Monday assorted links

Comments

4. I saw that earlier, and as an anti stagnation argument. Heck of a lot of change in 100 years.

It made me wonder how much we think we haven't changed simply because the gentleman's suit has had perseverance.

A lot of the significant changes I think came in the first 50 of that 100 years. Since 1970, not as much change with as significant an impact ( except for this blog :-; )

This blog might depend a bit on the integrated circuit, 1959-present.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The clothes are interesting; to my eye they don't seem like they could have been compatible with modern life, but maybe we could just as easily be dressing that way.

Kind of sad in a way that Asiatics of all kinds have embraced western clothing styles and pretty much abandoned their own.

Yes! very sad. So much of the world is abandoning its beautiful, comfortable, traditional clothing for the victorian business suit.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Does South Africa's case study prove that strict lockdowns are more or less futile for most countries? Sweden never had one and they're doing great by now. Israel and Argentina had very strict ones, but cases are exploding there.

What is the end game for South Africa?

"What is the end game for South Africa?"

Zimbabwe

Trump runs America like a business. Great that his businesses never fail.

If you fail less than you succeed is that not a good thing? He is clearly a successful businessman.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yep. Unfortunately, no magic dirt in SA.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

By what metric is Sweden doing "great?" That their case loads and death rates are better than the Imperial College model?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes, today many of the formally"oppressed" can say almost anything they like today. Representatives of these groups can claim that the 4th of July is a celebration of white supremacy. They can provide some of the most worthless, biased studies that the world has ever seen.

Just try to go against the leftist mob on college campuses and see what happens to you. Can a conservative get a job in many departments at "leading" universities? Can a pro-life professor get a job? And that disease is spreading corporate American and our politics.

So let's celebrate the new free speech that tears down monuments and silences any who don't praise radicals and a leftist agenda.

'Representatives of these groups can claim that the 4th of July is a celebration of white supremacy.'

What did Frederick Douglass know about slavery anyways? Maybe Trump should call him up and let him have a piece of the president's mind. teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/

My favorite part was when they recently tore down his statue. Word on the street is they're going after Lincoln too. Bet he wished he would've paid $300 for every freed slave and sent them to Liberia haha!!

Cancel culture is an equal opportunity employer, as the following illustrates (with video, as is de rigeur in this cancel culture age).

Less than an hour after it was finished on Saturday afternoon, vandals came for the Black Lives Matter street slogan in Martinez, Calif.

A woman in flip-flops and a patriotic shirt splattered a can of black paint over the bright yellow “L” in “Black” heaving her paint roller over the letters outside the Contra Costa County courthouse. Her companion, a man in a red “Four More Years” shirt from President Trump’s campaign and red “Make America Great Again” hat, told onlookers, “No one wants Black Lives Matter here.”

“What is wrong with you?” someone asked the unidentified vandals from off-camera, in a viral video of the incident also shared by police.

“We’re sick of this narrative, that’s what’s wrong,” the man responded. “The narrative of police brutality, the narrative of oppression, the narrative of racism. It’s a lie.”

The Martinez Police Department is searching for the two suspects in the latest incident of vandalism targeting Black Lives Matter street art, the department said Sunday. From Cleveland to Montpelier, Vt., BLM street slogans have been defaced in recent weeks amid nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality.

Like the street art in Washington that inspired it, Martinez’s version was sanctioned by the city. twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1279880871697428480

Luckily for defenders of free expression, they have both been charged with various crimes related to their canceling activities.

"street art"

It's very dangerous inspiring this much laughter so close to lunch.

I thought the white vandals using black paint were particularly inspiring when it comes to laughter.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=594.

So you're upset at white vandals vandalizing something that was already vandalized by vandals?

From the article again, if you don't want to watch the video, where the same point is made to the pair - "Gomez said they initially wanted to paint “Black Lives Matter” in a popular plaza, but the city suggested the street outside the county courthouse. The local activists thought it was a good compromise while they search for another location for a larger slogan in the meantime, Gomez said."

Nothing was vandalized, except the city approved words painted legally in front of the courthouse.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Two individuals, who face hate crime charges, are your symbols of a cancel culture? While Nancy Pelosi, an elected official responds to the destruction of memorials as People will do what people do.

Really, you are that out of touch with reality?

They are just another couple of poster children for cancel culture, an equal opportunity employer.

This guy was a part of what was happening in Martinez too, according to the Post, clearly not a gun control loving leftist. "He said his feeling was confirmed when another man was arrested for pulling a gun on a person at the site of the slogan on Sunday. The man had allegedly driven by in a Jeep yelling, “All lives matter,” before turning around and pointing the gun at a person defending the art, ABC7 reported."

So it is three people, one day, in a fairly small town. After watching the video, it seems a self promoting stunt as much as anything else, and the pair likely expect to make a tidy sum from contributors. Hard to tell.

They just might be another example of victims being oppressed/triggered/made to feel unsafe by institutional approval of words on a street.

They are facing criminal charges for hate crimes. And saying All Lives Matter is a hate crime in this country now. Meanwhile, people arrested for looting and rioting are released without charges by Democratic officials across the country. Two powerless people with a paintbrush compared to elected officials. Who is running the cancel culture? How about Kim Foxx in Chicago calling in her staff and forcing white employees to apologize to black employees for their white privilege? Is that cancel culture? What happens if the employees refuse to participate? A couple in St Louis face confiscation of property because they opposed a Democratic sanctioned mob. It is now criminal to oppose a mob that supports Democratic officials.

Odd that two powerless individuals with a paintbrush are an example of cancel culture. Compare with Stephen Hsu of Michigan State University who was attacked, called a racist, and punished by the school for quoting on his blog the research of another MSU professor, Joe Cesario. What did he say?
“We found that the race of the officer doesn’t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot,” the study concluded, according to The College Fix."

