Academia

Robot Racism: Pittsburgh Professor Sounds Alarm Over “Interacting with White Robots”
In today’s academic environment, there often seems a race to racialize common practices or terminology. Publications clamor for such articles and discovering another hidden racist element in society can bring academic accolades. However, others have already staked out many such areas such as mathematics, astrophysics, statistics, meritocracy, climate change, dieting, tipping, skiing, chess, and organized pantries. Most recently, the American Psychological Association declared that merit-based hiring may be racist. However, University of Pittsburgh sociology professor Mark Paterson has raised the alarm over robotic racism due to the fact that many robots are white.Dr. Paterson teaches in the College of General Studies (CGS), Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies (GSWS), Urban Studies, and Center for Bioethics and Health Law.In The Conversation, Paterson noted the rise in “socially assistive robotics” and the dominance of robots with white “skin” made of “shiny white plastic.” As a result, he frets that black children (particularly those requiring assistance) “could end up interacting with white robots.”It is all part of the “poverty of the engineered imaginary”:

The cultural imaginary that enshrines robots as white, and in fact usually female, stretches back to European antiquity, along with an explosion of novels and films at the height of industrial modernity. From the first mention of the word “android” in Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam’s 1886 novel “The Future Eve,” the introduction of the word “robot” in Karel Čapek’s 1920 play “Rossum’s Universal Robots,” and the sexualized robot Maria in the 1925 novel “Metropolis” by Thea von Harbou – the basis of her husband Fritz Lang’s famous 1927 film of the same name – fictional robots were quick to be feminized and made servile.

Of course, making black robots as “servile” would seem to raise other concerns. Nevertheless, others have joined in seeking a review of how robots may be pushing “patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism.”As I recently wrote, these concerns extend to the increasing numbers of “sexbots.”For feminists, the sexbots are allowing men to objectify women and to pursue domination fantasies. In The Guardian, journalist Jenny Kleeman denounced new bots that can hold conversations and even joke precisely because they are “a dream woman” for men who “exist only for men’s use.”

Kathleen Richardson, a robot ethicist at the De Montfort University, wrote that “the development of sex robots will further reinforce relations of power that do not recognize both parties as human subjects.” A supporter of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, Richardson warned “technology is not neutral. It’s informed by class, race and gender. Political power informs the development of technology.”

In Paris, feminists opposed sex-doll brothels on the basis that the dolls cannot consent and allow for violent fantasies. Lorraine Questiaux of the feminist group Mouvement du Nid (Nest Movement) called the brothel a “place that makes money from simulating the rape of a woman.” In Sweden, feminist organizations moved to ban sex bots as advancing the “objectifying, sexualised and degrading attitude to women found in today’s mainstream pornography.” They object to the right of men to create artificial women who “obey their smallest command” and “cannot say no to something that the man wants.”

Notably, Elon Musk could prove the great emancipator from racist robots. While Paterson was raising the alarm, Musk unveiled his robot:

257 thoughts on “Robot Racism: Pittsburgh Professor Sounds Alarm Over “Interacting with White Robots””

  1. 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬?
    Discussions have arisen about whether AI-powered robots can compete with or someday outperform human athletes.
    GlobalData Thematic Intelligence ~ September 19, 2023
    https://www.verdict.co.uk/robot-athletes-versus-humans-sports/

  2. My auto is an it; my pen is an it; a robot is an it. I can (for now) purchase any color of car and select any color of ink or plastic in a pen. If the color of plastic or other material used to construct a robot must take into consideration the “color” of those who may sometime see it, live or in photos or videos, what is next? Will I be required to have a white vehicle (and be prohibited from having a “colored” one) due to my northern European heritage? and to not drive it where a person “of color” might be offended not see it? Will sales of brown and black vehicles be restricted to persons who identify as people of those “colors”?

  4. ‘𝐇𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠’: 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞
    Unlike Notre Dame, the Catholic University of America held true to its faith.
    By: Mary Frances Myler ~ February 1, 2024
    https://spectator.org/catholic-university-president-fires-professor-over-abortion-doula-lecture/

    𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭
    Barry Black, speaking at National Prayer Breakfast, addresses president, Congressional leaders. Italian tenor Andrea Boccelli adds to the event.
    By: John Burger ~ 02/01/24
    https://aleteia.org/2024/02/01/senate-chaplain-urges-americans-to-pray-and-fast/

  5. I was just thinking, if the lunatic left’s parents were hardcore pro abortion as the lunatic left we wouldn’t be discussing topics like this.

