That's the thing with populism, on the headline front it all sounds reasonable (at least for some). Like when Trump says he will replace ACA with something better and cheaper, that would cover healthcare for everyone. On this level it is a no-brainer, but implementation and context is what matters. So with no further adieu:
1. One element of the rich and long standing culture of Netherlands is the tolerance of religion. And you seem to conflate religious label with attitude towards a country. And I don't see how forced conversion (to what, exactly?) would solve problems of attitude. If anything, this would increase radicalization.
2. In that case, why shouldn't, say, Holland or southern Netherlands declare independence from the rest of the lot?
3. This depends on the culture of referendums. Where I live, those are “confidence in government” vote, and not about the actual question in the ballot.
4. This depends. Any subsidy is problematic and should be weight case by case.
5. Could be reasonable, could be totally catastrophic.
6. On the other hand, Europe's population is ageing, so more young people (it seems mostly Turks) have to support more retirees. This needs extensive economic analysis, not just common sense.
7. And why not drop subsidies for health care then? That sounds reasonable.
8. If you put in new money, where is it coming from? Especially if you retire more people.
9. Police? Maybe, but army is not going to help here. Btw, where is the money coming form?
10. Great, another income source cut. How do you sponsor your good stuff above.
11. It's Netherlands. Public transport + bicycles makes more sense.
My point is, if you just have policy headlines, it might sound sensible, but you really need to analyse impact to see if it would actually work, can be sustainably funded and not have too bad negative side effects.
Thanks for clarification. If plan is to remove dual citizenship, I can share experience of my country, Latvia. We too have large community of people who don't integrate that well — Russians. We have never allowed dual citizenship to begin with., but just forcing to choose one passport does not help. Most likely most of Turks will choose Dutch passport (since they live there and it is a more wealthy), they will still be able to live in enclaves, watch Turkish news, eat Turkish food and all that just like before.
However, you could be more explicit on “that really leaves only one choice then, doesn't it?”.
I'm not following Dutch politics that close, but how does Wilders tackle this? Revoke citizenship and deport Turks? Or does he have reasonable integration plan?
Oh, they should be informed that anyone on the network can sniff their password (which they most probably reuse). Even if they trust you to store it properly, they should not trust anyone else listening.
All that resetting is necessary to help to debug. If the bug is in add-ons, then it should be reported to the add-on developers. If it is really a fault of Mozilla, add-on developers should report it, since they will probably have a better insight of what exactly has gone wrong.
Similar with settings. If you have messed with about:config, it is nigh impossible for Mozilla to test all the permutations, or provide reasonable upgrade path to all of them.
In my workplace, we have similar issues, but we solve them by selling support. Since you get FF for free, it would be unreasonable to expect them to handle your specific configuration.
Perhaps FBI are not that greedy to win one case to loose evidence gathering tool, that can win them many more. Fixing a vulnerability will not limit crime done, so there is little incentive for them to disclose it.
The edge that Ireland has is being low tax AND being in the EU. There are plenty of tax heavens outside EU. Since Apple has to be registered in EU for the business it does in the EU, brexited UK is not suitable fir the task.
Many people are racist without the need of government encouragement.
True, you don't need government encouragement, but institutions are not directly and totally commanded by the government. They do their own thing in the framework of the law. And we shouldn't forget that not all institutions are public. For example, banks are integral part of USA finance system and is mostly private.
If I remember correctly, the argument is that while laws have been fixed (which does improve the situation a lot), institutions have not followed to the same extent. Law enforcement can have a lot of wiggling room when deciding how to do its job. The notorious stop and frisk practice leaves up to the police officers to apply their judgement on whom to search. If significant number of those officers act in a racist manner, then the police institution becomes racist as well. This not just police, most institutions can apply some discretion. When a bank declines a loan, it doesn't have to say it is because of skin colour, it can just say that credit risk is too high.
Racist grandpa in the retirement home is not a problem. Racist trigger happy cop is. The former can be avoided and is at most an embarrassment. The latter can't really be avoided and may lawfully kill and be protected by law enforcement and judiciary.
What the fuck does the court have to do with whether it's discrimination or not??? They just decide if it's lawful discrimination.
It's perfectly clear that race based discrimination both personal and institutional exists against whites in the USA. At least to anyone who isn't trying to bullshit their way through arguing that it doesn't exist.
