anosognosic

[anosognosic]

Thoughts now that all testimony is given? Innocent or guilty? Convict or acquit?

I haven’t seen the defense testimony (busy with other stuff this week). The writeups I read were underwhelming, but still there was a solid case for reasonable doubt even from just the cross-examinations of the witnesses for the prosecution.

But ofc this is a particular case that we can’t expect to be decided only on the merits. My presumption is that there will be at least one die-hard juror on at least one side such that I think an acquittal is unlikely.

Because there are 3 charges of varying severity, the likeliest thing IMO, realistically, is that the jury will come to a “compromise” verdict on one of the lower ones.

[anosognosic]

The State of the Case for Chauvin's Defense

Since I've been following the court proceedings, I did a writeup on Derek Chauvin’s defense based on cross-examinations of the witnesses for the prosecution

[anosognosic]

Hey, thanks for all the effort that you put in. Thoughts on testimony of Doctor Tobin?

Struck me as kind of a quack tbh—put a lot of stock in a theoretical model full of fake precision and denied categorically that there might be significant individual variation in the mechanism. His biggest whopper to me was his critique of positional studies involving putting weight on the backs of participants; he said that, because the study used flat plates, it’s an “order of magnitude difference” bc pressure scales with area. Obviously, while narrowly true, the pressure is then redistributed by the ribcage etc before inciding on the lungs. These sorts of things made me iffy on his testimony.

In general though he expressed most fully the mechanism that the prosecution proposes for GF’s death. While he mentioned the neck, a hypothesis the prosecution is clearly loath to abandon, the meat of it was reduction in lung capacity from positional asphyxia and pressure to the back. (It doesn’t really make sense for neck compression to have an additive effect with lung capacity.)

I was surprised that the defense barely mentioned wooden chest syndrome given that the prosecution’s experts made a pretty good case for asphyxia and that “normal” opiate deaths don’t look like that. Maybe they were banking on Andrew Baker’s testimony that in his opinion GF died of a cardiac event. In any case, curious to see what their expert witnesses will say.

[anosognosic]

What do you think about the argument put forth in this youtube video, "EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Cyril Wecht Tells Court TV How He Thinks George Floyd Died" (sorry cant post links)? It seems to be a legitimate thing at least according to wikipedia. I understand experts are biased but can you find an expert who supports your version of events?

The video in question:

The hypothesis is positional asphyxiation, which I did discuss in my earlier post. In fact, the trial now being underway, the prosecution is also moving away from the knee-to-neck mechanism of death towards this.

Positional asphyxia in the context of police restraints is controversial. In other contexts, it takes either bending forward or very extreme positions; in terms of weight, it tends to happen with eg heavy machinery. See for instance this study that closely monitored respiratory indicators in maximal restraint position (without neck immobilization) with up too 100 lbs of weight on the chest and found basically no change after 3 minutes. See also this review, which I’m not sure if I posted before.

I would love to find a medical expert who agrees with me explicitly on the Floyd case, or who can otherwise clarify the points I may have missed from lack of expertise. So far I’ve only been able to piece together expert opinions from disparate contexts (though so far they have been holding up rather well against the testimony emerging in the trial).

[anosognosic]

I will admit I don’t know what specific mechanism of death the defense is going with. This article says heart attack, but I didn’t watch the testimony in question so I don’t know whether it’s accurate.

[anosognosic]

Why do you post a picture of a raven?

I like ravens. Very smart animals.

[anosognosic]

Just a quick update: I’ve been following the Chauvin trial and you may not read this in the media but the defense is kind of crushing it.

Prosecution has not really been arguing Chauvin’s knee killed Floyd; instead they’re going with positional asphyxia plus lack or delay of emergency assistance.

The defense got several key admissions from expert witnesses for the prosecution on redirect, including that the hold applied on Floyd was nonlethal, that it was allowed by the Minneapolis police department and that it was initially a reasonable application of force.

A lot should hinge on whether the scene could reasonably be considered insecure between the application of the restraint and the arrival of the EMTs. Among the defense’s arguments are the hostile crowd and a continued uncertainty about Floyd posing a risk—the defense also got some admissions about these from the expert witnesses, though IMO these were less definitive. Still, reasonable doubt goes to the defense.

[anosognosic]

Long shot but is there any books you would recommend for someone trying to understand and learn about the history and current state of Organized Crime in Rio, stuff related to the comando vermelho, terceiro comando, etc. Preferably something you can download for free online

Sorry, nothing in English

[anosognosic]

What do you think about the argument put forth in this youtube video, "EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Cyril Wecht Tells Court TV How He Thinks George Floyd Died" (sorry cant post links)? It seems to be a legitimate thing at least according to wikipedia. I understand experts are biased but can you find an expert who supports your version of events?

