Cruelty

    Cruelty comes from within the home

    Cruelty comes from the industries that promote it

    Cruelty comes from all who accept it in silence

    Cruelty is cloaked in words to alter its description in attempts to make it pervasive

    Cruelty could be interchanged with other words similarly in describing much

   

Deception, Weakness, and Trump

    Trump's first days in office were notably described in the same way that any autocratic leader would pay attention to any perception given of their own following.  Lackluster inaugural crowds that filled the streets were merely evidence of that weakness and so to it Trump's inclination to deceive.  Predictably, it isn't that any might have known that Trump's loose and free flowing tweet speech would provide self evidence of what should follow in the White House when he would take office.  All the measure of Trump's agenda would follow in a flurry of confusion, denial, deception and all measure of perception that Trump would have in store when under a new 'zero tolerance' immigration policy had taken effect.

   Trump's denial of his own actions.
   The Trump's own administration providing conflicting reports including outright lying certainly wouldn't help.
    Trump admitting in so many words doing so, but in order to be 'tough', child separations are necessary!
     Trump's scapegoating other political parties for his own actions.
 
    And there we have it, president willy nilly fears political reprisal but loves the posture of being the president that has effectively used children as 'weapon' pawns for political purpose. In this case, its president deception as 'humanitarian' that has pushed forward any new immigration legislation with special urgency.  In that way, it is let us 'cooperate' to rewrite the legacy of democrats.  Adding to this Sessions Trump emphasizing 'biblical' purpose that seems more apparently the historical arguments offered by proponents of slavery, then having followed anything moral or just.

    The beginning of the end of leaders though usually starts, however, when 'just kidding' follows by actions that are far more meaningful.  Political correctness and 'just kidding' wouldn't follow with the Trail of Tears now would it?  When your power demonstrates its more clear purpose and intention, despite all the cult, lies and weakness to follow, it seems people will remember your actions and your words.

   Journalists so much the 'enemy of the people' are feared in providing any more transparency to what could be imagined, a brief audio recording released to the press of crying children in such detention facility indicate precisely what most (excepting apparently 50 plus percent of present GOP ranks according to one CNN poll) would find egregious...it is noted that well over 2/3 of those surveyed disagreed, however, with the president's action in separating children from their parents.  Of course, one would hope those numbers only incline and likely they will as more information is known and provided.  Cruelty and inhumanity shown more clearly on our own shores should be a wake up call.

It goes without saying Trump has no business leading this country.  Has the word 'chaos' been outlived as of yet? Or is it merely evidence all the more to the euphemism of Trump's circus power?    Hard to see those victimized in the wake of 'chaotic' decision making as being served by 'chaos' for its own sake?  Clearly Trump has purpose in the system and its not merely in invoking disorder and agenda....can better precision of words be used here?

Problems for the Dark Forest Theory and Advanced Civilizations

Referencing article: http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet

Why not very likely a scneario...

Perhaps prevailing logic of advanced civilization beyond type 1 orders could be that getting beyond type 1 means that most type 1 civilizations will be self eliminated before ever having reached such a stage and far less likely to prove a threat in terms of being invasive or a threat.

Prevailing logic of advanced civilizations beyond type 1...high inter cooperation, not competition and elimination oriented.

Prevailing  logic of competition oriented civilizations, taxing to resource usages, more likely to self destruct through the anthropogenic effects of climate change or anything else taxing a life hosting environment, nuclear, biological, and/or aggregate industrial catastrophes.  There is no reason to believe that higher order civilization would need bother with eliminating if competition/threat were an issue. 

That is a waste of time and resource.

Eurydice Dixon

   Eurydice Dixon: Comedian's killing prompts anger in Australia

Watching Picnic at Hanging Rock 

We only have ourselves to blame for not conforming enough.

We only have ourselves to blame for being on the wrong side of the tracks at the wrong time.

How to move past the clock being moved backwards

    Clocks have been pushed back much in history.  This is inevitable.









 






     Out of step with time?







     Have faith.








     Another famous writer once offered something about the thief of time is punctuality.









      

Chaos and Trump

   What is justice when a sitting president offers impunity by pardon power?  In all the wake of legal chaos, it seems so many rabbit trails have been open in the pursuit of inquiry that Trump is potentially redefining the practice of investigation.  What happens when investigators are spread in ever wide reaching spheres of inquiry and all of this leads to yet more prosecution while Trump remains untouched? 

