The City on Fire

Slowing down is not really enough. You need to reduce or eliminate the causes. If you really wanted to hire the best person for a job, don't look at the name or sex or race until last. That isn't a perfect solution either. As other things can reveal more about the applicant. But it's an improvement.

Quote: Gandler

I have never heard of these. A quick Google Search and I think I know what you mean. They don't have these is GA or NJ.

In GA, there are "lottery machines" (slot machines), that are licensed through the lottery (Coin Operated Amusement Machines as they are legally called), you put in however many quarters (never actually played one) and it spins like a slot machines and then you lose or win credits like a slot machines, the only thing is it is illegal to redeem credits for cash, they have to be redeemed for lottery tickets or store merchandise (like gas, often they are in gas stations). I don't think they should be legal. It sounds like a similar situation to your PA machines (perhaps without government oversight). May as well allow gas statios to have blackjack tables for gas credits and call it a "lottery table".... Pretty much everyday there is a "breaking story" of some gas station using them as a regular slot machine. I am sure the same happens in PA with the Cherry Machines (even if they are not officially sanctioned).

Yeah, they have those at some truck stops and what not in Ohio. I don't know that they're through the lottery necessarily (don't believe so) but you're supposed to only be able to exchange your tickets for certain types of merchandise. The Ohio ones take bills, though.

Meh. I'd be cool with anybody doing anything, I'd just like some sort of blanket law that the percentage return for every game and bet amount be disclosed somewhere on the screen. Aside from that, I'm as liberal as possible on gambling law stance.

Quote:

I generally agree. I think drugs should be legalized, taxed and regulated (like alcohol). There may be some extreme exceptions (drugs where overdose is common, and drugs where addiction is common, and yes I realize that both of these criteria apply to alcohol.... So its a tricky subject because we already have some of the most dangerous drugs legal and sold at every gas station.....).
This would generate massive revenue and save money (and also put a lot of gangs and cartels out of business).

Generally, I support legalizing most drugs. But, pot should 100% be legal, there is not rational reason to keep it illegal. The other common drugs you can get into nuanced arguments about and my opinion can be swayed based off of the drug.

Hell yeah, I'm all for reasonable taxes on non-necessities. That's really where the Government(s) should be making most of the tax dollars. You could maybe have places, similar to a bartender theoretically cutting people off, where they get paid to manage the drug use.

Quote:

Public fornication may be a little too far for me. But, I generally agree with your point....

Maybe not make it legal, per se. I just meant I wouldn't call the cops over it. Prostitution should definitely be legal provided all are willing participants.

Quote:

Well maybe. I don't know.

Again my problem with anecdotes like that are the same with traffic stops. A lot comes down to perception. I don't think I have never not been carded, and I am a white male, and always well groomed. I think people see that they want to see when they have an inconvenience. Heck, I get carded for tobacco/nicotine products (well I guess that is 21 now as well anyway....) The only place I don't get carded is casinos, but I am sure that is because their cameras do it automatically....

As for white people being more eager to call police on black people. I don't know. Maybe. We have certainly seen some stupid people (like that crazy lady in NYC) , but I think that is a vast overstatement.

My general sentiment is, if I see or suspect somebody of causing harm I will call the police, race is irrelevant. I think I have only called the police (not 911, more of a general report) on anyone (organization) in my life, and it was this sketchy company (not really) writing checks from a law firm without permission in order to cover the cost of ordering advertising materials (I don't even remember what for) from their site (you would buy the stuff online with a credit card, then checks that "reimburse" you, would bounce a few days later, and they would be gone by then, I did not fall for it, but I took one of the checks for evidence and sent it to the lawfirm and police, apparently its a common scam).

But, I am very cautious and give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe in calling the police on anyone unless there is a clear threat to safety or welfare. I am pretty socially liberal and unless you are actively trying to cause harm, I can't see myself calling the police on you. I don't believe on calling 911 for people you don't know walking in your neighborhood (even though our local police do encourage people to do exactly that...)

I don't think it's a vast overstatement simply because I'm not attempting to quantify it. I do agree that anecdotes are generally unreliable, but I've got several of them. Numbers are numbers and data is data, but ultimately, we do live our own experiences and what we see.

I agree on calling the police under those conditions (or clearly impaired drivers) and that race is irrelevant in making that decision. But, that's you and I, and does not apply to everyone.

Quote: rxwine

You should try an implicit bias test.

