Since you're an AC and it's three days later, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but...
What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification. Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means", and that is an inconsistent, discriminatory, and regressive position.
I honestly don't understand the difference between those two statements: "What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification" and "Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means"." Isn't the 'justification' itself for segregation a form of the ends justify the means? The segregation is the means, and the goal is the justification. They seem like synonyms. I know you have to be making a distinction here, but I'm just not getting the difference.
At some point, every team has to make a decision on how much effort should go into supporting "legacy systems." Maybe they made internal changes that don't work under XP, require Microsoft libraries that weren't released for Windows XP, etc. At that point you then have to write and maintain two different code paths, one for XP and earlier and one for 7 and later. The point eventually came where they decided the XP codepaths were too much for too little benefit. I don't know what challenges they had to face, but this is a choice that just about every software project makes eventually.
I'm actually rather interested in the currently-unwritten(?) history of the alt-right. Until very recently, it has been explicitly white-nationalistic. So what caused people to choose to make it the larger movement encompassing more than just the promotion of the US as a white ethnostate, and start to become a movement that was broader than that? Why would people have been attracted to it in particular rather than just, say, the Tea Party? I'm very much aware that groups can be hijacked by an influx of new members that don't necessarily hold sacred the original group's principles (see: the Tea Party), but I suppose the question is.. what would have drawn non-racists to them in the first place? It feels like a very loose association. The original alt-right was never super-racisty like the KKK or Nazis. Maybe mildy racist like the Nation of Islam is, but they use a lot of nice-sound euphemisms. Or as Tim Mak put it, "they're going to be white nationalists, but by God, they're going to be a little fancy about it." How does a group like that grow into something different?
It's also a huge mistake to think that the alt-right is the current conservative movement is the alt-right. Trump has many, many supporters who are not alt-right members and maybe have never even heard of them, and the two shouldn't be conflated, just as "trump supporter" and "racist" shouldn't be conflated.
So where does he stand on Europeans going back to Europe, and leaving native North Americans to their lands?
Yeah, thought so.
Which he? Trump? Bannon? Spencer? I don't have any way of asking them, but my guess is that they like people having their own lands, but not necessarily their "native" lands. That is, white Europeans basically conquered the US lands. They won and it's theirs, and they're the majority. Things get REALLY muddy for their rationale (though I haven't heard them address this) when it comes to the southwestern US, where Hispanics might outnumber white folks in some areas, and have certainly lived there longer.
Many people have dreamed of blowing up the White House! Independence Day got the biggest audience cheers when the aliens blew up the White House and Congress.
You don't win hearts and minds with violence. Iraq has taught the US that.
You seriously think "Iraq" has taught the US anything? I can't see a fucking thing changed since... well, ever.
I think people are maybe a little less naive now about being "greeted as liberators." I don't think anyone actually believes that if we drone strike Bashar al-Assad and his senior leadership that Syria will suddenly be filled with puppies and rainbows. There's that, at least. If Iraq has taught the US anything, it's that the region is a huge clusterfuck, and it's going to remain such.
Further there are people that lump Libertarians in as Alt-Right (as in they're not establishment conservatives).
You might as well say that gay men and transgender are the same, because they're not part of the majority establishment sexuality, but both groups would be fairly offended at the characterization.
Or Buddism and Shinto should be lumped together since they're both Asian-based non-Christian religions.
I don't see a lot of overlap between the Alt-Right and Libertarians, aside that both might believe that under Liberal/Moderate control the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds on some issues.
"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents. The equivalent of saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist. You can only believe this by taking sound bytes and out of context information and molding it into a fake message.
I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.
In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.
Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.
The difference is that the "alt-right" is not actually a political ideology.
It largely consists of 4chan anons and Twitter eggs saying outrageous things they do not necessarily fully believe in order to intentionally get a rise out of people because "fuck political correctness and fuck SJWs".
The Alt-Right is a white nationalism movement, coined by Richard Spenser (the guy who got punched in a street interview recently) in 2010. He's been promoting it ever since. It certainly has roots in 4chan and 8chan, though it's always hard there to tell what is trolling and what is sincere, but it wasn't until the presidential election that the alt-right got much exposure with the selection of Steve Bannon last August to Trump's team. Bannon claims Breitbart is "the platform of the alt-right," and it's hard to dispute him on that.
I don't know if maybe you don't know what a SJW is, or you do and just don't like the label
I know what an SJW is, and I don't like the label, primarily because it's been so overused and abused that it no longer has much meaning. I see racists tossing it around a lot with a lot of "if you hate the KKK you're an SJW." There has been a successful push to identify the SJW label as "anyone who does not like far-right male-centered white nationalism." I'm afraid the label is ruined, which is too bad, because I found it rather useful myself in the pre-GamerGate days.
Yeah, destruction. What, you think we're improving the planet?
We almost killed the ozone layer, we've driven countless species to extinction, we're destroying the rainforests, the oceans have literally 50% of the fish they did since the 1970's, we pollute the air, we pollute the water, we pollute the soil, we're heating the planet and fucking up countless ecosystems, etc.. etc..
You don't think that's destruction of our habitat?
For many deniers, there are two options: "We're just fine," and "the end of human life on Earth." So when you say we're destroying habitat, their counter is "don't be ridiculous, we can still live here." They think that when Mass Human Migrations happen, that we'll be fine behind our walls, or that they're the ones who won't have to move.
Trump, on the other hand, disdains the Republican-antithetic "Flip Flopper" epithet and is willing to change his mind, given sufficient incentive.
It's a little difficult to believe that, given Trump's extreme reluctance to ever, ever admit that he was wrong or made a mistake. He is always willing to pin blame on someone else for his decisions, and when it suits him he will flat-out lie, even about things that are easily fact-checked.
He's pointing out the exact reason why GWB didn't sign the Kyoto Accords: There's not much sense allowing China and India to pollute to their hearts' content while curbing some greenhouse emissions in Western countries. It felt like a fairly transparent attempt to transfer wealth out of the western economies and into developing countries. If you want to solve the problems, emissions controls have to apply to all major players, because just because there is a climate crisis doesn't mean the individual players won't use it as an opportunity to jockey for more power.
(1) I know what NIMBY is an acronym for, but what specifically has been done to decrease access to housing?
It's not that housing has been removed from the market (though market speculation has taken housing off the market), but it's that housing has not kept up with population growth. The result of that is skyrocketing housing prices. People don't like having more people in the neighborhood, more cars on the street, 5-story mixed-use multiplexes springing up in the middle of a neighborhood of single-story houses, etc, and California's over-broad environmental laws make it somewhat easy to stop housing projects, delay them, or overall make them more expensive.
(2) I'm not sure how someone supports themselves "cook[ing] food at home and sell[ing] it to neighbors". Are we talking about lemonade stands, bake sales? I don't know anyone who pays their rent with bake sales, and I live in a low-rent, free-market paradise (Houston).
Yeah, I don't know what that could be about.
(3) I have no idea what Prop 13 is, you'll have to give a brief summary if you want anyone who doesn't follow the California state legislature to understand.
Prop 13 was passed in the 1970s, the brainchild of Howard Jarvis, and it made law that property taxes may not increase beyond the rate of inflation, with a max of 2% per year. The rationale was that once someone bought their house, they should not be forced to sell and move because property taxes rise beyond the ability to pay. Such things obviously impacted seniors on fixed incomes the most.
Also, the California state government had grown quite a bit during the 1970s, and this was perceived as a way of limiting growth. A number of scandals involving property assessors granting artificially-low assessments to their friends had led to a law requiring assessments to reflect market value, which had the side effect of suddenly inflating the assessed value of many homeowners' houses, setting the stage for Prop 13.
Under Prop 13: the real estate tax is limited to 1% of the assessed value per year, and the assessed value may increase by no more than 2% per year. The assessed value can be entirely reset (higher) upon change of property ownership or major additions.
The positives: stable tax rate, less volatile government funding, encourages new home construction, and has allowed homeowners to stay in their homes for longer. The negatives: Disincentives for selling property in favor of transferring it to another relative resulting in less property turnover and fewer opportunities to buy. The 2% increases have underperformed the consumer price index. This also affects commercial property, when it was intended to benefit individual home buyers. Those corporations own the property, and the corporation could change hands entirely, but that doesn't trigger the prop-13 reassessment.
An end result is that California has high sales taxes to offset the lower property tax revenues. It also makes local governments more dependent on state funding.
Apple watch ? Shove it up your faggot ass, Tim Cook. And don't forget to set the vibrate mode and have all your faggot buddies call you.
What an unpleasant person you are. Are you a closeted gay person? They're the ones that most often obsess about openly-gay peoples' sexuality and bring it up all the time for no reason, usually with.. colorful expressions of gay sex acts that you claim to find disgusting.
You are describing Apple fanboys. There are no Samsung fanboys, no Sony fanboys, no Google fanboys, no LG fanboys, etc. -- just Apple fanboys.
Well, there at least used to be fanboys for all those segments at various points.
There were certainly Samsung fanboys during the earlier Galaxy S models. My phone was Samsung, my TV was a Samsung LED, even my new stove is made by Samsung (I was very surprised at the quality and the reviews. Samsung? Really? Kitchen appliances? Yet, somehow it's truel...) Maybe not as much since Samsung seemed hell-bent on copying every Apple idea, including the extremely stupid ones.
There absolutely were Sony fanboys, I was one during Sony's quality run in the 90s when their A/V equipment was great quality and the Sony Playstation and Playstation 2 were the top gaming platforms. Then, one move at a time, Sony started pissing away customer loyalty.
Back when Google was Google Search and Gmail, and they seemed to actually believe the "Don't Be Evil" slogan, there were a lot of Google fanboys. Slashdot was awash with them. But now that Google is publicly of the opinion that evil is a-ok, they're certainly harder to "believe" in.
You may be right about there never having been LG fanboys.:-)
Of course, an on-topic and thought out response involving neither ad hominem attacks or alternative truths drew out the downmods.
You could have just as easily have said "You have very aptly demonstrated all of the intelligence and thoughtfulness the majority of voting Americans perceive in supporters of Hillary Clinton and/or haters of Donald Trump" and it would have been just as true. The arrogance from either side seems perfectly formulated to totally tick off the other camp.
But I would suspect that the mods who downvoted you are getting a little sick of Donald Trump arguments being drawn into EVERY SINGLE TOPIC, political or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you're an AC and it's three days later, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but...
What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification. Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means", and that is an inconsistent, discriminatory, and regressive position.
I honestly don't understand the difference between those two statements: "What makes some segregation ok and others not is in the justification" and "Appealing to goals is just another way of saying "ends justify the means"." Isn't the 'justification' itself for segregation a form of the ends justify the means? The segregation is the means, and the goal is the justification. They seem like synonyms. I know you have to be making a distinction here, but I'm just not getting the difference.
At some point, every team has to make a decision on how much effort should go into supporting "legacy systems." Maybe they made internal changes that don't work under XP, require Microsoft libraries that weren't released for Windows XP, etc. At that point you then have to write and maintain two different code paths, one for XP and earlier and one for 7 and later. The point eventually came where they decided the XP codepaths were too much for too little benefit. I don't know what challenges they had to face, but this is a choice that just about every software project makes eventually.
I will continue to use XP on my desktop and if Google doesn't like it, they can release a newer version for XP.
Screw 'em.
I don't think they particularly care if you use XP. They just don't want to support XP in chrome or gmail anymore.
I'm actually rather interested in the currently-unwritten(?) history of the alt-right. Until very recently, it has been explicitly white-nationalistic. So what caused people to choose to make it the larger movement encompassing more than just the promotion of the US as a white ethnostate, and start to become a movement that was broader than that? Why would people have been attracted to it in particular rather than just, say, the Tea Party? I'm very much aware that groups can be hijacked by an influx of new members that don't necessarily hold sacred the original group's principles (see: the Tea Party), but I suppose the question is.. what would have drawn non-racists to them in the first place? It feels like a very loose association. The original alt-right was never super-racisty like the KKK or Nazis. Maybe mildy racist like the Nation of Islam is, but they use a lot of nice-sound euphemisms. Or as Tim Mak put it, "they're going to be white nationalists, but by God, they're going to be a little fancy about it." How does a group like that grow into something different?
It's also a huge mistake to think that the alt-right is the current conservative movement is the alt-right. Trump has many, many supporters who are not alt-right members and maybe have never even heard of them, and the two shouldn't be conflated, just as "trump supporter" and "racist" shouldn't be conflated.
So where does he stand on Europeans going back to Europe, and leaving native North Americans to their lands?
Yeah, thought so.
Which he? Trump? Bannon? Spencer? I don't have any way of asking them, but my guess is that they like people having their own lands, but not necessarily their "native" lands. That is, white Europeans basically conquered the US lands. They won and it's theirs, and they're the majority.
Things get REALLY muddy for their rationale (though I haven't heard them address this) when it comes to the southwestern US, where Hispanics might outnumber white folks in some areas, and have certainly lived there longer.
I think I am being out-punned here, so I will bow to your expertise.
Many people have dreamed of blowing up the White House!
Independence Day got the biggest audience cheers when the aliens blew up the White House and Congress.
You don't win hearts and minds with violence. Iraq has taught the US that.
You seriously think "Iraq" has taught the US anything ? I can't see a fucking thing changed since ... well, ever.
I think people are maybe a little less naive now about being "greeted as liberators." I don't think anyone actually believes that if we drone strike Bashar al-Assad and his senior leadership that Syria will suddenly be filled with puppies and rainbows. There's that, at least. If Iraq has taught the US anything, it's that the region is a huge clusterfuck, and it's going to remain such.
Further there are people that lump Libertarians in as Alt-Right (as in they're not establishment conservatives).
You might as well say that gay men and transgender are the same, because they're not part of the majority establishment sexuality, but both groups would be fairly offended at the characterization.
Or Buddism and Shinto should be lumped together since they're both Asian-based non-Christian religions.
I don't see a lot of overlap between the Alt-Right and Libertarians, aside that both might believe that under Liberal/Moderate control the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds on some issues.
"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents. The equivalent of saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist. You can only believe this by taking sound bytes and out of context information and molding it into a fake message.
I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.
In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.
Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.
The difference is that the "alt-right" is not actually a political ideology.
It largely consists of 4chan anons and Twitter eggs saying outrageous things they do not necessarily fully believe in order to intentionally get a rise out of people because "fuck political correctness and fuck SJWs".
The Alt-Right is a white nationalism movement, coined by Richard Spenser (the guy who got punched in a street interview recently) in 2010. He's been promoting it ever since. It certainly has roots in 4chan and 8chan, though it's always hard there to tell what is trolling and what is sincere, but it wasn't until the presidential election that the alt-right got much exposure with the selection of Steve Bannon last August to Trump's team. Bannon claims Breitbart is "the platform of the alt-right," and it's hard to dispute him on that.
I don't know if maybe you don't know what a SJW is, or you do and just don't like the label
I know what an SJW is, and I don't like the label, primarily because it's been so overused and abused that it no longer has much meaning. I see racists tossing it around a lot with a lot of "if you hate the KKK you're an SJW." There has been a successful push to identify the SJW label as "anyone who does not like far-right male-centered white nationalism." I'm afraid the label is ruined, which is too bad, because I found it rather useful myself in the pre-GamerGate days.
Yeah, destruction. What, you think we're improving the planet?
We almost killed the ozone layer, we've driven countless species to extinction, we're destroying the rainforests, the oceans have literally 50% of the fish they did since the 1970's, we pollute the air, we pollute the water, we pollute the soil, we're heating the planet and fucking up countless ecosystems, etc.. etc..
You don't think that's destruction of our habitat?
For many deniers, there are two options: "We're just fine," and "the end of human life on Earth." So when you say we're destroying habitat, their counter is "don't be ridiculous, we can still live here." They think that when Mass Human Migrations happen, that we'll be fine behind our walls, or that they're the ones who won't have to move.
Trump, on the other hand, disdains the Republican-antithetic "Flip Flopper" epithet and is willing to change his mind, given sufficient incentive.
It's a little difficult to believe that, given Trump's extreme reluctance to ever, ever admit that he was wrong or made a mistake. He is always willing to pin blame on someone else for his decisions, and when it suits him he will flat-out lie, even about things that are easily fact-checked.
So what are you trying to say ?
He's pointing out the exact reason why GWB didn't sign the Kyoto Accords: There's not much sense allowing China and India to pollute to their hearts' content while curbing some greenhouse emissions in Western countries. It felt like a fairly transparent attempt to transfer wealth out of the western economies and into developing countries. If you want to solve the problems, emissions controls have to apply to all major players, because just because there is a climate crisis doesn't mean the individual players won't use it as an opportunity to jockey for more power.
I believe the traditional response is, "You first!"
Sorry, the enlightened are too important to kill off, they are the caretakers. It's the polluters and non-believers that they want dead.
I'd hate to see the ceasing of the Monsoon simultaneously combined with the stopping of the Golf-stream.
I don't play golf, so I don't particularly care about that. My in-laws would be crushed, though.
What about those fat bottom cursive two's. Adding two of them together could be closer to 5 than the sum of a pair of little skinny two's.
That's what happens when you Round your numbers.
Well, there absolutely were Sony fanboys, but if you want to talk about -degree- of fanboyism, it's true that Apple fanboys certainly have them beat.
(1) I know what NIMBY is an acronym for, but what specifically has been done to decrease access to housing?
It's not that housing has been removed from the market (though market speculation has taken housing off the market), but it's that housing has not kept up with population growth. The result of that is skyrocketing housing prices. People don't like having more people in the neighborhood, more cars on the street, 5-story mixed-use multiplexes springing up in the middle of a neighborhood of single-story houses, etc, and California's over-broad environmental laws make it somewhat easy to stop housing projects, delay them, or overall make them more expensive.
(2) I'm not sure how someone supports themselves "cook[ing] food at home and sell[ing] it to neighbors". Are we talking about lemonade stands, bake sales? I don't know anyone who pays their rent with bake sales, and I live in a low-rent, free-market paradise (Houston).
Yeah, I don't know what that could be about.
(3) I have no idea what Prop 13 is, you'll have to give a brief summary if you want anyone who doesn't follow the California state legislature to understand.
Prop 13 was passed in the 1970s, the brainchild of Howard Jarvis, and it made law that property taxes may not increase beyond the rate of inflation, with a max of 2% per year. The rationale was that once someone bought their house, they should not be forced to sell and move because property taxes rise beyond the ability to pay. Such things obviously impacted seniors on fixed incomes the most.
Also, the California state government had grown quite a bit during the 1970s, and this was perceived as a way of limiting growth. A number of scandals involving property assessors granting artificially-low assessments to their friends had led to a law requiring assessments to reflect market value, which had the side effect of suddenly inflating the assessed value of many homeowners' houses, setting the stage for Prop 13.
Under Prop 13: the real estate tax is limited to 1% of the assessed value per year, and the assessed value may increase by no more than 2% per year. The assessed value can be entirely reset (higher) upon change of property ownership or major additions.
The positives: stable tax rate, less volatile government funding, encourages new home construction, and has allowed homeowners to stay in their homes for longer.
The negatives: Disincentives for selling property in favor of transferring it to another relative resulting in less property turnover and fewer opportunities to buy. The 2% increases have underperformed the consumer price index. This also affects commercial property, when it was intended to benefit individual home buyers. Those corporations own the property, and the corporation could change hands entirely, but that doesn't trigger the prop-13 reassessment.
An end result is that California has high sales taxes to offset the lower property tax revenues. It also makes local governments more dependent on state funding.
You don't know me, but I voted for Trump. The alternative was a lying harpy, so what choice did I have?
Anyone? Anyone else? That write-in field exists for a reason.
Apple watch ? Shove it up your faggot ass, Tim Cook. And don't forget to set the vibrate mode and have all your faggot buddies call you.
What an unpleasant person you are. Are you a closeted gay person? They're the ones that most often obsess about openly-gay peoples' sexuality and bring it up all the time for no reason, usually with.. colorful expressions of gay sex acts that you claim to find disgusting.
You are describing Apple fanboys. There are no Samsung fanboys, no Sony fanboys, no Google fanboys, no LG fanboys, etc. -- just Apple fanboys.
Well, there at least used to be fanboys for all those segments at various points.
There were certainly Samsung fanboys during the earlier Galaxy S models. My phone was Samsung, my TV was a Samsung LED, even my new stove is made by Samsung (I was very surprised at the quality and the reviews. Samsung? Really? Kitchen appliances? Yet, somehow it's truel...) Maybe not as much since Samsung seemed hell-bent on copying every Apple idea, including the extremely stupid ones.
There absolutely were Sony fanboys, I was one during Sony's quality run in the 90s when their A/V equipment was great quality and the Sony Playstation and Playstation 2 were the top gaming platforms. Then, one move at a time, Sony started pissing away customer loyalty.
Back when Google was Google Search and Gmail, and they seemed to actually believe the "Don't Be Evil" slogan, there were a lot of Google fanboys. Slashdot was awash with them. But now that Google is publicly of the opinion that evil is a-ok, they're certainly harder to "believe" in.
You may be right about there never having been LG fanboys. :-)
Of course, an on-topic and thought out response involving neither ad hominem attacks or alternative truths drew out the downmods.
You could have just as easily have said "You have very aptly demonstrated all of the intelligence and thoughtfulness the majority of voting Americans perceive in supporters of Hillary Clinton and/or haters of Donald Trump" and it would have been just as true. The arrogance from either side seems perfectly formulated to totally tick off the other camp.
But I would suspect that the mods who downvoted you are getting a little sick of Donald Trump arguments being drawn into EVERY SINGLE TOPIC, political or otherwise.