-contrived intolerance, which in this case it clearly is.
Intolerance of gays is real intolerance, because it can't be logically justified, and it's based on religious bigotry instead of any legitimate justification.
Contrived intolerance is the baker claiming other people are intolerant of the baker's real intolerance of gays. You're not entitled to that kind of intolerance.
Is it your opinion that "religious bigotry" is not protected by the Constitution?
How are you going to define that outside your preferred scenario of bigotry against gays? Do you intend to insist (by law) that Orthodox Jews, for example, work on Saturdays because that is more convenient for you and that that they are being intolerant of your beliefs for no rational reason?
What about Orthodox Jewish wedding photographer? Are they required to work for you on a Saturday or is it OK for them too refuse you service based on their religious beliefs?
There's a huge difference between discriminating against a day and a gay: you can discriminate against a day because it's Saturday, but you can't discriminating against a person because they're gay.
It's ok for Jews to be Saturday-intolerant, just as many Christians are Sunday-intolerant. Days don't have feelings or human rights. And there's not a long history of discrimination and institutionalized biases against Saturday, the way there are against gays.
In both cases the vendor is refusing to conduct business with the customer due to religious beliefs. Why do you think it is OK for the customer to have to find a new photographer in one case but not a different baker in the other?
I really have a hard time with the idea that the government is expected to pick the "right" set of beliefs to back on what should just be a voluntary transaction. Either both parties agree to conduct business or they don't. I realize that a laissez faire approach to commerce is not what we have today but I would prefer it over asking the government to mediate. And I do realize that would allow people and businesses to discriminate, but that just represents a business opportunity for someone else.
In the case of the photographer, the customer isn't being shamed, shunned, and stigmatized. The government definitely has a role here and should intervene in such cases in order to ensure that businesses treat customers equally and respectably.
Just think about the way modern media companies constantly shame and stigmatize people. How are you going to even define when someone is "shamed" or "stigmatized"? Aren't there people who should be shamed and stigmatized?
This seems completely unworkable and guaranteed to make absolutely no one happy other than the lawyers making money off of all the frivolous legal disputes.
Yeah, you have a good point. My opinions are pretty recently formed on this area so I'm probably off-base, and it was interesting hearing your perspective. Fortunately I'm not a judge! :-)
> Only as long as it's intolerance of real, non-contrived intolerance...
And this is where it all falls down. Any belief system which conflicts with your own is a system which is expressing “intolerance” to your belief system.
The whole idea is a crock in my opinion, as a way for one person to scream down another because they are the one who is being intolerant.
There is a lot of hate in the world, and fighting words should be shut down clearly. But this “intolerance” argument is extremely weak the way I see it, as is used as a way to hate and threaten harm against people with a different belief system, a belief system which may not have anything to do with hating or physically harming people.
>And this is where it all falls down. Any belief system which conflicts with your own is a system which is expressing “intolerance” to your belief system.
Not true. Belief systems can conflict without calling for each other's destruction, or discrimination and cruelty against each other's followers.
But the ones that do call for that kind of behavior, like religion calls for discrimination against gays and cruelty towards women, don't have the right to complain about people who they discriminate against (and other non-bigoted allies) not tolerating their discrimination.
> ... discrimination and cruelty against each other's followers.
A belief system is--by definition--discrimination against contrary beliefs, and therefore, followers of those contrary beliefs. And one definition of "cruelty" (e.g. to women - by denying full and free access to abortions) might be the inverse of someone else's definition of "cruelty" (e.g. to unborn children - by aborting them).
Someone can presume that they hold the absolute claim to the "truth" of which side is cruel, and which side is intolerant, but as human beings we simply do not and cannot know the truth of the matter.
So the problem I have is, when faced with such a dilemma, calling for violence against someone in the name of being "intolerant to intolerance".
I actually think you are more possibly to make mistakes in R than in Excel. Because in Excel you always see the results directly,
and you can even easily catch an anomaly in a single cell.
But in R it takes one more step to see the results, and you probably won't see results of all the rows directly.
Especially when R really likes to carry on chugging along with your analysis spitting out nonsense values when it should have failed on something 50 lines ago.
So you think all Google needs to do is just filtering out websites blocked by the Chinese government? Really?
You have a underlying lack of understanding how censorship works. They don't just block websites. The Chinese government wants to filtering out results they don't like on accessible websites.
> Our best surgeons in the U.S. should fly to China to help them with organ transportation. Without us, they will do organ transportation using those organs anyway. But we have better technology and higher successful rate. So why don't we just go there to help them save more lives?
This number does not mean much. In the old days, more Chinese students rely on full scholarship to study in the US. Now, more and more rich Chinese kids (mostly come with very poor academic background) can study in the US.
So the overall number does not reflect "brain drain", because not all international students can be counted in "global talent". A more meaningful number should only count those graduated from good universities, or having scholarship etc.
No, what parent is saying is that there is a huge difference between a rich Chinese kid studying political science and a workin class Chinese kid studying computer science on a PhD stipend. The former has boomed in the last 10 years while the latter was pretty constant for the last 20+.
