Logic 101

It’s basic programming/ Humans program robots. Humans are racist and sexist. Thus, robots are racist and sexist too.

Right? 😦

Robots can be just as biased as humans, according to a recent study conducted at Princeton University that uncovered gender and racial bias in an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine.

According to the researchers, robots have always exhibited racist and sexist word associations, such as connecting women with families and households but not professionalism or careers.

“The work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination.”   

Researchers from Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy decided to test this concept with Stanford University’s Global Vectors for Word Representation, or GLoVe, an AI machine that uses the internet to learn how to associate words and concepts, reports The Tartan.

The researchers put GLoVe through a replica of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test developed by Harvard University that is used to detect implicit bias in humans by having them associate certain images with positive or negative adjectives.

[RELATED: Research finds implicit bias training is ineffective]

One IAT, for example, has participants match up images of black people and white people to adjectives like “pleasant” and “unpleasant.” If the person takes longer to match the black images to “pleasant,” the the IAT determines that they are biased against black people.

GLoVe demonstrated a variation on this type of racial and gender bias in the study’s version of the IAT, identifying black names as less pleasant than white names and associating women with the arts rather than the sciences.

GLoVe also linked certain job-related words to masculinity, such as “programmer” and “professor,” whereas women were identified more closely with roles like “nurse” and “assistant professor” based on the proximity of those terms to gender-specific pronouns in online sources.

Since robots and AI machines learn by gathering real-world data, they apparently reflect the biases present in human language. Therefore, if humans exhibit gender and racial bias, the machines we create will too.

[RELATED: Social justice on Mars]

“The main scientific findings that we’re able to show and prove are that language reflects biases,” said Aylin Caliskan of Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy. “If AI is trained on human language, then it’s going to necessarily imbibe these biases, because it represents cultural facts and statistics about the world.”

According to the study summary published in Science Magazine, AI bias could lead to “unintended discrimination” if the machines are used for tasks such as sorting resumes for job openings.

“In addition to revealing a new comprehension skill for machines, the work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination based on gender, race, age, or ethnicity,” the summary warns.

We’re all doomed… 😦

 

Free Speech

The Progressive First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion (except Islam),and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

Orwellian” is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, …

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone— to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings!” -George Orwell

Understand that if America is stupid enough to let liberals take power again, they will persecute and prosecute normal Americans like us who dare to dissent. That’s not a guess or a prediction – that’s a commitment they have made to their fascist followers. They’ve seen what the truth can do to their schemes. After 2016, there’s no way they are going to take a chance on another electoral rejection by us normals, so they don’t even pretend to support free speech anymore. It will be one gender neutral being-one vote, one more time, and then never again.

Hold on. That’s clearly nuts, right? This is obviously crazy talk that’s talking crazy, isn’t it? Don’t liberals love free speech?

No.

We know they don’t love free speech because they tell us they don’t, in both words and deeds. The whole free speech thing lost a lot of its luster for the libs when people like us decided to try it out. The liberals didn’t count on that – free speech was supposed to be their jam, a way to offend, annoy, and outrage us squares, to blow our bourgeois minds with their transgressive, no-holds-barred free thoughtery and critical thinkery. But they never intended for it to allow those banjo-strumming rubes living between I-5 and I-95 to express wrong thoughts and thereby win elections.

So now the progressives are trying to do something about it. Recently, every single Democrat voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment. You see, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” were too expansive for liberals’ tastes because they prevented Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

This creepy idiocy was in response to Citizens United, a Supreme Court case that, to people who actually believe in free speech and not liberal fascism, conforms to the First Amendment by telling the federal government that no, you can’t put people in jail for making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, you read it correctly. Democrats think that Congress should be able to make laws to put people in jail for making movies critical of Democrat politicians. Roll that around in your head for a while.

Now, they call it “campaign finance reform,” and their argument is that they aren’t really limiting speech – just limiting how people spend their own money. Apparently, under the First Amendment, we are allowed to say anything we want, but Congress can pass a law telling us that we just can’t spend any money to actually be heard.