    2. Liberals aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice. Why don’t you understand the difference? (Or, do you understand it but choose to lie?)

        1. In favor of the pregnant woman or girl to have the right to an abortion prior to viability (or later, if there’s a risk to her health or the fetus has a fatal abnormality) if she chooses to have one. That’s what the choice refers to. If no one chooses to have an abortion, that’s good too. But there are many women and girls who choose to have them for health reasons, or because they were raped, or because the fetus is diagnosed with a fatal abnormality, or …. Like these women who “allege the exception for when a patient’s life is in danger is too narrow and vague, and endangered them during complicated pregnancies” in TX: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/11/15/1213188342/20-women-sue-texas-over-abortion-laws

          1. Several obstetricians have stated there is NEVER a viable pregnancy in which the doctors cannot save both the mother and the baby. I guess they are lying. Liberals love to lie to themselves.

            1. Women die in from pregnancy-related complications, but according to your doctors, those women simply don’t exist. According to your doctors, fetuses never develop fatal abnormalities. Yes, they’re lying.

          2. But there are many women and girls who choose to have them for health reasons,

            No, there are millions of women that use abortion as birth control. 45% have had at least one previous abortion.

            1. Some of that fraction is for repeat miscarriages. You do know that abortions are part of miscarriage management, right? And that having an abortion when miscarrying IS a health reason, right? If you don’t know this already, you should. Here’s one discussion for you: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

              And yes, some women and girls do use abortions as birth control, perhaps when their primary form of birth control fails, or perhaps for another reason.

              Again: being pro-choice means that one believes that choice should be up to the pregnant girl or woman; it doesn’t mean that one advocates that anyone have an abortion.

              1. Bulldust. If a woman is miscarrying she doesn’t need an abortion. The baby is already dying. Safely removing the body is not an abortion.

          3. Those women are lying. The exception is very clear; if the baby is endangering its mother’s life, it may be killed to save her. That is exactly the same rule that applies if someone who has already been born is endangering another person’s life.

            These women want to be able to be able to kill their babies even when the purpose is not to prevent it from killing the mother. That is not acceptable in any civilized society.

      2. IS THE END NEAR?

        Listen to this idiot: “I choose to murder.”

        The sad part is, Americans are so deluded and psychotic they will.

        You let idiots vote, you end up with idiots in office.

        How’s that working out for America?

        The 1789 election, engendered by the American Founders, had a turnout of 11.6%, by design and by vote restriction.

      3. You are pro-irresponsibility and pro-murder for your irresponsibility.
        You are too lazy to be bothered with taking the pill or using a condom.

        1. You are too ignorant to know that all forms of birth control fail, and women and girls are raped, and women and girls can face serious healthy complications and even death from some pregnancies, and some fetuses have abnormal development that means they cannot live outside the womb, and … and …

          But go ahead and stick your head in the sand. You seem comfortable there.

      5. Liberals aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice.

        No, you’re not. You’re pro-abortion. You oppose any measure that might reduce abortion, and you get upset whenever abortion numbers drop. And you oppose pregnancy centers that try to persuade mothers not to abort their babies.

        But even if that were not true, even if you were truly fine with nobody choosing abortion, for you to argue that that makes you not pro-abortion is like arguing that Jefferson Davis was not pro-slavery but merely pro-choice. Nobody in the Confederacy was forced to own slaves, and indeed the majority of its citizens did not own any. They would have been fine if nobody chose to own any slaves. So how is your position different from theirs?

        1. “So how is your position different from theirs?”

          That one is a potential; the other an actual. That is a fundamental distinction that anti-abortionists always evade.

    3. Did you say hardcore pro-homicide (i.e. pro-murder)?

      Why are perps who kill pregnant women arrested for double murder?

      Because they commit homicide against two humans.

      Abortion is homicide is murder.

      Homicide and murder are not “choices.”

      What the —- is wrong with communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) that they expect normal people to listen without question to their absurd twisting, distortion, perversion, and mutilation of the English language.

      When are idiot freaks told definitively, “No, you’re just plain wrong, immutably?”

      Can America get any worse?

      The end must be near.

  6. Do liberal professors when placed within Sensory Deprivation Chambers experience constant hallucinations of racism and wokeness?

