Slashdot Mirror

Wow...what do you have against people that do well...or like a particular sport?

I have nothing against people who do well - I've been pretty lucky myself compared to some and I'm enthusiastically pro-doing-well. I have a problem with people who behave like they are better than others when they do well. I like all kinds of sports and I don't care what anyone plays - doesn't matter if it's my chosen sport or not. Get out there and be active and have fun. I'm not thrilled about sports that are too expensive for lots of people to play but I can live with it to a point. However I have a BIG problem when people use those sports to exclude others particularly minorities and women and golf is legendary for excluding disadvantaged groups. How could it be that you aren't aware of these problems?

I suppose you think everyone that has more money than you, and plays golf is an asshole or otherwise horrible person?

Not at all. I honestly could not care less how much money someone has and I wish you and everyone else well. I play golf myself from time to time and most people who enjoy it are perfectly decent folks. But if you aren't aware that there are some serious racism, sexism, and elitism problems within the sport of golf and with the country clubs that host the sport then you have been living under a rock.

Mashiki wrote:

So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."

I'll wait. Enjoy the public lynch mob by the way.

Don't Buy Into The Gender Pay Gap Myth. The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth Wage Gap Myth Exposed — By Feminists The ‘Wage Gap’ Myth That Won’t Die .These are just the first few hits.

I have not been able to find anyone that supports the idea that sexual assaults in the US is higher than in Congo. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she raised the issue of sexual violence with Congolese President Joseph Kabila; I believe she would support your position.

You misinterpreted the results. The real meaning of the committee's vote is to confirm that accusation is still NOT the same as guilt. You wouldn't want to be accused of doing something you didn't do and get kangarooed by the media, would you? Consider what happened to 10 Duke Lacrosse players who were accused of rape by a stripper. They were ejected from the team, expelled from the college and labeled as "sexual predators" before they had even a single day in court. Read about it:
https://thefederalist.com/2016...
and how much it hurts 10 years later, even though the three players were exonerated by an honest DA, not the scumbag DA who withheld exculpatory evidence to win a conviction and further his political career.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"The media’s coverage of the case inflamed race, gender and class divisions locally and nationally. But upon further investigation by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mangum’s allegations were deemed false. Cooper exonerated the students, saying in April 2007, “We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred.”

So, considering how unfair equating accusation with guilt is, wouldn't we all be better off if we let the judicial system work without putting a wrench into the gears? In Kavanaugh's case, he been the subject of SIX previous FBI investigations in the past yet some people believe that a SEVENTH would somehow, someway, uncover what six previous teams did not find. Only if one believes the FBI is totally incompetent, biased, or is part of the "Deep State".

But, did you notice the report released today that Dr Ford is NOT a licensed psychologist and in calling herself a psychologist has violated California law?

"Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.

After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it

Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.

They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.

Here, since your search engine skills are not good enough to type in a phrase like 'biphobia in the lgbt community'--here are some of the top results (out of ~176,00) that I got when I did it, you can get more easily: HuffPo LGBT Sentinel Pride Bi Resource Center.. Switching to transphobia from biphobia, I get: The Independent (about the transphobic protest at the 2018 London Pride parade that got to lead the parade for a bit, I honestly wish I was making this up) Syracuse Peace Counsel The American Prospect; I will admit that the filtering on Google means I don't get quite as narrow a focus so some of the ~742,000 results it spit out are not necessarily relevant. Non-binary discrimination within the LGBT* community is primarily discussed in academic sources, though on occasion you will see things like this article from HuffPo.

You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.

Actually, that is literally the opposite of what the LGBTBBQ community believes. They believe that your gender identity and sexual orientation should not dictate every bit of life, which is why they think they should have the same rights as anyone else.

They say believe it, they don't do good job of living it. This is something that is pretty well-documented--go poke around some.

Here, since your search engine skills are not good enough to type in a phrase like 'biphobia in the lgbt community'--here are some of the top results (out of ~176,00) that I got when I did it, you can get more easily: HuffPo LGBT Sentinel Pride Bi Resource Center.. Switching to transphobia from biphobia, I get: The Independent (about the transphobic protest at the 2018 London Pride parade that got to lead the parade for a bit, I honestly wish I was making this up) Syracuse Peace Counsel The American Prospect; I will admit that the filtering on Google means I don't get quite as narrow a focus so some of the ~742,000 results it spit out are not necessarily relevant. Non-binary discrimination within the LGBT* community is primarily discussed in academic sources, though on occasion you will see things like this article from HuffPo.