It would mean the government can tell us we can’t buy paper, we can’t buy ads, we can’t buy video tape, we can’t pay a film crew or writers, and we can’t pay for airtime. Congress could even tell us we can’t buy internet access to post our thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. And Congress, in the Dems’ utopia, could even pass a law not letting you spend a few measly pennies to buy my awesome book about how liberals will split our country in two.

 

Yes, they want to be able to ban books.

Other than that, under the liberals’ paradigm, we can speak to our hearts content, though only to people within shouting range. But don’t worry. The official, approved mainstream media would be exempt – and unofficial, unapproved media, well, not so much. “Fake news” and all that – “fake” being defined as “critical of liberals.” Fortunately, we’d have such unbiased, nonpartisan, objective outlets like the New York Times and CNN (starring noted free speech scholar Fredo Cuomo) to provide us open forums to air our conservative views. Also, we could get unicorns to skywrite our opinions for free using rainbows spewing from beneath their fluffy tails.

What’s still unclear is what prison sentence Democrats would impose upon someone who breaks the law by exhibiting a film or writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. One year? Five years? Life in SuperMax? Come on Democrats, how long would you imprison someone for illegal speech?

 

And what should the penalty be for climate change denial? Since rejecting their weird climate religion is Earth-murder, or something, you would think they’d want to burn you at the stake – or is that too carbony?

Then there’s that clinical moron Howard Dean, who is ironically famous for his own bizarre exercise of the First Amendment. Leveraging all his intellectual fire power, he recently unloaded his mental squirt gun upon those of us who think the First Amendment means what it actually says. “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” he announced on Twitter, apparently having discovered a constitutional exception that would allow Democrats to stifle any speech they choose to stick the “hate speech” label on. Which would, of course, be anything and everything we normals want to say.

 

This “I don’t like what you are saying so it’s hate speech now shut-up” footnote to the First Amendment is well-known at our colleges and universities. These bastions of free thinking freely admit thinking that we normals have no right to think freely at all. The fact that California law enforcement is regularly ordered to stand back and allow conservative speakers and their audiences to be intimidated and beaten in order to silence them is just a preview of the new America that liberals dream of. If you imagine the unholy love child of the economic basket case/police state of Venezuela and the grim intolerance of your local campus, you have a pretty good idea of the new, fascist America the Democrats seek to breed.

Think that analysis is wrong? Well, here’s a complete list of all prominent Democrats standing up against these free speech abominations:

_________________________________________________.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but then they wouldn’t be liberal if they were born with shame genes. So, since we patriots are the only ones who actually support free speech, what do we patriots do to protect it?

Whatever it takes.

We fight peacefully in the political arena, in the courts, and in the shrinking marketplace of ideas while we can, but we must also be ready to fight in the streets when those punky puffboys try to shut us up. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender – we fight and win, or they shut us up forever.

Look, the left has told us what it wants – the power to force us to be silent and submit. That’s not wacky supposition; that’s not fevered imagination. They are open about their agenda, and it’s happening before our eyes. To pretend that our republic is not facing an existential threat from progressives who would use violence to silence their political opponents is to willfully ignore the evidence, just like a climate cultist ignores cold weather. And the violence has already begun: in fact, it is key to their plan for a free speech-free future. Today it’s gangs of masked thugs attacking us. Tomorrow, it’s uniformed men with guns – or at least those few spineless cowards among our security forces will ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution in exchange for a paycheck and a pension – dragging us off to jail for illegal speech. Or worse.

We patriots face a stark choice. We could choose the easy path of submission and hope that the left will leave us be if we just give in to their demands and give up on our right to participate in our own governance. But that won’t ever work – the true joy of leftism comes from imposing the leftists’ collective will upon its designated villains, and one guess as to the identity of those designated villains.

Hi.

No, they don’t want to leave us alone – that misses the whole point of being a leftist. A leftist yearns to be the one doing the bullying and dominating. If we give in, we will spend the rest of our lives with their soft, girly hands around our necks.

And if we are so gutless as to give up our God-given rights in exchange for “peace,” we deserve that pathetic, dishonorable fate.

But we won’t give up. We won’t surrender. No matter how hard they punch, as Instapundit urges, we’ll punch back twice as hard.

It was funny seeing those antifa dorks get wedgies in Berkeley, but our enemies are serious about stripping us of the rights that our Creator endowed upon all men and women. Many of us are veterans or law enforcement, and our oaths to defend the Constitution even at the cost of our lives did not come with an expiration date. Millions more who did not take one of those oaths subscribe to them nonetheless. We promised not to let a fascist regime take hold, and we intend to keep our promise.

The First Amendment is followed by the Second Amendment for just this reason – history will record that our people’s unique refusal to be disarmed by those who seek to steal our liberties was a key factor why we will never be Venezuela II: The Revenge.

Our only chance of avoiding a catastrophe is if our would-be progressive overlords understand that for us normal Americans, there are only two possible outcomes. And living at their mercy as their serfs is not one of them.

The outcome we want is that we normals live free in a democratic republic exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution, whether because leftists choose to respect our civil rights, or because we force them to respect our civil rights.

The other alternative is that we die on piles of spent brass surrounded by the bodies of our enemies. Either one’s cool – but submission to slavery is not an option.

That un-American, wannabe fascist Howard Dean need only look at a license plate from neighboring New Hampshire to understand how this is going to end. We’ll either live free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Freedom Speech is Censorship, after all…

Political Science

I am a Carl Sagan fan from way back. His 1980 TV miniseries “Cosmos” hit me at just the right age and inflamed a lifelong love of science. But we’ve had nearly 40 years to assess the long-term effects and see how Sagan unwittingly contributed to a trend that muddled public understanding of science. This weekend’s so-called “March for Science” is a perfect example of what went wrong.

All you really need to know about the “March for Science” is that it is scheduled for Earth Day. The organizers may say the march is nonpartisan and has a variety of goals, but it’s mostly just about global warming. It’s not just about whether global warming is actually happening, or whether it is caused by human activity, but about a specific political program for dealing with global warming.

To be sure, there are other goals involved in the march and some contention, even among the organizers, about the extent to which the march should embrace causes like “diversity.” So the goals run the gamut from the left to the far-left. And that’s the problem. The “March for Science” is an attempt to equate the Left’s political goals with Science Itself, claiming the intellectual and moral authority of science for the Left’s agenda.

You can see why they would want to do that. The Left’s latest worker’s paradise—this time in Venezuela—is finishing up the usual devolution into mass poverty, starvation, dictatorship, chaos, and gang warfare. Given this ongoing track record of destruction, the Left has to seize on the illusion of moral authority however it can.

This is an old campaign—the Communists used to claim that they represented “scientific socialism”—but its modern form was largely shaped by Sagan, by way of “Cosmos.” He is remembered as a great popularizer of science, explaining the achievements of physics, mathematics, and astronomy in glowing, inspirational terms. But he faced the basic problem of all such popularizers.

Science has its own unique language and methods: the language of mathematics and a method of systematic observation and experimentation. The reason science tends to be opaque to the public is because it ultimately requires that they understand its language and learn to use its methods. But how do you communicate the history and meaning of science to those who don’t yet speak its language? You turn science into something they can understand. You make it into a narrative, a story.

Sagan mostly turned it into a story about brave and honest scientific pioneers fighting against the forces of superstition and obscurantism. He made it into a narrative of good guys versus bad guys, of the forces of light and progress against closed-minded reactionaries. This was sometimes oversimplified, but it wasn’t entirely wrong; the religious authorities who persecuted Galileo definitely weren’t the good guys. But Sagan fell into the temptation to make this narrative about science fit just a little too closely with the agenda of conventional late-twentieth-century liberalism, so he used “Cosmos” as a platform for the Cold War-era moral equivalence of the “anti-nuclear” movement and homilies about environmentalism.

“Cosmos” is an interesting intellectual time capsule, because it was broadcast just at the point when predictions of global environmental catastrophe were tipping between global cooling and global warming. So he presented the two as equally likely scenarios that required further study (and, of course, massive government funding).

