🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@pthenq1 Sure, how is that in any way remotely relevant.. you do not shoot dead an armed non-violent accomplice.

If you want to argue that they should be arrested and tried for a crime, sure, you wont get any disagreement from me on that, so your point is moot.

@pthenq1

Whatever you want to call the unarmed non-violent individuals who were murdered are fine with me. I dont condone what they did, but what they did isnt even close to as bad as murdering an unarmed person who is not being violent towards another person in cold blood. They should have (and would have been in the right for using) non-violent means if they wanted. Pepperspray, teargas, rubber bullets all could have been justified against an unarmed person breaking into a capitol building. but once you murder a non-violent unarmed person you loose any right to having the high ground regardless of what they were doing.

@timorl ill look through it again when i have a chance

For now i will say the one you picked is actually the one I'd expect to be most likely to come across as "hang mike pence" only because it is the one where the "we" which is the most distinguishing characteristic is most muffled and "mike pence" and "want pence" have similar meter.

@rlamacraft Also notice in the video you posted 3 policeman hold off the crowd and are not assaulted even once, despite their clear intention to get inside not one single person strikes an officer in that crowd or do you see them attempting to injur or hurt anyone in that video at any point.

However you **do** see a police officer behind the door shooting and killing the unarmed and non-violent protests for breaking the window and trying to enter.

They are destroying property, and what they are doing is wrong, and ive said this before, but that doesnt change the fact that an unarmed person who did not commit violence against any persons was shot dead.

@rlamacraft Never said how they behaved was acceptable, or that they were non-confrontational.. I did say that they they were unarmed and non-violent. More specifically:

1) The vast majority did not strike, injure or otherwise cause violence against a person. The only exceptions I know of this was in response to first being beaten physically by the person who was attacked, and even then I only know of one such case

2) Multiple protestors, all unarmed, none of whom phyiscally assaulted anyone were killed

Moreover, it wasnt until AFTER the first unarmed protesters was murdered that more wide spread aggression started taking place (though still only isolated cases of physical violence).

Surprise surprise, 4 out of 5 of the people who died at the capitol hill riots were unarmed and non-violent pro-trump supporters, the one none Trump supporter killed was a cop who was struck in the head while he was actively beating people with his baton, effectively the one initiating violence and the crowd defended itself by the sound of it, in the interaction he got struck and died a day later from the head injury. Its sad that he got hit and I dont justify the violence overall, but if your the one sitting there beating people with a stick people fighting back is kind of the expectation, its not an acceptable tactic against unarmed civilians IMO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html

#USPol #Trump #CapitolHill

@timorl yes i would cut it up the way you cut it up, but would not have picked the snipped you picked to cut up (it is the least clear of all of them IMO)

@timorl Then you are trying to test soemthing very different then what you said you were trying to test, and thats fine.. what you are trying to test is, what was most likely actually said. Thats fine and a great thing to test, but also wouldnt tell you, then, anything about which of us is politically biased.

@timorl In my view if i were walking down the street and you happened to be standing in my way and I said "move" and you didnt, and i walked through you, causing you to stumble to the side unharmed, then no that isnt violence, violence implies you have been harmed in some way. If you were to respond to taht by taking a baton and bashing me over the head then I would say you were the one initiating violence.

> . And applied to the latter, especially in the case of crowds, it would make any kind of crowd control impossible.

non violent crowd control is not just possible, its far more effective., you have pepper sprays, physical barriers, sound weapons, and a host of non-violent tools that are far far more effective than physical beatings.

Keep in mind I did say someone being pushed aside, such as a cop in this case is inappropriate, and wrong.. but it isnt violence.

Ultimately its about escalation, it is absolutely unacceptable to respond to one act with another significantly more violent act.. you do not repond to someone pushing through you by beating them over the head with a stick as they did, you do not shoot them to death when unarmed and havent struck anyone, as they did, etc.

We even uphold this principle in our own laws (though sadly as of late cops are above the law), it is the law of proportionality, you are allowed to defend yourself but only with similar force as that which you are threatened. so for example shooting an unarmed non violent protest dead for bashing in a window, however wrong that may be, is not proportional and makes YOU the bad guy, not them.