The video in question:

The hypothesis is positional asphyxiation, which I did discuss in my earlier post. In fact, the trial now being underway, the prosecution is also moving away from the knee-to-neck mechanism of death towards this.

Positional asphyxia in the context of police restraints is controversial. In other contexts, it takes either bending forward or very extreme positions; in terms of weight, it tends to happen with eg heavy machinery. See for instance this study that closely monitored respiratory indicators in maximal restraint position (without neck immobilization) with up too 100 lbs of weight on the chest and found basically no change after 3 minutes. See also this review, which I’m not sure if I posted before.

I would love to find a medical expert who agrees with me explicitly on the Floyd case, or who can otherwise clarify the points I may have missed from lack of expertise. So far I’ve only been able to piece together expert opinions from disparate contexts (though so far they have been holding up rather well against the testimony emerging in the trial).

[anosognosic]

This reads like an expert report. Is the defense going to be able to find an expert willing to take the risk?

I’m sure the system is not so absurdly degraded that literally no one would testify to this. At the very least money and exposure still exist as inducements.

[anosognosic]

Re: own the sjw ya that’s what the people who allied with the Nazis in Germany said. Didn’t work out so well. Keep on keeping on

read about another historical event pls

[anosognosic]

I don't know if this is like what you meant about God and reality but it reminded me of when I read this ratfic where one character tells another ethics is like mathematics in that if a god says 2+2=5 it's still 4, and I thought... well when I say God I mean God invented mathematics. And logic. And physics.

I’m not certain what this refers to but yes, I do believe these are strong challenges to scientific reductionism. I have a series of posts in the pipes about this that I’ll be posting on my substack, will repost here

[anosognosic]

It's worth looking into Jaden Hayden, and specifically worth watching the footage. It happened roughly contemporaneously with Amy Cooper and Ahmaud Arbery's case starting to get some traction (not his actual shooting), that footage was on the local news throughout Detroit and the whole region (including MPLS) on Fox stations, but the case didn't even make the Times until way after the fact, with no mention of race and zero footage, unlike the Central Park incident. This did not go unnoticed.

will do thx

[anosognosic]

No, this isn't a vindication, and no, Greenwald is not responsible for it

another brazilpost from the substack

[anosognosic]

Lula Belongs in Prison

aka Glenn Greenwald is a lying cunt

I’ve moved my effortposting over to substack because longform stuff tends to get lost here on tumblr (I don’t expect to ever charge for it). I’ll repost links here tho.

[anosognosic]

Oh man, you've been picked up by Steve Sailer. Congrats I guess? :)

yes senpai noticed me

[anosognosic]

y’all are missing mc hammer theoryposting on twitter https://twitter.com/mchammer/status/1364210887918190592?s=21

MC HAMMER on Twitter

“Baudrillard “Symbolic Exchange” 👌🏿 https://t.co/I4sq7ATuHG”

[bambamramfan]

It seems to me the big split in opinions about HBD are not

“believes groups have different averages for genetic contributions to intelligence” vs “no they don’t”

but rather

“yeah jeez maybe if you average the intelligence of everyone in one ethnic group it wouldn’t be the same as the average in another ethnic group, but this seems unlikely to make any difference in anything that matters” vs “we want to talk about this a LOT and make it the basis of entire political programs.”

And SSC isn’t in the final group (and it would take huge stretches of interpretation to ever think it was), but a lot of commenters in rationalist circles DO act like the last group, and this makes everyone else uncomfortable? 

I realize it’s not fair to be tarred with the unnuanced opinions of the worst trolls in your intellectual subculture, but may I introduce you to *the problem every ideology faces: how are you going to deal with the assholes who take your good idea and turn it into something horrible?”*

[anosognosic]

What if it turns out that it matters and the hegemonic ideology is willing to drive every institution off a cliff on the assumption that it’s definitely 100% false?

[morlock-holmes]

The primary purpose of “HBD” seems to be the conviction that poor screening has allowed incompetents into positions of power, and we need more tools to exclude them.

False negatives (e.g. excluding everyone of a certain race because you believe that on average they have a lower IQ) aren’t really a concern because this exclusion isn’t a moral judgement but a scientific one.

The fact that exclusive institutions tend to pay really well and multiply your influence is a niggling little problem to be solved later, but currently it’s much more important to start excluding people better.

Also, it is assumed that low IQ people have very little of worth to communicate about their own needs, and therefore consistently limiting their influence and earning potential has no major downsides.

These ideas are all kind of just taken for granted by large chunks of the HBD crowd.

[anosognosic]

This is a pretty reasonable set of concerns for American society in the 1950s.