If you are inherently unbiased you should get a neutral score. It's a speed test. You match white and black faces to positive and negative words. You do it several repetitions of the test with the words and the images mixing up differently each time. Any slowing to think, hurts your score.

The more your mind already has positive thoughts towards the image, the quicker your response is. The less it fits with your view, the cognitive dissonance slows your times.

If you actually view white and black people equally the neutral score should occur just as if you used abstract images.

I would bet a lot of money against anyone who told me they could ignore inner bias which would mean they could move their score one way or the other at will. But conditions would have to be so that they immediately took the test, without any days to practice. And now that I mentioned it, I wouldn't make the bet.

But if I was right in the room with someone, and just told them about the test, I would bet them in a heartbeat they couldn't control the results no matter how hard they tried.

edit slight correction, the more the image fits with a negative of positive view, the faster you can answer -- and so forth. The less, the slower.

I took this one and got:

Quote:

Your responses suggested no automatic preference between Black people and White people.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Prefer Europeans (Three Different Categories)---68%

No Preference (Like Me)---18%

Prefer African-Americans to Europeans (Three Levels)---14%

I did slow down to think a few times, but that only happened right after the few mistakes I made as a result of trying to go super fast. Apparently, my mistakes were racially diverse ones.

Quote: Mission146

I took this one and got:



https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Prefer Europeans (Three Different Categories)---68%

No Preference (Like Me)---18%

Prefer African-Americans to Europeans (Three Levels)---14%

I did slow down to think a few times, but that only happened right after the few mistakes I made as a result of trying to go super fast. Apparently, my mistakes were racially diverse ones.

I did not do the black one yet.

I did the Muslims one out of curiosity. Because that is the group I know that I am explicitly skeptical and fearful of (I would argue for logical reasons).
However, the study does suggest "Arab Muslims" which is misleading because not are Arabs are Islamic (or religious). So it kind of merged together race and religion in an unfair way I would say (My thoughts on Islam are irrelevant to the race of the practitioner ).

"Your responses suggested a moderate automatic preference for Other People over Arab Muslims. "

Quote: Gandler

I did not do the black one yet.

I did the Muslims one out of curiosity. Because that is the group I know that I am explicitly skeptical and fearful of (I would argue for logical reasons).
However, the study does suggest "Arab Muslims" which is misleading because not are Arabs are Islamic (or religious). So it kind of merged together race and religion in an unfair way I would say (My thoughts on Islam are irrelevant to the race of the practitioner ).

"Your responses suggested a moderate automatic preference for Other People over Arab Muslims. "

I promise I will not make any mention of Georgia if you do the black one and get a worse result than I did.

I haven't done the Muslim one simply because I am not skeptical or fearful of Muslims at all. Your average Muslim is an extremely peaceable person and hard worker with an entrepreneurial spirit. I disagree with the way the religion approaches women, obviously, but that's none of my business or concern as long as they are not doing anything that would be illegal in this country.

I also consider that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslim-Americans are here because they do not mind co-existing with our culture, if not outright enjoy being around us. I should imagine that they see us (though maybe not so much recently) as a relatively peaceful society that offers tremendous opportunities for work and education for them and their families. I think they would also think that, ideally, they can practice their own religion in their own mosques undisturbed in America.

So, in my opinion, of the ones I've encountered...they've mostly been better Americans than many of your naturally-born Americans.

I might take the test, but I have trouble telling them apart from Caucasians to begin with, except the women because the khimar/hijab might well be in the picture.

---Shame there is no Christian bias test, the problem with them being you can't really tell just from glancing at someone. They'd be much easier to avoid if you could. My result would be extremely amusing, I bet. For the most part, just the worst religion that there is with Baptist, Jehovah Witness, Apostolic and Pentecostal all in the running for worst denomination.

EDIT: I take that back, it's Baptists by a country mile, but not Black Baptists, those churches are fun.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, they have those at some truck stops and what not in Ohio. I don't know that they're through the lottery necessarily (don't believe so) but you're supposed to only be able to exchange your tickets for certain types of merchandise. The Ohio ones take bills, though.

Meh. I'd be cool with anybody doing anything, I'd just like some sort of blanket law that the percentage return for every game and bet amount be disclosed somewhere on the screen. Aside from that, I'm as liberal as possible on gambling law stance.

I am not. I think gambling needs to be regulated. And, I think the lottery does a lot of shady stuff (and gets away from it, because they are the government) so they don't have to abide by a lot of the same rules they impose on casinos (as far as minimum pay back for slot type machines and scratch cards -which are basically slot machines on a card). Lots of places that sell lottery tickets are in areas that have economically venerable people (who often spend their last cash on one more ticket....) I think gambling is extremely harmful for society. That is why I think it should be restricted to casinos. I don't like when slot machines are everywhere (and that applies for the lottery, its dangerous to allow lottery to be sold at every gas station).