You can also find out some really...ah...interesting stories by just listening to homosexual trans people talk about some of how they get treated. Some gays and lesbians only really out themselves as transphobic when they are dealing with non-straight trans people--which at one point caused me to drop a few friends because I'm not okay with this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

There is nothing inherently wrong with competition. Heck there is nothing inherently wrong with not having a minimum wage. It is a bit like this. 12 cookies

Basically as more and more resources get owned by the top few percent, there is less and less for everyone else, and, well, money in a vault doesn't do any work.

Now you can't ask taxi services to play by one set of rules and uber drivers to play by another. That kind of thing is wrong.

Second, we also make sure to design and build durable products that last as long as possible.

Then ask them why they don't support the right to repair. Why they make their products so difficult to repair. Why they make it a costly purchase to replace a battery.

Talk is cheap.

Why can't the first world also go back to subsistence farming?

As Opportunist mentioned, the population has grown past the carrying capacity of subsistence farming to a level that only high-yield farming methods can sustain. But even local farming to supplement high-yield farming is a non-starter so long as NIMBYs remain unwilling to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit urban dwellers from running a victory garden. Consider Oak Park, Michigan, which dropped misdemeanor charges against Julie Bass only after the city's threat against her vegetable garden made national news.

Republicans on average donate 33% more to charitable causes than Democrats.

Your assertion about "the right" is demonstrably false. Democrats hate poor people more.

Highly doubtful. It turns out conservatives only give more because they give to their church, not because they have any greater love for the poor.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Liberal enough source for you?
If a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right?

Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains whatâ(TM)s known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when youâ(TM)re in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

So I guess all those extra rules that California has for auto emissions standards are illegal?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Liberal enough source for you?
If a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right? Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains whatâ(TM)s known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when youâ(TM)re in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

The same shit happens in the U.S. all the time: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

So firstly 64 bit. What?

For the Apple Watch specifically, the main benefits I can see would be that compilers and the hardware designs are all well tuned to 64 bit support now, not spending as much time on 32 bit... remember the chip architecture shares a lot of things with the iPhone chip designs. The watch generally is processing a lot of floating point data as well so the extra accuracy may be helpful there.

As for the ECG....I don't think you'll find it very useful.

I don't actually care that much about that aspect myself, but it might be nice for someone with heart issues to have more regular readings to help doctors diagnose them better.

I personally am much more into the detection of heart issues, which has already even with the current Apple Watch saved a number of people with very serious heart conditions they had no idea about. Heck, even the fall detection can be a nice feature for most anyone if you are outdoors exercising regularly.

I also really like the Heart Study app, I think it's a great idea to collect heart behavior from a huge number of real-world subjects along with some idea of what they are doing, to build up a better behavior of what healthy even means for the heart...

Whoops, bad pick! My US geography and knowledge of where the big gun murder places are is not so great. I figured if I just went down the state list and picked something a few down the list it would show that absent the top eight cities the US still had a pretty high gun murder rate.

So lets get extreme. You said "Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

Yet, the linked Wikipedia statistics show Canada has a gun homicide rate of 0.61 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 2.05 per 100,000) while the UK has a gun homicide rate of 0.06 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 0.23 per 100,000), and Canada is pretty high on the list, there are a lot that have lower rates (the UK does seem to have among the lowest rates).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Out of all the sates, only four (and Florida has no data listed) seem to have gun homicide rates lower than Canada, and none are lower than the UK. How would omitting the 8 worst cities manage to drop the statistics in more than forty states? It doesn't seem like omitting these areas would drop the country average to "one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

When I do some simple web searched to look for data supporting your statements, I mostly come up with articles that seems to broadly counter it - for example this seems to indicate the gangs make up somewhere between 10 and 25% of gun deaths https://www.huffingtonpost.com... according to data from the federal National Gang Center and this https://www.vox.com/policy-and... has similar information.

If you have a reference that supports your statement that removing "small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities" makes a huge difference in the US ranking in country homicide rates, I would be interested to see it, because it doesn't match up with how I interpret the data that I have seen.

Of course, my data might be total crap and maybe the US is unique among developed countries with all of the bad stuff able to be blamed on those inner city gang bangers. If other places also had similar percentages of their bad stuff being done by the gangs, then absent the gangs, their numbers would drop too.

The actual numbers can be much higher than 50%. Try more like 97%.

Please put down the crack pipe and READ.

"
At the polls Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire’s pledged delegates by a landslide 22 percent....Yet, all six Democratic New Hampshire superdelegates gave their support to Hillary Clinton, effectively erasing Sanders win,
.
.
.
Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates.
"

You are ignoring General Motors and other automotive corporations buying and destroying light rail systems, https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Discrimination in a legal aspect is far different than discrimination - or should I say, categorization - by physical attribute. The latter should be allowed in the same way that the former should be defended against. That this article even exists is proof that some loud folks believe both types of discrimination listed above are the same. Otherwise, how could you consider that police using skin color in any aspect would be anything but normal, unless you somehow consider that to be wrong on some moral, ethical, or legal level? That's a problem, because at that point, it's just an attempt to whitewash reality with what today is considered politically correct. In fact, it sounds like .

Searching for suspects or describing victims based on known attributes is just a rational, good practice. Imagine if police were not allowed to consider gender, skin color, age, hair color, eye color, height, or weight in their official records. Imagine if it were hospitals that were not allowed to use those traits when treating patients.

Sounds absurd to you, like this is one of those 'taken to a logical extreme' examples that no one would ever consider?

Well, I've got news for you. It's already creeping in. Apparently the practice of using someone's apparent or legal gender and legal name for police reports is deeply upsetting to folks. The TG community calls it 'deadnaming,' and considers the use of the original or legal name to be violence, done both to the victim and to the TG community.

They're actually upset that the legal name and gender are being used by police in any capacity.

There's a good point in there, where their preferred name might be known and can be used while interviewing folks. The thing is, they say it like it's new, like there's not a 'known aliases' field somewhere. Or perhaps 'important notes: TG male to female, named X'. The folks advocating against deadnaming don't want that though. They don't want notes. They want this to be used for the official, primary fields. They state that even bringing up name in a historical reference about the individual should be disallowed, and go on to include things like parents (who might not approve) and so on.

Now, this isn't like other minority rights issues. For example, marriage is a legal definition that confers real legal entitlements, and the LGBT* marriage rights is about getting official recognition for any couples regardless of gender (which is what we should be doing, and is so obvious I have a problem even considering alternative viewpoints) . But that's not what this is. This is lying about reality to make someone feel good about themselves, or at least, not make them feel bad, or in the case that they've died, getting others to feel good knowing it won't happen to them.

Those advocating for absolute validity of personal feelings are going to be constantly confronted with the premise that the physical world doesn't care much about political correctness, and they're not going to just make their peace with it. I actually worry that we're going to have to legally protect concepts like critical thinking and scientific method as they're nickle and dimed away over time. ... well, I went off on a rant there. Anyway, let's not let political correctness become legally enforced stupidity.

I mean, 3 humans, lives snuffed out by the horror of nuclear power - and what does it give us?

Well it provides employment for the homeless and workers from around the world in a high tech clean-up that proves the benevolence od the nuclear industry.

The people who enthusiastically support nuclear power now have a way to sincerely show their commitment to their cause by participating in the effort side by side with the workers who are cleaning it up.

Even if you are relegated to dial-up internet (a VERY rare situation today, even in extremely rural areas)

First, because of zoning laws in most cities, the food you eat was probably grown in one of these "extremely rural areas". Some have gone so far as to threaten city dwellers who grow a vegetable garden with months in jail. Consider Oak Park, Michigan, which dropped misdemeanor charges against Julie Bass only after the city's threat against her victory garden made national news. Second, some on fixed incomes may choose dial-up over broadband because the latter is so much more expensive per year, particularly when "broadband" means satellite or fixed cellular Internet.

you can still have wifi and/or ethernet for the LAN.

What's a good brand of dial-up modem that supports Ethernet for use with a wired or Wi-Fi router?

Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

Electoral College, learn about it, and realize that they aren't making a vote, they are fulfilling a role, and that each and every state has chosen to follow the vote of the people in the state, with the only slight differences being the cases of Maine and Nebraska, and even that's had minimal impact. States deciding to choose electors based on anything else would be a laughable outcome, and they just aren't going to do it. And they don't cotton too well to people who don't fall in line. As a result, the reality is? The Electoral College is just a pro forma sham, that doesn't really matter except to distort public interaction, and Donald Trump lost the real vote that matters, that of the people.

Then he lied about it. Which just shows his own deceptive practices, because even he admitted that the popular vote was what he considered important. People who try to ignore the popular vote (mostly ones that lose it) and rely on the Electoral College, are so deeply wrong, that they don't ever want to admit it. Some of them, like yourself, even make up sham excuses about how somehow the Electoral College does something to protect small states. They're wrong too.

I'm sorry, Lynnwood Rooster, I know you are committed in your partisan myopia to a complete and utter defense of the Electoral College, today, but since I also know you would completely change your tune if the circumstances were different, it's not exactly persuasive. You're not committed to any kind of moral position, you will simply believe you are at war with EastAsia, that the chocolate ration has increased, and that wrapping yourself in the Constitution will justify any malfeasance.

At least you're committed to that, so we know what you'll keep on doing.

I found a link, https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You smell like you've been sucking dick for whiskey again, pgmrdlm. No wonder you can't get laid. Sad! But stop jacking off while you drive, that's not safe you wack bitch.

- THE PROBLEM IS YOU!

While the society was distracted by the talk of imaginary "nazis", Communists — adherents of the far deadlier, indeed the deadliest, school of thought known to humanity — have crept in on us, and are even fielding national politicians already...

It is at least 800 this year, and given that ever manufacturing job creates 3.6 additional jobs, that would be around 3000+ new jobs from US Steel expansion this year, alone.

You're welcome.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Why don't you take your faggot (gaping) ass to a Muslim bakery and tell them you demand they bake you a SSM wedding cake and sue THEM for refusing?

Because I live in a state where the mosques were vandalized and the legislature had a freakout over a utility sink. There are no legal grounds for me to do so, in fact, a judge disrupted a court proceeding over his ire over the Supreme court decision, by refusing to let two parties settle a divorce because of a feigned complaint about Obergefeld v. Hodges.

Maybe you live in a state where you would have legal grounds. So why don't you? Is it because the Muslim bakeries were happy to bake a cake, and if you tried to sue them for refusing, the Judge would ask why you committed perjury. Some of us remember your heavily edited video was falsified.

You are a deceitful, hypocritical, bloviating, shallow-minded, shit-spewing, garbage-flinging Right-wing buffoon.

Keep repeating yourself.

it's in such slow motion compared to human time scales that you may not recognize that you've passed the tipping point

Yeah. So slow, there may be no motion at all... We've been through this, riverat1, you know, what you need to do to prove, your discipline is an actual science (contrary to what some of its own practitioners admit), rather than a religion as some of the cheering disciples accept, and the critics mock.

"People are about twice as productive as they were 60 years ago. That's not all chalked up to machines & computers. A lot of that is just plain less downtime all around."

Working longer doesn't tend to increase productivity. As people work more hours their productivity rate decreases such that they get about the same amount of productive work completed, and sometimes even less.

A sample of sources:
source 1
source 2
source 3

Workers aren't always correct. Unions often become corrupt and bloated. Undocumented workers hurt citizens.

Points taken.

What, specifically, has Kavanaugh done that is bad? Being anti-union isn't inherently bad. I say that as someone who is supportive of people's right to collectively bargain.

Well... The article Brett Kavanaugh Ruled Against Workers When No One Else Did cites several cases where Kavanaugh sides with corporations over the interests of workers, also noting:

“Based on his record, we can expect that Judge Kavanaugh will continue to protect the interests of already powerful corporate CEOs instead of working families,” the Communications Workers of America said in a statement.

That article (and several others, below) also talk about a case where Kavanaugh sided with SeaWorld and against OSHA when a trainer was killed (and, apparently, eaten) by an orca -- basically asserting that "he knew the risks".

• Family Man Brett Kavanaugh Thinks Businesses Shouldn’t Be Liable if Employees Are Eaten on the Job
• Kavanaugh’s awful SeaWorld dissent – bad for workers, bad for the environment

OSHA used what’s known as the general duty clause to cite SeaWorld for safety violations after the whale Tilikum killed trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010. SeaWorld challenged the citations, but the appeals panel sided with OSHA, ruling that SeaWorld knew its protections for trainers like Brancheau were insufficient and that it could have prevented her death had it taken the proper steps.

Kavanaugh disagreed. He compared working at SeaWorld to playing a sport like ice hockey that comes with inherent dangers, and, unlike his colleagues on the panel, argued that OSHA doesn’t have the legal standing to regulate it.

“When should we as a society paternalistically decide that the participants in these sports and entertainment activities must be protected from themselves – that the risk of significant physical injury is simply too great even for eager and willing participants?” he asked.

Jordan Barab, a former OSHA official during the Obama years, wrote Tuesday on his blog Confined Space that the SeaWorld case shows Kavanaugh to be “a threat to workers and to OSHA.”

“Kavanaugh’s idea of making America great again apparently hearkens back to a time before the Workers Compensation laws and the Occupational Safety and Health Act were passed,” Barab wrote. “Back then employers who maimed or killed workers often escaped legal responsibility by arguing that the employee had ‘assumed’ the risk when he or she took the job and the employer therefore had no responsibility to make the job safer.”

Maybe it's just me, but that's appalling. Can't wait for that precedent to be exploited, *especially* if Kavanaugh is confirmed to SCOTUS. Just get someone to sign something that says, "There is a risk of ..." and goodbye legal liability.

Ford customer: The car shifted into Reverse by itself, backed over and killed my grandfather.

Ford lawyer: (Pointing to sales agreement) He knew the risks.

Ford Sales Agreement
There is a risk that the vehicle transmission may unexpectedly shift from Park to Reverse, causing the vehicle to back over and kill your grandfather.

Judge: Hmm... Let me check Kavanaugh in OSHA v. SeaWorld... Okay. Case dismissed.

This is the free market at work. Exactly as intended by the corporations in charge.

This is the free market at work. It's ripe for unionization.

Good luck with that ... Sentiment from several sources (Google: Kavanaugh anti-union), quoting from the first:

Judge Kavanaugh routinely rules against workers and their families and regularly sides with employers against employees seeking justice in the workplace, including CWA members.

• CWA Opposes the Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
• Trump Unites Unions Against ‘Anti-Worker’ Kavanaugh for Court
• Kavanaugh Sided With Trump Casino in 2012 to Thwart Union Drive
• Brett Kavanaugh Ruled Against Workers When No One Else Did
• Brett Kavanaugh Once Sided With an Anti-Union Company That Scapegoated Undocumented Workers

That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.

Citation needed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The same media that so easily drives you and the rest of the weak minded into terrified frenzies of paranoid, xenophobic outrage every time Trump scratches his nuts has been almost completely tuned out be the rest of the country. The media in general has a 14% trustworthiness rating among conservatives and a 37% rating among independents, and CNN specifically has a 33% trustworthiness rating among its own viewers. They went full-"Literal Hitler" in the first week of his candidacy and no one on the right ever listened to them again. Absolutely *none* of the fake, apocalyptic outrage spewed forth over every retarded """scandal""" from Megyn Kelly to Gonzo Curiel to Khzir Khan to Pussygate to Pissgate to Flynn to Charlottesville to Manafort to Wolff to Shitholegate to Children In Cages to Helsinki ever moved his poll numbers a millimeter. All it's ever done is drive the left further and further into its hateful, irrational rage, which - if you can believe it - is a big part of Trump's PR strategy and has been from the start.

The same media that so easily drives you and the rest of the weak minded into terrified frenzies of paranoid, xenophobic outrage every time Trump scratches his nuts has been almost completely tuned out be the rest of the country. The media in general has a 14% trustworthiness rating among conservatives and a 37% rating among independents, and CNN specifically has a 33% trustworthiness rating among its own viewers. They went full-"Literal Hitler" in the first week of his candidacy and no one on the right ever listened to them again. Absolutely *none* of the fake, apocalyptic outrage spewed forth over every retarded """scandal""" from Megyn Kelly to Gonzo Curiel to Khzir Khan to Pussygate to Pissgate to Flynn to Charlottesville to Manafort to Wolff to Shitholegate to Children In Cages to Helsinki ever moved his poll numbers a millimeter. All it's ever done is drive the left further and further into its hateful, irrational rage, which - if you can believe it - is a big part of Trump's PR strategy and has been from the start.