    Certainly everyday passing only reveals how unscrupulous Trump has been, and by this observation, if by ignorance alone, Trump is likely to be caught up by anything that up ends his previous work, but does this really matter?  I say this because Trumpian chaos is spectacular in its way to operate success from failure, as has been the practice of turning success from loss in business, it isn't merely that Trump overtly worked this practice the minute that he set foot into the White House, as evidenced by overt commercial advertising for family business.  Trump's ZTE negotiations had shown more thinly Trump's brand of nationalist protectionism.  ZTE a Chinese based smartphone manufacturer had been banned in the US for integrated spyware.  This particular ban of technology were put in place under the Obama administration, this ban went generally unnoticed by the public until Trump.  Trump, on the other hand, made apparent his unskilled practice of double speak in lifting the ban.  ZTE's offered incentives to get Trump to lift the ban?  Apparently an Indonesian tower with Trump's name on it was brokered.       Trump's disarray and chaos has largely presided on the basis of wealth culture providing itself that freedom to do as it pleases, and in the process working from self propagation.  There isn't the notion of survival, or if it ever existed, the power paradigm rested upon prestige by scale.  Deception shouldn't exist any more than faith in such system afforded its own self evident truth.  Accounting irregularities are paid off mythologies as are the lies told by leaders that blithely spin their version of 'fake news'.

    One writer/comment person in media offers with casual excitement that Trump is spinning chaos into the system.   If that were given by the excitement that America were treading into new territorial waters and the system were changing.  It isn't, however, so exciting in that it were the digress of costing tax payers in more obvious ways.  Be it higher gas prices, or consumer product inflation all timed in concurrence to strike in more obvious ways after the midterm elections.  Trump's befriending enemy and making enemies of friends suggests only Trump's culture of unilateral reliance  Inclination isn't merely given by those scratching their heads asking why precisely why globalism hadn't worked around Trump, there appears to be just this occurring.  Scrapping an Iranian deal that were over a decade in the making (extending beyond Trump) would have assuredly been avoided, for instance, if the Iranian's brokered a Trump tower deal, and in this moment of chaos, it seems that all of this could be entirely possible, and that Trump had renegotiated a  deal that hadn't provided greater world wide security but actually weakened it, only on the premise of optical prestige and all that has brought Trump into power.

   Its not that the injection of chaos couldn't be good, it is when it is done so poorly only having made self evident any number of those caught in the wake of it.  Headlines to children separated from their parents by ICE in containing detention cages couldn't match the outrage of another parent's admiration of the new Trump era having done much the same.  Much that we wouldn't treat ourselves as we treat others as so popularly rained in an era of dehumanization.  Trump offers pardons with ease to the dead and to his allies.    Trump's  power operates through no concession, no admittance of failure, through the propagation of lies. Trump's business acumen is given certainly by an optics of the Trump mythology of America's apocalyptic cities.  More precisely, resurrection is given not by new opportunities but a mythological nostalgia.  Trump is an anachronism spinning the chaos of old ghosts that are certain to want to rest in peace and probably could care less for pardons.  Such nostalgia would insist on maintaining more costly and aging power infrastructure:  coal and nuclear plants that have been long up for decommissioning.  Trump has been merely embarrassed that inevitable demise, even under Trump, still happened with already so many closures of plant facilities and more likely to come, even as Trump offers vague references to national security in keeping these open.  The obvious downside of operating such can be self evident in countries that have over time refused free markets and have maintained costly infrastructure in the process.  The timing of power plant closures, especially relating to the hollow promises of Trump and coal country, is all optics to Trump.  It looks bad and avoiding the obvious, even if it were to cost taxpayers in the long run, should be more important to Trump.  As an aside even if coal were made more prominent in the American power grid landscape, and this bringing more coal mining back, it seems there is only greater likelihood that the jobs created were ones through automation and technology relative to human labor.  The rise of black lung disease, that hasn't been seen for decades is a testament of just how pressurized human labor markets are in such industries where human labor can't compete with automation.  Likely if companies want to invest in coal extraction it neglects human labor and jobs to go with it. 