That kind of research gets you punished on college campuses.

also saying blue lives matter will get a girl canceled

Respond

Add Comment

Here’s a simple way of getting a feel for the trend over the last two decades. As a supporter of freedom of expression, I’ve been covering cancellations on my iSteve blog since late 2000. In the first decade of the 21st Century, they were rare enough that I might write 5 or 10 times about a cancellation, such as those of Gregg Easterbrook, Larry Summers, or James D. Watson.

These days, in contrast, cancellations are so frequent that I can’t come close to covering them all even once.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You have never read the Douglas speech, have you?

"Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost."

"Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give
fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory."

Sure he was attacking the Founders as racists. Sure he was condeming the 4th of July as a celebration of white supremacy.

Our education system is producing idiots.

"Our education ... producing idiots."

+100

That is the ultimate cause of our problems. The teaching "profession" has been corrupted. It may be too late to fix.

The education system has produced stupid dolts like DanC and EdR. I'm forced to agree.

Good grief, 90% of what Dan posted was Douglass; is Douglass a dolt too?

Really, every American should, just as a matter of education.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Can a pro-life professor get a job?"

A pro universal health care for all professor?

Anti-racist anti-KKK, anti-lynching professor?

A history professor who requires students to study genocide everywhere including in US history like "indian removal", Tulsa white supremacist even dropping fire bombs from planes 90 years before Assad in Syria?

A human rights and justice law professor against the death penalty.

Those who self describe as "pro-life" are in a culture of killing people, who claim anyone not born in the US, or naturalized by Trump, are not persons under the US Constitution, but claim the Constitution protects a "person" that the Constitution doesn't recognize.

The intellectual right twists the meaning of words into the opposite of their common meaning.

Why should any institution of rhetoric, logic, reason embrace a professor of word salad, illogic, and irrational dogma?

Please go back on your meds

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You guys seem to hate liberals, does that make you right-wing intellectuals?

Don’t be delusional. We (most of us) don’t hate liberals. Many of us consider ourselves classical liberals. But take affirmative action. We can no longer debate it — I’m in History and not a philosopher or sociologist so I’m just a dilettante but I’m intellectually curious about affirmative action. I suspect that it has deleterious repercussions and that it may even be wrong categorically (and in terms of consequences). What do you think would happen if I raised doubts about it, in front of my chair or Dean?

So I’m unhappy because I can’t get a fair minded answer to my questions about affirmative action, because the questions cannot be raised.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah it’s not really much of a consolation to tell someone who’s moderate or right of center, “sure, you can no longer get a faculty job in California if you oppose affirmative action, but on the bright side, it’s more socially acceptable than ever to be a communist or racist against white people.” In fact some may see the Overton window shifting rather than contracting as being worse than just contracting.

Exactly. The crazy left can feel free to express whatever they want these days. If you are right of center, keep quiet.

You poor dudes. You have a Republican President, you have a Republican Senate, you even have a national crisis to motivate and unite the nation.

But you are whining about what you can't say in the high school / university break room.

Something is deeply wrong here, and not really in the break room.

A Republican President whom the mainstream press attacks daily. A Republican Senate that is terrified to speak out for the most part for fear that the press and corporate America (which is increasingly tilted left) will turn on them. Hollywood is to the left. Young people who are in huge debts from a failed education system.

You are amazingly out of touch with the modern workplace or campus. How isolated are you? You must be retired for twenty years.

See, that's what I'm talking about.

You have apparently admitted defeat, and reduced yourselves to pitiful whining while you still hold power.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

What are you babbling about now?

Do you have sundowners?

BTW. I am not a Trump fan. But the choice is Trump or Puppet Joe

Respond

Add Comment

If you're a conservative, you have a conservative President, and a conservative Senate.

It seems pretty odd to say that they can't do anything because people might talk mean.

Are you saying that Obama "would" have stopped "if" people had been mean to him?

Do you really have no memory of "death panels" and crap like that?

If you say you're not a Trump fan what does that even mean?

Can you point to a conservatism that you do endorse? Ideally an actual theory of government?

Are you are animated purely by hatred of the left now, and "Puppet Joe?"

Respond

Add Comment

I feel no reason to pull punches today. I was a center right Republican. I was pushed out by anti-intellectual populists. Every conservative I respected was called a RINO. We got Trump.

And now as anti-intellectual conservatism well and truly craps out .. what happens?

Does the right rediscover political theory?

If so, not here. As Tyler says, *here* they are United by emotions .. fear and hatred of the left.

skepticism doesn't equal fear

"And saying All Lives Matter is a hate crime in this country now."

Literally true, or crazy talk?

an activist apparently murdered a woman in Indianapolis last weekend for saying all lives matter.
other peeps have lost their jobs. didnt say it was a hate crime but it's apparently a reason to get canceled

You will be called a racist. I was here.

Respond

Add Comment

Serious people do not base their political theory on a thing that happen once.

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe I shouldn't even give you credit for understanding this, and say it also directly:

You are citing a crime, not a law.

Geez.

Geez the sheep are easy the shear these days

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

In my misspent youth, I worked for a very powerful Democrat for a few years. Since then I mostly avoid politics. Sort of like making sausage, it left me a vegetarian.

Traditionally most politicians tend to drift toward the middle. LBJ had the bad luck to be President when the middle went away. Nixon and Clinton were both more pragmatic then ideological. Reagan was conservative. Obama liberal. Bushs were more bureaucrats. Carter was, confused. I think his moral views didn't blend well with Washington politics. In any case, the public views of many politicians were, in my experience, often at odds with their private views.

Today it is different. The Democratic Party is making a dramatic and destructive shift to the left.

I was surprised when Trump gained the Republican nomination and some of his views I disagree with but they are not outside mainstream American views. I think you can work with him on many issues.

The Modern Democratic Party is to me the most destructive collection of idiots this country has ever seen hold public office. They make Huey Long look like a conservative.

BLM talks in favor of Marxism and the destruction of the nuclear family. And that is their moderate wing. The modern Democratic Party nods it head and takes a knee.

