First, it's important to mention that you still have not shown that the lady giving the Nazi salute was not doing so ironically, as she claims she was. Second, let's look at that Fortune article. Most of it is based on the use of a hashtag, #whitegenocide, which is not exclusive to white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He retweeted two of their tweets and many of them follow him. However, this is bad logic. Many of them follow a number of people who write on topics of interest, including Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker and Nicholas Taleb. Further, Trump has retweeted a number of people on the outer right, probably because these were already trending among a mixed audience of right-wingers and others. So, I'm sorry I read the Fortune article; it was devoid of information of relevance.
there's a reason Trump is so popular over at Stormfront and the Daily Stormer. There's a reason why David Duke supports him.
It's the same reason that those people supported Mitt Romney after his 47% statement: issue overlap. When a candidate promises something that a special interest group is also concerned in, they may support that candidate even if the rest of his platform clashes with theirs. By the same token, a lot of Stormfront got excited about Helen Thomas.
True but that was before China was a trading partner of the USA.
I'm not sure that's going to influence their decision much at all now that China has other trading partners, and the USA's importance is fading. You only buy debt from and sell products to superpowers, and it's hard to argue the USA is still one of those at more than a military level.
He is allied with China, who is allied with Russia; the Russians have been a major force in both World Wars and the Cold War. While North Korea may be small, it could be the location of a trigger event that will have us all nervous (insert mushroom cloud here).
No Trump supporter would associate Trumps campaign with a swastika. That would hurt Trump's campaign. The same goes for anyone attempting a false flag attack.
In a political context, "false flag" is different from its normal meaning of recruiting unwitting double agents; it means slandering your opposition by associating them with something disagreeable. As a result, a false flag attack on Trump would be people waving swastikas at his rallies, and a similar attack on Bernie would be people waving Soviet flags or something.
Alternative Right writer here. From where most of us on the altright stand, Cruz looks like The Establishment Candidate: strong defense, protection of corporate interests, and nominal attention to irrelevant social issues. The GOP likes him because he will not rock the boat, and they can keep playing Little Red Riding Hood to the big bad wolf of the Democrats. That way, the donations can continue to roll in and yet they do not have to take any risky stances. Everyone in Washington is keeping everyone else there employed, and the consequences to America and her people are entirely irrelevant.
I hope to not come across as a negative person, but I do not see one -- at least, not for all Americans, which makes the original Confederation (1776-1789) seem like a better system of government than what we have now. America is fragmenting, if not fragmented. I share your concern about religiously-anchored purpose and values systems.
The thing about granting powers exclusively to a group: those powers are worth money, and so they are used as bargaining chips much like any other property. The major political parties have something to sell, which is control over who can become president, and so they are likely to be "captured" by special interest groups and commercial interests. This is how it usually happens in democracy, but with a twist, because our "checks and balances" have created many gatekeepers, each of which has a "power property" to sell.
if you give that person the ability to gain wealth or glory from that idea, he or she will implement
The "benefit of all" part is not contingent upon their mental state. It is the result of a good idea getting done. While I would identify myself as ardently pro-Capitalist mainly because of the horrors of all the alternatives, I would like to point out that, per Hardin, no system can run itself. Smith's invisible hand argument was designed to show that managed economies -- the alternatives to capitalism -- do not work. He is correct, but Hardin updates him: there must be some force encouraging cooperation and preservation of the resources involved, especially one that limits growth so that individual actors are not put into competition with one another. This is where Capitalism by itself is not sufficient; there must be some larger purpose and values system to society, or it collapses from over-exploitation of resources.
If everybody does what's in his immediate best interest, everybody may end up with a sub-optimum outcome.
True, which is why societies seek unification of the group through either ideology or heritage. The classic statement of this problem is "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin.
If you make content available for people at a reasonable price in a convenient manner, they tend to choose that option. When you make it difficult for them, they seek the path of least resistance, which is pirating it. Back in the 1980s when software cost $50 a disk and you might have to try out 300 programs to find five you wanted to keep, piracy was the way people experienced software and it benefited the publishers, who then got their apps out there so that business -- which had the money -- could buy them.
Wisdom of the crowd is an extension of the "invisible hand" ideas of the utilitarians: if enough people think something is good enough idea to vote for it or buy it, the overall decision made will be a good one. I counter this with what I have observed, which is the wisdom of individuals if assembled to common purpose. Someone has always noticed something or has some idea, and so if you give that person the ability to gain wealth or glory from that idea, he or she will implement it to the benefit of all. This is not the wisdom of a crowd, but that by assembling a whole lot of people and presenting the same issue, you enable those individuals to focus and spur them to action. $0.02
Whether it is Open Source, or "wisdom of the crowd," or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.
I remember those "1984" commercials. I would never want Apple to become a massive corporate bandit, especially one that sells to the dead end of Western Civilization.
Symantec is a recognized and trusted name. Cynical people take such names and replace the original product with a scam, then trade on the name and earn short-term wealth, burning out the value of the name. This seems to me to be the reason why there are so few trusted companies that last more than a couple decades.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it's important to mention that you still have not shown that the lady giving the Nazi salute was not doing so ironically, as she claims she was. Second, let's look at that Fortune article. Most of it is based on the use of a hashtag, #whitegenocide, which is not exclusive to white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He retweeted two of their tweets and many of them follow him. However, this is bad logic. Many of them follow a number of people who write on topics of interest, including Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker and Nicholas Taleb. Further, Trump has retweeted a number of people on the outer right, probably because these were already trending among a mixed audience of right-wingers and others. So, I'm sorry I read the Fortune article; it was devoid of information of relevance.
Napoleon was an internationalist, not a nationalist. I compiled some historical data into a FAQ: http://www.amerika.org/nature/...
http://hitler.org/writings/pro...
It's the same reason that those people supported Mitt Romney after his 47% statement: issue overlap. When a candidate promises something that a special interest group is also concerned in, they may support that candidate even if the rest of his platform clashes with theirs. By the same token, a lot of Stormfront got excited about Helen Thomas.
I'm not sure that's going to influence their decision much at all now that China has other trading partners, and the USA's importance is fading. You only buy debt from and sell products to superpowers, and it's hard to argue the USA is still one of those at more than a military level.
Was it or was it not a pro-Nazi gesture?
I never would use such a simplistic device. I simply think of them as two competing theories.
Chinese involvement was determinative in both Vietnam and Korean wars. Cold War bullshit, or real history?
...the New York Daily News article is by Shaun King, and that is what I was referring to: http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
He is allied with China, who is allied with Russia; the Russians have been a major force in both World Wars and the Cold War. While North Korea may be small, it could be the location of a trigger event that will have us all nervous (insert mushroom cloud here).
North Korea is an odd place. Communist economic system plus Nationalism. We have not seen a Left/Right hybrid like this since Adolf Hitler.
In a political context, "false flag" is different from its normal meaning of recruiting unwitting double agents; it means slandering your opposition by associating them with something disagreeable. As a result, a false flag attack on Trump would be people waving swastikas at his rallies, and a similar attack on Bernie would be people waving Soviet flags or something.
Is he black, or white, now?
Here's the rundown.
Alternative Right writer here. From where most of us on the altright stand, Cruz looks like The Establishment Candidate: strong defense, protection of corporate interests, and nominal attention to irrelevant social issues. The GOP likes him because he will not rock the boat, and they can keep playing Little Red Riding Hood to the big bad wolf of the Democrats. That way, the donations can continue to roll in and yet they do not have to take any risky stances. Everyone in Washington is keeping everyone else there employed, and the consequences to America and her people are entirely irrelevant.
I hope to not come across as a negative person, but I do not see one -- at least, not for all Americans, which makes the original Confederation (1776-1789) seem like a better system of government than what we have now. America is fragmenting, if not fragmented. I share your concern about religiously-anchored purpose and values systems.
Whoever pays the highest rate wins our (temporary) loyalty. Welcome to society where no one agrees on a set of values.
The thing about granting powers exclusively to a group: those powers are worth money, and so they are used as bargaining chips much like any other property. The major political parties have something to sell, which is control over who can become president, and so they are likely to be "captured" by special interest groups and commercial interests. This is how it usually happens in democracy, but with a twist, because our "checks and balances" have created many gatekeepers, each of which has a "power property" to sell.
Yes, that's what I said:
The "benefit of all" part is not contingent upon their mental state. It is the result of a good idea getting done. While I would identify myself as ardently pro-Capitalist mainly because of the horrors of all the alternatives, I would like to point out that, per Hardin, no system can run itself. Smith's invisible hand argument was designed to show that managed economies -- the alternatives to capitalism -- do not work. He is correct, but Hardin updates him: there must be some force encouraging cooperation and preservation of the resources involved, especially one that limits growth so that individual actors are not put into competition with one another. This is where Capitalism by itself is not sufficient; there must be some larger purpose and values system to society, or it collapses from over-exploitation of resources.
True, which is why societies seek unification of the group through either ideology or heritage. The classic statement of this problem is "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin.
If you make content available for people at a reasonable price in a convenient manner, they tend to choose that option. When you make it difficult for them, they seek the path of least resistance, which is pirating it. Back in the 1980s when software cost $50 a disk and you might have to try out 300 programs to find five you wanted to keep, piracy was the way people experienced software and it benefited the publishers, who then got their apps out there so that business -- which had the money -- could buy them.
Wisdom of the crowd is an extension of the "invisible hand" ideas of the utilitarians: if enough people think something is good enough idea to vote for it or buy it, the overall decision made will be a good one. I counter this with what I have observed, which is the wisdom of individuals if assembled to common purpose. Someone has always noticed something or has some idea, and so if you give that person the ability to gain wealth or glory from that idea, he or she will implement it to the benefit of all. This is not the wisdom of a crowd, but that by assembling a whole lot of people and presenting the same issue, you enable those individuals to focus and spur them to action. $0.02
Whether it is Open Source, or "wisdom of the crowd," or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.
I remember those "1984" commercials. I would never want Apple to become a massive corporate bandit, especially one that sells to the dead end of Western Civilization.
Symantec is a recognized and trusted name. Cynical people take such names and replace the original product with a scam, then trade on the name and earn short-term wealth, burning out the value of the name. This seems to me to be the reason why there are so few trusted companies that last more than a couple decades.