Gambling is one thing that needs to be regulated strictly. Sadly the government gets away with the lottery, because well the government can do pretty much anything that they want.

I think many people here who live in Nevada (I know that is not you), have a disconnect because they are so used to seeing machines at gas stations and casinos everywhere. But, for other parts of the country this is very alarming when it starts to happen, especially in economically vulnerable communities. I think casinos and gambling devices should be isolated from general society. Don't get me wrong I love casinos, I have a blast, but I also recognize the negative impacts on communities, and the socially responsible thing to do is zone them to be isolated from neighborhoods.

Quote: Mission146

Hell yeah, I'm all for reasonable taxes on non-necessities. That's really where the Government(s) should be making most of the tax dollars. You could maybe have places, similar to a bartender theoretically cutting people off, where they get paid to manage the drug use.

I generally agree.

Quote: Mission146

Maybe not make it legal, per se. I just meant I wouldn't call the cops over it. Prostitution should definitely be legal provided all are willing participants.

I am all for legal prostitution. The biggest problem with prostitution is sex slavery, which is encouraged by the underground market. If it was legal and licensed, these problems would largely vanish (also take a lot of power away from gangs who control many women, just like legalizing drugs would).

If consensual adults want to engage, great. But, I think that it should be regulated (somewhat how Nevada does) with licensing, health testing, safe locations, etc...

Quote: Mission146

I don't think it's a vast overstatement simply because I'm not attempting to quantify it. I do agree that anecdotes are generally unreliable, but I've got several of them. Numbers are numbers and data is data, but ultimately, we do live our own experiences and what we see.

I agree on calling the police under those conditions (or clearly impaired drivers) and that race is irrelevant in making that decision. But, that's you and I, and does not apply to everyone.

That is true. But, my pushback is we need to look beyond our own experiences. The ability to look past our own bad experiences at the bigger picture is how we form logical arguments. Its easy to say "I was treated bad by X so I feel insulted because of Y".

Quote: Mission146

I promise I will not make any mention of Georgia if you do the black one and get a worse result than I did.

I haven't done the Muslim one simply because I am not skeptical or fearful of Muslims at all. Your average Muslim is an extremely peaceable person and hard worker with an entrepreneurial spirit. I disagree with the way the religion approaches women, obviously, but that's none of my business or concern as long as they are not doing anything that would be illegal in this country.

I also consider that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslim-Americans are here because they do not mind co-existing with our culture, if not outright enjoy being around us. I should imagine that they see us (though maybe not so much recently) as a relatively peaceful society that offers tremendous opportunities for work and education for them and their families. I think they would also think that, ideally, they can practice their own religion in their own mosques undisturbed in America.

So, in my opinion, of the ones I've encountered...they've mostly been better Americans than many of your naturally-born Americans.

I might take the test, but I have trouble telling them apart from Caucasians to begin with, except the women because the khimar/hijab might well be in the picture.

---Shame there is no Christian bias test, the problem with them being you can't really tell just from glancing at someone. They'd be much easier to avoid if you could. My result would be extremely amusing, I bet. For the most part, just the worst religion that there is with Baptist, Jehovah Witness, Apostolic and Pentecostal all in the running for worst denomination.

EDIT: I take that back, it's Baptists by a country mile, but not Black Baptists, those churches are fun.

The problem with most of what you just said is "Muslim Americans". (The pew polls indicate they are pretty mild)

I agree, most Americans who are Islamic are moderate (not always), and often just notionally Islamic. However, the danger is in other countries.

Look at pew polls. Look at the number of "average Muslims" in many Islamic countries who want death to apostates, who want homosexuals killed, views on women.... It is not a "small minority" in many of these countries, it is the norm (and the laws reflect this)…. It is not just the terrorists who are a threat, it is the everyday religious extremists who have total sway in many powerful countries. Even if its not a direct threat to us in terms of military attack, its a direct threat to social progress. You should not be killed by the government in 2020 for being gay or changing religion or becoming an atheist.....

Totally disagree about the most dangerous religion. Yes, Baptists (even Black Baptists, they actually have the highest homophobia rates) are backwards in their views. But, I do not fear being killed by them for who I am. Like you love to keep pointing out, I live in the Dirty South, never once have I been threatened. However, I have been to Islamic countries. There you don't have to worry about people making a snide comment to you. There you have to hide who you are so you don't get thrown in a prison (or worse). Maybe in the 1600s Christians posed a bigger threat. Islam is the danger of our day.

