If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.
Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).
Most progressives
You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progressives" so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.
just a label. Freedom.
No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science. If you want science to inform government policy then you would be against "just a label" salesmen and positions like Food Babe and non-gmo project.
Want to talk about what labels may need or not need? You don't start from a position of ignorance and fear to inform your solution.
If 1950's Republicans saw what was happening now in their party they'd have another heart attack.
You're right in that that applies to any party from the 50's compared to the modern party. Not sure the point of that statement when it applies to everyone.
lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?
Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.
I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.
If only there was a network of information that you could use to find out what I am talking about instead of acting like a disingenuous partisan fool. You can search Food Babe and the gmo project. Although, it is easier to act like a disingenuous partisan fool than to have your bubble popped by reality.
No, there is a difference between label standards (which we have), poor label standards (the gmo project), and outright denial of science and facts of labels like Food Babe and using fear and ignorance to sale homeopathy. There is nothing to label for something that has no problems found in any study.
I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.
Yes, both sides have problems with science and use it to push their political goals. Glad we both can agree that each party err "side" is bad for science for different reasons.
But Democrats are making everything about race so your post has everything to do about race because reasons and muh racist republitards. Therefore;
I resent the fact that you called me a racist in your post and will demand an apology because fuck you that is why and respect me because I am fucking better than you. BTW vote for me even though you are a piece of shit./s
And democrats are any better? Did you see the last candidate they put forward for POTUS? That bitch be whack yo.
Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.
Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservative and behold the "Uncle Tom" and "race traitor" comments!
At least vaccine denial has bipartisan support.
Just an idea; The ends do not justify the means. Democrats were definitely worse this time around about that particular ideal and seemed to have forgotten what that phrase even means to put forward a candidate like Clinton. Sheesh. Get out of your echo chamber once in a while. I agree with their policy. I do not agree with their actions. Actions speak louder than words and their actions are horrible.
He is so right. Nazi jokes are bad as are jokes about the holocaust. My grandfather died in a concentration camp in WW2 when he fell out of the guard tower. Anne Frankly, I am offended when anyone makes fun my families tragedy. We should say enough is enough with these nazi jokes because they make me fuhrerious.
But seriously... WTF am I watching? A guy upset that he doesn't like certain types of satire, doesn't understand context like the WSJ, upset that pewdiepie is successful, doesn't understand humor and thinks the only reason why people make fun of Nazi's is because they are Nazi's?
Did I get that right? He has a few good points but that doesn't justify out of context snippets to justify slander as an *ism that can ruin careers.
FTFV: "From what I can gather, that's the real problem here. Comedy on youtube as well as most forms of discussion can't really develop beyond a fairly juvenile stage because it's impossible to provide a nuanced critique without being regarded as a threat. "
WTF... the only acceptable humor is nuanced critique? Oh, I see and if there isn't enough "critique" it is juvenile. You do understand that people making fun of nazi's is a good thing? You do understand the whole reason why the "Kill all the jews" was funny was because it was absurd in so many ways including his reaction? If someone is talking about "juvenile" comedy it is safe to bet that they don't understand why people find things funny. Hell, most people don't understand what makes them laugh when the literal definition has "spontaneous". PDP markets to a younger crowd who is savvy about memes. Do you think that someone that doesn't understand memes (WSJ) might find those kind of jokes offensive because they don't understand the context? Do you really think that people who understand memes and use them think that pepe is a white supremacist?
How much time must pass before jokes about a taboo is acceptable? I guess Charley Chaplin is a Nazi sympathizer because of the Dictator. Oh, it's ok when he does it and not someone else? amirite? Who gave you or hbomberguy the right to decide what is acceptable or not? It was obviously a joke given the context and also that the guy is a fucking comedian. Are you one of those peopel that protest a feminist comedian because she isn't the "right kind of feminist"? Pathetic.
He talks about speech and discussion yet does not seem to have a problem with the WSJ making unsubstantiated claims taken completely out of context and acted in a slanderous way. I watched the video's and WSJ portrayal and there was nothing honest in their reporting of the situation. I don't blame Disney. I blame WSJ as does PDP which is the whole fucking point. The WSJ resorted to slander despite being supposedly reputable.
Am I a nazi for laughing at his nazi jokes? Do I want to kill all the jews for laughing at his kill all the jews sign joke?
Because the preferred platform for POTUS to speak to people is not as important to the public as a baker... You're telling me that a baker has more impact on society and is forced by law to be impartial yet Twitter, the preferred platform of POTUS to speak to people, doesn't have an impact that demands the same impartiality?
I don't normally post videos of any flavor of talking heads but that video is relevant to any discussion on Twitters censorship behavior. If there is an issue with that video I will hear you out but if all you do is dismiss it through ad hom then you add nothing to the conversation. If you have an issue with the arguments and evidence portrayed, name it or leave it. I don't need to know your opinion on the presenter and personally I don't care because I am not posting that video for the presenter.
The reason why that video is relevant is because the #gasthejokes started because the pewdiepie WSJ hit piece that took things out of context to slander a mans reputation. It shows that Twitter will take ideological sides and use any means to silence any contradictory narrative. I have no sympathy for journalists oblivious/malevolent to context as I have no sympathy or patience for a censorship platform that parades itself as a bastion of free-speech yet censors satire pointing out an injustice carried out by ideological bed-fellows.
Because twitter is anything like a radio or broadcast television? Hint; it isn't.
There is a difference when you say something compared to when you enable someone else to say something. Just like there are different rules when you drive a bus for the city compared to driving yourself around the city. The bus driver is a steward for the safety of the passengers and as such is operating under similar yet different rules (CDL v DL).
... right because impartiality of public accommodations is for chumps amirite?
How much influence on our political system does twitter have if that is the preferred means of communication of the POTUS? At what point does that platform need to be as impartial as a baker to ensure our public accommodations uphold the law and our values?
Twitter likes to hide behind the "we private company can do what we want" but then play the "we're a free speech platform we don't have to be impartial". It's a bad joke that a baker is forced by law to be impartial yet the preferred platform of POTUS doesn't impact society enough to be held to the same standard.
I do wonder if modern communications has changed the balance of things too...... They would never wear fire arms in such a situations, they would use batons. The protesters would not be armed.
Modern communications do not change human nature. We can communicate faster and with more people but what drives a man to violence does not change from 100 years ago nor what drives a politician to be corrupt/tyrannical. The structure of US government is predicated on the fact that power corrupts and governments tend toward tyranny.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Another thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in CA storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
If a corrupt government ordered the police to use lethal force against unarmed protesters our police would refuse. Likewise our military would refuse to get involved. Both the police and military here know it would be both illegal and immoral and in the face of overwhelming public protest would respect the power of the people.
This is generally how it is in the US but just as you alluded to the gradual erosion of freedoms by the governments so to do people gradually justify tyranny. A recent is example is "punch a nazi". It went so far as to "punch someone that defends a nazi". Nazi turned into "someone I disagree with or who has opinions I don't like". How long does it take for the entire political right to be characterized as nazi justifying violence to an entire segment of society? From the rhetoric we have heard, it doesn't take much. Even the social justice "all white men are racist, all hetero are homophobic, etc" rhetoric had the same dehumanizing justification for violence. The right of arms means that even if that rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggression, the right of arms gives citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does.
I sympathize with your sentiment and feel for the loss of your coworker. I only wanted to respond to one part of your comment.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
All rights do have a cost in blood. Habeas corpus, speech, assembly, and bear arms. All of those rights had a cost beyond treasure. The US fought 2 wars to get those rights for everyone and they were the bloodiest wars in American history. People say "be eternally vigilant" to protect the rights we have but that doesn't tell what you have to be vigilant about; people have to be vigilant about the cost of rights. The more that people forget what it costs to get and keep those rights the more that that price will be paid.
It was a genuine good thing that the Battle of Athens saved the ballots from a tyrannical government that decided to shoot a black man in the back while voting to count the ballots in secret. It is a genuine good thing that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry is one of the checks on the government to protect the citizens from tyranny because people are corruptible. The whole point is that you cannot trust people in any position of power.
The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Getting rid of a right to citizens does nothing to address the real issue of people doing bad things. Getting rid of speech will not end racist bigotry anymore than ridding guns will end violence.
- it should be available to but not required for everybody.
It is available to everyone it is just expensive as you pointed out. Got any better ideas to fund it besides student loans and/or taxes? "Because taxes" we can't improve the under valued degree we already pay taxes for; you want to pay more taxes for an over valued degree that we should pay taxes for? Makes sense..........
not everybody can or should go through secondary education so calling it part of high school may not be the most optimal plan.
You make it as though you are going to put 400 level courses for high school freshmen. No, but you could definitely fill in the 100-200 courses and electives for subjects that you can identify that is needed such as you pointed out STEM because marketability in an every restructuring economy. Or civics because government requires participation and civic responsibility (albeit very limited; jury duty). There are already college level electives available so it would be easy to define some standards on what should be required for the next century (like last century was reading, writing, arithmetic) or if those subjects need to be expanded. Maybe another year of school? If there are others topics then make a case but a key constraint is that it cannot be indoctrination or flimsy in its academic standing among citizens and academia.
Primarily at this point, a piece of paper saying that you put in your time.
It isn't worth much outside of the reputation of owning that paper and hopefully developing into a well rounded educated individual/citizen because education. A college education's value is worth less the more that that perception persists in addition to a flood of degree holders. As is a high school diploma, yet a high school diploma is worth less than the poverty line in the USA. Perhaps we should try and increase the value of a high school diploma instead of relying on specialized higher education to make up for the short comings of the economic trends? A university degree is overly valued and a high school degree is under value. If taxes are the solution then maybe we should try to limit the amount we spend while maximizing the utility any solution can provide.
For that matter, why should colleges have football and basketball teams?
I agree with this for the most part. But they do help pay for the science equipment... =/ What is the best way to fund education? There are some ideas some are good some are bad. The US moves slow by its nature as is intended.
But aside from you arbitrarily deciding who is useful to society,
I am not making judgments on what is useful to society. I am looking at their actions, rhetoric, and students. What I have seen is indoctrination and not education. Too many examples around the academic world has warped my perception. As far as I am concerned it has produced as much as flat earthers. Except I haven't seen flat Earthers hold workshops on how to beat up astrophysicists justified using the same rhetoric in university classes. I would be more sympathetic in not conflating examples like that, Melissa Click, and others but the rhetoric they use is the same propaganda social justice buzzwords I have too often seen abuse carried out against the ideals of liberty and liberal democracy. Yes, it is a conflation and not fair to hold that view but that is a view that is shared by a lot of citizens which will impact any solution you want to present. Not my fault those degrees and social justice have the perception of being cancer spreading hatred.
but the exact same argument you're putting forward regarding college level education could just as easily be put forward for K-12 as well.
If a college education is as important as you make it, then why not have high school diploma accommodate what is needed for the average citizen to be competitive in the work force? We have free education and it's called high school. University is higher education that is not for everyone.
Originally, it was thought that reading, writing, and arthritic was necessary for citizens to participate in a modern society. What does a college provide that is necessary to participate? If you stay STEM or the like then why should taxpayers subsidized gender studies degrees or other useless drivel? If you make college tax payer funded then I, as a taxpayer, should have some say in what degrees are funded and what is not because I don't think throwing more money at universities to indoctrinate young people with social justice/gender studies degrees is a good thing.
Identify what makes a college degree necessary and take what is necessary and make it part of the education that is already free and is supposed to prepare young people for the world instead of asking for taxpayers to foot the bill for a useless degree.
No, I talk about the media as various sources of information available to people. Sure, Breitbart has issues but if you think it is limited to Breitbart (honestly I don't read much of them), I have a bridge to sell you. BBC pushes political narratives. Between the two (and others) I can glean the facts I need and form my own narrative. I don't need the virtue signals of a moral busy body in an organization like the BBC or Breitbart to tell me how to feel and what to believe or what to think. Especially when the BBC takes up racists policies and denies people a job based on skin color yet has the gall to call others racist and push a narrative.
Trump's post-truth trap? lol, right. When the media have been playing this game for years, now all the sudden it's an issue because the media's narrative and the governments narrative do not align? No. I have always used different sources to find the truth because I know that people lie. This isn't new. I have never used 1 source of information to inform my opinions (unless I don't care or too lazy which I am probably not going to read much about the topic to begin with). Why would that be different now? When the media act like a cabal with the same message; why would I listen to them if they are pushing political narratives that may not be reality (hello burnt church because racist Trump supporters!)?
I find it interesting that the same complaints and sentiment are all stated by Trump, pewdiepie, jontron, and gamergate. "X is racist, nazi, sexist, homophobic, *ist" coordinated articles using the same bad/non-existent sources using the same bad logic to justify what ever *ist claims.
So, now tell me. If the news is dishonest and/or their integrity compromised what do you do? If they are acting in a coordinated fashion to push a political narrative at the expense of facts and truth, do you still listen without skepticism?
Before, in 1890, when it was ~14.8% there was no welfare state. Now there is. Is partly why it stagnated. And again, the US is still a very generous country to immigrants. More so than most.
Also, compared to Qatar and UAE? Again, I don't mind being on the low side of any list they are apart of especially their "immigration".
Slashdot Mirror
If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.
Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).
Most progressives
You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progressives" so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.
just a label. Freedom.
No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science. If you want science to inform government policy then you would be against "just a label" salesmen and positions like Food Babe and non-gmo project.
Want to talk about what labels may need or not need? You don't start from a position of ignorance and fear to inform your solution.
Bad joke is bad.
If 1950's Republicans saw what was happening now in their party they'd have another heart attack.
You're right in that that applies to any party from the 50's compared to the modern party. Not sure the point of that statement when it applies to everyone.
Didn't you know? Oppressing communists is an American tradition.
Good luck with that.
lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?
Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.
I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.
I am not sure what you wrote but it's wrong. I know better than you about whatever it was you were talking about.
Get back to me when you can get on my level of not reading things. I didn't even read this to type it.
If only there was a network of information that you could use to find out what I am talking about instead of acting like a disingenuous partisan fool. You can search Food Babe and the gmo project. Although, it is easier to act like a disingenuous partisan fool than to have your bubble popped by reality.
Good luck. I think you are going to need it.
No, there is a difference between label standards (which we have), poor label standards (the gmo project), and outright denial of science and facts of labels like Food Babe and using fear and ignorance to sale homeopathy. There is nothing to label for something that has no problems found in any study.
I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.
Yes, both sides have problems with science and use it to push their political goals. Glad we both can agree that each party err "side" is bad for science for different reasons.
But Democrats are making everything about race so your post has everything to do about race because reasons and muh racist republitards. Therefore;
I resent the fact that you called me a racist in your post and will demand an apology because fuck you that is why and respect me because I am fucking better than you. BTW vote for me even though you are a piece of shit. /s
Democrats are fun people.
And democrats are any better? Did you see the last candidate they put forward for POTUS? That bitch be whack yo.
Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.
Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservative and behold the "Uncle Tom" and "race traitor" comments!
At least vaccine denial has bipartisan support.
Just an idea; The ends do not justify the means. Democrats were definitely worse this time around about that particular ideal and seemed to have forgotten what that phrase even means to put forward a candidate like Clinton. Sheesh. Get out of your echo chamber once in a while. I agree with their policy. I do not agree with their actions. Actions speak louder than words and their actions are horrible.
You convinced me. We need a final solution for the jokes.
He is so right. Nazi jokes are bad as are jokes about the holocaust. My grandfather died in a concentration camp in WW2 when he fell out of the guard tower. Anne Frankly, I am offended when anyone makes fun my families tragedy. We should say enough is enough with these nazi jokes because they make me fuhrerious.
