From what I understand their thesis is that cops are wrongfully shooting too many black people. The reason the movement has sprung up now probably has to do with increasing sousveillance by people with cell phones, capturing irrefutable video evidence of incidents that could've been denied or covered up in the past.
Interesting that Facebook is lobbying FOR net neutrality in the US but argued AGAINST it in Canada. I guess they're sufficiently entrenched in zero-rating deals up north.
Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.
You've gone back to your "average is incredibly dangerous" fallacy. If you live in a mostly-white suburban neighborhood, that's about average. That's about as safe as the level of crime risk illegal immigrants are bringing, on average. If you think inner-city Chicago is just below average, then where is "bad?" If you live in one of the safest places in the US, like maybe...a Florida retirement home? Then maybe you have something to lose. Most people don't. Certainly the people living in the more dangerous half don't. Maybe you should be less selfish with the safety.
But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?
Form a private discriminatory neighborhood (like Orania in South Africa) or just call Israel an apartheid state once and for all.
In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?
It's certainly possible, some countries and regions have made it work, especially those that are highly diverse. I'm certainly more willing to give multiculturalism a try than to resort to what could generously be called nativism.
People's perceptions of race relations certainly don't match with reality measured by any objective metric. Objectively, race relations have been steadily improving throughout modern history.
I am thinking of capitalists and not your strawman progressives.
They're not killing off customers because people who the economy doesn't need work from can't pay for goods. If the 1% are doing nearly all of the producing (through ownership of robotic factories) and consuming (because they're the only ones who have discretionary income), and the 99% is just surviving on welfare and fuming at the 1% for hoarding everything, what do you think is going to happen? The 1%ers who produce things for mass consumption like food, energy and housing will have to take a hit to their business, but I'm sure the 1%ers could work out a compensation scheme among themselves...or just pool those 99%er-dependent services into the hands of a few fall guys and take them out first.
That's when it's killbot time. The natural end-state of unrestrained capitalism is the killbot-powered genocide of at least 99% of the human population. It will make communism's death toll look like a rounding error. I, for one, would like to avoid this.
We'll have to check back in a few months and see if the prices actually rise or not...but those price caps were put in place for a reason and I doubt much has changed in terms of ISP competition since they were, so I know where I'm placing my bets.
Well I'm glad you've cleared up your position on legal immigration. So if I understand correctly now, your criteria for who should be allowed to enter the US are:
1. 0% chance of committing a crime or as close to it as possible. 2. Culturally almost identical to middle or upper-class white Americans
So it sounds to me that your requirements are so restrictive that you're practically a total anti-immigrationist. There are relatively few people around the world who would meet your requirements. The cultural test would be difficult to administer - either that or it would be a contentious quagmire of national profiling.
The bigger problem is that your requirements represent an unfair form of intranational cultural colonialism. You believe that only one of the cultures that currently makes up the country, and has for a very long time, should be allowed to expand through immigration. It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.
I'll simply have to disagree with your position. Far too nativist for my taste.
But if you're against anyone who carries greater than a 0% chance of committing a crime entering your country, you should be against legal immigration at least as much as illegal immigration.
Again you want to racially profile the odds of criminality. You seem to think that white people are vastly less likely to commit crimes than average, and therefore that the average is extremely dangerous by "white people standards." You're quite wrong there.
No you don't. Your chances of being raped or murdered stay the same, and now you might also get robbed.
You're assuming that the rapists and murders can't murder or rape the robbers...either that or you're doing bad math again.
I don't know. All I'm saying is the "lower crime rates than the native population" line is bullshit. By your logic you maximize your safety by flooding your neighborhood with murderers slightly less murderous than the current murderers. This is a very poor choice that I do not think you would make. You seem perfectly fine flooding your poor countryman's neighborhood with slightly less murderous people, though. So long as you get cheap tomatoes and you don't have to live in the more murderous poor neighborhoods it's fine though, right?
In other words, you think only saints should be allowed in. Anyone else increases the chance of crime by your logic, which flies right in the face of math.
It probably doesn't help you make good decisions that you're using such extreme examples with small sample sizes. There's a wide range of possibilities between "saint" and "murderer." The average might be "was caught with a joint" or "holds loud parties."
Yeah, "series of tubes" wasn't a a bad analogy in itself, but there were many terrible analogies and hilarious falsehoods in the rest of the infamous rant surrounding it.
Now I'm looking for where Hillary or Bernie were asked to disavow support for some specific racist BLM supporters and did not, or where they put such a person with a known history of racism on stage at the DNC, or pointed such comments out as justified and good.
If failing to specifically disavow those comments is the problem, did Trump disavow every racist comment every centipede ever shitposted? I know what he said about Gonzalo Curiel and still hasn't apologized for...although he has tried to insist that his plainly racist comment wasn't racist.
No, it's absolutely lying with statistics. If the objection to illegal immigrants is crime, responding with "they're less criminal than the native population" is incredibly misleading. If your neighborhood has a rapist and a murderer in it, objecting to someone moving in who's merely a robber is not unreasonable.
Rough neighborhood! But for every robber you bring in, you reduce your chances of being raped or murdered.
Put another way, your street has 4 people on it. 2 of them are both racist and homophobic. A new person wants to move in who's homophobic. How happy are you about that? After all, he's less intolerant than the current population of your street.
I'd be indifferent to that, he's actually exactly at the average intolerance of the street and by moving in he doesn't affect it.
Looking at the math of it, your example is overly simplistic with seemingly three levels of evil: 2 prejudices, 1 prejudice, or 0 prejudices. If we calculate the averages, the current street is (2+2+0+0)/4=1. In the new street, (2+2+1+0+0)/5=1. You'll also notice that the median intolerance of the street remains at 1. I think your math was off and you intended to introduce a person who is less intolerant than average. In such a situation, having him move in would actually reduce the average intolerance of the street and I could be slightly happy about him moving in.
If you disagree with that logic, it means you're against people moving in who don't meet some arbitrary well-above-average "goodness" threshold...maybe 0, like a saint? What's the legal immigrant's average "goodness" threshold? I'd guess not as good as someone who has the Deportation Sword of Damocles hanging over their head if they get in trouble with the law.
So, "illegals have crime rates lower than the native population" might be technically true, but "illegals are less criminal than blacks" is hardly a selling point for mass immigration.
Holy hell, great job separating the image of the right from frothing racism. Yes the "native population" (as in legal citizens) includes the entire native population which means the criminals of any ethnicity are in there too. This is not lying with statistics. It's simply not being a white nationalist shitbag.
There are people on the Right who are concerned about illegal immigration and crime. These concerns are labeled as "racist".
Anyone concerned about illegal immigration and crime, as a combined subject, is at best misinformed or at worst racist or xenophobic, considering the statistics on the matter. Unless perhaps they're interested in getting the rest of society's crime rates down to those of illegal immigrants.
There are people on the Right who are concerned about biological men using women's restrooms. These concerns are labeled "transphobic".
That label is mostly fair. Considering the current criteria for entering a bathroom I don't think there's any way to keep a person from using the bathroom they look like they belong in that is not openly hostile to transgendered people.
There are people on the Right who believe an unborn fetus has certain rights. These beliefs are labelled "misogynist".
Not categorically, but there are certainly some misogynist ideas being floated under this belief.
Well, first, if you think that type of thought had gone away or become completely or even largely eliminated from public discourse, they you have led a sheltered life my friend.
There's an old saying that still holds true to a large part in the US..."When does a black man become a n1gg er? About 30 seconds after he leaves the room.
It is largely true that people freely talk that way still despite you thinking it had disappeared.
But one of your main points was you thought that anything but leftist thoughts on race, religion, sexuality had largely been eradicated, is false.
After the black man leaves the room is not "public discourse" any more than what's said at a klan meeting of any size. I'm under no illusion that such views had disappeared from private discourse. On the other hand, when mainstream politicians publicly spew racism and xenophobia, and people openly cheer them on for it, that's public discourse - that's what I'm talking about.
Both Erdogan and Assad started out with the problem of most of their respective countries wanting them out of power, which they responded to with oppression and genocide, respectively. Of course after some time of this it's only natural that many would want them dead...