@timorl yes but those biases dont work against what youa re testing they work for it. I remind you what your testing for from your OP:

> 1. I am so influenced by propaganda my basic senses are broken.
2. The above, but for the other participant.
3. This specific video is an auditory case of blue/black vs white/gold dress.

So you are trying to determine if people hear if we were hearing what we were hearing because its what the chant **sounded like** (not what it actually was) or if we were hearing what we were hearing due to our **personal political biases**

If you eliminate people who already know the context of the chant then you eliminated any chance of what someone hears is due to political bias, as they have no context for that. Therefore what you get when people hear the whole phrase will be what the average person, not viewing it within any politicial framework, is likely to hear "hang mike pence" or "we want pence".

If, as you say people who hear any chant are more likely to lean towards "we want pence" simply because that is a more common wording for a chant, then youa re arguing that me hearing "we want pence" is more likely **not** to be due to political bias than you hearing "hang mike pence" would be (since the latter is not what a non-political context bias would lean towards).

So in fact while the biases you describe are valid, they are also entierly in line with what you were testing for and not biases you would even want to eliminate.

@timorl depends on how they do it.. breaking a window isnt violence against a person, someone standing in your way and you simply walking past them anyway (pushing through them) also isnt violence...

Now if someone stands in your way and you beat them with a stick till they move, then that IS violence.

Ironically the only one (for the most part) being anyone with sticks were the cops.

I would say that they "physically overpowered" the cops, I would also say that a small number of people (the ones breaking glass) were "destructive of property"... but violence towards an individual is not something that is guaranteed as a matter of course simply by walking into a building you arent allowed or walking through a line of people standing in your way, particularly when no one actually struck a cop to do it

@timorl Only way i could see it increasing bias is if it causes someone to identify the scene it came from and remember it. But we should already be rulling that out by asking explicitly if that is the case. Presuming, however, that they are unable to identify the setting in which the chant occured and never heard about it or saw the video then I cant see why it would increase bias.

But our brains need context to understand what is being said even in the best of circumstances. The "chinese telephone" example that is often done in schools is a great example of that, single words become distorted very quickly as they are passed on but phrases tend to remain intact and are understood and rarely become changed into something refelecting ones biases (though im sure it does happen).

@timorl

This is the first time you refered to it as threatening/aggressive behavior rather than violence. That is a big difference in my eyes. There is a huge chasm between being physically violent towards a human being vs breaking a window, one I will call violence, the other I would agree is aggressive and even threatening, but isnt violence.

There is also the matter of considering who strikes a human first in an encounter of mutual violence to determine who is in the right in my mind.

So take the example of the police officer being beaten by the flagpole.. had he at any point earlier int he day beaten people in the crowd with his baton? Every single incident i saw where a police officer was even threatened (such as the one running through the halls as people chassed him while he periodically stopped to beat them a little with his baton)... in every case it can be seen the police officer initiating the violence by beating them with their baton or similar, and only after that (and usually repeated examples of that) did the crowd respond with any level of violence.

Even then those examples are very rare, in one case we have the officer who died who was reported and admitted to be actively beating the crowd with his baton before finally being struck, and in the other case with the flagpole, which we dont have video evidence to know, but seems possible he was doing the exact same thing.

Only other physical violence of any kind I know of from the events were explicitly non-lethal but also in like kind. For example they were being actively tear/pepper gassed by police and one protestor responded by pepper spraying the police in return.

REgardless overall it appears far more violence was done on them then they did in return, as is evidence by the death toll being almost exclusively trump supporters.

@timorl

> Eh, since you brough up the previous discussion I was curious about one more thing, still related to the chant, I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you do maybe stop reading or feel free to ignore.

I dont mind you asking, and in general I dont mind you casually bringing up points from it. I just didnt want to continue a point by point that was unproductive.

> How does "We want Pence" make sense as a chant? The closest I see in the context is a thinly veiled threat, instead of an explicit one. Do you see something better or is this how you understood it?