Joe Biden is Puppet Joe, he will do what he is told. The weakest major Presidential candidate since James Buchanan. Where did that President lead us?

The Democrats must be defeated in November or our country will go on a destructive path from which the greatest Democracy in history may not recover.

I can find no common ground with the Democratic left. I disagree with their goals and their methods. They are the enemy of freedom. As dangerous as Mao or Stalin with the tactics of Hitler.

My mother came to this country as a young woman. She was orpahned at 13. Lived on her own at 16. Came to this country at 19 with only an 8th-grade education. Raised two children as a single parent. We were sometimes homeless. Had times when dinner was a slice of bread with butter. Rented single rooms in the basement or attic of other families. She made sacrifices and overcame obstacles that looking back still amaze me. Yet somehow she installed in me the dream that tomorrow always has the potential to be better. I was blessed with a mother that would never quit and loved the potential in this country.

I have lost that faith in this country's future. I fear the path we are on for the first time in my life. I even looked into returning to my mother's birthplace recently. I wonder if my family should consider options.

Most elections don't really matter that much. This one does.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#1 Thank you.

#3 Perhaps this is right. Back in the day you could lose your life. Nowadays if you don't lose your life you can lose your job, your friends, your family, the respect of institutions you admire, and potentially other items of property without compensation.

Why do you think you were entitled to someone's esteem, not to mention respect? You wanna cry? Do you need a safe space?

I love how you inserted the words 'entitled' and 'esteem' when it appears nowhere in my original comment, which says quite a bit about your internal dialogue. And people are 'entitled' to as much respect as they earn from others with their actions and words, which is why you are not 'entitled' to any respect from me. Cry me a river.

You also aren't entitled to your job, your friends, your family, the respect of institutions you admire, and potentially other items of property without compensation. You sound like a Karen.

...says the person with it literally in their name.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

yes please thankyou
can we come over and sleep on your futon tonight

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> These claims are obviously true.

#3 The author asserts 5 claims about academia, including the assertion that the academics today teach a far greater number of topics, including topics previously thought taboo.

That entirely misses the point. Yes, you can find courses on dildos, lesbianism, and Madonna. But that doesn't mean these are pushing limits. Yes, there is a wider range of material, but the wider range corresponds increasingly to a narrower orthodoxy. That is, it appeals to people that like both kinds of music, country AND western.

A single pair of counter-example suffices here: A hundred years ago, there was active and vigorous studies in genetic differences among races. Next, there was much more active experimentation on animals. Now, you can argue on the merits of both (science should leave that up to the researcher). But it's pretty clear that if a researcher today wanted to study IQ, or transplanting monkey heads, it would not be tolerated.

The real point is who cares?

If there’s any useful research prevented in the US it’s not as if China will bow to the sensibilities of Twitter. It’ll still happen, and anything useful that comes out of it will still make it to the global marketplace.

> If there’s any useful research prevented in the US it’s not as if China will bow to the sensibilities of Twitter.

You mean like research into zoonotic diseases? The US decided it was too dangerous to study, and so we kicked a few million $ to China and asked them to study it for us. And then our researchers panicked when they saw the (lack of) protocols China had in place. And then we got covid.

So, yeah, who cares I guess.

If your one example is a debunked conspiracy theory then I’d say it’s not a great argument

What has been debunked? Link 1 confirms that indeed the US gave money to Wuhan Institute of Virology to study bat virus. And link 2 says that the state department warned of serious safety issues at lab in Wuhan. And link 3 looks to the research that will be done by WHO to determine if originated at market or lab. Nobody can rule out a lab--even the WHO at this point. Anyone that tells you they can is lying at this stage. It's far more plausible than the market theory.

1) https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/fact-check-trump-spreads-distorted-claim-on-wuhan-lab-funding/2234179/

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

3) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/who-led-mission-may-investigate-pandemic-s-origin-here-are-key-questions-ask

Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute.[7][39] The virologist Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which studies emerging infectious diseases, has had a 15-year collaboration with Shi Zhengli, a leading WIV virologist, to study bat coronaviruses.[40] Daszak noted estimates that millions of people who live or work in proximity to bats in Southeast Asia are infected each year with bat coronaviruses.[7][39] In an interview with Vox, Daszak comments, "There are probably half a dozen people that do work in those labs. So let's compare 1 million to 7 million people a year to half a dozen people; it's just not logical."[39] Jonna Mazet, Professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis and director of the PREDICT project to monitor emerging viruses, has commented that staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were trained by U.S. scientists as part of the PREDICT program and follow high safety standards, and that "All of the evidence points to this not being a laboratory accident."[7]

Believe what you want, without any concrete evidence i don’t find it either plausible or interesting.

> Believe what you want, without any concrete evidence i don’t find it either plausible or interesting.

You said it has been debunked. What you cite in Vox isn't a debunking. Further, he cites that the people working in these labs were trained by US scientists. And yet, it was US scientists that said there was a "serious shortage of trained technicians and investigators" at WIV.

It’s from Wikipedia.

Would this be the same wikipedia that said on Jan 15th there was no known human to human transmission of covid, and then cited the WHO?

Yes, Wikipedia cited the World Health Organization at the time.

It’s an Encyclopedia

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Daszak noted estimates that millions of people who live or work in proximity to bats in Southeast Asia are infected each year with bat coronaviruses.

Millions? Really? That doesn't sound right at all.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I bailed on reading #3 due to the poor writing, but if you scroll down, I think there is a sharp comment from someone called Dmitri Gallow:

There are, I think, two new things going on with online ‘cancel culture’: in the first place, a relatively small group of people are now able to enact substantial damage to a business’s brand. A cancelling can lead to scores of news stories and taint the front page of a company’s Google results. The brand is a valuable asset to the business. And it’s an asset which even a relatively small group of people on the internet is now able to damage. Asked to choose between an easily replaceable employee and their brand, it’s an easy financial consideration.