    2. Darren: “Do liberal professors when placed within Sensory Deprivation Chambers experience constant hallucinations of racism and wokeness?”

      +++

      Probably. For them it won’t be different from everyday life in their classrooms and seminars.

  7. The alarm over robots of one type, those produced and programmed by engineers, seems to be the preserve of robots of another type, those produced and programmed by professors. Might the fears voiced by academics, aware of the widespread ruin their automated responses have inflicted on society, be a simple matter of psychological projection?

  8. WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY

    The ‘Great Emancipator’ and the Issue of Race
    Abraham Lincoln’s Program of Black Resettlement

    “Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the ‘Great Emancipator,’ he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.”

    “While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it is also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.

    Early Experiences

    “In 1837, at the age of 28, the self-educated Lincoln was admitted to practice law in Illinois. In at least one case, which received considerable attention at the time, he represented a slave-owner. Robert Matson, Lincoln’s client, each year brought a crew of slaves from his plantation in Kentucky to a farm he owned in Illinois for seasonal work. State law permitted this, provided that the slaves did not remain in Illinois continuously for a year. In 1847, Matson brought to the farm his favorite mulatto slave, Jane Bryant (wife of his free, black overseer there), and her four children. A dispute developed between Jane Bryant and Matson’s white housekeeper, who threatened to have Jane and her children returned to slavery in the South. With the help of local abolitionists, the Bryants fled. They were apprehended, and, in an affidavit sworn out before a justice of the peace, Matson claimed them as his property. Lacking the required certificates of freedom, Bryant and the children were confined to local county jail as the case was argued in court. Lincoln lost the case, and Bryant and her children were declared free. They were later resettled in Liberia.1

    “In 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd, who came from one of Kentucky’s most prominent slave-holding families.2 While serving as an elected representative in the Illinois legislature, he persuaded his fellow Whigs to support Zachary Taylor, a slave owner, in his successful 1848 bid for the Presidency.3 Lincoln was also a strong supporter of the Illinois law that forbid marriage between whites and blacks.4

    “‘If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.’5

    “One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

    There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …

    Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, ‘must be effected by colonization’ of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. ‘The enterprise is a difficult one,’ he acknowledged,

    but ‘where there is a will there is a way,’ and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

    – Robert Morgan
    __________________

    Lincoln believed that “where there is a will there is a way”; Lincoln lost both his will and his way to Karl Marx, communism, and fleeing European communist revolutionaries.

    America lost its Constitution, Bill of Rights, its will, and its way under the martial law of the tyrant Lincoln.

    “In 1848 revolutions occurred in France and Germany, and the Belgian government, fearful that the revolutionary tide would engulf Belgium, banished Marx. He went first to Paris and then to the Rhineland. In Cologne he established and edited a communist periodical, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and engaged in organizing activities. In 1849 Marx was arrested and tried in Cologne on a charge of incitement to armed insurrection; he was acquitted but was expelled from Germany, and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung was suppressed. Later in the same year he was again banished from France; he spent the remainder of his life in London, [where he] devoted himself to study and writing and to efforts to build an international communist movement….

    [communist revolutionaries were expelled from Europe and fled, many to New York, Illinois et al.].”

    – Commanding Heights: Karl Marx
    ______________________________________

    Reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated through constitutional legislation.

    Oil and water do not mix.

    Communists unconstitutionally compel massive amounts of political emulsifiers to forcibly impose the impossible mix on once-free Americans.

    The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the once-free America of its Founders are gone with the wind.

  9. OT

    Surprised that NYT would publish the following article. Many of us have argued that online social media drove the Trans craze.

    As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do.

    Reading about transgender people online, Powell believed that the reason she didn’t feel comfortable in her body was that she was in the wrong body. Transitioning seemed like the obvious solution. The narrative she had heard and absorbed was that if you don’t transition, you’ll kill yourself.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html

    1. There’s going to be many lawsuits against doctors and hospitals for these violent actions taken against children with demented parents.

    3. Estovir– I expect there are genuine transgender cases since if something can go wrong in human development sooner or later it will go wrong.

      That’s why we have babies born without brains, without limbs, with cleft palates, with psychological problems, with mental impairments and so on. No reasonable person could expect gender identity or sexual orientation to somehow be immune to the accidents of nature that cause so many other problems.

      However, as with the other accidents, they are likely to be rare, much rarer than the numbers we see today

      I agree with you that it is likely a social contagion similar to the recovered memories of childhood abuse that were so prevalent a few years ago and before that the notion that there was an epidemic of child abuse in daycare facilities.