Really, that 'white male lead is the problem' meme started as fucking joke in progressive circles. I was there, I saw the first appearance of it, and I had to chuckle, as I just knew the screams of rage that would cause from the knuckle-dragging basement dwellers.

As you just went on to prove. Thank you.

Problem is, every time the far left gets caught in some racist and sexist moment. it automagically becomes a joke

But allow this knuckle dragger to go on here.

We live in an age where one's commentary lives forever once on the internet.

It is not remotely difficult to find examples of people claiming that white men are the problem a simple DDG search or Google search will provide examples - try it

Huff Post White Men Of Academia Have An ‘Objectivity’ Problem https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

White males are a problem population, according to Saida Grundy of Boston U. https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.damemagazine.com/2...

Here's one that is an interesting read https://www.huffingtonpost.com... Authored by a woman of African descent, it is both racist and has a kernal of truth in it.

I'm bored now - you want any more do the work yourself.

Are there people that are considered "white" who are obvious racists? Oh hell yes. And history is littered with their crimes.

But yes Virginia, there are people of all races and creeds and political affiliations that are racist. "white" is considered a race. Men are considered a sex. Unless you are referring to medical issues that might affect one group over another like the issues fair skinned people have in tropical sunny environments to issues faced by people with dark pigmentation face with Vitamin D shortage in northern environments, referring to angry white men is the same as referring to angry black men.

And y'all can deny you are racist just as well as the guy who likes to dress in bedsheets and burn crosses on the lawns of people they have identified by race.

tl;dr version: The far left shouldn't make jokes that look and read exactly how they feel. If you make a "joke" that reads exactly how people who are serious racists write, you'll have to forgive people who look at your "joke" and believe you mean the same.

Really, that 'white male lead is the problem' meme started as fucking joke in progressive circles. I was there, I saw the first appearance of it, and I had to chuckle, as I just knew the screams of rage that would cause from the knuckle-dragging basement dwellers.

As you just went on to prove. Thank you.

Problem is, every time the far left gets caught in some racist and sexist moment. it automagically becomes a joke

But allow this knuckle dragger to go on here.

We live in an age where one's commentary lives forever once on the internet.

It is not remotely difficult to find examples of people claiming that white men are the problem a simple DDG search or Google search will provide examples - try it

Huff Post White Men Of Academia Have An ‘Objectivity’ Problem https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

White males are a problem population, according to Saida Grundy of Boston U. https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.damemagazine.com/2...

Here's one that is an interesting read https://www.huffingtonpost.com... Authored by a woman of African descent, it is both racist and has a kernal of truth in it.

I'm bored now - you want any more do the work yourself.

Are there people that are considered "white" who are obvious racists? Oh hell yes. And history is littered with their crimes.

But yes Virginia, there are people of all races and creeds and political affiliations that are racist. "white" is considered a race. Men are considered a sex. Unless you are referring to medical issues that might affect one group over another like the issues fair skinned people have in tropical sunny environments to issues faced by people with dark pigmentation face with Vitamin D shortage in northern environments, referring to angry white men is the same as referring to angry black men.

And y'all can deny you are racist just as well as the guy who likes to dress in bedsheets and burn crosses on the lawns of people they have identified by race.

tl;dr version: The far left shouldn't make jokes that look and read exactly how they feel. If you make a "joke" that reads exactly how people who are serious racists write, you'll have to forgive people who look at your "joke" and believe you mean the same.

Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

Funny, the most common thing I hear about problems competing when it comes to the 'small guys' is the 'big guys' pushing them out with every dirty trick they can think of.

Following some ground rules for being fair to your customers is probably far easier compared to competing with incumbent big name ISPs. Besides, I bet small ISPs don't do enough business to make screwing over customers a valid business strategy. I fail to see how it'd be overly demanding of a small company to expect them to provide their advertised speed and service quality, to not demand they pay extra to use certain websites, etc.

No, I think the companies that stand to lose the most are big ISPs. Perhaps they should have dealt more honestly with the American people and we wouldn't need to legislate them into behaving.

Kind of. It turns out that Musk is actually a big Republican donor: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

That is a good story too. But nah, lets talk about Prime Day!

What is interesting is that the winner of the last election spent less in normalized 2016 dollars than any winner since 1960. And less than 75% of the losers, too.

How's the weather in St. Petersburg today?

• 2009 — opponents of Obama are all racists.
• 2016 — opponents of Hillary are sexist
• 2017- — supporters of Trump are Russians (and racists too).

At least, dissent is patriotic again now...

Being male doesn't mean that you're immune from regurgitating anti-male rhetoric.

Seems that criminalising prostitution doesn't really help that much. And while there are claims that legalisation of prostitution has enlarged the market, that seems to be a problem for the puritanical types who feel this is inherently bad. Evidence seems to also suggest that this "failed experiment"Reduces sexual violence.

Your proposal appears to be a war on prostitution. Essentially I can't see this as being any different from the war on drugs, except that it pulls yet another underclass into an illegal underground where their protections are even worse.

I simply can't see how this would reduce sexual violence. Your opposition to porn sounds like it would have completely the opposite effect from what you think. The argument is no different from that of Jack Chick regarding violent video games. Even if we do accept that porn that implies coercion encourages sexual violence, that doesn't justify an opposition to all pornography.

You seem to think that men should have a right to sex. So we differ there too. I too am a man, I'd like other men to up their game a bit, male violence is something not discussed enough amongst men. I don't think you can reduce male violence by being OK with violence against women (quite a lot of porn titles are extremely rapey, if that's the experience men are getting of sex what does that do to personal relationships?)

If society wants to tackle male violence then you also have to look at the rape culture and porn culture and how they all interplay. The incel 'movement' is an example of what happens when men feel entitled to sex. That many mass killers are men who were previously violent to women shows that this is a root cause of many problems.

I object to surrogacy, paid or not. https://www.huffingtonpost.com... This is literally selling the labour of women for profit. There are so many children in the world who need adoption and fostering care, yet ripping a baby from their mother (the person who gives birth is always the mother) for selling is deemed appropriate in some places over and above looking after already extant children. The world's priorities are fucked as likely is the world.

I do it this way.

you're retarded.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

To possibly produce jet fuel from sea water on aircraft carriers while underway. In addition to obtaining hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis of sea water you also liberate some of the carbon dioxide that's dissolved in solution as part of that sea water. The combination of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide can, with sufficient energy input, most likely from the nuclear reactors that power the ship, be converted to a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and some carbon dioxide in a mixture known as SynGas or "synthesis gas". From there it can be converted via the Fischer Tropsch Process into heavier hydrocarbons and eventually into a mixture of longer chain hydrocarbons approximating JP-5 jet fuel.

Why aren't we already doing this on land you might ask? Well, in a word, because it's expensive in both industrial plant and equipment and also from an energy input perspective. Much more expensive than simply pumping crude oil out of the ground and refining it. However, that matters less on a ship underway at sea, away from land supplies, and with nuclear energy to spare where cost is less of a factor than ease of supply, which is militarily advantageous.

after the vicious, cruel, sadistic policies that Trump has directed toward foreigners and immigrants

Vicious, cruel, sadistic is when they shoot you at the border, not when they take you to an air-conditioned detention center, let you take a warm shower, and give you a clean jumpsuit to wear. Though the food is, admittedly, not great.

And I'm pretty sure most of the immigrants in your narrative might point out that they faced much worse conditions *before* they got caught than afterwards, especially given coyotes' nasty predilection for raping their paying customers and putting them in shipping containers to die. They might point that out if you bothered to ask them anyway, which you wouldn't of course. Because they're really just faceless extras to use in your own political movie featuring Donald Trump in the starring role as Adolph Hitler, aren't they?

Bezos would probably do it for free . . . because if the Earth was destroyed . . . nobody would subscribe to Amazon Prime any more.

Don't worry -- Beos will surely save us. Besides, it'll be a business expense. Hell -- it'll probably end up as a made-for-Amazon movie as well.