The answer is, unfortunately, that the left and center has to start over and argue from very basic principles on why the terrible things that the far-right is interested in are bad. "No-platforming" is an attempt to catch the horse in the barn door as it has already started to bolt. Unfortunately this horse seems to have squeezed out so we now have to go back and argue out why racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and every other form of bigotry is bad, at best so that we can once again eliminate those until-recently-unacceptable ideas from civil discourse and marginalize those who espouse them, or at worst as the beginning of an ongoing effort since that may not be possible anymore.
Here's a good article on this very subject, more from a parent's perspective but quite relevant nonetheless:
Hosted by The Most Interesting Man in the World? "I don't always give talks, but when I do, it's at TED Dos Equis."
We'll leave TEDxxx for the obvious porn parody that someone will eventually make of these shows.
I'd be surprised if Japan hasn't done this already. I'm just not sure whether it will be of the "unstoppable public speaker" or "crowd of couples" genre.
Zuckerberg simply looked at Trump and said "He's rich, evil, and a stupid fuck, and he won the presidency! I'm rich, evil and not a stupid fuck! I'd be a shoe-in!"
This. I, for one, think that the law is too strict, but it should be applied consistently, so BK should find themselves in front of a judge for this just as any bored teenager would for being caught doing the same.
In the USA, if you wish to actually be a part of modern society, yes you really do have to use the Internet.
You don't have to be part of modern society! Where did you get this entitled opinion? You always have The Unabomber Option, the conservatives' best friend. James Sensenbrenner is just pointing it out.
See, no matter how villainous conservatives allow corporations to be, you can always opt out of being their victims, either by taking your business to a different company, or where that's not possible (as is usually the case with ISPs), fucking off to a shack in the woods and not participating in society, like the Unabomber did. See, it's all optional and therefore all acceptable!
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand their thesis is that cops are wrongfully shooting too many black people. The reason the movement has sprung up now probably has to do with increasing sousveillance by people with cell phones, capturing irrefutable video evidence of incidents that could've been denied or covered up in the past.
Interesting that Facebook is lobbying FOR net neutrality in the US but argued AGAINST it in Canada. I guess they're sufficiently entrenched in zero-rating deals up north.
Generally agree with their cause, but I acknowledge that there are some racists in it.
Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.
You've gone back to your "average is incredibly dangerous" fallacy. If you live in a mostly-white suburban neighborhood, that's about average. That's about as safe as the level of crime risk illegal immigrants are bringing, on average. If you think inner-city Chicago is just below average, then where is "bad?" If you live in one of the safest places in the US, like maybe...a Florida retirement home? Then maybe you have something to lose. Most people don't. Certainly the people living in the more dangerous half don't. Maybe you should be less selfish with the safety.
But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?
Form a private discriminatory neighborhood (like Orania in South Africa) or just call Israel an apartheid state once and for all.
In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?
It's certainly possible, some countries and regions have made it work, especially those that are highly diverse. I'm certainly more willing to give multiculturalism a try than to resort to what could generously be called nativism.
People's perceptions of race relations certainly don't match with reality measured by any objective metric. Objectively, race relations have been steadily improving throughout modern history.
I am thinking of capitalists and not your strawman progressives.
They're not killing off customers because people who the economy doesn't need work from can't pay for goods. If the 1% are doing nearly all of the producing (through ownership of robotic factories) and consuming (because they're the only ones who have discretionary income), and the 99% is just surviving on welfare and fuming at the 1% for hoarding everything, what do you think is going to happen? The 1%ers who produce things for mass consumption like food, energy and housing will have to take a hit to their business, but I'm sure the 1%ers could work out a compensation scheme among themselves...or just pool those 99%er-dependent services into the hands of a few fall guys and take them out first.
That's when it's killbot time. The natural end-state of unrestrained capitalism is the killbot-powered genocide of at least 99% of the human population. It will make communism's death toll look like a rounding error. I, for one, would like to avoid this.
Mr. Principal, we must not allow a football field gap!
We'll have to check back in a few months and see if the prices actually rise or not...but those price caps were put in place for a reason and I doubt much has changed in terms of ISP competition since they were, so I know where I'm placing my bets.
Well I'm glad you've cleared up your position on legal immigration. So if I understand correctly now, your criteria for who should be allowed to enter the US are:
1. 0% chance of committing a crime or as close to it as possible.
2. Culturally almost identical to middle or upper-class white Americans
So it sounds to me that your requirements are so restrictive that you're practically a total anti-immigrationist. There are relatively few people around the world who would meet your requirements. The cultural test would be difficult to administer - either that or it would be a contentious quagmire of national profiling.
The bigger problem is that your requirements represent an unfair form of intranational cultural colonialism. You believe that only one of the cultures that currently makes up the country, and has for a very long time, should be allowed to expand through immigration. It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.
I'll simply have to disagree with your position. Far too nativist for my taste.
But if you're against anyone who carries greater than a 0% chance of committing a crime entering your country, you should be against legal immigration at least as much as illegal immigration.
Again you want to racially profile the odds of criminality. You seem to think that white people are vastly less likely to commit crimes than average, and therefore that the average is extremely dangerous by "white people standards." You're quite wrong there.
No you don't. Your chances of being raped or murdered stay the same, and now you might also get robbed.
You're assuming that the rapists and murders can't murder or rape the robbers...either that or you're doing bad math again.
I don't know. All I'm saying is the "lower crime rates than the native population" line is bullshit. By your logic you maximize your safety by flooding your neighborhood with murderers slightly less murderous than the current murderers. This is a very poor choice that I do not think you would make. You seem perfectly fine flooding your poor countryman's neighborhood with slightly less murderous people, though. So long as you get cheap tomatoes and you don't have to live in the more murderous poor neighborhoods it's fine though, right?
In other words, you think only saints should be allowed in. Anyone else increases the chance of crime by your logic, which flies right in the face of math.
It probably doesn't help you make good decisions that you're using such extreme examples with small sample sizes. There's a wide range of possibilities between "saint" and "murderer." The average might be "was caught with a joint" or "holds loud parties."
Yeah, "series of tubes" wasn't a a bad analogy in itself, but there were many terrible analogies and hilarious falsehoods in the rest of the infamous rant surrounding it.
Now I'm looking for where Hillary or Bernie were asked to disavow support for some specific racist BLM supporters and did not, or where they put such a person with a known history of racism on stage at the DNC, or pointed such comments out as justified and good.
If failing to specifically disavow those comments is the problem, did Trump disavow every racist comment every centipede ever shitposted? I know what he said about Gonzalo Curiel and still hasn't apologized for...although he has tried to insist that his plainly racist comment wasn't racist.
No, it's absolutely lying with statistics. If the objection to illegal immigrants is crime, responding with "they're less criminal than the native population" is incredibly misleading. If your neighborhood has a rapist and a murderer in it, objecting to someone moving in who's merely a robber is not unreasonable.
Rough neighborhood! But for every robber you bring in, you reduce your chances of being raped or murdered.
Put another way, your street has 4 people on it. 2 of them are both racist and homophobic. A new person wants to move in who's homophobic. How happy are you about that? After all, he's less intolerant than the current population of your street.
I'd be indifferent to that, he's actually exactly at the average intolerance of the street and by moving in he doesn't affect it.
Looking at the math of it, your example is overly simplistic with seemingly three levels of evil: 2 prejudices, 1 prejudice, or 0 prejudices. If we calculate the averages, the current street is (2+2+0+0)/4=1. In the new street, (2+2+1+0+0)/5=1. You'll also notice that the median intolerance of the street remains at 1. I think your math was off and you intended to introduce a person who is less intolerant than average. In such a situation, having him move in would actually reduce the average intolerance of the street and I could be slightly happy about him moving in.
If you disagree with that logic, it means you're against people moving in who don't meet some arbitrary well-above-average "goodness" threshold...maybe 0, like a saint? What's the legal immigrant's average "goodness" threshold? I'd guess not as good as someone who has the Deportation Sword of Damocles hanging over their head if they get in trouble with the law.