Working class Chinese family in many cities now could also afford a two year master program(e.g Stony Brook U only cost me about RMB 300k for the entire Master with a decent CS program). My family is just normal working class with yearly income about 100k RMB. It’s not quite accurate to attribute all masters to “Rich” because ordinary income has been flying in China
I mean, this speaks to the one child policy as well as the value put on education in Asia. From a western perspective having to spend 3x annual household income on a masters degree would be absurd.
China has a very high savings rate and often a dearth of investment opportunities for that money (a bubbly real estate market or a insider trading heavy stock market), education abroad can provide pretty good returns comparatively.
True, but then I bet those students are still more into studying STEM than their richer counterparts who are more likely studying liberal arts or biz subjects.
For each individual crime there probably is only one or a small number of perpetrators. You can't just say... hey we found 1000 (or even 5) of you face matched for a single crime (assault) which you almost certainly (or even probably) didn't commit, but after a search or warrant some of you appear to have committed a different other crime (drug possession,
tax evasion, public urination, evading arrest, immigration status) so go to jail and wait for court.
Once police have the right to search, enter, confiscate. and arrest probable cause is out the window.
They match faces out of a crowd for criminals, but to be a criminal you have to have committed a specific crime... usually that means a single person. For any one crime, they are looking for a single person and that's worst case for false positive recognition. For a large sample set 50k-1000k, they are lucky they don't match any one person to multiple criminals (birthday paradox) ... that would be obviously disqualifying.
I suppose it could be worse and they just take an aggregate face of all (accused?) criminals or for particular crimes (white collar?) and match against that... hey your skin was brown, or hey you didn't shave... you appear Male.
"cherry picked"? There is no doubt that data.table is generally way faster than dplyr, unless you cherry pick a few use cases.
The problem is that dplyr is much slower than data.table and RStudio is promoting tidyverse too much to make the slower choice a default for many users.
Depending on the size of your data, you might not care that dplyr is slower than data.table. If you're better at writing/composing dplyr, you can often make up the speed difference between the two in terms of the savings in time spent writing and reading code. And if your data is that large, there are solutions like dbplyr out there to run dplyr code on various backends and offload the computation outside of R.
In practice, if there's ever a case that there's "too much" data such that dplyr starts to hang (e.g. millions of rows, hundreds of columns), you would get better value by setting up a database first with the data. Which you can then query with dbplyr!
Yeah, I'm surprised we're having performance arguments about these two libraries with mostly undefined performance characteristics which both run on a single-threaded runtime.
data.table’s OpenMP stuff is pretty haphazard, and can’t parallelise anything that calls back into R code. And anything outside of this involving forking lots has just been painful every time I’ve seen it, and again, way slower than doing it on a more performant platform up front.
> If you're better at writing/composing dplyr, you can often make up the speed difference between the two in terms of the savings in time spent writing and reading code.
dplyr syntax is definitely more concise and readable than base R, but comparing to data.table I don't think it has any advantage in terms of saving time writing or reading code.
I think the article sort of punts on providing examples of a complicated set of operations on a data frame. dplyr's author provides what I think is a good example of the differences between data.table and dplyr on a reasonably complex problem:
I feel like the first example is far more readable than the second. People can disagree on this, but the adoption rates of dplyr versus data.table do suggest (don't prove, but suggest) that the consensus on the issue leans towards dplyr. As we've noted, people certainly aren't adopting dplyr for the speed.
I honestly find that less readable than Hadley's version, especially turning "by = cut" into "cut." This is where terseness really cuts into readability (and positional arguments is one of my least favorite features about R in terms of long-term readability of code).
It’s right on this issue, but the Tidyverse is a collection of packages, and most are speedy. Discussing the rare case that supports an argument but neglecting the numerous others that do not support it is the definition of cherry picking.
And I don’t expect RStudio to say, “we have this collection, which works fine for most users, except in this case you should replace package x with y, or in this corner case you might like package z.”
RStudio doesn’t need to promote a fragmented ecosystem if they don’t want to, it won’t cause the death of R.
See my other comment, but I would be curious to know how many users actually could detect the speed difference between a data.table and a tidy solution. Speaks to how small most datasets really are IMO
That's not how the way the US Government behaves. Publicly criticizing is OK.
If you want clues to who they really are insidious look at Cointelpro and how the police will incite peaceful gatherings into mobs to justify shutting them down and killing people.
You can stand on a soapbox and criticize until you are blue in the face, but try to make an active difference and you will be murdered like the Black Panthers.
This is not exclusive to USA. Since democracies can't indiscriminately arrest dissidents without appearing totalitarian, their workaround is disrupting those movements to criminalize them.
In Mexico, gasoline prices became unregulated in 2017. Historically, governments have made oil a very sensitive national issue, so strong nation-wide opposition was expected. Except it didn't happen. The strategy was simple:
1. Organized looting began almost immediately. Looters were organized by Whatsapp, being told the time and place of the next looting.
2. Police stayed put, and some even participated in looting.
3. The press equated the looters with gasoline price hike protestors. In their narrative, looters were protestors, and vice-versa.
4. Public opinion disapproved of looting, and consequently disapproved of protestors.
> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]