We seem to be having a little cognitive problem in 2020 when it comes to assessing the relative importance of numbers as they influence demographics. For instance, the number of deaths due directly to COVID-19 virus versus the number of deaths with COVID-19 associated with the illness, versus the number of deaths during COVID epidemic NOT due to virus.
Or, the number of violent antisocial people doing crazy, stupid, destructive things on video versus the number of sane, non-violent socially-invested people whose lives are the subject of that destruction, versus the number of sane, non-violent people across the USA watching those videos - and becoming increasingly frustrated with the indulgence shown by local governments. The probability of a group forming to take action tends to rise as the number of views watching this unfold rises exponentially. Sooner or later those numbers are going to collide in some way, and mass will win.
When a main stream major media outlet posts a well researched story comparing the number of crooked, violent, bigoted cops to the whole population of cops:: and the number of thugs, felons, abusers, arsonists, looters, and "outside agitators" to the whole number of "peaceful participants in the politicl protests" and is able to somehow show that one infected population is relatively healthier than the other ... THEN I might subscribe to a main stream major media outlet once again.
I'm not even saying the fraction of bad cops is lower than the fraction of militant protesters. My data isn't sufficient. But I am certain the question is vital. Can ANY human group, system and structure; organic and ad hoc; "organized" or "heterogeneous" -- maintain an ability to accomplish its stated purpose without some members of the group leveraging the group's power for personal, corrupt, purposes? And if not, what percentage of corrupt members signals a need to abolish or reform the group?
I think very simple questions are appropriate here. Who are the "you" and the "we" in that sentence? Wouldn't requiring the speaker answer to those questions illustrate entirely that the game is up?
I hear him saying "If you kill one of OURS, we kill one of yours." Anyway, it's definitely my-team, your-team talk. Remember when it was offensive to refer to black Americans as "you people"?
10 comments:
We want you to see us as human, so we will behave like animals or savages. Am I missing part of this plan?
Mostly peaceful
Summer of Love.
Eric Hines
I guess murder is a form of protest now, too.
We seem to be having a little cognitive problem in 2020 when it comes to assessing the relative importance of numbers as they influence demographics. For instance, the number of deaths due directly to COVID-19 virus versus the number of deaths with COVID-19 associated with the illness, versus the number of deaths during COVID epidemic NOT due to virus.
Or, the number of violent antisocial people doing crazy, stupid, destructive things on video versus the number of sane, non-violent socially-invested people whose lives are the subject of that destruction, versus the number of sane, non-violent people across the USA watching those videos - and becoming increasingly frustrated with the indulgence shown by local governments. The probability of a group forming to take action tends to rise as the number of views watching this unfold rises exponentially. Sooner or later those numbers are going to collide in some way, and mass will win.
When a main stream major media outlet posts a well researched story comparing the number of crooked, violent, bigoted cops to the whole population of cops:: and the number of thugs, felons, abusers, arsonists, looters, and "outside agitators" to the whole number of "peaceful participants in the politicl protests" and is able to somehow show that one infected population is relatively healthier than the other ... THEN I might subscribe to a main stream major media outlet once again.
I'm not even saying the fraction of bad cops is lower than the fraction of militant protesters. My data isn't sufficient. But I am certain the question is vital. Can ANY human group, system and structure; organic and ad hoc; "organized" or "heterogeneous" -- maintain an ability to accomplish its stated purpose without some members of the group leveraging the group's power for personal, corrupt, purposes? And if not, what percentage of corrupt members signals a need to abolish or reform the group?
I think very simple questions are appropriate here. Who are the "you" and the "we" in that sentence? Wouldn't requiring the speaker answer to those questions illustrate entirely that the game is up?
I'm sorry, it's "us," not "we." Sigh.
I hear him saying "If you kill one of OURS, we kill one of yours." Anyway, it's definitely my-team, your-team talk. Remember when it was offensive to refer to black Americans as "you people"?
Post a Comment