Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense.
It depends. If one means that blue collar workers are "less smart" in the sense that they have less academic potential than college educated people, then I would disagree. Most people, college educated or not, have a lot of untapped intellectual potential. Inherent intelligence has less to do with our intellectual accomplishments than hard work and opportunity. The college educated usually tap into more of their intellectual potential because that's the whole point of college.
Therefore, it wouldn't be incorrect to say that blue collar workers tend to be "less smart" in the sense that they don't tend to be well educated.
The hard part is to create a social network that can become the default without Facebook just buying it. I know a lot of people who have stopped using Facebook and switch to. ..Instagram. They don't even realize it's the same company.
I'm pretty sure that the next big thing will be less sketchy for a hot minute before Facebook, Google, or Microsoft buys it. I think the only way for social networking to work without the side effect of evil would be as some decentralized, peer-to-peer type of open source app. Of course, then only OSS nerds would use it and it would never become the default.
Despite my liberal leanings, I highly distrust someone like Zuckerberg, especially when they're trying so hard to manufacture a reputation with particular demographics and using advanced statistical research to do so. It's like the left-wing version of Trump. When a politician's primary concern is their ego, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when a difficult decision must be made (unfortunately, that means most politicians cannot be trusted).
As for your whole "SJW" stuff—come on. Using a dysphemism and then connecting it with a historic catastrophe (using a weird appeal to authority with your Canadian psych prof) and then linking that to Marxism is the type of unsound logic that should be beneath you. I understand such comments from trolling ACs, but to see such nonsense come from such a low UID makes me sad.
While there are legitimate criticisms that can be levied against identity politics, your post doesn't raise them. Furthermore, pointing the finger at "Marxist ideology" to explain away Russian suffering from the October Revolution to the late twentieth century is academically lazy. Russia wasn't exactly a paradise under the Tsars. Simple explanations usually fail to account for the nuances of history.
There is an ongoing investigation, despite efforts from figures like Nunes to derail it. While Mueller may have to meticulously build a case, and this takes quite a bit of time to be thorough, there's plenty of evidence out there for constituents to distrust this administration.
It's not unfair. It's illegal.
What's not unfair? What's illegal? How am I supposed to respond to this type of incoherent blathering?
This is a summary of 400 pages of evidence. Release the whole thing and there cannot any omissions.
I'm all for openness on the part of the government. I think the government's ability to classify information as "secret" or "top secret" allows for a lack of transparency that is detrimental to democracy. That's irrelevant to the case at hand, however. While I agree that this information ought to be made public as long as it doesn't reveal information that our enemies could use to our detriment (which it very may well, considering it pertains to the Russian government), I don't think it ought to be made public until Mueller has completed his investigation.
We look forward to seeing how much illegal shit happened at the FBI.
Although I'm not one to have an exceptional amount of faith in law enforcement always playing by the rules, I find your confidence to be unwarranted. If the FBI secretly wanted to stop Trump from being president, he probably wouldn't be president right now. They wouldn't have reopened the whole Clinton e-mail investigation just before the election. If Comey was trying to swing the election for Clinton, he could have easily arrested Page and Manafort a week before the election rather than reopen the e-mail investigation.
Us evil Trump supports want this information released.
While there are many evil Trump supporters such as Stephen Miller, I don't think you're evil. You're just stupid. I hate resorting to ad hominem, but Jesus fucking Christ. Read what you posted. It's grammatically and logically unsound. I feel like Luke Wilson in Idiocracy when I talk to Trump supporters.
I don't think that's the point. Your analysis requires nuance, and the point of the memo is to rally GOP partisans and give the talking heads on Fox News talking points that sound official. Most things that require nuance are beyond the comprehension of most voters (as the various AC posts that immediately flooded this story demonstrate), and this allows the administration to pretend to be the victim.
Trump and his supporters want to reframe the argument. If the argument is "did Trump collude with Russian to undermine American democracy?" he's in a losing situation. If the argument is, "was Trump being unfairly investigated by intelligence agencies?" then he has a chance to discredit any questions about his campaign. By selectively declassifying information, Nunes and Trump can lie by omission, which is enough to convince those who are stupid and those who don't care if Trump colluded with the Russians so long as he enacts their desired policies.
The problem with your conspiracy theory is that the "party loyalists embedded into law enforcement and intelligence agencies" had voting records that suggested otherwise.
While I agree that FISA is a problem and shouldn't be deemed constitutional, your tangental conspiracy theory is absurd. There's a huge difference between leaning on intelligence operatives in an allied country to uncover very real dirt on a political opponent and colluding with an enemy state to undermine democracy. It's disgusting the way this whole situation is being spun.
I don't get how you're forced into a bad choice when there are so many phones on the market that allow you to easily change out the battery.
I'm all for regulating corporations when necessary—I'd be all for forcing companies like Apple to actually pay their taxes, for instance—but I don't think the government should micromanage their engineering designs.
I don't like Chevys because they're cheap and handle like shit. I like my BMW. But I don't think the government should force Chevy to make cars that are up to par with my BMW. If Apple's battery was a huge problem to consumers such as myself, who prefer the enclosed design, then they would lose sales and be forced to change their design. Similarly, if there weren't a market for shitbox cars, GM would have to change their business model.
Yes, not being able to replace my car battery without paying a dealer has been *so* much hassle in my life.
(OK, I'll grant that 80s and 90s front drive Cadillacs are a pain, as you have to take off a bar or a plate to get it out [or even lift the back seat on the Deville!])
hawk
Chrysler Sebrings (along with some other Chrysler/Dodge vehicles) require you to remove one of the wheels to change the battery. It's a real pain in the ass.
Chevy Malibus and Impalas, in certain years, require you to remove the fuse box to get the battery out.
Certain Scion/Toyotas require you to remove the ECM to get to the battery.
There are probably others that I don't know about.
Not qualified to speak about what's good for them or not. I would debate having just one isn't enough to qualify someone.
Bottom line, tough shit. Too many people with 'good intentions' fucking shit up for the people raising children.
B.b..b...b.... but think of the childr- *SLAP*
This is a crock of shit. Most parents are only parents because they made a terrible decision. Furthermore, most parents continue to make terrible decisions regarding their children. The most obvious sign of a bad parent is when you hear them indignantly yell, "don't tell me how to raise my kids!"
You only have to look at some basic statistics, such as the fact that those with the least means are the most likely to have children, to realize that being a parent has no bearing on the validity of one's opinions about parenting. Having kids doesn't magically turn you into some sage. If the world was filled with parents who knew what's good for their kids, then more than 30% of adults over 25 would have a Bachelor's degree.
It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Studies like these are why the social sciences really bug me. The whole thing is built upon weak premises, such as using IQ as a metric and contrasting it with whatever method they had for rating the effectiveness of these leaders. When none of your variables are concrete, how can the results of the study really tell us anything? To extrapolate a conclusion from this hodgepodge of data would be foolish.
When it comes to social sciences, I'll take a holistic, less scientific approach such as Malcolm Gladwell's or Steven Levitt's. Some studies just don't fit well with the scientific method, and misapplying it leads to nonsense research like this where the researchers can't see the forest for the trees.
1. The original AC (probably you), asserted that "[n]one of those people care about NN." You didn't provide any evidence that this is true.
2. Your link suggests that one individual listed has boasted about the suit in fundraising activities. This doesn't mean that he doesn't care about NN. It's not true that he must either only care about fundraising or only care about NN. This is what we call a "false dichotomy." It's possible that he cares about both. Furthermore, his individual case can't be extended to the other AGs on the list. This is what we call "the fallacy of composition."
3. The intentional fallacy has nothing to do with what people are doing. It only relates to their intentions. The original post made a claim about the intent of these AGs, and that is a fallacy. You could have Googled "intentional fallacy," or looked it up on Wikipedia or maybe even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Then you wouldn't look like a buffoon when you title a post "Debate fail" when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Antitrust action is very week in the United States. The telecoms are, by and large, an oligopoly and for the most part antitrust suits are only successful against monopolies. It's like Microsoft in the 90s—they were able to point to Apple as competition, so they were able to get away with their anti-competitive behavior.
Furthermore, the current FCC has demonstrated that it certainly doesn't exist as a layer of reprieve for consumers. The "Justice Department" is redundant with antitrust action. Regarding innovationthat's a pretty broad statement. Libertarians are always telling us that innovation will cure all. But innovation always gets bought out by the big fish and it never leads to a diverse market in the long term.
As for "use another service," pretty much all the services available are on that list. I guess you just have to pick your poison.
Exclusive content on different ISPs is exactly the type of thing that NN proponents seek to avoid. Google would look a tad hypocritical if they did that. The idea is that the internet is the internet. There's no Comcast internet and AT&T internet and Google internet. What you're proposing is 1990s AOL/Genie/Prodigy.
That's a capability that could really come in handy in case of a natural disaster or other calamity. That is why the regulations aimed to subsidize plants that can store 60 days of fuel onsite.
This statement, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is obviously disingenuous. The regulation was sought by a specific coal company and specifically tailored to that company and the regions it operates in. You appear to know enough about the situation that you must be aware of this. The sad fact is that the actions of the current administration are so indefensible that supporting these policies requires bold faced lies.
Storing sixty days worth of fuel on-site in case of some mysterious "natural disaster or calamity" is ridiculously excessive. What possible scenario can you imagine where this would be necessary? Such a disaster—which to the best of my knowledge, has never happened anywhere ever—would surely destroy the infrastructure that connects the power plant to its customers, making all that on-site fuel useless.
It's like every Trump supporter is either a raging moron, or, in your case, a Sarah Huckabee Sanders shamelessly lying. We get it. You believe that short term economic gains are more important than a long term sustainable environment because by the time the shit hits the fan you'll be long dead. While I find that position to be abhorrent, at least people used to be honest about it. But I guess that's how minority interests grab power. Lies, deceit, exploiting religious fears, and undermining democracy.
I donâ(TM)t know about the history of the term, but I do know that in current usage itâ(TM)s used as a dismissive label. The OP, for example, was using it as a lazy way of dismissing his opponents without addressing the substance of their concerns. Most pejoratives donâ(TM)t historically begin as pejoratives. Regardless, itâ(TM)s the use of dismissive labels as a rhetorical strategy that I oppose (as should anyone who believes discourse ought to be governed by logic).
When one isn't an expert in a certain field and lacks the time/ability/desire to become an expert in said field, it's only logical to defer to expert opinion. No one has the ability to be an expert in every field, so everyone has to do this if they want to have a somewhat coherent understanding of the world. Relying on scientific consensus is something everyone does to arrive at logical conclusions. Even scientists.
This is a problem with partisanship. That you would adhere to a position you know to be illogical simply for the sake of being consistent with your party of choice is sad. This attitude among elected officials is what drives partisanship and gridlock in Washington.
I'm a person that would be described as liberal, but I don't support gun control. Just because I think the NRA and many other anti-gun control people are stupid and annoying doesn't change my position. I'm also dismayed by some of the over-sensitivity on college campuses and in the media, but using pejoratives like "SJW" is divisive and does nothing to persuade others of this opinion.
Climate change matters. Not for the political victories of one party or another, but for the future of humanity. I don't want my children or maybe some day grandchildren to grow up in a world facing global catastrophe. Why would anyone want that? Political expediency doesn't justify immorality.
At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
It's a sad day for the internet indeed when our hopes rest on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense.
It depends. If one means that blue collar workers are "less smart" in the sense that they have less academic potential than college educated people, then I would disagree. Most people, college educated or not, have a lot of untapped intellectual potential. Inherent intelligence has less to do with our intellectual accomplishments than hard work and opportunity. The college educated usually tap into more of their intellectual potential because that's the whole point of college.
Therefore, it wouldn't be incorrect to say that blue collar workers tend to be "less smart" in the sense that they don't tend to be well educated.
The hard part is to create a social network that can become the default without Facebook just buying it. I know a lot of people who have stopped using Facebook and switch to. . .Instagram. They don't even realize it's the same company.
I'm pretty sure that the next big thing will be less sketchy for a hot minute before Facebook, Google, or Microsoft buys it. I think the only way for social networking to work without the side effect of evil would be as some decentralized, peer-to-peer type of open source app. Of course, then only OSS nerds would use it and it would never become the default.
Despite my liberal leanings, I highly distrust someone like Zuckerberg, especially when they're trying so hard to manufacture a reputation with particular demographics and using advanced statistical research to do so. It's like the left-wing version of Trump. When a politician's primary concern is their ego, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when a difficult decision must be made (unfortunately, that means most politicians cannot be trusted).
As for your whole "SJW" stuff—come on. Using a dysphemism and then connecting it with a historic catastrophe (using a weird appeal to authority with your Canadian psych prof) and then linking that to Marxism is the type of unsound logic that should be beneath you. I understand such comments from trolling ACs, but to see such nonsense come from such a low UID makes me sad.
While there are legitimate criticisms that can be levied against identity politics, your post doesn't raise them. Furthermore, pointing the finger at "Marxist ideology" to explain away Russian suffering from the October Revolution to the late twentieth century is academically lazy. Russia wasn't exactly a paradise under the Tsars. Simple explanations usually fail to account for the nuances of history.
After over a year.... still no collusion.
There is an ongoing investigation, despite efforts from figures like Nunes to derail it. While Mueller may have to meticulously build a case, and this takes quite a bit of time to be thorough, there's plenty of evidence out there for constituents to distrust this administration.
It's not unfair. It's illegal.
What's not unfair? What's illegal? How am I supposed to respond to this type of incoherent blathering?
This is a summary of 400 pages of evidence. Release the whole thing and there cannot any omissions.
I'm all for openness on the part of the government. I think the government's ability to classify information as "secret" or "top secret" allows for a lack of transparency that is detrimental to democracy. That's irrelevant to the case at hand, however. While I agree that this information ought to be made public as long as it doesn't reveal information that our enemies could use to our detriment (which it very may well, considering it pertains to the Russian government), I don't think it ought to be made public until Mueller has completed his investigation.
We look forward to seeing how much illegal shit happened at the FBI.
Although I'm not one to have an exceptional amount of faith in law enforcement always playing by the rules, I find your confidence to be unwarranted. If the FBI secretly wanted to stop Trump from being president, he probably wouldn't be president right now. They wouldn't have reopened the whole Clinton e-mail investigation just before the election. If Comey was trying to swing the election for Clinton, he could have easily arrested Page and Manafort a week before the election rather than reopen the e-mail investigation.
Us evil Trump supports want this information released.
While there are many evil Trump supporters such as Stephen Miller, I don't think you're evil. You're just stupid. I hate resorting to ad hominem, but Jesus fucking Christ. Read what you posted. It's grammatically and logically unsound. I feel like Luke Wilson in Idiocracy when I talk to Trump supporters.
I don't think that's the point. Your analysis requires nuance, and the point of the memo is to rally GOP partisans and give the talking heads on Fox News talking points that sound official. Most things that require nuance are beyond the comprehension of most voters (as the various AC posts that immediately flooded this story demonstrate), and this allows the administration to pretend to be the victim.
Trump and his supporters want to reframe the argument. If the argument is "did Trump collude with Russian to undermine American democracy?" he's in a losing situation. If the argument is, "was Trump being unfairly investigated by intelligence agencies?" then he has a chance to discredit any questions about his campaign. By selectively declassifying information, Nunes and Trump can lie by omission, which is enough to convince those who are stupid and those who don't care if Trump colluded with the Russians so long as he enacts their desired policies.
The problem with your conspiracy theory is that the "party loyalists embedded into law enforcement and intelligence agencies" had voting records that suggested otherwise.
While I agree that FISA is a problem and shouldn't be deemed constitutional, your tangental conspiracy theory is absurd. There's a huge difference between leaning on intelligence operatives in an allied country to uncover very real dirt on a political opponent and colluding with an enemy state to undermine democracy. It's disgusting the way this whole situation is being spun.
I don't get how you're forced into a bad choice when there are so many phones on the market that allow you to easily change out the battery.
I'm all for regulating corporations when necessary—I'd be all for forcing companies like Apple to actually pay their taxes, for instance—but I don't think the government should micromanage their engineering designs.
I don't like Chevys because they're cheap and handle like shit. I like my BMW. But I don't think the government should force Chevy to make cars that are up to par with my BMW. If Apple's battery was a huge problem to consumers such as myself, who prefer the enclosed design, then they would lose sales and be forced to change their design. Similarly, if there weren't a market for shitbox cars, GM would have to change their business model.
Yes, not being able to replace my car battery without paying a dealer has been *so* much hassle in my life.
(OK, I'll grant that 80s and 90s front drive Cadillacs are a pain, as you have to take off a bar or a plate to get it out [or even lift the back seat on the Deville!])
hawk
Chrysler Sebrings (along with some other Chrysler/Dodge vehicles) require you to remove one of the wheels to change the battery. It's a real pain in the ass.
Chevy Malibus and Impalas, in certain years, require you to remove the fuse box to get the battery out.
Certain Scion/Toyotas require you to remove the ECM to get to the battery.
There are probably others that I don't know about.
Brilliant parody or pathetic statist? You decide!
More like dull parody by pathetic libertarian.
Sounds like lie detectors, with a huge potential for false positives.
I don't have a kid
Not qualified to speak about what's good for them or not. I would debate having just one isn't enough to qualify someone.
Bottom line, tough shit. Too many people with 'good intentions' fucking shit up for the people raising children.
B.b..b...b.... but think of the childr- *SLAP*
This is a crock of shit. Most parents are only parents because they made a terrible decision. Furthermore, most parents continue to make terrible decisions regarding their children. The most obvious sign of a bad parent is when you hear them indignantly yell, "don't tell me how to raise my kids!"
You only have to look at some basic statistics, such as the fact that those with the least means are the most likely to have children, to realize that being a parent has no bearing on the validity of one's opinions about parenting. Having kids doesn't magically turn you into some sage. If the world was filled with parents who knew what's good for their kids, then more than 30% of adults over 25 would have a Bachelor's degree.
Life shouldn't revolve around social media at least in the beginning.
I think this statement can be improved by removing the last five words.
It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Studies like these are why the social sciences really bug me. The whole thing is built upon weak premises, such as using IQ as a metric and contrasting it with whatever method they had for rating the effectiveness of these leaders. When none of your variables are concrete, how can the results of the study really tell us anything? To extrapolate a conclusion from this hodgepodge of data would be foolish.
When it comes to social sciences, I'll take a holistic, less scientific approach such as Malcolm Gladwell's or Steven Levitt's. Some studies just don't fit well with the scientific method, and misapplying it leads to nonsense research like this where the researchers can't see the forest for the trees.
1. The original AC (probably you), asserted that "[n]one of those people care about NN." You didn't provide any evidence that this is true.
2. Your link suggests that one individual listed has boasted about the suit in fundraising activities. This doesn't mean that he doesn't care about NN. It's not true that he must either only care about fundraising or only care about NN. This is what we call a "false dichotomy." It's possible that he cares about both. Furthermore, his individual case can't be extended to the other AGs on the list. This is what we call "the fallacy of composition."
3. The intentional fallacy has nothing to do with what people are doing. It only relates to their intentions. The original post made a claim about the intent of these AGs, and that is a fallacy. You could have Googled "intentional fallacy," or looked it up on Wikipedia or maybe even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Then you wouldn't look like a buffoon when you title a post "Debate fail" when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
None of those people care about NN. They saw another AG fund raising like crazy by suing the Trump administration. They want a piece of the action.
Nothing will come of this other than fund raising emails sent out in mass. Simple, irrefutable, fact.
This is what we call the "intentional fallacy." It's funny how obvious fallacies are so often posted AC.
Antitrust action is very week in the United States. The telecoms are, by and large, an oligopoly and for the most part antitrust suits are only successful against monopolies. It's like Microsoft in the 90s—they were able to point to Apple as competition, so they were able to get away with their anti-competitive behavior.
Furthermore, the current FCC has demonstrated that it certainly doesn't exist as a layer of reprieve for consumers. The "Justice Department" is redundant with antitrust action. Regarding innovationthat's a pretty broad statement. Libertarians are always telling us that innovation will cure all. But innovation always gets bought out by the big fish and it never leads to a diverse market in the long term.
As for "use another service," pretty much all the services available are on that list. I guess you just have to pick your poison.
Think of all the new community broadband that federal NN rules held back.
Net neutrality didn't hold any new community broadband back.
Net neutrality doesn't protect telco monopolies. Local communities protect telco monopolies.
You sound like Ajit Pai. Everything you say is ass backwards.
Exclusive content on different ISPs is exactly the type of thing that NN proponents seek to avoid. Google would look a tad hypocritical if they did that. The idea is that the internet is the internet. There's no Comcast internet and AT&T internet and Google internet. What you're proposing is 1990s AOL/Genie/Prodigy.
That's a capability that could really come in handy in case of a natural disaster or other calamity. That is why the regulations aimed to subsidize plants that can store 60 days of fuel onsite.
This statement, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is obviously disingenuous. The regulation was sought by a specific coal company and specifically tailored to that company and the regions it operates in. You appear to know enough about the situation that you must be aware of this. The sad fact is that the actions of the current administration are so indefensible that supporting these policies requires bold faced lies.
Storing sixty days worth of fuel on-site in case of some mysterious "natural disaster or calamity" is ridiculously excessive. What possible scenario can you imagine where this would be necessary? Such a disaster—which to the best of my knowledge, has never happened anywhere ever—would surely destroy the infrastructure that connects the power plant to its customers, making all that on-site fuel useless.
It's like every Trump supporter is either a raging moron, or, in your case, a Sarah Huckabee Sanders shamelessly lying. We get it. You believe that short term economic gains are more important than a long term sustainable environment because by the time the shit hits the fan you'll be long dead. While I find that position to be abhorrent, at least people used to be honest about it. But I guess that's how minority interests grab power. Lies, deceit, exploiting religious fears, and undermining democracy.
Ma Bell can't be destroyed, she's just temporarily fractured.
I donâ(TM)t know about the history of the term, but I do know that in current usage itâ(TM)s used as a dismissive label. The OP, for example, was using it as a lazy way of dismissing his opponents without addressing the substance of their concerns. Most pejoratives donâ(TM)t historically begin as pejoratives. Regardless, itâ(TM)s the use of dismissive labels as a rhetorical strategy that I oppose (as should anyone who believes discourse ought to be governed by logic).
When one isn't an expert in a certain field and lacks the time/ability/desire to become an expert in said field, it's only logical to defer to expert opinion. No one has the ability to be an expert in every field, so everyone has to do this if they want to have a somewhat coherent understanding of the world. Relying on scientific consensus is something everyone does to arrive at logical conclusions. Even scientists.
This is a problem with partisanship. That you would adhere to a position you know to be illogical simply for the sake of being consistent with your party of choice is sad. This attitude among elected officials is what drives partisanship and gridlock in Washington.
I'm a person that would be described as liberal, but I don't support gun control. Just because I think the NRA and many other anti-gun control people are stupid and annoying doesn't change my position. I'm also dismayed by some of the over-sensitivity on college campuses and in the media, but using pejoratives like "SJW" is divisive and does nothing to persuade others of this opinion.
Climate change matters. Not for the political victories of one party or another, but for the future of humanity. I don't want my children or maybe some day grandchildren to grow up in a world facing global catastrophe. Why would anyone want that? Political expediency doesn't justify immorality.
At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
It's a sad day for the internet indeed when our hopes rest on that.