My perception is that many interest groups on the internet have come to learn that they have this kind of power over employers, and are increasingly exercising it to punish those whose opinions they perceive as threats to their political goals. While interest groups have been doing this to some extent throughout human history, the new powers of punishment that have been afforded by social media, coupled with abysmally weak labor law, do strike me as something genuinely novel, and something worthy of some concern and discussion—at least, if you think that the freedom of opinion and discussion is worth defending.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. Why would someone sending a link to their own web site not want to be named? Or is that trick too advanced and/or old fashioned for the typical social media user these days?

4. So our president can help stop the spread of coronavirus. "Difference-in-differences estimates also provide no evidence that short-run COVID-19 case rates grew faster in counties that drew relatively larger shares of residents to the event. We conclude that offsetting behavioral responses to the rally — including voluntary closures of restaurants and bars in downtown Tulsa, increases in stay-at-home behavior and displacement of usual activities of weekend inflows, and smaller-than-expected crowd attendance — may be important mechanisms. "

Maybe it is time to send the president to poorly attended rallies in Florida (sounds like his party's convention is going to have a lot of non-attendees) and Texas.

So does old fashioned editing. The link is number 3, of course.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. Contra (an example of many): https://time.com/5865890/oklahoma-covid-19-trump-tulsa-rally/

Once again I will link what is the best summary of the factors that determine spread and predicting spread (based on chaos) (The Atlantic doesn't require a subscription for its coronavirus articles): https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immunity-coronavirus/614035/

Respond

Add Comment

#4 Where would the country rank today in terms of GDP, and welfare benchmarks? 50?

EU-style welfare benefits cannot come from the top 10 or 20% of earners. To give 330M a health care policy worth $3500 ($14K for a family of 4) is a total cost of $1.15T. The put that burden on the top 1% means an extra $1M per household. To put that burden on the top 10% means an extra $115K per household. To put that burden on the top 50% means an extra $7K per household.

If you want EU style social programs, that means EU style taxes. Which means your median earner needs to pay 2X more in taxes. And it means your working poor family needs to pay 20-30% of income in taxes (instead of the -3% they pay today---yes, they earn money from the tax code).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

6. Uber and Lyft are two of the world's most uneconomic enterprises. Hiring more economists, unintuitive to some, will make them even more uneconomic. But at least they will publish papers that say they are economic using the branding of an institution like Cornell, so there's that.

"Mr. Hyman seemed exasperated by the experience, particularly his dealings with what he called 'the Twitter mob.'"

I've noticed a new tactic these days. If people criticize your work and you don't like them then scream "Twitter mob!" or "Cancel culture!" to silence them. The people who complain the most about free speech under attack are the real fascists.

“Free speech.” I think that’s a concept that you assume and neither grasp nor develop to deploy your dismissive, trite, cant.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3. This has to be some Straussian trick right? "Cancel culture isn't so bad, but oh yeah, btw, please respect my anonymity because, I presume, if people find my name they may target me."

Of course there are legitimate reasons to have or respect another's anonymity, but ... just the link was phrased. After all, one could have just left out the notion of the reader wanting to remain anonymous and the same thing would have been said. Heck, does Tyler usually disclose the names of readers who send him stuff? I dont know of anyone.

It seems like that admission was intentional.

Or it is an admission that TC did not even bother to click the link himself, since the name of the author is right under the headline Illusion and Agreement in the Debate over Intolerance. You don't even need a search engine to find out the name of the person Tyler is not thanking nor mentioning - it is literally no further than clicking the link.

Though anyone coming up with the alternate explanation that it is the author that is trying to stir the pot has as much evidence as my explanation.

Somebody is certainly playing much, much dumber than they may have considered at first glance.

Reading comprehension.

Reader /=/ writer

You are completely right. Why would a reader care, seeing as how rarely readers are credited in the first place? Especially since Tyler often enough does not even remember which reader sent a link anyways.

+ 1 cachination
"the reader who sent it in INSISTED that I not mention/thank him by name."
mebbe because of the cancel culture? (that doesn't exist according to the left)
or mebbe because of antifa (that also doesn't exist according to the left)

The reader's comment was obviously ironic in this case

how exactly do you know the readers insistence on anonymity was "obviously ironic" instead of out of concern for retribution & wreckoning?
did you know that many of the people who objected to the harpers letter did so anonymously?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler does appear to be extra Straussian lately. I came here to make the same observation.

All these Straussian posts are another hint we live in dangerous times.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah, Scott Alexander didn't cite cancel culture for his pseudonymity but for ethical reasons related to his profession. It didn't stop his supporters and others from spinning that into their own narrative. This is the danger of turning anything into a rallying cry. The good intentions can be easily mutated for political gain.

Respond

Add Comment

It's a simple joke, guys. At the link the other blog even makes an experiment of only allowing comments from people providing full names and real email. But Tyler hears of it from an anonymous dude. That's funny.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. RHINO as opposed to RINO. Reading this short "review" reminded me of the film The Book of Eli. I'm not being sarcastic, just making an observation (and a projection). I'm a Sinophile for reference. And to think that America's place atop civilization would come crashing down, now.

Respond

Add Comment

#7: It seems simpler to assume "no effect" than "effect but equal and opposite countereffect" ("We conclude that offsetting behavioral responses to the rally may be important mechanisms.").

Respond

Add Comment

#6. I have two questions about the title. First, when economists collaborate with the government or any government agency like the Fed, how reliable are their findings?

Second, when economists collaborate with the NYT, Bloomberg, WP and other corrupted mass media, how reliable are their theories?

I think it'd be good to know Tyler and Alex's responses to the three questions.

Respond

Add Comment

Is there some kind of performance art style joke involved in so many people providing explanations about why cancel culture isn't a thing while also demanding anonymity lest they get cancelled?