But he dropped his guard at this point, forgot his own admonitions about following the evidence wherever it leads, and indulged the conceit that science would just happen to line up neatly with his own political preferences. What he didn’t do was entertain the possibility that human beings aren’t destroying the planet or cruising toward planetary catastrophe. He did not even consider this null hypothesis as a possibility.

It was a glaring hole in scientific objectivity, and it set the path for the popularizers of science who would follow in his footsteps. He had fixed the narrative in place, and they followed it.

Like I said, I’m a big fan of Carl Sagan. There was a lot of merit in his history of science, his style was thoughtful, and he was adamant about the principle of tolerance for opposing ideas. People like Bill Nye who muse about imprisoning “climate deniers” are unworthy of claiming any part of his legacy. Yet that has been the trend.

Sagan clearly hoped that his stirring narrative about science would inspire young people to go beyond and beneath the narrative and learn the actual method of science. Instead, his successors saw the success of his approach—in terms of attention and celebrity and moral authority—and chose to use the narrative as a substitute for science.

If you don’t really need science so much as the narrative, then what you get is our own era’s official replacement for Sagan: Neil deGrasse Tyson. As the decades pass, Sagan’s imitators become less thoughtful and more propagandistic, less interested in conveying the actual scientific method and more concerned with just telling the public what to think. It’s also about making those who accept the approved “pro-science” political agenda feel they are superior to all of those ignorant, knuckle-dragging bigots who disagree with them. It equates science, not just with the politics of the Left, but with the Left’s attitude of smug condescension. That’s how you get Tyson’s fake-but-accurate narratives or the meme-swapping superficiality of the IFL Science crowd.

That’s also how we get things like the March for Science, in which it is naturally assumed that defending science dovetails perfectly with the Left’s “resistance” against the current administration and every part of its agenda. It reduces science to a narrow political pose and blinds people to its big questions and radically different method of inquiry.

Popularizers like Sagan ended up achieving the opposite of what they set out to do. But every failed experiment is just an opportunity to learn something, and what we learned here is that science cannot be promoted by turning it into a political narrative—not without losing its distinctive virtues. (Federalist)

Pure Hate

The poisonous fruit of the left’s long march into academia. They have destroyed our universities and colleges, with public school education not far behind. Inculcation, indoctrination and brainwashing. Why do our taxpayer dollars still go to these treasonous machines? WE are funding this public exhibit. We are funding the new Nazi-esque youth movement. We are funding the war on freedom, truth and individual rights.

The universities are the fifth column. We must not fund it.

And don’t be fooled by the “free speech” ruse. My colleagues and I are not allowed to speak. Conservative professors are bordering on extinction. Pro-Israel voices are harassed, bullied, and beaten.

Imagine the pandemonium if Obama had been depicted beheaded.

U of Alaska: We Won’t Take Down Painting of Beheaded Donald Trump

By Jillian Kay Melchior, Heat Street, April 20, 2017:

The University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove a professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump, saying it was important to protect even objectionable artistic expression.

The painting shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, hangs on campus as part of an art exhibition this month.

But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.

Berger’s post soon prompted outrage, including several calls for the university to remove the painting. By deadline, neither Chung nor school officials responded to Heat Street’s request for comment.

But in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department defended his decision to keep the painting up.

“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

Anyone for a decapitated Obama or Hillary? 🙂

The University of Alaska Anchorage has at least one policy in place that “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” on campus, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

And in recent years, art has also been censored at the university a handful of times. Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.

But the university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”  (Pam Gellar)

 

When we get a decapitated Obama or Hillary and they support it, then we’ll talk.

Symbol of Hate

The symbolism couldn’t be more clear. The hatred more pure. But would this “artist” be reviled for it, or revered. These days that largely depends on your political bias.

head of hate

If this was a former President’s head, would it they be arrested for a “hate crime”?

Depends on your point of view. After all, we know the CIA,NSA, The FBI, and The IRS have all been weaponized for partisan politics by our former Dear Leader and his minions.

The work, created by Assistant Professor of Painting Thomas Chung, is being presented as part of a month-long faculty art exhibition in the university’s fine arts gallery, reports KTUU.