    The turbulence that Trump has generated it seems should likely dissipate, at least being undone substantially in the future.  While the echoes of pre WWII protectionism seem alight, Trump's timing is off.  The French far right seem to have been thwarted as is likely the case of other movements.  Even the Brexit movement seems to be running an often tenuous calculus for an ever so cautious economy that wonders of its own self direction without a firm partner in the US that has of recent sent poor vibes.  Trump seems chaotic to the tenure of anti globalism and America first considering itself neither beyond Trump's power alone.  There isn't longevity belonging to a White House concerning itself more so with rapid sound offs and egos alike.  Trump's populism is given to a fleeting narrative that will likely remain the fixation of conspiracy theorist, victimization and victim blaming so often used.  Trump will likely have moved beyond such, however even in the case of eventual impeachment or anything else pushing Trump to exit if and when such should be the case, and in that measure, Trump isn't thinking about legacy but more likely Tower deals that had provided enough visual opulence, all the chaos of legal suits to follow over the power of management of such towers will have preoccupied a president's mind.  That Trump could also be of little tangible worth but all the worth in his own spectacle serves his time in office.  Trump will have only have remembered so much, otherwise, of his victimization and having generated new narratives certainly well into the future.  There is little calming the spectacle of his cult that has ensued for all the chaos. 
          

Reaction to are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

Here is the prefacing article:

Are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

First amendment wording, of course, makes vague construed meaning of speech though it is probably more clearly implied communication.   

The answer to the question is yes, probably, bots could potentially be safeguarded as having protected forms of speech since neither does the amendment differentiate really who is doing the speaking.  That is speech could be individuals, groups of individuals, institutions, businesses, and have multiple authors.  Secondly, even if parsing the difference between human and non human in such distinction, the embedded authorship and protections of this, could be construed as protected as well, could it not?  The amendment again does not make distinction between whether such speech originates from human or not, nor distinction given to citizenship or anything else.  The amendment in the most abstract form reads to protect speech.  

Now online speech on private servers may have limitations as given by the distinction of public and private places.  Technically any twitter bot, could be banned (as has happened) even if the originating speech was technically coded by a human author...in other words, even if the authorship of such speech were ruled human, still limitations of speech in private spaces apply.  

Businesses are likewise curtailed even in public forums the right of speech in so far as advertising (signage space and format, for instance), and thus even so time restrictions could apply to say bot advertising spam in public spaces in the future as given by any locality (or broader) laws passed.  

Whether you like the bot, because it truly cares or misrepresents itself as human, for instance, is irrelevant in view of the law.  This doesn't mean, of course, that online the bot always has protected speech.  Obviously, twitter banned a number of bots on its servers,, and has its own reason to do so, most excepting those alt right people having lost a number of 'friend' voices might complain.  Other than they, whether bots have freedom of speech is probably irrelevant to issues of bot communication and handling of other issues...why need to pass laws in the first place in other words with respect to curtailing bot speech?

As it has been suggested in article that bots and 'fake news' going hand in hand have played a role in offering much 'misleading content'.  That being said, and not equally applicable to groups of individuals or governments in the past having done much the same.  Bots may serve in automation being able to scale volume of information but in many respects are as good (at present) as the human programmers that have conceived of manners in which to manipulate people.  Secondly, all the tools for scaled dissemination of 'misleading news' exists as easily for people.  I raise the point: what is the distinction between task automation and 'bots'? In this sense, I would ask what delineates tools of scale and automation relative to a bot having performed such tasks excepting that a human was required to do multiples of such task relative to having instructed a bot to perform all of these, nonetheless, by degrees of difference, task automation were involved in either process.  In other words, if the 'bot' writes the email as a well as compiling the mass mailing of deception, relative to the human that task wise does the same thing, only not having the bot at his or her disposal, what makes one so different relative another? The tools of task automation (email address lists),  and so forth, are still there...is such task automation worthy of the characteristic 'bot' and in the descriptive of censorship not protected speech when it is used and employed?  This indicates only the legal and logical problems of parsing distinctions of 'bot' if any such definition is construed for the purposes of law making legality of speech.  It is, perhaps, not only cumbersome but potentially absurd and labyrinthine. 

Perhaps, the future looks different in this respect, if machine learning systems have 'learned' better ways in deceiving people, and there is an unwillingness to tackle systemic issues in this respect.