What I think is happening here is that a lot of the people arguing this are actually arguing over whose would-be cancellers are the good guys and whose are the bad guys, with each worried about the other side's cancellers. And this points to a problem that they could make common cause about, only that would require being on the same side with someone from the hated outgroup, so it's a non-starter.

There are lots of people, perhaps you included, who want to say what they think about becoming full-scale public intellectuals.

I definitely support that.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. No cases transmitted by the positive attendee at CPAC, either, as I recall. No cases at Liberty University, which never closed. Meanwhile, the Floyd protests did lead to spikes, as even California authorities admitted. And of course we know which states have been hit hardest.

So there seems to be some connection between susceptibility and political affiliation, but which way does causation run? Does the right simply attract those who are naturally more robust, or does being on the left tend to weaken one's constitution after a while?

Maybe at Liberty and CPAC people aren't yelling and screaming and getting in each other's faces.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

There is an old joke about a problem being caused by a short between the headphones. There is precisely zero anonymous about the link, where the author's name is right under the title.

You are welcome to come up with your own explanation for this misunderstanding, having not clicked the link before talking about a performance art style joke. Maybe it is one, but not about cancel culture.

Prior_approval,

The reader and the author are not the same person. At least, that’s the implication given the link note.

This shouldn’t be hard to comprehend

Respond

Add Comment

Or, in the immortal words of Emily Litella, never mind.

Reader, not author. Even if in the age of VTEKL, readers are not even worth mentioning in general.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I long for a simpler time, when many readers came to MR to bask in the reflected glory of their dear leader Trump. Now, they come to wallow in conspiracies.

No, you don’t long for that time at all.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> #7 No net case effect seen from the Tulsa rally.

We also know there were probably BLM rallies for ~20 days, and in some ~100 cities. Roughly 2000 rallies.

And we also know that LA never opened--they've been on lock down this entire time. And yet, their cases are exploding. From the first George Floyd rally at the end of May, to the ramp of hospitalizations due to covid beginning in mid June.

Think about it: The protests forced most everyone indoors except the protesters. And yet, still the numbers skyrocketed. How is that possible unless the vector was protesters.

Ditto for Houston. Mid June saw cases increase a rate 5-6X that of previous trend lines. But Houston opened in early to mid-May. So, Houston had 5-6 weeks of being open without an explosion. The explosion happened two weeks after the George Floyd protests.

BLM undid all the hard work the nation had done on quarantining.

"BLM undid all the hard work the nation had done ..."

BLM's stated goal is to undo all the hard work the nation has done for the last 236+- years.

We won't let them.

They bombed their "Pearl Harbor" and they will pay dearly.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3. Compare to Lawrence Krauss's piece in the WSJ about "cancel" migrating into STEM. See "The Ideological Corruption of Science."

Respond

Add Comment

#7 is a joke of an identification strategy. These Sabia et al. papers on covid are absolute garbage.

The first problem is understanding the geographic distribution of the attendees - if most of them packed up and left the tulsa area these would be seeding infections in the control group (attenuation bias).

The second and maybe more egregious is the sensitivity of the estimates. What this group is doing is equivalent of implementing an A/B test on a search algorithm on Amazon's search. Then measuring the effect of the algorithm by doing a synthetic control DiD on ecommerce sales at a website level. The thing being estimated is <0.00001% of the variation in what you are estimating. Think about how laughable the attack rate (% of people getting infected out of attendees and how many people they would have to be spreading to) for this result to be outside of the confidence interval.

Third thing is that infections, tests, and test-results are not happening contemporaneously. The lag's, mild/asymptotic rate, and % of infections that are being captured here are other factors almost guaranteeing that you get a noisy-zero estimate.

Also FFS an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This paper is as intellectually bankrupt as the blm protest paper these same people produced.

TC i don't understand why you continually link to this kind of low-quality work - you were harping on epidemiologists econometric rigor 2 months ago, and you certainly have commented on the replication crisis. This economics work is every bit as unreliable and biased as those (the publication bias is strong in this one).

Respond

Add Comment

3. Perhaps the current much-ado about 'cancel culture' is just a case of whose ox is getting gored.
Say, for instance, comfortable white 'liberals' who, their words to the contrary, actually are acting impediments to social or economic fairness... but who are accustomed to adulation rather than criticism.

sheer conflatulation
now the marxists are wreckoning&burning virgin mary statues

Exactly - see?

not exactly
the lefts position is not that there is "much ado" about cancel culture.
the lefts position is that cancel culture does not exist.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/12/daughter-of-killed-texas-cop-slammed-for-posting-bluelivesmatter/

https://nypost.com/2020/07/12/daughter-of-killed-texas-cop-slammed-for-posting-bluelivesmatter/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> comfortable white 'liberals' who, their words to the contrary, actually are acting impediments to social or economic fairness.

In 1970, your average ward of the state in NYC was a family of 3 (1 adult, 2 kids) living in a tenement with mold on the walls, no heat, waiting for their welfare check, and scared to go out of their house at night.

In 2020, your average ward of the state in the NYC was the exact same thing.

For 50 years it has been nothing but good, liberal intentions and 10's of trillions spend directly on the problem.

And it's gotten worse. More specifically, the gap between white and black achievement has grown.

If you want to see places with a much smaller gap between white and black achievement, you need to get out of the cities. Utah and Alaska are great examples. You are far better being black in Utah than black in Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, etc.

Progressives have made this. It is 100% their doing.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

3. At what point does rejection of the growing severeity of cancel culture become denialism? I'm inclined to say it already qualifies.

People have been fired for their opinions in America as long as I have been alive.

What’s the derivative, and what’s the second derivative? I’ve never seen any stats on this at all. I assume the base rate is incredibly low.

Maybe that’s the point, it’s a very low probability event but it’s increasing as the transaction costs of forming a mob decline.

Were people regularly fired for the opinions of their children or spouses in the past? Or for saying something as anodyne as “nonviolent protests are more effective”?

Aren't you the guy who didn't believe that a Coke employee was fired for drinking a Pepsi a few years back?

Of course I don't. It's illogical to the extreme. Illegally clamping down on a unionization effort? Now that I will absolutely believe:

The Teamsters Union said Friday that it doesn't believe a delivery driver in California was fired by the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. because he drank a Pepsi on the job -- the reason the company gave, the union said.

Instead, the union contends, Rick Bronson was fired for promoting the union to non-union employees.

There's actually no evidence he was even fired for the Pepsi as a pretext in the first place.

Of course he was fired for drinking a Pepsi as a pretext, if your article is to be trusted. 'fired by the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. because he drank a Pepsi on the job -- the reason the company gave, the union said.'

And this is from 1985. "A former Coca-Cola bottling company employee who says she was fired because her fiance, a co-worker, switched to Pepsi has filed a $600,000 defamation and violation of privacy lawsuit.

Amanda M. Blake, 28, claims in her suit filed Monday in Hampshire Superior Court that her employer gave her an ultimatum in April: she either break off with David J. Cronin, who had left Coke to work for Pepsi, or have him quit.

When Ms. Blake rejected the order, she says, she was fired." apnews.com/72e93ea723c358713b16c8a77673dd78

Could be a bit of a pattern, just like car companies evading emissions laws every couple of decades. And that case suggests that Coke was firing employees because of their (future) spouses more than 3 decades ago.

There's no evidence given that he was fired for drinking Pepsi. The company has never said he was fired for drinking Pepsi, all we have is the union statement. The union doesn't believe it either, it's right there in the article. This is an absurd prior_a semantics game.

Do you believe he was fired for drinking Pepsi? Seriously?

Your second case is a standard overzealous 'trade secrets' termination, and has nothing to do with expressing opinions.

I hope the company lost, but the discussion isn't 'do companies fire people for no good reason'

It's: what's the base rate over time of companies firing employees for expressing anodyne opinions

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#3 - doesn't seem so smart to me

>Here are some empirical claims about higher education in the United States. In comparison to 100 years ago:

People who complain about cancel culture do not compare the current moral climate it with 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. They compare it with 20-30 and even 10 years ago

>1. There are fewer or weaker institutional, social, and material obstacles to non-white-male people entering academia.

Not if compared with the situation of 10 and 20 years ago. And It doesn't tell us anything about intellectual freedom within academia anyway, including intellectual freedom of the non-white-male persons.

2. Academics today regularly and with institutional approval study a greater number of topics, including topics previously thought taboo or unworthy of study.

> Greater NUMBER of topics doesn't mean greater WIDTH or DEPTH of research. If Harvard were to add to its curriculum astrology, alchemy or the basics of witch hunting (pun intended) as they were taught in Middle Ages, we won't celebrate it as enrichment of intellectual life.

>3. Academics today regularly and with institutional approval employ a greater variety of research methods.

Than 100 years ago? Certainly. Than 10 or 20 years ago? Unlikely. Even intersectionality already existed back then.

>4. Academics today regularly and with institutional approval teach a greater variety of topics using a greater variety of source material.

See #2.

>5. Academics today may, without any kind of formal or informal institutional sanction, entertain and defend a greater variety of theses.

See #2.

>These claims are obviously true.

Well, no.

Respond

Add Comment

#3: I found this analysis quite humorous:
"Second, maybe a distinction can help move the debate a little. One measure of how intolerant a culture is could be this:

(a) how many people approve of some form of social, economic, or legal punishment for someone expressing an opinion they strongly disagree with?

This question asks about people’s attitudes or values.

Another measure of how intolerant a culture is could instead ask about the behavior people have engaged in:

(b) how many people have publicly expressed approval of some form of social, economic, or legal punishment for someone expressing an opinion they strongly disagree with?

... I think some people mistake an increase in (b) for an increase in (a)."

So cancel culture has not gotten worse because while more people are calling for others to punished, there hasn't been an increase in people who approve of calling for punishment. This had me laughing at how good Tyler's Straussian game has gotten... "smart piece" indeed.

Respond

Add Comment

If Tyler thinks that's a smart piece on cancel culture then surely Tyler can state openly and in thee words which lives he believes should matter.

This was not normal when I was in school
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1282670081496023042

Free speech wasn't normal when you were in school?

No, Twitter wasn’t.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Stop bullying Tyler! Give him the benefit of the doubt!

Respond

Add Comment

But some matter more than others. Or black skin good, white skin better. Welcome to Animal Farm, where the pigs run things.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

From 3: "A third possibility is that, owing to information technology and social media, the local is now global."

I never see people discussing this and I think it's a huge contributor to our brains inability to pinpoint exactly how "bad" things are. Oh well I heard about a shooting in San Bernadino, CA and a shooting in Aurora, CO...those cities are like 1,500 places down on my brain's priority list of "where things happen", so it follows that mass shootings must be occuring in the other 1,500 bigger places and thus mass shootings are everywhere.

Who is researching how woefully inequipped our brains are at dealing with massive amounts of low-level information from far flung places and incorporating that into our every day worldview and risk assessments?

"Who is researching how woefully unequipped our brains are at dealing with massive amounts of low-level information from far flung places and incorporating that into our every day worldview and risk assessments?"

This. Plus there is no sports. So BLM vs MAGA. They even have their own color schemes. These are not ideologies or even 'new religions.' They are Guilds. I'm not sure it will be as easy to cancel people when 'being cancelled,' means gaining status in the opposing Guild. Look at Goya. I mean the bean not the painter, though the the painter may be turn out relevant too if were not careful.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Twitter mobs are fine, stop using Twitter if you don't like it (or never start). But some "Karen" embarrassing himorherself by being stupid in a store doesn't deserve to lose their job. It's just not right. If it's illegal send them to jail, if it's shameful shame them. But its personal not business. It shames the the shamers to take someone's livelihood, especially in these times. Thats McCarthyism.

