[flagged]
Sounds like Counter-Strike
"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
31–40 of 83 posts
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#32[flagged]
On the contrary, if I learned something from the Rittenhouse case is that there's a type of person who, when stuff like this happens, doesn't care about video at all, they just grab the narrative and go with it.
I'm as liberal as they come and when I watched all the Rittenhouse videos, I thought it was pretty clear that he defended himself in a reasonable fashion when he was being attacked by a mob
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but it is deeply ironic for you of all people to be posting this given your statements on the ICE shooting not even 24 hours ago [1] [2]. You are quite literally the exact basis for this research in question. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546310 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546283
[flagged]
If you want to relitigate this please go do it in the other thread.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#34[flagged]
>speak for themselves. You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions. https://xcancel.com/doranmaul/status/2009308798159097922 https://xcancel.com/NewDayForNJ/status/2009395703634698358
Do you think an officer who feared for this life would have used a casual stance with one hand on the gun and the other with a phone, then casually walked away, or would he have held the gun with two hands as trained to make sure he hit his mark?
Or maybe your point is simply that because dissenters exist that their critiques are valid? There are also people who think the 2020 election was rigged simply because a loudmouth claims it to be. They’re wrong.
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#35Brings to mind the Errol Morris investigation of a pair of historic photos in which the photographer may or may not have altered the scene to amp up the drama.
https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/roger-fenton-valle...
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#36[flagged]
>speak for themselves. You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions. https://xcancel.com/doranmaul/status/2009308798159097922 https://xcancel.com/NewDayForNJ/status/2009395703634698358
it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#37Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#38(2012) in short they show people protest videos and tell each that the protest is about something different. Depending on their ‘inherent biases’ they answer questions about said protest differently. Ergo a video cannot “speak for itself”
Questions, yes, but specifically questions about the facts in the video (not merely "what should happen to the protesters or police?"). "As one would expect, these differences in case-disposition judgments are mirrored in the subjects’ responses to the fact-perception items. Whereas only 39% of the hierarchical communitarians perceived that the protestors were blocking the pedestrians in the abortion clinic condition…
I think you have to be careful with this as well, the word "blocking" in particular reminds me of a protest over the Israel/Gaza war that happened at my alma mater a couple years ago.
Protesters camped out at a central campus thoroughfare, and some protesters tried to stop people from walking through it. Not every protester did this and it wasn't done consistently by those who did, although some people avoided the area entirely just because they didn't want to deal with it. There were certainly other ways to travel from point A to point B on campus, just slightly longer and less convenient ones.
Were people "blocked" from walking through campus? Without disagreeing on any of the above facts, whether people agreed that someone was "blocked" largely came down to who was on each side. So you end up in this annoying semantic argument over what "blocked" means, where people are just using motivated reasoning based on who they want to be the bad actor.
Then you have another layer of disagreement - is it the responsibility of someone walking through campus to make a tiny effort to walk a few minutes out of their way and avoid instigating or escalating? Or do they have every right to walk through a public campus they're a student at, and anyone even slightly getting in their way is in the wrong? This feels closer to a principle people could have a consistent belief about, but again, people's opinions were 100% predictable based on which side of the protest they agreed with
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
>speak for themselves. You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions. https://xcancel.com/doranmaul/status/2009308798159097922 https://xcancel.com/NewDayForNJ/status/2009395703634698358
it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true
I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever evidence "speaks for themselves", and anyone who disagrees are lunatics?
Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true
I'm not claiming that those people are right, only that the "videos ... speak for themselves" claim isn't true. If people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? If so, can we also say ambiguous studies on whether ivemectin was effective against covid "speak for themselves"? Or does it just become a no true scotsman where you can say whatever…
At some point you have to assume the people are, in fact, lunatics. Your argument is essentially the same as saying there is no such thing as a fact, because you can always find one person who disagrees. Someone thinking that the earth is flat and gravity isn't real doesn't make the evidence ambiguous, it makes the person you're dealing with either willfully ignorant or fucking with you.