Came here to say this. Everyone who wants to build a Blade Runner environment for the glory of capitalism, take note.
So, "illegals have crime rates lower than the native population" might be technically true, but "illegals are less criminal than blacks" is hardly a selling point for mass immigration.
Holy hell, great job separating the image of the right from frothing racism. Yes the "native population" (as in legal citizens) includes the entire native population which means the criminals of any ethnicity are in there too. This is not lying with statistics. It's simply not being a white nationalist shitbag.
I must have missed when Bernie or Hillary spouted anti-white racism and people cheered it on. Care to link me a video?
There are people on the Right who are concerned about illegal immigration and crime. These concerns are labeled as "racist".
Anyone concerned about illegal immigration and crime, as a combined subject, is at best misinformed or at worst racist or xenophobic, considering the statistics on the matter. Unless perhaps they're interested in getting the rest of society's crime rates down to those of illegal immigrants.
There are people on the Right who are concerned about biological men using women's restrooms. These concerns are labeled "transphobic".
That label is mostly fair. Considering the current criteria for entering a bathroom I don't think there's any way to keep a person from using the bathroom they look like they belong in that is not openly hostile to transgendered people.
There are people on the Right who believe an unborn fetus has certain rights. These beliefs are labelled "misogynist".
Not categorically, but there are certainly some misogynist ideas being floated under this belief.
Well, first, if you think that type of thought had gone away or become completely or even largely eliminated from public discourse, they you have led a sheltered life my friend.
There's an old saying that still holds true to a large part in the US..."When does a black man become a n1gg er? About 30 seconds after he leaves the room.
It is largely true that people freely talk that way still despite you thinking it had disappeared.
But one of your main points was you thought that anything but leftist thoughts on race, religion, sexuality had largely been eradicated, is false.
After the black man leaves the room is not "public discourse" any more than what's said at a klan meeting of any size. I'm under no illusion that such views had disappeared from private discourse. On the other hand, when mainstream politicians publicly spew racism and xenophobia, and people openly cheer them on for it, that's public discourse - that's what I'm talking about.
Both Erdogan and Assad started out with the problem of most of their respective countries wanting them out of power, which they responded to with oppression and genocide, respectively. Of course after some time of this it's only natural that many would want them dead...
The answer is, unfortunately, that the left and center has to start over and argue from very basic principles on why the terrible things that the far-right is interested in are bad. "No-platforming" is an attempt to catch the horse in the barn door as it has already started to bolt. Unfortunately this horse seems to have squeezed out so we now have to go back and argue out why racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and every other form of bigotry is bad, at best so that we can once again eliminate those until-recently-unacceptable ideas from civil discourse and marginalize those who espouse them, or at worst as the beginning of an ongoing effort since that may not be possible anymore.
Here's a good article on this very subject, more from a parent's perspective but quite relevant nonetheless:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-...
TEDxx
Hosted by The Most Interesting Man in the World? "I don't always give talks, but when I do, it's at TED Dos Equis."
We'll leave TEDxxx for the obvious porn parody that someone will eventually make of these shows.
I'd be surprised if Japan hasn't done this already. I'm just not sure whether it will be of the "unstoppable public speaker" or "crowd of couples" genre.
Zuckerberg simply looked at Trump and said "He's rich, evil, and a stupid fuck, and he won the presidency! I'm rich, evil and not a stupid fuck! I'd be a shoe-in!"
This. I, for one, think that the law is too strict, but it should be applied consistently, so BK should find themselves in front of a judge for this just as any bored teenager would for being caught doing the same.
In the USA, if you wish to actually be a part of modern society, yes you really do have to use the Internet.
You don't have to be part of modern society! Where did you get this entitled opinion? You always have The Unabomber Option, the conservatives' best friend. James Sensenbrenner is just pointing it out.
See, no matter how villainous conservatives allow corporations to be, you can always opt out of being their victims, either by taking your business to a different company, or where that's not possible (as is usually the case with ISPs), fucking off to a shack in the woods and not participating in society, like the Unabomber did. See, it's all optional and therefore all acceptable!