Because till now, I remain utterly clueless about what that name is supposed to represent. To be fully honest, I don't even know what side she is supposed to represent in the all consuming culture war that most people imagine is raging. Most people being a minority of people, not that the cultural warriors expect that state of affairs to continue as they go their merry way.

The Karen meme isn’t culture war. It’s a stereotype meme of a middle aged woman who treats retail workers poorly, with a pretty hilarious backstory.

Unless frivolously asking “to see the manager” has become culture war now.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This is the second time in a week T.C. has given space to the dashed-off musings of somebody from the philosophy department.

The other day someone referenced an essay by someone called Nozick, about how academics and others whose jobs involve word-counts tilt left because they are rewarded for inventing "ideas" and, resenting the idea that either the market or those with lesser verbal gifts do not automatically appreciate them, their first and greatest idea, the one that is very personal to them, is that capitalism is bad, and ordinary people with it. His shorthand for this class of people was the "wordsmiths."

This is all well and good, but the trouble is I am not seeing flights of verbal genius currently emanating from the left.

I mean -- "A third possibility is that, owing to information technology and social media, the local is now global: we may be hearing about more problems ..." - wow, that's some heady stuff.

Perhaps we are seeing a deterioration as the "wordsmiths" have been transmogrified to meet the much lesser bar of being "voices."

T.C. would have done better to link the Helen Andrews piece on statues and history. At least it would have provided meat for the trolls. There's not much to do with this.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#3: see the first comment by David Wallace for a clear analysis of the shortcomings of the piece.

"A few thoughts:

1) At present there are stories of cancellations in the news every week. Predominantly, the targets are not the rich and famous, and with rare exceptions (tenured academics or people like Rowling with financial security), the ‘cancellation’ is not just a matter of online hostility but has concrete economic consequences, usually leading to the person being fired or effectively fired. (To pick examples from the last month or so off the top of my head: a think-tank researcher fired for critical discussion of the efficacy of protest; someone in a non-public-facing role fired after the Washington Post reported that she wore an offensive and stupid costume to a party two years ago). There has also been extensive testimony, by dozens of people from different political starting points, many of whom are not high-profile people in secure jobs, of their experience of workplace culture which supports the ‘cancel culture’ narrative. And there has been extensive reporting, by reputable newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum, of internal culture in media, third-sector and academic organizations, that likewise supports it.

It is coherent to argue, as I think Justin’s OP argues, that none of this really amounts to convincing evidence. And certainly, large bodies of anecdote, testimony and reporting still fall short of the gold standard of social-science research. On the other hand, this is a pretty demanding standard: many parts of the published literature, and most of what is discussed at DN, would also fall short. The case that academia has a problem with sexual harassment, for instance, would not survive that level of skepticism, consisting as it does of lots of individual cases and lots of testimony. (For the record, I find that case compelling, but that just demonstrates that my own epistemic standards are not quite that demanding.)

2) I’m not sure how reassured we should be by one particular scenario: that levels of cancellation haven’t increased but modern technology and social conventions make them more visible to us. The same is plausibly true about police violence and #metoo. The force of the Harpers letter is not appreciably decreased if its message were to shift from ‘there is an increasing, and currently severe, free-speech problem on the Left’ to ‘there is a free-speech problem on the Left: its severity is only now becoming apparent’.

3) I would be more sympathetic to skepticism about the prevalence of cancel culture if it were accompanied by more unequivocal condemnation of the actual cancellations that happen. The positions (i) ‘it is not really a problem, in many or most individual cases, for political activists to successfully pressure someone’s employer to fire them over their extramural speech’ and (ii) ‘it’s not actually that common for political activists to successfully pressure someone’s employer to fire them over their extramural speech’ are logically independent, but defenders of (ii) generally seem at least equivocal about (i). If Justin, or others, agree with me that most of the actual examples being discussed are outrageous, but just disagree with me about the extent of the problem, I invite them to make that clear."

Indeed, the author gives away the game in his response to the comment:

"I’m not at all confident that the optimal number of cases of people calling for someone to be fired for their extramural speech is zero, or very close to it."

So the take away is that cancel culture isn't so bad ... if you like cancel culture.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. It is way too early for any such conclusion based on the low quality evidence currently available. Only hospitalization rates and death rates have any significance under current testing conditions. That data will not approach significance for a few more weeks.

The median lapse of time between infection and symptoms is five days. The median lapse of time between symptoms and death is 18 days. It would be manifest by now.

not exactly
the lefts position is not that there is "much ado" about cancel culture.
the lefts position is that cancel culture does not exist.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/12/daughter-of-killed-texas-cop-slammed-for-posting-bluelivesmatter/

https://nypost.com/2020/07/12/daughter-of-killed-texas-cop-slammed-for-posting-bluelivesmatter/

Respond

Add Comment

ignore above wrong post
asymptomatic infections & spread accompanied by low rates of testing
might fubar the data. it might not be as clear as you suggest

Asymptomatic transmission has not been observed or verified. The WHO has not found any instances.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#3 seems to presume that the differences BETWEEN groups is larger than the differences WITHIN groups, when the opposite is the case

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QCPDByRb4no

Respond

Add Comment

1 made me want to buy that very expensive book.

Respond

Add Comment

Love that Straussian commentary on cancel culture: "the reader who sent it in insisted that I not mention/thank him by name"

Respond

Add Comment

“ 3. Smart piece on why cancel culture is not so bad today, the reader who sent it in insisted that I not mention/thank him by name.”

Of course the reader fears being cancelled.

Respond

Add Comment

I am always amazed at the "they are only coming for …" defenses of the mob.

Exactly how far along should we let something fester before we take notice?

Beyond that, how exactly do these people think past censorship campaigns worked? HUAC accused only a few thousand people. The official Hollywood blacklists were only a couple of hundred folks. And of course they were so serious that Dalton Trumbo and the rest were working throughout the bans. Never were more than a fraction of the tens of thousands of members of the CPUSA ever officially implicated. Instead though we saw huge amounts of intrusive censorship driven overwhelmingly by the private sector.