Again, not all Muslims are bad (but the results of polls are not encouraging), especially not in America (I already agreed American Muslims are one of the better groups, but they are a statistical nothing). I am talking about the Islamic world (ME, some of Africa, some of Asia), backward policies, killing of homosexuals and atheists, killing of apostates, virtually no free speech or expression.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/ (this one covers homosexuality, pre-martial sex, and abortion).


There is hard data. Both, government policies that discriminate and polls that show overwhelming negative views on topics that we care about that show this is the most dangerous religion of our time. (And, that is not even factoring in the terror aspect in war-torn countries....), I am speaking strictly policy and philosophy.

Quote: Gandler

I am not. I think gambling needs to be regulated. And, I think the lottery does a lot of shady stuff (and gets away from it, because they are the government) so they don't have to abide by a lot of the same rules they impose on casinos (as far as minimum pay back for slot type machines and scratch cards -which are basically slot machines on a card). Lots of places that sell lottery tickets are in areas that have economically venerable people (who often spend their last cash on one more ticket....) I think gambling is extremely harmful for society. That is why I think it should be restricted to casinos. I don't like when slot machines are everywhere (and that applies for the lottery, its dangerous to allow lottery to be sold at every gas station).

Gambling is one thing that needs to be regulated strictly. Sadly the government gets away with the lottery, because well the government can do pretty much anything that they want.

I think many people here who live in Nevada (I know that is not you), have a disconnect because they are so used to seeing machines at gas stations and casinos everywhere. But, for other parts of the country this is very alarming when it starts to happen, especially in economically vulnerable communities. I think casinos and gambling devices should be isolated from general society. Don't get me wrong I love casinos, I have a blast, but I also recognize the negative impacts on communities, and the socially responsible thing to do is zone them to be isolated from neighborhoods.

No question about the lottery and you bring up a very good point. That's really why the Government shouldn't be involved at all with private enterprise. Why do you imagine the casino tax rates in most states are so high? I think it's because the states are making sure the tax rates on casino revenues more than cover any loss in lottery proceeds.

And, as you mentioned, to even what extent they do compete with the other legalized forms of gambling---they screw the players at every turn. Although, when you have a jackpot that is enough to purchase a small city and private army to defend it...I can understand where the overall game is only going to return 50%. Scratchers are a total screwjob, though.

I don't think gambling is any more or less harmful than any other number of things that you could name, I just don't think there are as many mechanisms in place (and those that exist not fully used) to address the problems that arise when it comes to gambling. One example, suppose you self-exclude from a casino, you know when that's getting enforced? Probably when you hit a handpay next.

Anyway, the states do need money and the state-licensed VLT's in states such as West Virginia, Illinois, Montana and Oregon bring in a TON of money. I tend to believe that, were the state not getting it that way, then they would be getting it some other way. At least with the gambling everyone is participating freely...even if some of them are participating because they are compulsive gambling addicts. Still, nobody's holding a gun to their head, which is more-or-less what the tax collection departments do.

Quote:

I am all for legal prostitution. The biggest problem with prostitution is sex slavery, which is encouraged by the underground market. If it was legal and licensed, these problems would largely vanish (also take a lot of power away from gangs who control many women, just like legalizing drugs would).

If consensual adults want to engage, great. But, I think that it should be regulated (somewhat how Nevada does) with licensing, health testing, safe locations, etc...

I agree with that 100%, although, I wouldn't necessarily impose more than a fine for an unlicensed hooker nailing a john...if I did anything at all. I am definitely in favor of having a regulated version of it, as well. Good tax revenue for the states.

Quote:

That is true. But, my pushback is we need to look beyond our own experiences. The ability to look past our own bad experiences at the bigger picture is how we form logical arguments. Its easy to say "I was treated bad by X so I feel insulted because of Y".

You can do both. You can look at the numbers and see how it compares to your own experience---know the numbers are probably gathered in an inherently skewed way to achieve a certain result---then assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Quote: Gandler

The problem with most of what you just said is "Muslim Americans". (The pew polls indicate they are pretty mild)

I agree, most Americans who are Islamic are moderate (not always), and often just notionally Islamic. However, the danger is in other countries.

I don't care about what other countries do or who lives there unless they are attacking us.