A lot of discrimination types are lawful. For example, universities discriminate based on education. But more to the point.
The rest of your comment is just poorly done rationalization.
In case you missed my point: university argued that previous admission practice was discriminatory already and the quota system was introduced to minimize the discrimination.
You have not even tried to counter points I have made. You can call it poor rationalization, but if it is really poor, you could just point out where my reasoning is misguided or what facts I have omitted.
Finally, you have not provided any argument in favour of your case. The link to the court ruling is good and all, but it just it doesn't prove there is discrimination. On the face of it the link shows that court found that the university was not unfairly discriminating. And as I pointed out above, just proving discrimination alone is not enough.
Why the fuck would they hand over half the power to another group that hates them?
Unless the blacks become the majority, there will be no "handing over of power". USA is a democracy and unless blacks seize power and destroy democracy (how likely is that?), that just won't happen. There is no need for that to happen too. Look at Canadian Americans. They are a minority and no one has handed power over to them. That is what rights are for.
Not as clear cut. Especially since court ruled that it is not discriminatory and the vote was split. The point of the affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is to correct for the usual discrimination. University believed (and court agreed) that blacks were discriminated against so to not discriminate further, they made countermeasures.
[Court] noted that the university should regularly evaluate available data and "tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest."
This is not an ideal solution. It would be better if root causes were addressed, but since University of Texas can't on its own solve societal issues, we can't ask them to do that. If we solved racism, then this action form the university would be clearly wrong.
I must add that Franchesca never explicitly stated that "USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks" (my bad). I think the point was more to the effect that institutions as such do it. For example, if one university in USA was really really discriminatory to the whites, it would not impair a white person's ability to get education, if there are a lot of other universities to choose from. However, if such drastic action was picked up by a lot of universities so that prospects of education for whites were unfairly impeded, that would be a proper evil racism.
The reason I put unfairly in the previous sentence — imagine a state where there are 80% blacks and 20% whites. This state is really racist and universities only admitted whites, but for some reasons universities changed their racist policy and admits students irrespective of skin color and only on the merit. After the reform color composition in universities is 50/50. This change has "impeded education prospects for whites", but not unfairly. How fair/unfair was the Texas university case is debatable.
Time to work with primary sources. I assume(*) you meant video "5 Things You Should Know About Racism" (3:28 - 5:08). The point of the video was that for racism to work it need institutional support. She did not claim that black people can't possibly be racist. If you know a state where institutions are run by blacks and are discriminating against whites, that would be your counterexample. For inspiration, Chinese institutions discriminate against non Chinese. Perhaps South Africa is doing the something similar. But the point Franchesca is making is that USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks, not that blacks are theoretically "incapable of being racist"
I agree that all races can hate, discriminate etc. We are human after all. But is two groups hate each other and only one group calls the shots, it would be foolish to assume that the disadvantaged group has as much of the responsibility to fix the situation as the advantaged group.
(*) I assume you meant this video, because your quote "incapable of being racist." and MTV lead to a reddit article, which linked to the Decoded video
with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.
No, it does not.
The original statement might not be true, but it is not nonsense. At least give a good counterexample. Outright dismissal gives impression that you have a belief without justification.
[Definitions], they can be internally inconsistent, or contrary to other positions held by the same individuals or group, unfair, prejudicial themselves and so on.
Definitions can technically be inconsistent, but I don't see inconsistencies here (perhaps you could point them out?).
Contrary to beliefs is not a problem. I can be an atheist and think that “god is a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient”. In any case, if you think this is a problem, you should point out where the inconsistencies are, not just claim that they are.
Term "unfair" is too open. Unfair to whom? Against what standard? In any case, it doesn't make definition wrong.
Yes, definitions can be prejudicial. But you have to show how it is prejudicial. And even then it is not "wrong".
Anyway, you have not shown which Decoded proposed beliefs are racist or hypocritical, or inconsistent or wrong. Please, please, please add some substance to your claims, otherwise it is really difficult to believe any of them.
Racism does not require a power component. If you think it does, you're as uneducated as she is.
Problem with the word racism is that it has many different meanings and nuances. Discussion of what is or isn't real racism isn't useful. What we can do is for the scope of discussion accept the definitions provided. You (AC) gave the scope: MTV. I explicitly assumed you meant Decoded, as this is the show that talks about these things. In the show Franchesca has given a working definition of what is racism and with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.
Important notes: 1) Definitions can't be wrong, they may be confusing or useless, but not wrong. The definition Franchesca uses is not unique to MTV either. 2) Decoded also kindly points out that prejudice from blacks towards whites/blacks/natives/whatever is also problematic. 3) If you want to show that "MTV claims black people are incapable of being racist.", you have to show where MTV claims that with your definition of racism (you really should make that definition explicit).
She's an oxygen thief, hypocrite, and racist.
These claims needs substance. If she is a hypocrite or racist, what has she said or done to back up the claims. I really want to know. And "just watch the videos" won't do. I have seen them and her beliefs seem consistent? As for oxygen thief, did you mean it like "I don't like her" or "she doesn't deserve basic human rights"?
Look up wikipedia entries on racism and antisemitism. For racism it is “discrimination and prejudice”, for antisemitism it is “hostility, prejudice, or discrimination”. Notice the “and” in racism and “or” in antisemitism. If by MTV you meant Franchesca, then she was rather clear on the two components of racism (and since in the USA blacks don't have “the power”, in USA, blacks can't be racist, but sure can hold prejudice, even against blacks). Antisemitism has no such requirements. I hope this clears few things up.
Most people don't trust anyone completely. I do trust US government unemployment stats to a degree. Why? Because the bare facts have not been disputed by other respectable sources. Argentine government stats on inflation have been outright dismissed, so I don't trust those, I will remain skeptical on any Argentinian stats for a while. US federal government statistics on unemployment have been reliable and not disputed in modern history (at least not to my knowledge), so I will trust them until sufficient cloud of doubt is cast.
However, I will not distrust statistics just because some internet rando is claiming that all government provided info is just propaganda.
Offtopic: why is it that when “bias” is attributed, it is assumed that the bias is never “give most accurate information possible”?
Is there anyone that you would trust? Let me guess, you can't trust private polling/research as well, since they are biased towards whomever is paying for it. And neither can you trust anyone who is replicating or refuting the research, since they have agenda, right? Since we can't trust anyone, truth is what feels true./sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing with populism, on the headline front it all sounds reasonable (at least for some). Like when Trump says he will replace ACA with something better and cheaper, that would cover healthcare for everyone. On this level it is a no-brainer, but implementation and context is what matters. So with no further adieu:
1. One element of the rich and long standing culture of Netherlands is the tolerance of religion. And you seem to conflate religious label with attitude towards a country. And I don't see how forced conversion (to what, exactly?) would solve problems of attitude. If anything, this would increase radicalization.
2. In that case, why shouldn't, say, Holland or southern Netherlands declare independence from the rest of the lot?
3. This depends on the culture of referendums. Where I live, those are “confidence in government” vote, and not about the actual question in the ballot.
4. This depends. Any subsidy is problematic and should be weight case by case.
5. Could be reasonable, could be totally catastrophic.
6. On the other hand, Europe's population is ageing, so more young people (it seems mostly Turks) have to support more retirees. This needs extensive economic analysis, not just common sense.
7. And why not drop subsidies for health care then? That sounds reasonable.
8. If you put in new money, where is it coming from? Especially if you retire more people.
9. Police? Maybe, but army is not going to help here. Btw, where is the money coming form?
10. Great, another income source cut. How do you sponsor your good stuff above.
11. It's Netherlands. Public transport + bicycles makes more sense.
My point is, if you just have policy headlines, it might sound sensible, but you really need to analyse impact to see if it would actually work, can be sustainably funded and not have too bad negative side effects.
Thanks for clarification. If plan is to remove dual citizenship, I can share experience of my country, Latvia. We too have large community of people who don't integrate that well — Russians. We have never allowed dual citizenship to begin with., but just forcing to choose one passport does not help. Most likely most of Turks will choose Dutch passport (since they live there and it is a more wealthy), they will still be able to live in enclaves, watch Turkish news, eat Turkish food and all that just like before.
However, you could be more explicit on “that really leaves only one choice then, doesn't it?”.
I'm not following Dutch politics that close, but how does Wilders tackle this? Revoke citizenship and deport Turks? Or does he have reasonable integration plan?
Oh, they should be informed that anyone on the network can sniff their password (which they most probably reuse). Even if they trust you to store it properly, they should not trust anyone else listening.
All that resetting is necessary to help to debug. If the bug is in add-ons, then it should be reported to the add-on developers. If it is really a fault of Mozilla, add-on developers should report it, since they will probably have a better insight of what exactly has gone wrong.
Similar with settings. If you have messed with about:config, it is nigh impossible for Mozilla to test all the permutations, or provide reasonable upgrade path to all of them.
In my workplace, we have similar issues, but we solve them by selling support. Since you get FF for free, it would be unreasonable to expect them to handle your specific configuration.
Perhaps FBI are not that greedy to win one case to loose evidence gathering tool, that can win them many more. Fixing a vulnerability will not limit crime done, so there is little incentive for them to disclose it.
The edge that Ireland has is being low tax AND being in the EU. There are plenty of tax heavens outside EU. Since Apple has to be registered in EU for the business it does in the EU, brexited UK is not suitable fir the task.
Ahh, I see. You're why /. has "Troll" moderation option. Good to know.
Many people are racist without the need of government encouragement.
True, you don't need government encouragement, but institutions are not directly and totally commanded by the government. They do their own thing in the framework of the law. And we shouldn't forget that not all institutions are public. For example, banks are integral part of USA finance system and is mostly private.
If I remember correctly, the argument is that while laws have been fixed (which does improve the situation a lot), institutions have not followed to the same extent. Law enforcement can have a lot of wiggling room when deciding how to do its job. The notorious stop and frisk practice leaves up to the police officers to apply their judgement on whom to search. If significant number of those officers act in a racist manner, then the police institution becomes racist as well. This not just police, most institutions can apply some discretion. When a bank declines a loan, it doesn't have to say it is because of skin colour, it can just say that credit risk is too high.
Racist grandpa in the retirement home is not a problem. Racist trigger happy cop is. The former can be avoided and is at most an embarrassment. The latter can't really be avoided and may lawfully kill and be protected by law enforcement and judiciary.
Just observing your thought-terminating clichés.
What the fuck does the court have to do with whether it's discrimination or not??? They just decide if it's lawful discrimination. It's perfectly clear that race based discrimination both personal and institutional exists against whites in the USA. At least to anyone who isn't trying to bullshit their way through arguing that it doesn't exist.
A lot of discrimination types are lawful. For example, universities discriminate based on education. But more to the point.
The rest of your comment is just poorly done rationalization.
In case you missed my point: university argued that previous admission practice was discriminatory already and the quota system was introduced to minimize the discrimination.
You have not even tried to counter points I have made. You can call it poor rationalization, but if it is really poor, you could just point out where my reasoning is misguided or what facts I have omitted.
Finally, you have not provided any argument in favour of your case. The link to the court ruling is good and all, but it just it doesn't prove there is discrimination. On the face of it the link shows that court found that the university was not unfairly discriminating. And as I pointed out above, just proving discrimination alone is not enough.
Why the fuck would they hand over half the power to another group that hates them?
Unless the blacks become the majority, there will be no "handing over of power". USA is a democracy and unless blacks seize power and destroy democracy (how likely is that?), that just won't happen. There is no need for that to happen too. Look at Canadian Americans. They are a minority and no one has handed power over to them. That is what rights are for.
That's simply untrue.
Not as clear cut. Especially since court ruled that it is not discriminatory and the vote was split. The point of the affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is to correct for the usual discrimination. University believed (and court agreed) that blacks were discriminated against so to not discriminate further, they made countermeasures.
This is not an ideal solution. It would be better if root causes were addressed, but since University of Texas can't on its own solve societal issues, we can't ask them to do that. If we solved racism, then this action form the university would be clearly wrong.
I must add that Franchesca never explicitly stated that "USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks" (my bad). I think the point was more to the effect that institutions as such do it. For example, if one university in USA was really really discriminatory to the whites, it would not impair a white person's ability to get education, if there are a lot of other universities to choose from. However, if such drastic action was picked up by a lot of universities so that prospects of education for whites were unfairly impeded, that would be a proper evil racism.
The reason I put unfairly in the previous sentence — imagine a state where there are 80% blacks and 20% whites. This state is really racist and universities only admitted whites, but for some reasons universities changed their racist policy and admits students irrespective of skin color and only on the merit. After the reform color composition in universities is 50/50. This change has "impeded education prospects for whites", but not unfairly. How fair/unfair was the Texas university case is debatable.
