that was the case, syria, some people posit that the discrepancy was in the fact that the US drew refugees from jordanian refugee camps, and the muslims harassed all the christians out of those. so no christian refugees.
by the numbers. 56 christian refugees out of 10k syrian refugees, the christian population of syria represents 10 percent of the syrian population at the time.
well, i forget the numbers, but under obama a nation with 10 percent persecuted christians, has 99 percent muslim refugee rates. so the christians weren't getting through even though by all rights, they should be the predominant class to get through in the first place.
there's a reason why trump said we should help those poor christians. because the obama refugee rates were lopsided to all hell.
yeah and ideas are more dangerous than actual violence, so giving you an avenue to convince others of your wicked ways is a sin worse than killing you outright.
god, in those terms it really is a religion isn't it?
hrm, i thought i saw it as a few years old, truth be told never bothered to listen to the thing, i'm a first amendment absolutist, and a jester is always necessary.
well the problem right now is you've got a left that sees anyone right of them as a nazi. and they believe that dialogue is 'problematic' because it plays into the power-games of the 'patriarchy'.
discussion is integral to making sure those that think about important issues are thinking as fully about those issues as they can be. if all you ever hear is support and never a critical word, then how likely are you to question what you think? a contrary point of view, and devil's advocate is not really good enough, is vital to the growth of both points of view.
but dialogue is a patriarchal construct, and they're not going to play that power game, because the simple act of playing the power game is giving you power. so you don't fucking get to speak. bamn.
i think that's the line of thought for denying speakers or listeners the right to speak and listen.
i think more and more can be made the case that the left and liberalism should be disconnected. and liberalism should go back to describing those that defend individual liberties before anything.
the left these days seems to subordinate individual liberties to collective social equality.
that's how i see it anyway, and i'm assuming the left now sees it that there's everybody that is compassionate and good that agree with them, and nazis. who you can destroy by any means necessary.
you can get charged for inciting a riot, in a leading role. you would not get charged for having people riot against you for something you're saying, and having the people listening to you not riot essentially.
i think the people culpable would be the people that organize antifa 'protesters' to show up en masse, and tell them that it's ok to use violence. that's where the 'inciting to violence' charge would probably be leveled, not at the speaker.
i think a university is going to try denying an invitation to someone the students invite and get a permit for, and then they'll get asked why.
and then not having a good answer other than, it's going to cause violence that we're not inclined to defend against. isn't going to cut it. so they'll actually let the police and security hired for these events to crack some skulls of adults in black breaking other people's property.
well, you asked for an example. i think the official administering office defended it for a period, until they realized that it had caught sitting politicians who had never interacted with the twitter handle, then they reversed position. Also, the putative reason was because the people on the blocklist were alt-right, nazis and harassing accounts/trolls.
dave rubin was blocked... i think his mom called him to ask if he was banned from sweden.
larger examples are the whole deplatforming movement. which is largely a left move on college campuses. if you ever mentioned a single thing that offends a single marginalized group, they'll all flock to shout you down, or pressure an administration to revoke your invitation etc. etc.
it's not that they don't want to hear you speak, it's that they want to prevent other people from hearing you speak, even if, say, college republicans, a group that are similarly part of the college community just as they are, invite, and obtain permits for a lecture.
and if it gets bad enough, then the antifa violence comes out, damaging starbucks storefronts... because of the obviously alt-right nature of windows.
the attached article was pretty quickly found, the details as i understand them were. it's the official twitter handle of sweden. any swedish citizen currently in sweden or around can be nominated for the position by anyone for one week.
it's hard to get all the facts, but it seems that the putative purpose was to block anyone the individual felt was a troll or expressed hateful, racist or far right-wing opinions.
they reversed the blanket block after it was revealed that the block included members of parliament and the israeli ambassador. in addition, the blocklist can no longer be produced because it was deleted, which may or may not contravene documents and records laws for government agencies in sweden.
the members of government were slightly upset that the block seemed to imply that they were alt-right or nazi sympathizers. soo yeah.
well, @sweden, controlled by some library entity or something, with a rotating list of curators, had one of its moderators instigate one of the anti-gg blocklists. which ended up blocking people like pewdiepie, among others. one of which was a sitting member of parliament for their conservative party.
until they try to pass legislation to enforce compliance with gender discrimination laws. or classify misgendering as a hate crime, as they're trying to do in canada.
sure i'm willing to accept the obvious racism. but it's pretty similar to saying 'i'm with her' was a euphemism for saying, 'i'll vote for anything without a penis'.
which, you know, is sexist.
easy right?
honestly, we've got nothing to talk about, because you didn't really say anything other than 'anyone in a maga hat was a secret racist.
i just said that as a throwaway line, because half the time these days, 'racist' is thrown out to shut down debate.
i was under the impression that the majority of the major changes happen during puberty, though if you're sure, then i have no standing to argue the point.
my comment was more in line with. neither one of the parties should be 'listening' to nate silver. that's what you hire people for internal polling for. and if your internals are conflicting with literally everybody else. you might be wrong. or you might have found a chink in the opponents armor that nobody else is aware of.
nate silver put hillary at 75 percent. seems like the dems listened and the repubs said, 25 percent ain't nothing and we think we're right.
Slashdot Mirror
need a backstop. according to reports she was shown another book with a bullet in it.
so maybe they did a testfire without a backstop, and the bullet got caught by the moving book.
http://www.newsweek.com/us-bar...
that was the case, syria, some people posit that the discrepancy was in the fact that the US drew refugees from jordanian refugee camps, and the muslims harassed all the christians out of those. so no christian refugees.
by the numbers. 56 christian refugees out of 10k syrian refugees, the christian population of syria represents 10 percent of the syrian population at the time.
so yeah.
well, i forget the numbers, but under obama a nation with 10 percent persecuted christians, has 99 percent muslim refugee rates. so the christians weren't getting through even though by all rights, they should be the predominant class to get through in the first place.
there's a reason why trump said we should help those poor christians. because the obama refugee rates were lopsided to all hell.
yeah and ideas are more dangerous than actual violence, so giving you an avenue to convince others of your wicked ways is a sin worse than killing you outright.
god, in those terms it really is a religion isn't it?
hrm, i thought i saw it as a few years old, truth be told never bothered to listen to the thing, i'm a first amendment absolutist, and a jester is always necessary.
correction: retracted then. apologies.
well the problem right now is you've got a left that sees anyone right of them as a nazi. and they believe that dialogue is 'problematic' because it plays into the power-games of the 'patriarchy'.
correction, it was well before the comment came to light, i believe he had made the comment prior to the riot though, it just wasn't picked up on.
those are legitimate articles, published and presumably peer reviewed. 'social science' as a name is oxymoronic at this point.
pride cometh before the fall.
intelligence is not wisdom, wisdom is not taught.
discussion is integral to making sure those that think about important issues are thinking as fully about those issues as they can be. if all you ever hear is support and never a critical word, then how likely are you to question what you think? a contrary point of view, and devil's advocate is not really good enough, is vital to the growth of both points of view.
rebuttals don't involve violent riots.
but dialogue is a patriarchal construct, and they're not going to play that power game, because the simple act of playing the power game is giving you power. so you don't fucking get to speak. bamn.
i think that's the line of thought for denying speakers or listeners the right to speak and listen.
what do you think 'de-platforming' is?
i think more and more can be made the case that the left and liberalism should be disconnected. and liberalism should go back to describing those that defend individual liberties before anything.
the left these days seems to subordinate individual liberties to collective social equality.
that's how i see it anyway, and i'm assuming the left now sees it that there's everybody that is compassionate and good that agree with them, and nazis. who you can destroy by any means necessary.
you can get charged for inciting a riot, in a leading role. you would not get charged for having people riot against you for something you're saying, and having the people listening to you not riot essentially.
i think the people culpable would be the people that organize antifa 'protesters' to show up en masse, and tell them that it's ok to use violence. that's where the 'inciting to violence' charge would probably be leveled, not at the speaker.
i think a university is going to try denying an invitation to someone the students invite and get a permit for, and then they'll get asked why.
and then not having a good answer other than, it's going to cause violence that we're not inclined to defend against. isn't going to cut it. so they'll actually let the police and security hired for these events to crack some skulls of adults in black breaking other people's property.
well, you asked for an example. i think the official administering office defended it for a period, until they realized that it had caught sitting politicians who had never interacted with the twitter handle, then they reversed position. Also, the putative reason was because the people on the blocklist were alt-right, nazis and harassing accounts/trolls.
dave rubin was blocked... i think his mom called him to ask if he was banned from sweden.
larger examples are the whole deplatforming movement. which is largely a left move on college campuses. if you ever mentioned a single thing that offends a single marginalized group, they'll all flock to shout you down, or pressure an administration to revoke your invitation etc. etc.
it's not that they don't want to hear you speak, it's that they want to prevent other people from hearing you speak, even if, say, college republicans, a group that are similarly part of the college community just as they are, invite, and obtain permits for a lecture.
and if it gets bad enough, then the antifa violence comes out, damaging starbucks storefronts... because of the obviously alt-right nature of windows.
the attached article was pretty quickly found, the details as i understand them were. it's the official twitter handle of sweden. any swedish citizen currently in sweden or around can be nominated for the position by anyone for one week.
https://www.thelocal.se/201705...
it's hard to get all the facts, but it seems that the putative purpose was to block anyone the individual felt was a troll or expressed hateful, racist or far right-wing opinions.
they reversed the blanket block after it was revealed that the block included members of parliament and the israeli ambassador. in addition, the blocklist can no longer be produced because it was deleted, which may or may not contravene documents and records laws for government agencies in sweden.
the members of government were slightly upset that the block seemed to imply that they were alt-right or nazi sympathizers. soo yeah.
apparently also noam chomsky and bill gates.
well, @sweden, controlled by some library entity or something, with a rotating list of curators, had one of its moderators instigate one of the anti-gg blocklists. which ended up blocking people like pewdiepie, among others. one of which was a sitting member of parliament for their conservative party.
http://adland.tv/adnews/how-di...
of course that list included the israeli ambassador, and apparently a war correspondent covering ISIS. putatively because they were all trolls.
until they try to pass legislation to enforce compliance with gender discrimination laws. or classify misgendering as a hate crime, as they're trying to do in canada.
sure i'm willing to accept the obvious racism. but it's pretty similar to saying 'i'm with her' was a euphemism for saying, 'i'll vote for anything without a penis'.
which, you know, is sexist.
easy right?
honestly, we've got nothing to talk about, because you didn't really say anything other than 'anyone in a maga hat was a secret racist.
i just said that as a throwaway line, because half the time these days, 'racist' is thrown out to shut down debate.
it is amusing how it's always about taking other people's money to accomplish your aims right?
i was under the impression that the majority of the major changes happen during puberty, though if you're sure, then i have no standing to argue the point.
yes, everybody is a racist. fine.
if we accept that, can we get on to talking about issues? or is that all you have?
my comment was more in line with. neither one of the parties should be 'listening' to nate silver. that's what you hire people for internal polling for. and if your internals are conflicting with literally everybody else. you might be wrong. or you might have found a chink in the opponents armor that nobody else is aware of.
nate silver put hillary at 75 percent. seems like the dems listened and the repubs said, 25 percent ain't nothing and we think we're right.
nate silver isn't the personification of polling you know.
you can't fix 'triggered' son.