Hard to say, since as a group they didnt exhibit any violence towards people or politicians (as we covered), and that even when violence was done against them. In fact of the 5 people killed 4 of the were unarmed pro-trump protestors, the 5th was a cop who was actively beating the crowd with his baton when he was struck. So even the data we have from the day shows that they were not violent and were far more the victim than the aggressor in terms of engaging in human violence.

So with that said it paints a picture for me what the crowd likely would have done should Pence have shown up, probably surrounded him and yelled profanities at him until he slinked away out of sight, presuming the cops didn't escalate things, as they tend to do, and start shooting or beating even more people (at which point its hard to say if he would have remained safe).

they clearly didnt like pence though and they clearly wanted to let him know that face to face. I was not implying that it was a chant to show their **support** of pence, I was only claiming that it was not a chant of murder.

> Interestingly, one of the interpretations in the file imo makes more sense as a completely non-confrotational chant (and in general as a chant in the context) -- "We want best".

I personally would dismiss this as an explanation, too stretched.

@timorl Ok so not a big enough sample for me personally to do much with, but its a start. I would only use the full words.mp3 myself as a person needs context to pull out phrases in general.

How much did this cost you, I might be willing to throw in some money (if its cheap enough) to get a larger sample data on just the words.mp3

@hansw@mastodon.social I find that there are very very few people (pretty much just people with mental conditions who cant function in any capacity like even feeding themselves) who are incapable of training for marketable skills.

Intellectual persuits are just one time of highly-skilled labour. There are physical skills as well. Take for example a hibachi chef (one of the best paid chefs).. they have little to no need to have any intellectual skills, but they do train physically to be able to do all sorts of stunts and feats with food as they cook, they are a mix between a juggler and a skilled chef. Thats just one example

You also have artisans who do intricate wood inlays, again not an intellectual skill but highly-skilled and well paid as well

There is an endless list of high-skilled labour that doesnt require cleverness.

@hansw@mastodon.social Oh you mean your asking, how do we fix the problem if minimum wage isnt the solution...

Well in my mind thats simple, there is the short term part which just keeps them alive and cared for till we fix the mess we created, and there is the long term part where we make sure they dont need assistance in the future (at least not very often)

Short term the solution is welfare. If someone makes less than a living wage, the government should help them with their basic needs (food, shelter, whatever the bare minimum is to stay alive and relatively safe).

Long term is the real meat and potatoes of any solution though. That mostly comes from making underskilled workers, skilled workers. That means providing education, vocational training, in some cases psychiatry help as well.

The key is to make sure people to leech off the short term solutions and dont take or engage with the long term solutions. for that I tend to say welfare should be incentive based. That is, if you arent taking the free education and training from the long-term side, then the help you get short term will be so minimal as to be unpleasant (just enough food not to have malnutrition, and yoru shelter would be a cot with a bunch of other people). However for those who do take the long term help and apply themselves, such as seeking education, those people will get much better short term help, more money for more enriching foods, and enough shelter to live alone in a small apartment or with a single roomate in a nice area.

@hansw@mastodon.social It leaves them without a job if minimum wage is increased, it leaves them with a job if it isnt.

Are you suggesting germany forces companies to hire underqualified individuals? I never had to do a deep analysis on germany specifically though have analyzed this data for EU countries in general as well as other countries around the world.

@hansw@mastodon.social the data tends to be the same in europe, in fact it is the same anyplace they have a free market where hiring policies are not forced to hire underqualified people. I just dont happen to have a nice pretty image that shows that. But I've worked on enough european data to know it holds true just as well for europe.

@hansw@mastodon.social I already knew the data/results to be true from years of working on similar data directly and from past studies I've read or worked on (I do peer review occasionally).

The image itself was just the first one I could pull up that had a cited source attached to it that matches the data I've seen from countless past analysis. The source is quoted on the image though and you can find both the raw data and the source of the image here if you'd like to follow up on the specific image sourcing:

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/does-minimum-wage-increase-worker-productivity