Or perhaps we might look at the KKK and related censorship. In total there were around 5,000 dead. The number of firings, arson, and the rest were maybe an order of magnitude higher. Yet somehow millions of people lived in terror.

The whole point of these campaigns are to go after highly visible people, let the proles watch the difficulties they have, and then let proles police themselves. And it will work. After all the censors today are not just pressuring a few Hollywood studio executives into compliance. They have had tech, sports, finance, journalism, retail, and basically every other industry online. Likewise, back in the day, sure you got fired and nobody heard, but you also did not become persona non grata to the entire economy. Good luck migrating North or anything else to overcome the current mob.

And on a final note, exactly how revisionist is this author? Is there a particular reason they are denigrating the HBCUs which were churning out minority academics for literally decades back in 1900? Is there a particular reason they are denigrating the Seven Sisters and all the Women's colleges of the era? I grant that it is easier for minorities to get top academic billing today, but we had numerous scholars of every demographic for decades. And as far as studying controversial things, oh please. Kinsey was studying transexuality, anal sex, and all the rest - in 1950 - with money paid by the Rockefellers.

I could buy that it is easier for minorities to climb the ladder and that there are most slots for previously outre subjects. But actual widening of the outer bounds? Only if you ignore every minority institution of the early 20th century.

Respond

Add Comment

Charles blow says they were the bad actors who had it coming. Which is is? Two movies, two different forms of denial.

I can say for certain that there are more last year cancellations than unarmed POC killed by cops.

Respond

Add Comment

https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2020/07/13/groundbreaking-scientists-create-air-filter-kills-coronavirus/

Groundbreaking: Scientists Create An Air Filter That Kills The Coronavirus
----
Used a hot filter and burns them up like a bug zapper.

Respond

Add Comment

1. Suggest you try "China: A History" by John Keay before anything that monstrous. I hope Cambridge book is more than a love affair with anything Chinese.

Respond

Add Comment

3. Yeah, the show trials in the Soviet Union weren't that bad. In US you just lose your job, your reputation, your pension, your health insurance. Wife divorces you, children hate you. Not that bad really.

Respond

Add Comment

7. And, therefore, we also conclude that protests did not cause an uptick in cases. Yeah, right.

Respond

Add Comment

7. No net case effect seen from the Tulsa rally.
----
Doomed in any event

Respond

Add Comment

5. Insightful and probably true points. Except for this one:

“TECH: Primary burn usually people costs
BIOTECH: Primary burn R&D
Biotech companies’ biggest line item is undoubtedly R&D spend - funding to do research experiments necessary to find and develop their drug. This is despite the average salary in biotech also often being higher than tech’s.”

R&D costs are also people costs. Also, the large Biotech companies spend more on marketing than on research. For startups that do not have a marketable drug, this of course does not apply. But also for IT startups, the people cost mainly consist of product development and not marketing. So I don’t see a big difference there.

Respond

Add Comment

Re: 3 - the framing of the question is wrong. At issue is not whether there is more or less freedom than 100 years ago. There is clearly more freedom, in large part as a result of academics and cultural elites pushing for an expansion in personal and societal liberties.

At issue is whether there is more or less freedom than 10 or 20 years ago, i.e. in whether the first derivative of freedom is positive or negative, to use calculus terms. And I think most critical of all is whether we are now seeing a complete reversal of the 20th century dynamic - whereas universities were in prior decades the sources of radical and liberating thoughts pushing back on a default social and religious conservatism stemming from society at large, are we now seeing universities as sources of a discursive and ideological conservatism that is radiating out into a relatively more discursive and ideologically permissive broader society?

Respond

Add Comment

#7 Interesting, but not particularly surprising. The study does not provide any evidence on cost to participants (cases like Mr Cain) of the key policy decisions -- not requiring mask-wearing and holding the event indoors instead of outdoors. It suggests external costs to the community (additional social distancing to offset the threat from the rally).

Respond

Add Comment

#4: Reminiscent of the recent WW I doc "They Shall Not Grow Old" where director Peter Jackson restored WW I film clips, actually he did much more than restore them he added things that had never been there: color, sound, additional detail. It made WW I "look" like it had never looked before, not that we had tons of video footage to begin with.

Except that Japan clip has been done with less skill. The streets sounds are more reminiscent of a large dinner party than a street, especially a Japanese street.

At first I wondered why they did facial restoration that is "not historically accurate". But I'm guessing if they failed to do that, the original images are so blurred and lacking in detail that the people would look like ghosts or extraterrestrials. So they had to make up faces to give to each person in the video.

Unlike the un-Japanese sounding street sounds, the faces are at least Asian in appearance. But after looking closely at them we see they have an artificiality due to a certain sameness in the faces and in some cases sup-optimal pasting so they look like a photoshopped image where someone pasted a face onto an existing photo.

After looking closely at some of the crowd scenes, I found that some of the faces entered the "uncanny valley" of looking more disturbing than a fuzzier or less real-looking video clip would've.

Colorization interestingly doesn't seem to produce an uncanny valley for us. The color was off, compared not just to the original but to any realistic depiction, but that was not bothersome. The colorization did make the scenes seem more alive and realistic than the black and white footage.

I'm guessing the producers of this have come up with an AI-heavy technique where computers do the re-imaging? And more cheaply than Jackson's work, but not as good in quality. Maybe good enough to be useful, although the fake faces and the uncanny valley induced by the faces that are unreal-looking and the street noise that is unreal-sounding make me a little dubious.

I don't think they literally made up faces for all the people in the video; they show a short clip of the source data before changes at the start and the faces seemed fully visible? I'm not sure what the purpose of the facial restoration algorithm was..

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. Covid spreads only at conservative rallies/meetings. Everybody knows that. It's accepted science.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment