there is more effort being put into tech and science.
I'm arguing about the premise as to whether we should be putting any effort into changing people's free choices. "Correcting" people's free choices seems terribly misguided to me.
I guess the question is, do you believe that women are being unfairly kept from garbage collection, or do you think the lack of representation is a matter of their individual choices. If it's an individual choice, then we shouldn't be trying to social engineer someone away from free choices (say, encouraging people to become Mormons instead of evangelicals in order to balance the religions against each other).
So before we put effort into socially engineering people into roles we believe they should be in, maybe we should figure out if they're making free choices or not.
Heck, even if you don't care about people's free choices, your method of social engineering is going to differ if the current behavior is due to free choices - knowing where to apply your pressure requires understanding the situation in depth.
That all being said, I definitely think free choices are a good thing, and we shouldn't interfere. I don't think it's right to try and make gay people have sex with people they don't prefer (conversion therapy), or to make women work jobs they don't prefer.
Olympic teams are like private clubs, and they can do whatever they want to run their clubs.
But when people get caught doping, or using steroids, they get disqualified. Even if they would have won the medal without the juicing. It's about integrity.
The DNC had rules, and they broke them to keep Bernie from winning. The colluded against his campaign, engaged in voter suppression and voter fraud, and even got debate questions in advance.
Regardless of the "fix", the fact is that the DNC has lost all credibility. The insurgent who fought the Republicans won because the Rs played by the rules they set out. The insurgent who fought the Democrats lost because the Ds didn't play by the rules they set out.
When the DNC is actively selling your campaign out (http://observer.com/2016/10/breaking-dnc-chief-donna-brazile-leaked-sanders-info-to-clinton-campaign/), or stealing debate questions (http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/media/donna-brazile-wikileaks-question/), can we really say that the democrat primary was a fair process?
Really?
Now sure, you can go counterfactual, and imagine a world, where the DNC didn't cheat, and didn't rig the system, where Clinton won on the merits. I'll admit, that's *possible*. But once you find out that a team juiced with steroids in the olympics, you disqualify them - even if they would have won without the drugs.
The combination of superdelegate corruption, voter suppression (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html), and outright voter fraud, really is undeniable for the democrat primary. The party elites want you to believe that the voters picked Clinton, and that a socialist is unelectable (despite 8 years of Obama), but the truth is that the revolution was killed by hook and crook in the democrat primary.
Let's be crystal clear - the Republican Party fell to an outsider this year. One could make the argument that they tried to cheat the outsider, and failed, but it's more likely that they literally ran a fair and balanced primary election.
The Democrat Party, on the other hand, excluded outsiders by cheating this year. One could make the argument that they would've won even without cheating, but that's highly unlikely.
Bernie got bought off after the election was stolen, no doubt. But to pretend that the democrat primary was fair and balanced, in any way shape or form, is ret-conning of the highest degree.
So, say you don't want Trump, and Clinton is a criminal - why isn't the MSM and the democrat party not lining up behind Jill Stein, who would wipe Trump in a landslide if she got the same support from the media as Clinton does?
Electing Clinton is a boneheaded move, but worse, it's a move that you don't get a choice on - they cheat.
At least if the country makes the boneheaded move of electing Trump, it was *their* boneheaded move, not just a thumb on the scale by the political elites.
It's amazing, that throughout all of this, we keep forgetting that the democrat primary was stolen from Bernie Sanders. Literal rigging of the election by the DNC. Literal vote fraud (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-second-example-of-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-whoa-video/).
Forget the hypothetical stealing of the general election, this just happened with the democrat primary. The lack of outrage is palpable.
You're making completely unsupported assertions. While we may agree that muslims who believe in sharia law and a small contingent of violent christian fundamentalists both want homosexuals dead, only in islamic countries has such behavior been made explicitly legal. You simply cannot put christian fundamentalists into the same bucket as sharia compliant muslims.
If anything, I'm arguing a distinction between statutory capital punishment, and illegal murder, which you're trying to conflate as equivalent.
Let's run with your conclusion - average guy does this, loses their job.