“It’s an image of the actor who plays Captain America, and two eagles are sort of screaming into his ears, and he’s holding the severed head of Trump, and there’s a young Hillary Clinton clinging to his leg,” Chung said to describe his painting, according to Campus Reform. “I was reminded of those 80’s rock posters, where there’s a woman in tattered clothes clinging to a strong male hero’s leg.”

Could the hatred by more pure. could it be more raw.

SeveredTrumpHeadGallery

But will there be any outcry from The Left. Of course not. They are all secretly or openly love it. It is as pure and as raw as they want to be.

But yet, unlike them, I don’t want to censor it.

I don’t need a “safe space”.

I hate it.

I want you to see it.

I want you to hate it too. But I know millions will not. They will love it. They will even cheer.

And that’s what ultimately make me sad about it.

house-divided

noh8-noh8-9425690-800-800

Indeed.

Unless it’s approve by The Ministry of Truth or a Progressive that is. 🙂

The Hit Squad Strikes Again

The Progressive Brown Shirt Media has scored another victim. Bill o’Reilly has been assassinated in the Liberal Press.

The Press that isn’t biased, according to them but a new study shows that 89% of the stories on The Mainstream Media are all hostile to President Trump.

So it’s assassination time. And also gutless corporate time.

oreilly.png

Then on the same day they announce Tucker Carlson will take over his slot. Boy that was a very quick “see ya” we don’t even remember you were here. Bill Who?

The Ministry of Truth has them running scared.

Sad, really.

Freedom of Speech is Censorship.

You are guilty, period. Why would you be a suspect if you weren’t guilty?  (unless you’re a Liberal then it’s someone’s fault, of course).

 

When the Devil Went Down to Georgia

The Anti-Trump money failed yesterday when the Devil did not come down to Georgia, or did he, since Trump is the new Devil.

“This race is absolutely and entirely a referendum on President Trump,” said one Republican consultant granted anonymity to speak candidly about the contest. “Every single vote Jon Ossoff receives is a rebuke of Trump from within GA-06.”
Sensing opportunity, national Democrats flooded the race with money — Ossoff raised an eye-popping $8.3 million over the last three months, 95% of which came from out of the state of Georgia (for a Candidate who doesn’t even live in the District to begin with). That massive influx of cash, coupled with a lack of any other serious Democrats in the race and a disdain among many Republicans in the district for Trump’s in-your-face style, made for a surprising opportunity for Democrats in the south — a region where the party has been decimated over the last decade.
Ossoff will now face former Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican who finished in clear second despite running around 30 points behind Ossoff.
While Ossoff and national Democrats acknowledged that they hoped to win the seat outright Tuesday due to the crowded and fractured GOP field, Ossoff will likely enter the runoff with Handel as a slight favorite. The question for Ossoff, and Democrats more broadly, is whether they can successfully link an establishment Republican like Handel to the less-than-popular Trump over the course of a two month, one-versus-one runoff slog.
Well, lying, intimidation and demonizing fear is what they do best.
Democrats, out of power in Congress and the White House, need a spark to convince themselves they can take back all that they had lost. Georgia’s 6th district was seen as the best chance for that spark. It didn’t happen on Tuesday night — and now Democrats will have to wait almost two months to see if they can start to build momentum for the November 2018 midterms.  (CNN)
Guy Benson: Karen Handel is a lot closer to a traditional Republican than Trump is, which could prove to be an important advantage in two months. Make no mistake about it: The battle over this seat is not over, but this one stings for the Left. They sunk millions of dollars and enormous energy into the race, and they weren’t able to win. Will they double down and focus on the run-off with equal passion, or will they shift to the next chance to score a symbolic victory? We shall see. But for now, Republicans have dodged yet another bullet, and Democrats are still seeking their first legislative gain since Trump was elected. Thus far, six special elections in, only one seat has flipped…to the GOP.  Republicans shouldn’t gloat, but Democrats have yet to see real evidence of a big blue wave building.  I’ll leave you with this fair-minded admonition:
If history is a guide, the House was in play before #GA06 results and the House will be in play after #GA06 results.