Gotta be honest, I’m incredibly uncomfortable with Micah having a leadership role at RHED. I’ll obv default to Black leadership on this, but I’m not gonna hold back on vocalizing how incredibly violating this feels to me as a survivor of sexual assault...
More from Court
I've decided that I will not be spouting off an uninformed, kneejerk opinion on a topic I don't have enough information about. Instead I shall cast shame on the idiots who do, and bring further confusion to everyone.
We as a people have been defanged not only by being fed wheelbarrows full of raw unmitigated horseshit, but even the knowledge of where to go to find this information has been buried beneath obscuring layers of horseshit thicker than the planet's crust.
We do not live in a democracy, whose vital functions require a freeflow of information much like pure capitalism requires a completely informed consumer populace. We instead live in an oligopoly of knowledge, where important facts we need to know are denied to us and hoarded away
Much like how we do not live under true capitalism as knowledge we need to make informed decisions as consumers is locked away and hidden behind thicc layers of legal documents, denying us knowledge of our rights under the rules of commerce we allegedly agreed to.
This is how we are denied our rights. By denying us knowledge of our rights, and then by denying us pathways to seek said knowledge, and if not removing them then hiding them within websites hosted on fucking geocities servers and javascript written by lowest bidder.
What\u2019s your level of optimism on this election going to the Supreme Court
— Dr. Gulag inmate president elect 69420 (@ViewnComs) December 17, 2020
We as a people have been defanged not only by being fed wheelbarrows full of raw unmitigated horseshit, but even the knowledge of where to go to find this information has been buried beneath obscuring layers of horseshit thicker than the planet's crust.
We do not live in a democracy, whose vital functions require a freeflow of information much like pure capitalism requires a completely informed consumer populace. We instead live in an oligopoly of knowledge, where important facts we need to know are denied to us and hoarded away
Much like how we do not live under true capitalism as knowledge we need to make informed decisions as consumers is locked away and hidden behind thicc layers of legal documents, denying us knowledge of our rights under the rules of commerce we allegedly agreed to.
This is how we are denied our rights. By denying us knowledge of our rights, and then by denying us pathways to seek said knowledge, and if not removing them then hiding them within websites hosted on fucking geocities servers and javascript written by lowest bidder.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