Let's also add that average guy does this, is then blacklisted from ever having any job with a security clearance again.
Hell, I'd be more than happy to see Hillary Clinton avoid jail if she was disqualified from working in any position in the government that required a security clearance:)
So, you admit that the only countries that legally punish gays with death are those that ascribe to shariah?
To be sure, any country moving in the direction of killing gays, christian or muslim, is moving in the wrong direction. But while you may find some support for all kinds of violence in the bible, and in a homophobic black country you may find ruthless, yet illegal violence against gays, it's the quran and it's shariah law that has actually made such barbarism legal in many muslim countries.
In the end, we we decide which viruses to be concerned about, it matters if it's the common cold or ebola. One may, in rare instances, kill you. The other, only in rare instances will you survive.
How does that additional context materially affect their statement at all? If anything, they're claiming that it wasn't originally a hate symbol, but became one - which means anything, including the Star of David, could become a hate symbol if used in memes.
When the skinheads start making AmiMoJo memes, will your name become a hate symbol too?
Maybe if they had simply defined a subset of memes as hate symbols, rather than defaming poor Pepe, they'd be on firmer ground.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today identified “Pepe the Frog,” a cartoon character used by haters on social media to suggest racist, anti-Semitic or other bigoted notions, as a hate symbol.
Not sure how you assert they're not identifying it as a hate symbol, when they say they're identifying it as a hate symbol.
You make a compelling argument for religion - anyone who has spent time studying God more trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgement:)
Now, if it was simply saying "hey, some hate groups use pepe the frog, and some hate groups use swastikas!", that's one thing. But it strains even the most basic credulity to assign such a thing as "hate" to a mere symbol, stretching the claim further to "any use of pepe the frog or swastikas means you're a hate group!", which, whether ADL intends it or not, is their end effect.
To put it in the terms you used, it is irrational to give any sort of credibility to a group that proclaims words, shapes, or forms are so poisonous that the mere usage of them makes you hateful. There is incredible amount of context that is simply stripped out, that can have no rational justification.
tl;dr - just because a racist black gang uses the #13 as their symbol, doesn't make every use of the #13 a racist act. We can describe racists groups in detail without ascribing their motives to any and every use of a symbol.
I was responding to your claim that the question was about "credibility", which is a premise I think requires proof - perhaps you didn't intend it, but your implication was that the ADL had credibility, and therefore was allowed the privileged position from which to condemn other people for language they don't like.
If your position is that the ADL has no more right than anyone else to declare words, shapes, or forms "hate symbols", then we agree. If your position is that they have the credibility to make such declarations, I challenge the premise by asserting that anyone making such declarations isn't credible.
Now, that does get into an interesting "is declaring something hate speech also hate speech which can be declared" infinite recursion, but I'd argue there is a qualitative difference between supporting censorship, and not supporting censorship. That is to say, I condemn them as stupid, which is different than them condemning others as hateful.
Um, it's "kapakahi" in pidgin too. Not sure what school yard you were in when you heard "kapakahi", but if you missed the "h", it's your hearing that's off, or they had a speech impediment.
vs. One-sided, crooked, lopsided, sideways; bent, askew; biased, partial to one side; to show favoritism. Lit., one side. Cf. lawe kapakahi. K kapakahi ka l ma Wai-anae (saying), the sun appears lopsided at Wai-anae [said by the goddess Hiiaka while her lover was dallying with someone else, hence said of any unlawful dallying].
Slashdot Mirror
I'm arguing about the premise as to whether we should be putting any effort into changing people's free choices. "Correcting" people's free choices seems terribly misguided to me.
I guess the question is, do you believe that women are being unfairly kept from garbage collection, or do you think the lack of representation is a matter of their individual choices. If it's an individual choice, then we shouldn't be trying to social engineer someone away from free choices (say, encouraging people to become Mormons instead of evangelicals in order to balance the religions against each other).
So before we put effort into socially engineering people into roles we believe they should be in, maybe we should figure out if they're making free choices or not.
Heck, even if you don't care about people's free choices, your method of social engineering is going to differ if the current behavior is due to free choices - knowing where to apply your pressure requires understanding the situation in depth.
That all being said, I definitely think free choices are a good thing, and we shouldn't interfere. I don't think it's right to try and make gay people have sex with people they don't prefer (conversion therapy), or to make women work jobs they don't prefer.
http://amarillo.com/opinion/op...
Good paying jobs, and women just don't want them.
Olympic teams are like private clubs, and they can do whatever they want to run their clubs.
But when people get caught doping, or using steroids, they get disqualified. Even if they would have won the medal without the juicing. It's about integrity.
The DNC had rules, and they broke them to keep Bernie from winning. The colluded against his campaign, engaged in voter suppression and voter fraud, and even got debate questions in advance.
Regardless of the "fix", the fact is that the DNC has lost all credibility. The insurgent who fought the Republicans won because the Rs played by the rules they set out. The insurgent who fought the Democrats lost because the Ds didn't play by the rules they set out.
When the DNC is actively selling your campaign out (http://observer.com/2016/10/breaking-dnc-chief-donna-brazile-leaked-sanders-info-to-clinton-campaign/), or stealing debate questions (http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/media/donna-brazile-wikileaks-question/), can we really say that the democrat primary was a fair process?
Really?
Now sure, you can go counterfactual, and imagine a world, where the DNC didn't cheat, and didn't rig the system, where Clinton won on the merits. I'll admit, that's *possible*. But once you find out that a team juiced with steroids in the olympics, you disqualify them - even if they would have won without the drugs.
The combination of superdelegate corruption, voter suppression (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html), and outright voter fraud, really is undeniable for the democrat primary. The party elites want you to believe that the voters picked Clinton, and that a socialist is unelectable (despite 8 years of Obama), but the truth is that the revolution was killed by hook and crook in the democrat primary.
Let's be crystal clear - the Republican Party fell to an outsider this year. One could make the argument that they tried to cheat the outsider, and failed, but it's more likely that they literally ran a fair and balanced primary election.
The Democrat Party, on the other hand, excluded outsiders by cheating this year. One could make the argument that they would've won even without cheating, but that's highly unlikely.
Bernie got bought off after the election was stolen, no doubt. But to pretend that the democrat primary was fair and balanced, in any way shape or form, is ret-conning of the highest degree.
Speaking of coin tosses: http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
So, say you don't want Trump, and Clinton is a criminal - why isn't the MSM and the democrat party not lining up behind Jill Stein, who would wipe Trump in a landslide if she got the same support from the media as Clinton does?
Electing Clinton is a boneheaded move, but worse, it's a move that you don't get a choice on - they cheat.
At least if the country makes the boneheaded move of electing Trump, it was *their* boneheaded move, not just a thumb on the scale by the political elites.
It's amazing, that throughout all of this, we keep forgetting that the democrat primary was stolen from Bernie Sanders. Literal rigging of the election by the DNC. Literal vote fraud (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-second-example-of-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-whoa-video/).
Forget the hypothetical stealing of the general election, this just happened with the democrat primary. The lack of outrage is palpable.
You're making completely unsupported assertions. While we may agree that muslims who believe in sharia law and a small contingent of violent christian fundamentalists both want homosexuals dead, only in islamic countries has such behavior been made explicitly legal. You simply cannot put christian fundamentalists into the same bucket as sharia compliant muslims.
If anything, I'm arguing a distinction between statutory capital punishment, and illegal murder, which you're trying to conflate as equivalent.
Some statistics: https://www.jihadwatch.org/201...
If anything, it seems that the star and crescent should be labeled as a hate symbol.
Let's run with your conclusion - average guy does this, loses their job.
Let's also add that average guy does this, is then blacklisted from ever having any job with a security clearance again.
Hell, I'd be more than happy to see Hillary Clinton avoid jail if she was disqualified from working in any position in the government that required a security clearance :)
So, you admit that the only countries that legally punish gays with death are those that ascribe to shariah?
To be sure, any country moving in the direction of killing gays, christian or muslim, is moving in the wrong direction. But while you may find some support for all kinds of violence in the bible, and in a homophobic black country you may find ruthless, yet illegal violence against gays, it's the quran and it's shariah law that has actually made such barbarism legal in many muslim countries.
In the end, we we decide which viruses to be concerned about, it matters if it's the common cold or ebola. One may, in rare instances, kill you. The other, only in rare instances will you survive.
How does that additional context materially affect their statement at all? If anything, they're claiming that it wasn't originally a hate symbol, but became one - which means anything, including the Star of David, could become a hate symbol if used in memes.
When the skinheads start making AmiMoJo memes, will your name become a hate symbol too?
Maybe if they had simply defined a subset of memes as hate symbols, rather than defaming poor Pepe, they'd be on firmer ground.
Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.
Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Homegrown christian crazies are crazy. Islamic countries under sharia are scary.
From their press release:
Not sure how you assert they're not identifying it as a hate symbol, when they say they're identifying it as a hate symbol.
One might argue that spending time studying myths and legends might not grant as much authority as on may think :)
Does someone who has read the bible for 60 years really know the mind of God any more than anyone else? :)
You make a compelling argument for religion - anyone who has spent time studying God more trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgement :)
Now, if it was simply saying "hey, some hate groups use pepe the frog, and some hate groups use swastikas!", that's one thing. But it strains even the most basic credulity to assign such a thing as "hate" to a mere symbol, stretching the claim further to "any use of pepe the frog or swastikas means you're a hate group!", which, whether ADL intends it or not, is their end effect.
To put it in the terms you used, it is irrational to give any sort of credibility to a group that proclaims words, shapes, or forms are so poisonous that the mere usage of them makes you hateful. There is incredible amount of context that is simply stripped out, that can have no rational justification.
tl;dr - just because a racist black gang uses the #13 as their symbol, doesn't make every use of the #13 a racist act. We can describe racists groups in detail without ascribing their motives to any and every use of a symbol.
I was responding to your claim that the question was about "credibility", which is a premise I think requires proof - perhaps you didn't intend it, but your implication was that the ADL had credibility, and therefore was allowed the privileged position from which to condemn other people for language they don't like.
If your position is that the ADL has no more right than anyone else to declare words, shapes, or forms "hate symbols", then we agree. If your position is that they have the credibility to make such declarations, I challenge the premise by asserting that anyone making such declarations isn't credible.
Now, that does get into an interesting "is declaring something hate speech also hate speech which can be declared" infinite recursion, but I'd argue there is a qualitative difference between supporting censorship, and not supporting censorship. That is to say, I condemn them as stupid, which is different than them condemning others as hateful.
But doesn't that beg the question? Should anyone who proclaims certain words, shapes, or forms as "hate symbols" have any credibility at all?
...and then we can declare that a hate symbol too?
What about the rainbow flag? If sharia enforcing islamists start using rainbow colors, can we declare that a hate symbol?
What about the word "HATE"? Can we declare that a hate symbol, and ban it?
WTF, guys, seriously?
Um, it's "kapakahi" in pidgin too. Not sure what school yard you were in when you heard "kapakahi", but if you missed the "h", it's your hearing that's off, or they had a speech impediment.
Your cite is from a haole :)
Try Peppo's: http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/cu...
"CHOP SUEY
Kapakahi; all mixed up."
But go ahead, tell me more about what a local boy you were, and how haoles taught you how to speak pidgin :)
Just trying to help the haole :)
I'll bet you think it's called "Harry Karry" too :) Or "Karry okie" :)
It's "kapakahi".
http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.85/c...
vs. One-sided, crooked, lopsided, sideways; bent, askew; biased, partial to one side; to show favoritism. Lit., one side. Cf. lawe kapakahi. K kapakahi ka l ma Wai-anae (saying), the sun appears lopsided at Wai-anae [said by the goddess Hiiaka while her lover was dallying with someone else, hence said of any unlawful dallying].
"kapakai" is very different:
http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.85/c...
vs. To wait for. Rare.
Presented FYI: https://sharylattkisson.com/th...
I would be interested to know if there is anything in that timeline you believe isn't accurate.