      I think another factor is Munchausen by Proxy. In some of the videos I have seen the mother seemed more heavily invested in a child’s being transgender than the child was.

      As with the daycare cases and the recovered memory cases the legal system has not performed well and, in some instances, has performed disgracefully. In the former instances people mainly needed to be let out of prison but how does one remedy castration or removal of breasts and ovaries? The risk of great, irreversible damage should signal the need for greater care in the medical and legal communities but it seems not to have happened–yet.

      When some of these victims shake free of their delusions and those guiding them I am hoping for massive judgments against institutions and individual doctors and even parents. Perhaps then self interest will make some pause before mutilating a child.

  10. Jonathan: Forget “Harmony” and the other sex robots–that apparently only appeal to white male social misfits and outcasts who seem incapable of forming real human relationships, like the rest of us–well most of us on this blog. The real action is down at our southern border where there is a stand-off between the feds and Gov. Abbott. DJT has jumped on board and is accusing Joe Biden of “welcoming criminals and traffickers into our country”. The MAGA Republicans in the House have also weighed in wanting to impeach Secy. Mayorkas for doing his job. But even you recognize there is no “cognizable basis here for impeachment” of Mayorkas. What is going on in the MAGA House is the theater of the absurd!

    But back to the southern border–specifically Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, TX that is the epicenter for the standoff between the feds and Gov. Abbott. Despite the 5-4 SC ruling against him Gov. Abbott is defiant. He refuses to yield. He will “hold the line” against the federal government’s “invasion” because state’s rights “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary”. So Abbott is going to use every tool in his arsenal–razor wire, fences, large buoys, the Texas National Guard and even “patriotic” Texans to keep out the drug traffickers, rapists and other criminals.

    So why has Gov. Abbott chosen Shelby Park to make his last stand? CNN had an interesting article yesterday about the little known history of Shelby Park. The 47-acre park along the Rio Grande was named after Gen. Joseph Orville Shelby, a Confederate leader and known as the “undefeated rebel”. He got that name because he fled to Mexico rather than surrender to Union troops in 1865. Two years later Shelby returned to Texas as a “hero”. He was pardoned by Pres. Andrew Johnson and was later appointed by Pres. Cleveland as US Marshall of the Western District of Missouri.

    So this is why Gov. Abbott loves Shelby Park as a symbol of defiance and why he will make his last stand there against the evil federal government. Succession is now the rallying cry for the likes of Gov. Abbott and Marjorie Taylor Greene who calls for a “national divorce”. Forget the Constitution and the supremacy clause. For Gov. Abbott, MTG and DJT it’s about upholding state’s rights. It’s a flash to the past when Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus [why do Southerners have such strange names?] proudly declared “Segregation now, segregation forever”. And we know how that ended.

    1. Biden’s strategy is very simple:

      1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible.

      2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state.

      That is why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration. Simple, yet effective. pic.twitter.com/B9M5ypUOQB
      — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2024

          1. Elon was born in Pretoria (South Africa) and briefly attended the University of Pretoria before immigrating to Canada at age 18, acquiring citizenship through his Canadian-born mother. (per Wiki)

            I have met the person face-to-face and can tell you he is a self-consumed prick.
            But maybe that’s what it takes to become Big, if you want that.

            1. He is still smarter than you.
              He pointed out Biden’s strategy in a simple tweet.
              You are too dumb to see it.
              We are all laughing at you.

              1. So smart that he’s lost tens of billions on Twitter, had a Space X Starship explode after liftoff, is having to revamp the Tesla Cybertruck wheel covers because “they’re chewing into the tire sidewall,” … Maybe he should have gotten an engineering degree.

                1. If he lost tens of billions of dollars, it can only be because he had billions of dollars to lose.

                  He has two bachelor’s degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, one in economics and one in physics.

                  Last year SpaceX successfully launched and recovered over 100 Falcon 9s and Falcon 9 heavies.

                  “should have gotten”? Your grammar sucks.

            2. “It’s the [success], stupid!”

              – James Carville
              ___________________

              “The question is why these particular kinds of people are the targets of so much venomous hatred,” he said, “and I think the answer is that they not only succeed, they succeed in a way which is a threat to the egos of other people.”

              Giving an analogy, Sowell continued, “The guy who comes here, let’s say, from Vietnam or Korea and arrives here with little more than the clothes in his back … a decade later, he has his own little business,” so “you’ve got to hate yourself for saying, ‘My God, I’ve been stagnating and this guy was nothing and now he’s risen up,’ or you’re going to have to hate him.”

              Sowell then told the story of being asked years ago by an official in one of the Jewish organizations in New York what “the Jews themselves [can] do in order to minimize the hostility they face.”

              “I gave him a one-word answer,” Sowell said. “Fail. Because as long as you succeed, you’re going to be hated.”

              “That probably is the story of the Jews,” says Dave Rubin, adding that, “You have Jews who are not only succeeding,” but “there is a sense in the country that they are going to be stronger than ever on the other side of this — that this is ironically bringing them together.”

              “That is why they particularly hate Israel because it’s a place where not only Jews are succeeding but then Jews refuse to fail,” he says, echoing Sowell’s words.

              – Interview of Thomas Sowell, The Blaze

        2. If this isn’t the strategy then why is Biden and the liberals letting in any illegal that wants to come here? Just explain what the mindset is for allowing 10 million illegals into our country in 3 years.

          1. Loaded questions are a common fallacy. Biden and liberals are NOT “letting in any illegal that wants to come here.”

            “About 2.3 million people have been released into the U.S. under Biden’s administration, Department of Homeland Security data shows. Most of them are families, according to The Washington Post. About 356,000 children who crossed the border alone were also let in. … There have been more than 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions from February 2021, Biden’s first month in office, to September 2023, based on Department of Homeland Security estimates.”
            https://www.tampabay.com/news/2024/01/21/is-haleys-claim-about-immigration-under-biden-true-fact-check/
            Also recall that Biden enacted the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule. “Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.”
            https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states

            Now you: present your evidence that “10 million illegals [entered] into our country in 3 years.”

            A reminder: it is legal to come to the US and apply for asylum. If you don’t like it, tell you members of Congress to change 8 U.S. Code § 1158.

        3. It is a Democratic Party strategy. Biden is simply a tool of the behind-the-scenes hard Left.

      2. “THE LUNATICS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM”

        One foreign immigrant may constitute legitimate “asylum.”

        10 million foreign immigrants constitute illegal alien invasion by an adversarial martial force.

        Actual Americans want “asylum” from criminal invading illegal alien Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and various and sundry human flotsam.

        How do actual Americans get “asylum?”

        By the way, the coast is clear, your country is proven safe and habitable by the U.N. and by U.N. standards – YOU CAN ALL GO HOME NOW (after you pay your “clean-up” exit tax).

        Forget Iran, it’s long past time to retaliate against Mexico and its despotic narcocracy.

    2. One of these people is in our county illegally, beat up cops, and was released without bail.

      The other is a former Marine who protected riders on a subway from a violent psycho, is facing criminal charges, and was released on a $100,000 bail.

      Democrats’ soft-on-violent crime… pic.twitter.com/LRePREGtrD
      — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 1, 2024

    3. “Texas law enforcement has seized over 454 million lethal doses of fentanyl during this mission. Governor Abbott has said that the federal government has broken the pact between the United States federal government and the states,” McGraw said in a video posted on X, adding, “Governor Abbott says President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them.”

      McGraw continued: “The result is a humanitarian crisis, unlike anything we’ve seen before, smashing records for illegal immigration by wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas border security infrastructure.”

      — Dr. Phil McGraw (“Dr. Phil”)

      1. Again, the Republicans in Congress are refusing to fund border security because they’re concerned that it will help Biden. For example, Rep. Troy Nehls about border security funding: “Do you believe if Joe Biden’s approval rate was at 53%, we would even be talking about the border?” “I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating.”

        To be clear about what “this mission” means, from dps.texas.gov: “Since Operation Lone Star began in March 2021, Texas law enforcement has seized more than 450 million lethal doses of fentanyl across the state”

        Last year alone, the federal government seized ~1.2 billion doses of fentanyl at the border.

        1. As we all know but you are too dumb to realize, Biden has always had the power to enforce border security.
          Trump did it.
          Why cannot Biden do it? Or is border Czar, Harris?
          They are either incompetent or this is their strategy.
          Again something you are too dumb to see.
          We are all laughing at you.

          1. “According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden.”
            https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-released-trump-biden

            I guess you’re too dumb to know the actual numbers.

            1. “While Cato’s economic and environmental positions are strongly right, they also hold liberal positions on immigration and social liberty issues.”
              (These are be-nice words for incidents of selective-fact reporting and selective data manipulation (as well as selective source reliance) to achieve a desired perceptional result.)
              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/

              1. Yet you haven’t actually disputed any of their numbers or sources. Do you dispute any of them?

                And no, they aren’t “be-nice words for incidents of selective-fact reporting and selective data manipulation (as well as selective source reliance) to achieve a desired perceptional result.” As your partial quote goes on to say, “We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and recognizing the consensus of science.” The sources were identified beneath the table.

                1. read.your.own.words. (1) the fact that what WAS reported or relied on does not speak to what was left out. (2) The “high for factual reporting….science” may well refer to “economics and environmental positions.” we really don’t know which (left or right) was more reliable and inclusively factual, do we? why do you think that Cato was rated to the left on immigration and social liberty? Do YOU know? Here’s a hint:
                  “moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy” (from mediabiasfactcheck.com)

                  I’m going out/signing off for the evening. You get the last word by default. thanks anyway

                  1. Again: you haven’t disputed their numbers. DO YOU dispute their numbers?

                    Re: “the fact that what WAS reported or relied on does not speak to what was left out,” you haven’t identified anything of import that was left out.

                    “why do you think that Cato was rated to the left on immigration and social liberty? Do YOU know?”

                    If you’d simply bothered reading the MBFC’s “detailed report,” you could have answered that for yourself: “While Cato advocates for right-wing economic policies, they support socially liberal positions such as Gay Marriage, Marijuana Legalization, and liberalized immigration.” Which is consistent with their being a libertarian think tank. You do understand that “liberalized immigration” refers to liberalized legal immigration, right? All you need have done was click on the hyperlinked “liberalized immigration” to read what Cato says about it.

                    “we really don’t know which (left or right) was more reliable and inclusively factual, do we?”

                    The “high for factual reporting” is a rating for all of their reporting. Not sure why you’d assume that it breaks differently for their reporting with a more conservative bias than for their reporting with a more liberal bias. MBFC notes that the single fact-check Cato failed was about climate change.

                    As for “moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes …,” I don’t know where on the MBFC site you’re quoting from, but it’s not from the page on the Cato Institute, and you can find parallel wording on the MBFC site for “moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes …” They’re simply explaining what they mean when they assess a source as “moderately to strongly biased” toward either liberal *or* conservative causes.

                    But Cato wasn’t assessed as being “moderately to strongly biased” in either direction, only “slight to moderately conservative in bias … Cato Institute uses moderately loaded language in its headlines and articles …”

                    Thanks anyway.

                    1. what an idiot. You say, “While Cato advocates for right-wing economic policies, they support socially liberal positions such as Gay Marriage, Marijuana Legalization, and liberalized immigration.”
                      Duh. If Cato had reported neutral on these subjects, it would have been rated “Center” not Left-Center. Do you even get it? That’s what she was saying

                    3. whoever Anonymous @3;51 Cato is rated Left of Center (liberal) for gay rights, immigration and marijuana. Its OVERALL rating is center right. idiot

                    4. Hey idiot, thanks for showing that you’re unable to answer the question: Do you dispute their numbers?

      1. Just this morning, a retired USA general reminded viewers that, when the obama administration was meeting about eliminating OsamaBinLaden, the ONLY person in the meeting to disagree (with what became a successful mission) was …. Daddy Joe. Don’t do anything that may disrupt payments or other consideration to the biden family!

    5. East Palestine, Ohio Mayor Trent Conaway: “I found out today through one of the briefings that [Biden] was in the Ukraine giving millions to people over there and doing nothing for us. I’m furious.”pic.twitter.com/8jn32aI4kc
      — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 21, 2023

      Guess who just now decided to visit East Palestine.

    7. Dennis – This is not a “last stand”. It is a “first stand”, supported by people around the country.

  11. Turley– “journalist Jenny Kleeman denounced new bots that can hold conversations and even joke precisely because they are “a dream woman” for men who “exist only for men’s use.”

    +++

    I’m guessing there isn’t much of a market for female robots that nag you.

  12. Since liberals and George Soros built and perfected Taylor Swift robots to take over American democracy our country must ask ourselves, will Taylor Swift robots force us to fly Taylor Swift flags? Stay tuned to FOXNEWS for updates.

  13. On the issue of tipping, we have known black waitresses who hated waiting on black tables because they were poor tippers. That was ages ago so maybe things have changed. Were those attractive young black ladies racist or merely realistic? A fair part of their income depended on tips so they had to be more attuned to reality than the average naval-gazing Harvard professor in ethnic studies.

  14. We should note the striking similarities to the Gang of Four’s Cultural Revolution in China. It differs only in amplitude, not in scope.

  15. Almost certainly they will demand that White and Asian engineers step up and make black robots for equity and to combat racism.

    Why don’t black engineers make black robots?

    Why don’t universities make black engineers capable of making black robots?

    Meritocracy is racist, but it does imply that you can actually do something besides sulk.

  16. One wonders what the complainers thought of The Stepford Wives, the novel and film versions. Or, although not robots, Samantha Stevens (Bewitched) and Jeannie (I Dream of Jeannie). As a girl, I could not watch Jeannie: silly, and always cooing “Ooooh, Master!” Samantha, by contrast, was cool: happy to be a suburban wife and mother, but kept her witch skills, which she often used to get her human husband out of jams.

    And what did the complainers think of The Terminator?

  17. In academia: “. . . a race to racialize common practices . . .” And: “[S]exbots are allowing men to objectify women and to pursue domination fantasies.”

    Those academics project everywhere their obsessive thoughts about race and sexual perversion.

    They don’t need the protection of tenure. They need meds, and a tight-fitting white coat.

      1. There are some notions so utterly idiotic that only an intellectual can subscribe to them (to paraphrase George Orwell, one of the – sadly – great prophets of recent decades and centuries).

        And I used to think being an intellectual was a good thing.

          1. There is a difference between being an intellectual and being an academic in modern American universities. The word “intellectual” should be reserved for someone who consumes histories, philosophical ideas and literature, and reflects on them. The Swiss figure, Jacob Burckhardt, for example, was a supreme example of the thinking man. More recently, so was Jacque Barzon (sp?). But it is quite easy to get by in the modern American academy without ever thinking at all. You can be the strawman from The Wizard of Oz. Memorize the right rhetoric, take the obligatory political postures, adopt a fashionable victim status, and you can be there for life.

  18. Excellent point, black robots would necessarily be black AND servile which would also seemingly invite similar cultural criticism. While outlawing sexbots would create, what, a literal black market? Not to mention, this is also quite literally an exercise in capitalism, as we strive once again to capitalize on labor, in this case techno-labor. Which, sexbots, by the way, the Japanese have been trying to perfect for at least thirty years now. With the goal of course as the evolutionary “problem solvers,” juxtaposed with evolutionary “nurturers,” of doing precisely what feminist ethicists fear – creating the “dream woman” as perfect counterpart. Which would also have the effect of eventually declaring all women obsolete, genetically necessary breeders excepted. That’s if we males ourselves are permitted to exist, as our labor and problem solving ability, will no longer be needed. Which also has the effect of ultimately altering this thing of “value” which gave rise to our evolutionary capitalism.

    1. We are all Africans. We all come from Africa.
      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-africa-became-the-cradle-of-humankind-108875040/

      OTOH, Africans today become indignant when American blacks call themselves African-American. I once asked a Haitian cab drive if he was African-American. He went all Haitian Voodoo on me and I went all Cuban on him. We laughed towards the end but initially I really thought he was going to lose his schlit.
      Lesson learned.

      1. Estovir: “We are all Africans. We all come from Africa.”
        +++

        That used to be the stronger case but maybe not now. Evolution didn’t stop with migration from Africa. For example, European and Asian populations include Neanderthal genes but Africans have hardly any. Same with Denisovan.

        Similarly one could argue that all aircraft come from the first Wright brothers’ craft but there are significant differences between it and an F-35.

        We all come from primordial soup but we are a little bit different from soup except, maybe, as a soup ingredient for cannibals.

        1. What science doesn’t tell us, has never told us, is that there is but one formula for life but innumerable opportunities in a timeless world plastered in primordial soup.

          1. Anon: “science has never told us “there is but one formula for life”.

            +++

            Probably not true.

  20. Some of these ideas might have been worth considering if the prog/left hadn’t made such a farce about such things as race and gender already. The sheer idiocy of most of their rants concerning these issues have so devalued the concepts that discussion is useless what with all the fanatics ranting and raving about their victimized lives because of Western Culture.

Comments are closed.