Time to work with primary sources. I assume(*) you meant video "5 Things You Should Know About Racism" (3:28 - 5:08). The point of the video was that for racism to work it need institutional support. She did not claim that black people can't possibly be racist. If you know a state where institutions are run by blacks and are discriminating against whites, that would be your counterexample. For inspiration, Chinese institutions discriminate against non Chinese. Perhaps South Africa is doing the something similar. But the point Franchesca is making is that USA has no institutions that oppress whites in favour of blacks, not that blacks are theoretically "incapable of being racist"
I agree that all races can hate, discriminate etc. We are human after all. But is two groups hate each other and only one group calls the shots, it would be foolish to assume that the disadvantaged group has as much of the responsibility to fix the situation as the advantaged group.
(*) I assume you meant this video, because your quote "incapable of being racist." and MTV lead to a reddit article, which linked to the Decoded video
with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.
No, it does not.
The original statement might not be true, but it is not nonsense. At least give a good counterexample. Outright dismissal gives impression that you have a belief without justification.
[Definitions], they can be internally inconsistent, or contrary to other positions held by the same individuals or group, unfair, prejudicial themselves and so on.
Anyway, you have not shown which Decoded proposed beliefs are racist or hypocritical, or inconsistent or wrong. Please, please, please add some substance to your claims, otherwise it is really difficult to believe any of them.
As if "do as I say, not as I do" was such a novel concept.
You mean Walt Disney is still alive, leading Disney company and not allowed to change his world view? Why aren't more people talking about it?
This pretty much sums up the snowflakes issue.
You seem to be rather offended by GF offence. Let it go.
Racism does not require a power component. If you think it does, you're as uneducated as she is.
Problem with the word racism is that it has many different meanings and nuances. Discussion of what is or isn't real racism isn't useful. What we can do is for the scope of discussion accept the definitions provided. You (AC) gave the scope: MTV. I explicitly assumed you meant Decoded, as this is the show that talks about these things. In the show Franchesca has given a working definition of what is racism and with this definition (racism=prejudice+discrimination) it makes sense to say blacks can't be racist.
Important notes: 1) Definitions can't be wrong, they may be confusing or useless, but not wrong. The definition Franchesca uses is not unique to MTV either. 2) Decoded also kindly points out that prejudice from blacks towards whites/blacks/natives/whatever is also problematic. 3) If you want to show that "MTV claims black people are incapable of being racist.", you have to show where MTV claims that with your definition of racism (you really should make that definition explicit).
She's an oxygen thief, hypocrite, and racist.
These claims needs substance. If she is a hypocrite or racist, what has she said or done to back up the claims. I really want to know. And "just watch the videos" won't do. I have seen them and her beliefs seem consistent? As for oxygen thief, did you mean it like "I don't like her" or "she doesn't deserve basic human rights"?
Look up wikipedia entries on racism and antisemitism. For racism it is “discrimination and prejudice”, for antisemitism it is “hostility, prejudice, or discrimination”. Notice the “and” in racism and “or” in antisemitism. If by MTV you meant Franchesca, then she was rather clear on the two components of racism (and since in the USA blacks don't have “the power”, in USA, blacks can't be racist, but sure can hold prejudice, even against blacks). Antisemitism has no such requirements. I hope this clears few things up.
Can I ask you what is the source of this information?
Executive order is not a law, so it can be unlawful. Unconstitutional is a special type of unlawful, since the constitution is a law itself.
I pay for fuel ~ 1000€ a year for commute only. If a battery lasts for 8 years and pays back in 5 years, It's a good deal.
Most people don't trust anyone completely. I do trust US government unemployment stats to a degree. Why? Because the bare facts have not been disputed by other respectable sources. Argentine government stats on inflation have been outright dismissed, so I don't trust those, I will remain skeptical on any Argentinian stats for a while. US federal government statistics on unemployment have been reliable and not disputed in modern history (at least not to my knowledge), so I will trust them until sufficient cloud of doubt is cast.
However, I will not distrust statistics just because some internet rando is claiming that all government provided info is just propaganda.
Offtopic: why is it that when “bias” is attributed, it is assumed that the bias is never “give most accurate information possible”?
sorry, didn't mean to mod you redundant
Is there anyone that you would trust? Let me guess, you can't trust private polling/research as well, since they are biased towards whomever is paying for it. And neither can you trust anyone who is replicating or refuting the research, since they have agenda, right? Since we can't trust anyone, truth is what feels true. /sarcasm