Quote:

Look at pew polls. Look at the number of "average Muslims" in many Islamic countries who want death to apostates, who want homosexuals killed, views on women.... It is not a "small minority" in many of these countries, it is the norm (and the laws reflect this)…. It is not just the terrorists who are a threat, it is the everyday religious extremists who have total sway in many powerful countries. Even if its not a direct threat to us in terms of military attack, its a direct threat to social progress. You should not be killed by the government in 2020 for being gay or changing religion or becoming an atheist.....

Their country, their business. Don't care.

Quote:

Totally disagree about the most dangerous religion. Yes, Baptists (even Black Baptists, they actually have the highest homophobia rates) are backwards in their views. But, I do not fear being killed by them for who I am. Like you love to keep pointing out, I live in the Dirty South, never once have I been threatened. However, I have been to Islamic countries. There you don't have to worry about people making a snide comment to you. There you have to hide who you are so you don't get thrown in a prison (or worse). Maybe in the 1600s Christians posed a bigger threat. Islam is the danger of our day.

Not, "Most dangerous," worst. As in, the one most likely to have terrible human beings as congregants---as far as THIS country goes. Menace and scourge to society, totally divisive, freedom-restricting pieces of garbage. The good news is they are rapidly dying off and do not have replacement numbers. Eventually, they will all be gone. Can't happen fast enough.

Quote:

Again, not all Muslims are bad (but the results of polls are not encouraging), especially not in America (I already agreed American Muslims are one of the better groups, but they are a statistical nothing). I am talking about the Islamic world (ME, some of Africa, some of Asia), backward policies, killing of homosexuals and atheists, killing of apostates, virtually no free speech or expression.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/ (this one covers homosexuality, pre-martial sex, and abortion).


There is hard data. Both, government policies that discriminate and polls that show overwhelming negative views on topics that we care about that show this is the most dangerous religion of our time. (And, that is not even factoring in the terror aspect in war-torn countries....), I am speaking strictly policy and philosophy.

Well, yeah, religions are just in general bad when it comes to social views. That's because they are comprised, almost entirely, of idiots. As far as any country not named, "The United States of America," it's none of my business and I don't care.

Quote: Mission146

I don't care about what other countries do or who lives there unless they are attacking us.



Their country, their business. Don't care.



Not, "Most dangerous," worst. As in, the one most likely to have terrible human beings as congregants---as far as THIS country goes. Menace and scourge to society, totally divisive, freedom-restricting pieces of garbage. The good news is they are rapidly dying off and do not have replacement numbers. Eventually, they will all be gone. Can't happen fast enough.



Well, yeah, religions are just in general bad when it comes to social views. That's because they are comprised, almost entirely, of idiots. As far as any country not named, "The United States of America," it's none of my business and I don't care.

And, that is where I disagree. I care about what other countries do. Not just because I like to travel (which I would argue, on its own, is a logical reason).

But more importantly, because I care about other people:

For one I am appalled that homosexuals are still being executed in 2020 by governments. I care about the rights of people living abroad. I believe America has a role to prevent human rights violations from happening in other countries. I care when governments put out death orders for people for publishing a rather bland book (look up Salman Rushdie in the 80s). I care when women are not allowed to be educated. I care about many other issues that can go on for pages, that the Islamic world denies (often with violence) from its citizens.

And, when I say denies with violence, I don't mean in America the kind of "violence" you get from the government not paying your taxes (because I suspect that will be your response) where you get a summons and told to come to court. I mean being thrown in a prison and hung or beheaded kind of violence.

Liberals here constantly make a case for abortion rights, education opportunity, gay rights, freedom of speech (rightfully so). None of these exist in the Islamic World, and in many cases are prevented with violence. Do you really think there are "no gays" in Iran as the President has claimed? Or do you think they kill enough that no sane person would ever come out of the closet? But, apart from myself, very few liberals are willing to be critical of Islam (which is about as unliberal as it gets).

America has a duty to push for progress in the world. Yes, we need to continue to push for human rights domestically. But, there are countries that have policies that Western world has not had for centuries, and its just the norm, that need to be modernized. I believe in social progress worldwide with America leading the charge.



Yes, we have silly Christians who say stupid things. They are not killing people for their sexual orientation.... They are not prohibiting women from going to public schools. And, when they do get out of line such as preventing medical care or vaccines ("Christian Scientists") for their children, the government rightfully steps in. We live in a secular county where the government acts as the balancing force against religions when they get too out of hand, but for the most part we respect people to believe whatever nonsense they want.