Click on image for best video version.
Carr discusses how the FCC will deal with an absence of “good faith” in social media’s handling of the free speech rights of its members. He also talks about how the Communist Party of China has been using media to conceal it’s real role in the spread of the coronavirus. Carr is a clear speaker and provides many useful insights into how the FCC will deal with these and other matters.
Empathy literally means the capacity to recognize the emotions being experienced by another sentient being.
It is almost always bound up with sympathy and compassion. Empathy as we normally think of it is a good thing, a liberal thing, a Buddhist thing, a kindly thing. But is that a good thing?
When I first read William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and of Experience in my late teens, I adored the poems and illustrations of the Songs of Innocence and largely disliked or ignored the Songs of Experience. I liked the joy, innocence, and passion of the Songs of Innocence but not the sober truths of the Songs of Experience.
Culturally, as far as I can tell, America is infatuated with the innocence of empathy, but not the sober truths that should go hand in hand with it.
If all people were nice and kind and never did bad things, it would be good to be innocent about empathy. But not all people are good. Indeed, most of us are only good sometimes and some of us are really bad a lot of the time.
Do you have the capacity to recognize the emotions being experienced by a person intent on doing harm? Doesn’t our current sense of what empathy entails leave out empathy’s evil twin, the bad emotions and intentions of other sentient beings?
I don’t know if it is still true today, but Japanese tourists visiting the USA used to get mugged and raped at levels well above their percentage of the population. The reason was, and maybe still is, they were too innocent and could not perceive the evil intent of their new “friend” or the cool dude asking them for the time.
This happened because Japan has less violent crime than the USA and because Japanese tourists were not able to imagine or read American situational exchanges. And this shows that empathy for evil is based both on expectation and culture, which are close in nature.
The Buddha said that we can only really know another human being after long association. Even he cautioned about being innocent and empathizing only with the good we see in others while failing to recognize the bad.
The video below is interesting and well-worth viewing. It is about universal digitization and collection of all individual human biological and genetic identities.
(The vid is also about population/birth control, which is much less interesting.)
Universal digitization of everything human is inevitable. I see no argument that can credibly deny that, save human extinction. Technological advances are all but impossible to stop.
Digitization of communication led almost immediately to the collection of all digitized communication in the NSA database. The USA cannot abandon that database because if we do, other nation’s will continue with theirs and quickly outpace us.
In this way, many/most technologies can be used for aggression and there is no way to stop that or protect against it except to research and develop those technologies ourselves. This basic idea is true for digitized technologies as well as medical and genetic ones. And it is true for all nations capable of doing the work.
Bioweapons research cannot be reliably banned globally, nor can genetic research which will eventually lead to designer babies. If we don’t do it, someone else will. And whoever does it best will gain a great advantage over rivals who have eschewed that field.
EDIT: There are three other parts in this series on Bill Gates. They can be found here: The Corbett Report.
Something 99% of American voters do not understand. Congress doesn’t actually write legislation. The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to a segment of operations in DC known as K-Street. That’s where the lobbyists reside.
Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.
CTH often describes the system with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.” The process of creating legislation is behind that phrase. DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame most voter’s reference points.
With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; perhaps it is valuable to provide clarity.
Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.
In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.
Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now.