But seriously...
WTF am I watching? A guy upset that he doesn't like certain types of satire, doesn't understand context like the WSJ, upset that pewdiepie is successful, doesn't understand humor and thinks the only reason why people make fun of Nazi's is because they are Nazi's?
Did I get that right? He has a few good points but that doesn't justify out of context snippets to justify slander as an *ism that can ruin careers.
FTFV: "From what I can gather, that's the real problem here. Comedy on youtube as well as most forms of discussion can't really develop beyond a fairly juvenile stage because it's impossible to provide a nuanced critique without being regarded as a threat. "
WTF... the only acceptable humor is nuanced critique? Oh, I see and if there isn't enough "critique" it is juvenile. You do understand that people making fun of nazi's is a good thing? You do understand the whole reason why the "Kill all the jews" was funny was because it was absurd in so many ways including his reaction? If someone is talking about "juvenile" comedy it is safe to bet that they don't understand why people find things funny. Hell, most people don't understand what makes them laugh when the literal definition has "spontaneous". PDP markets to a younger crowd who is savvy about memes. Do you think that someone that doesn't understand memes (WSJ) might find those kind of jokes offensive because they don't understand the context? Do you really think that people who understand memes and use them think that pepe is a white supremacist?
How much time must pass before jokes about a taboo is acceptable? I guess Charley Chaplin is a Nazi sympathizer because of the Dictator. Oh, it's ok when he does it and not someone else? amirite? Who gave you or hbomberguy the right to decide what is acceptable or not? It was obviously a joke given the context and also that the guy is a fucking comedian. Are you one of those peopel that protest a feminist comedian because she isn't the "right kind of feminist"? Pathetic.
He talks about speech and discussion yet does not seem to have a problem with the WSJ making unsubstantiated claims taken completely out of context and acted in a slanderous way. I watched the video's and WSJ portrayal and there was nothing honest in their reporting of the situation. I don't blame Disney. I blame WSJ as does PDP which is the whole fucking point. The WSJ resorted to slander despite being supposedly reputable.
Am I a nazi for laughing at his nazi jokes? Do I want to kill all the jews for laughing at his kill all the jews sign joke?
Fuck me that was a waste of time.
Because the preferred platform for POTUS to speak to people is not as important to the public as a baker... You're telling me that a baker has more impact on society and is forced by law to be impartial yet Twitter, the preferred platform of POTUS to speak to people, doesn't have an impact that demands the same impartiality?
You don't see anything wrong with that?
I don't normally post videos of any flavor of talking heads but that video is relevant to any discussion on Twitters censorship behavior. If there is an issue with that video I will hear you out but if all you do is dismiss it through ad hom then you add nothing to the conversation. If you have an issue with the arguments and evidence portrayed, name it or leave it. I don't need to know your opinion on the presenter and personally I don't care because I am not posting that video for the presenter.
The reason why that video is relevant is because the #gasthejokes started because the pewdiepie WSJ hit piece that took things out of context to slander a mans reputation. It shows that Twitter will take ideological sides and use any means to silence any contradictory narrative. I have no sympathy for journalists oblivious/malevolent to context as I have no sympathy or patience for a censorship platform that parades itself as a bastion of free-speech yet censors satire pointing out an injustice carried out by ideological bed-fellows.
Because twitter is anything like a radio or broadcast television? Hint; it isn't.
There is a difference when you say something compared to when you enable someone else to say something. Just like there are different rules when you drive a bus for the city compared to driving yourself around the city. The bus driver is a steward for the safety of the passengers and as such is operating under similar yet different rules (CDL v DL).
... right because impartiality of public accommodations is for chumps amirite?
How much influence on our political system does twitter have if that is the preferred means of communication of the POTUS? At what point does that platform need to be as impartial as a baker to ensure our public accommodations uphold the law and our values?
Twitter likes to hide behind the "we private company can do what we want" but then play the "we're a free speech platform we don't have to be impartial". It's a bad joke that a baker is forced by law to be impartial yet the preferred platform of POTUS doesn't impact society enough to be held to the same standard.
Twitter? You mean the internet company that doesn't understand the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No Thank You. I don't need a Trust and Safety council anymore than a Ministry of Truth.
I do wonder if modern communications has changed the balance of things too... ... They would never wear fire arms in such a situations, they would use batons. The protesters would not be armed.
Modern communications do not change human nature. We can communicate faster and with more people but what drives a man to violence does not change from 100 years ago nor what drives a politician to be corrupt/tyrannical. The structure of US government is predicated on the fact that power corrupts and governments tend toward tyranny.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Another thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in CA storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
If a corrupt government ordered the police to use lethal force against unarmed protesters our police would refuse. Likewise our military would refuse to get involved. Both the police and military here know it would be both illegal and immoral and in the face of overwhelming public protest would respect the power of the people.
This is generally how it is in the US but just as you alluded to the gradual erosion of freedoms by the governments so to do people gradually justify tyranny. A recent is example is "punch a nazi". It went so far as to "punch someone that defends a nazi". Nazi turned into "someone I disagree with or who has opinions I don't like". How long does it take for the entire political right to be characterized as nazi justifying violence to an entire segment of society? From the rhetoric we have heard, it doesn't take much. Even the social justice "all white men are racist, all hetero are homophobic, etc" rhetoric had the same dehumanizing justification for violence. The right of arms means that even if that rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggression, the right of arms gives citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does.
I sympathize with your sentiment and feel for the loss of your coworker. I only wanted to respond to one part of your comment.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
All rights do have a cost in blood. Habeas corpus, speech, assembly, and bear arms. All of those rights had a cost beyond treasure. The US fought 2 wars to get those rights for everyone and they were the bloodiest wars in American history. People say "be eternally vigilant" to protect the rights we have but that doesn't tell what you have to be vigilant about; people have to be vigilant about the cost of rights. The more that people forget what it costs to get and keep those rights the more that that price will be paid.
It was a genuine good thing that the Battle of Athens saved the ballots from a tyrannical government that decided to shoot a black man in the back while voting to count the ballots in secret. It is a genuine good thing that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry is one of the checks on the government to protect the citizens from tyranny because people are corruptible. The whole point is that you cannot trust people in any position of power.
The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Getting rid of a right to citizens does nothing to address the real issue of people doing bad things. Getting rid of speech will not end racist bigotry anymore than ridding guns will end violence.
- it should be available to but not required for everybody.
It is available to everyone it is just expensive as you pointed out. Got any better ideas to fund it besides student loans and/or taxes? "Because taxes" we can't improve the under valued degree we already pay taxes for; you want to pay more taxes for an over valued degree that we should pay taxes for? Makes sense. ... ... ...
not everybody can or should go through secondary education so calling it part of high school may not be the most optimal plan.
You make it as though you are going to put 400 level courses for high school freshmen. No, but you could definitely fill in the 100-200 courses and electives for subjects that you can identify that is needed such as you pointed out STEM because marketability in an every restructuring economy. Or civics because government requires participation and civic responsibility (albeit very limited; jury duty). There are already college level electives available so it would be easy to define some standards on what should be required for the next century (like last century was reading, writing, arithmetic) or if those subjects need to be expanded. Maybe another year of school? If there are others topics then make a case but a key constraint is that it cannot be indoctrination or flimsy in its academic standing among citizens and academia.
Primarily at this point, a piece of paper saying that you put in your time.
It isn't worth much outside of the reputation of owning that paper and hopefully developing into a well rounded educated individual/citizen because education. A college education's value is worth less the more that that perception persists in addition to a flood of degree holders. As is a high school diploma, yet a high school diploma is worth less than the poverty line in the USA. Perhaps we should try and increase the value of a high school diploma instead of relying on specialized higher education to make up for the short comings of the economic trends? A university degree is overly valued and a high school degree is under value. If taxes are the solution then maybe we should try to limit the amount we spend while maximizing the utility any solution can provide.
For that matter, why should colleges have football and basketball teams?
I agree with this for the most part. But they do help pay for the science equipment... =/ What is the best way to fund education? There are some ideas some are good some are bad. The US moves slow by its nature as is intended.
But aside from you arbitrarily deciding who is useful to society,
I am not making judgments on what is useful to society. I am looking at their actions, rhetoric, and students. What I have seen is indoctrination and not education. Too many examples around the academic world has warped my perception. As far as I am concerned it has produced as much as flat earthers. Except I haven't seen flat Earthers hold workshops on how to beat up astrophysicists justified using the same rhetoric in university classes. I would be more sympathetic in not conflating examples like that, Melissa Click, and others but the rhetoric they use is the same propaganda social justice buzzwords I have too often seen abuse carried out against the ideals of liberty and liberal democracy. Yes, it is a conflation and not fair to hold that view but that is a view that is shared by a lot of citizens which will impact any solution you want to present. Not my fault those degrees and social justice have the perception of being cancer spreading hatred.
Nah, I am an undocumented tax payer.
Excuse me, but I don't think you saw my sig that I most certainly did not just change right now.
i giggled. thanks.
It will excite me more if there are some alien honey's that sport an anthropomorphic hourglass if you catch my drift. ;)
If I learned anything from Star Trek it's that it isn't bestiality if it's non-terrestrial. Thank you captain Kirk.
but the exact same argument you're putting forward regarding college level education could just as easily be put forward for K-12 as well.
If a college education is as important as you make it, then why not have high school diploma accommodate what is needed for the average citizen to be competitive in the work force? We have free education and it's called high school. University is higher education that is not for everyone.
Originally, it was thought that reading, writing, and arthritic was necessary for citizens to participate in a modern society. What does a college provide that is necessary to participate? If you stay STEM or the like then why should taxpayers subsidized gender studies degrees or other useless drivel? If you make college tax payer funded then I, as a taxpayer, should have some say in what degrees are funded and what is not because I don't think throwing more money at universities to indoctrinate young people with social justice/gender studies degrees is a good thing.
Identify what makes a college degree necessary and take what is necessary and make it part of the education that is already free and is supposed to prepare young people for the world instead of asking for taxpayers to foot the bill for a useless degree.
No, I talk about the media as various sources of information available to people. Sure, Breitbart has issues but if you think it is limited to Breitbart (honestly I don't read much of them), I have a bridge to sell you. BBC pushes political narratives. Between the two (and others) I can glean the facts I need and form my own narrative. I don't need the virtue signals of a moral busy body in an organization like the BBC or Breitbart to tell me how to feel and what to believe or what to think. Especially when the BBC takes up racists policies and denies people a job based on skin color yet has the gall to call others racist and push a narrative.
Trump's post-truth trap? lol, right. When the media have been playing this game for years, now all the sudden it's an issue because the media's narrative and the governments narrative do not align? No. I have always used different sources to find the truth because I know that people lie. This isn't new. I have never used 1 source of information to inform my opinions (unless I don't care or too lazy which I am probably not going to read much about the topic to begin with). Why would that be different now? When the media act like a cabal with the same message; why would I listen to them if they are pushing political narratives that may not be reality (hello burnt church because racist Trump supporters!)?
I find it interesting that the same complaints and sentiment are all stated by Trump, pewdiepie, jontron, and gamergate. "X is racist, nazi, sexist, homophobic, *ist" coordinated articles using the same bad/non-existent sources using the same bad logic to justify what ever *ist claims.
So, now tell me. If the news is dishonest and/or their integrity compromised what do you do? If they are acting in a coordinated fashion to push a political narrative at the expense of facts and truth, do you still listen without skepticism?
Before, in 1890, when it was ~14.8% there was no welfare state. Now there is. Is partly why it stagnated. And again, the US is still a very generous country to immigrants. More so than most.
Also, compared to Qatar and UAE? Again, I don't mind being on the low side of any list they are apart of especially their "immigration".