GRAMMY AWARDS : ''RAPPER & WOMEN''

MUSIC biggest stars gather in Los Angeles today, for the Grammy Awards, and this years observers are hoping the hip-hop and women artists leading the pack will get their due.

The industry's annual gala draws eye rolls every year from critics who say the winners are too white and too male, but for the second consecutive year black hip-hop artists dominated the nominations across the board.

Rappers Kendrick Lamar - who won a Pulitzer Prize for his album DAMN  but not a Grammy for Album of the Year - earned eight nominations, while Canadian rapper Drake snagged seven.

Women artists scored nods in all the  top categories  after being largely snubbed a year ago, with rapper Cardi B, pop diva Lady Gaga, pop  futurist Janelle Monae and folk rocker Barndi Carlile, among the frontrunners. In the Best New Artist category,  six of the eight nominees are women.

But skepticism lingers that nods will actually translate into wins, after rap mogul Jay-Z  left empty-handed last year despite eight nominations.

That show sparked a major backlash - even retro funk star Bruno Mar's surprise sweep in the top categories was divisive, as it was seen as somewhat out of touch with the more groundbreaking work on the offer.

In response, the Recording Academy - which organises the gala - created a diversity task force and expanded the four top categories from five nominees to eight.

''The industry and the Recording Academy do understand that they have a problem on their hands,''  said Murray Forman, who studies pop music at Boston's Northeastern University.

Lamar once again has the chance to win the prestigious Album of the Year award after three prior losses   -this time for the soundtrack for the film Back Panther.

Drake nabbed nomination across the top categories for his album Scorpion. Women snagged five of the eight Album of the Year nominations. [AFP]

Headline February 13, 2018/ '' 'INTELLECTUAL STUDENTS IMPERIALISM' ''

'' 'INTELLECTUAL STUDENTS 

IMPERIALISM' ''

ALL LEADERS - EVERY LEADER ............

Every student, every human, should have a clear view of mortality. The time allotted to mortals.

This great man, "O'' Captain Imran Khan, His Excellency - the Prime Minister of Proud Pakistan,  should be mulling and thinking his legacy : ''Students Davos Sapphire''.

The graveyard is full of some very, very great leaders. And so shall it always will be,  till the  Good Lord world's lasts.

For Great Students : Merely looking for jobs is never going to be enough. My bottomless inbox slog :

And it was only the students of The World Students Society who could generate such a splendid idea of building a :
''Students Davos Sapphire'', where millions of students will descend, every three months, to loosen their hair, stretch their legs and debate earth shaking ideas :

Merium, Rabo, Haleema, Saima, Sarah, Dee, Zainab, Dantini, Lakshmi, Hussain, Shahzaib, Seher,  Faraz, Ali, Salar, Bilal, Jordan, Danyial, Zaeem, Sannan, Reza, Ghazi,  Haiider, Aqsa, Ziil, Juniper, Seema, Hazeem, Hannyia, and Merium Khan.

BUT there is an even deeper point that David raises : we are postulating a very Eurocentric idea of what ''human nature'' actually is by emphasising the distinctness of imagining the same relationships.

As a result, David asserts, simplistically denying robot rights on the basis of their different nature ''is not just insensitive to others but risks a kind of cultural and intellectual imperialism

The second proposition entertained by David asserts that robots can and should have rights.

It is chiefly future-oriented proposition, although in their current stage of development robots are not yet capable of meriting rights, at some stage in the future as they become more 'human like', robots will cease to be more things and will become moral subjects instead.

Once that happens and robots, making use of proper artificial intelligence, become feeling and self-reflective conscious beings endowed with the capacity for autonomy and free will - humans.

As a result, privileges, rights and immunities shall be granted. On the other hand, the same accusations employing a Eurocentric anthropocentric standard of 'human like' nature still applies, thus undermining the morality of such propositions.

The third proposition, even more anthropocentric than the previous one, stipulates that even though the robots can have rights, they should not have them.

The premise, as David emphasis, is deceptively simple : as far as law is concerned, the attribution of rights is a matter of fiat:

Once a legitimate authority following the right procedure passes a decision according rights to robots, the latter immediately become endowed with such rights.

In other words, rights do not depend on the qualities of their possessor, as suggested by the two previous propositions, but merely on the will of the lawgiver : as such, even the current version of robots could legally be bearer of rights.

However, as the proponents of this proposition suggest, the mere fact that something can be done does not mean that it should be done.

Instead, the proposition is based on the assumption that we are, in fact, obliged 'not to build things to which we feel obligated', because the opposite would open up floodgates uncontrollable social transformation.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all prepare for Great Global Elections and ''register'' on : wssciw.blogspot.com and Twitter - E-!WOW! -the Ecosystem 2011:

''' Crucial Cravings '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless