I wonder if there is a legitimate law suit against phone manufacturers (or any manufacturer for that matter) that produces a product that says it has encryption but has a back door knowingly built into it. Wouldn't that be false advertising? Its not really encryption anymore. Its a sieve that leaks information to ANYONE that has the key to the back door, law enforcement or not.
Police don't typically beat people to death, shoot them for being the wrong color, or generally go around trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens either, but I definitely don't want to give them easy access to revisionary tactics that would make covering up misuse of power as easy as 1-2-3.
A law stating that it is illegal to upload photos of a certain type without waiting a certain time frame would be incredibly easy to abuse. The police only need to utter one phrase and you are on the ground, cuffed, and taking the ride downtown where who knows what will happen to your person and personal effects. That phrase? "Are you uploading that video?" Presto! You're now a victim of the "system."
But a police officer would have a perfect reason to detain you if you recorded them beating or shooting someone. Of course they would ostensibly be working for the rights of the family of the person they mangled. You know, ensuring the video didn't get out before it was legal. But then the video gets erased, or the recording device disappears.
What if a police officer was beating your kid. With this law in place anyone recording the beating could be taken into custody to prevent the premature dissemination of the video. Oh, and would you look at that, somehow the footage of the police beating that poor dead kid just disappeared.
1) Stir up trouble with terrorism 2) Watch governments implement increasingly harsh restrictions on their own citizens because governments do that and people are too stupid to say no. 3) Move to said country as a refugee with 100,000 of your closest relatives. 4) Breed the indigenous people out of office and institute Sharia. 5) Prophet.
Just so you are aware, I definitely want this experimentation to continue. What I want more is an answer to all of the phenomena described in the article you linked, and eventually I want a couch made from dark matter, if it exists. Which has yet to be determined.
That being said, lets talk about this. Lets use your article so there is no confusion or even problem with your point. Your linked article (which I read a while back, among many others) is titled "Five Reasons We Think Dark Matter Exists." Its not "5 times we have detected dark matter," or even "one time we detected dark matter." It even goes on to restate the article's dubious title just before listing the 5 reasons, but it includes something different than at the top, a small innocuous mark that I am sure missed your detection, just like the facts in the article. Its an asterisk placed strategically by the word think...like this "think*".
Direct quote from the article, in the section at the bottom that the asterisk refers you to: "“We think” means “we’re very sure, but we haven’t detected it yet so we can’t say ‘we know.’”
So it hasn't been detected yet. Detection, distillation, isolation, synthesis, observation...those would be empirical evidence of it. Conjecture, strongly supporting evidence, fitting the model, yada yada yada are not, are specifically not, empirical evidence of it. We have empirical evidence of phenomena that leads us to make a rational conclusion that something like it exists, however, no one has touched, seen, smelled, tasted, or even electronically detected it. And apparently, in your world, thinking something exists means it does. Suffice it to say, I hope you never serve on a jury.
In short, "supporting empirical evidence" and "empirical evidence" are explicitly not the same thing. I know for a fact that you are willfully ignorant of this, based on what you wrote. I won't ask you to keep anything to yourself though. That would be a cheap attempt to disguise ignorance and fear, and that's just not me.
So a murdering madman intent on blasting holes in kids would not create a "bloodbath" all on his own? I think you have exceeded the load limits of your tortured and tired little brain. Might have burned something out there little guy, have a seat.
Your argument is:
Someone might get hurt while trying to stop a madman from killing children, therefore; let the madman continue killing children until he runs out of ammo or kids, or just plain gets tired and goes home to wank to the visuals of babies' heads exploding from repeated 9mm hollow point impacts. Also, make sure to prevent any responsible, law abiding citizens from deterring said madman's targeting of a facility full of children by making damn sure no one there is able to defend the kids through open display of firearms in accordance with the second amendment and local laws.
You are a special person. Please move to California.
If we don't find anything, how long do we keep looking? Given that it is inherently difficult to prove the existence of something that is by definition elusive, what are the chances it isn't there in the first place? Furthermore, how much looking with no results will get us a reasonable certainty of that?
Its kind of like SETI. I have seen ruminations and calculations about how long it might take for us to identify intelligent signals from the vastness of space. That's all fine, lets look. However, at some point we should be able to say we have looked enough, and if we haven't found a thing its time to let it go and rethink what we are doing. Not saying we have come near this threshold with either search yet, but it should be part of our strategy.
An open ended, never ending search for something that has no empirical evidence is downright silly. Faith and hope in something that has no evidence...well lets just say that there are many people who despise that sort of thing.
True, but talking to the police could inadvertently end up with you charged with a crime you didn't commit, as well as various and sundry other inconveniencing issues.
Warning, this video contain the views of professional attorneys, past attorney generals, and law enforcement. It will make sense and you will learn something. Please don't view this if you are contemplating a crime.
I disagree. Just because someone, or even a consortium or "consensus," labels an area of research "discredited" doesn't mean the burden of proof should be greater. To increase the burden of proof is to design in denial to the scientific method and gives undue weight to maintaining the status quo regardless of the proof at hand.
The only burden of proof needed is externally verified repeatable results. Any burden of proof larger than that is prejudicial and has a chilling effect on publication, discussion, acceptance, and ultimately the advancement of science. Care to ask Galileo about requirements for a "higher burden of proof?"
Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers went into great detail about the feedback loop of being slightly older and therefore slightly more developed physically and coaches spending more time working with these kids because they perform better than the slightly younger, less developed kids. The result is that being slightly older than the other kids in your grade level results in a greater chance of being a "star" athlete. Hockey was one sport mentioned.
Journalism, as originally implemented in this country, and listed in this definition "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation" no longer exists. The opposite is taught in universities, reinforced through advertising revenues and page hit models, and is all but required by the manages and execs in our media outlets.
So, journalism did exist before there were online comments sections. It just doesn't anymore.
"every bit of tax Apple dodges is a bit more incentive for your government(s) to try to get it out of your skin instead since you are a softer target"
Bullshit. They will tax us as much as they can get away with, corporation and citizen alike. They will use propaganda, intentional obfuscation and lying (ACA for instance), even the threat of force to get the tax money they feel is already owed to them. Even worse, there are members of our government who have stated on record, in financially obscure terms, that every dollar is owed to the government. They just let us keep what they don't tax, however any corporate profit or household income above the debt line they view as "lost revenue." In short, some members of our government feel they own every dollar you earn, they just let you have some of it back to keep you from voting them out.
I hadn't hear of witchhouse until your post. I was all excited reading the Wikipedia article intro; solid base in my old goth faves, electronica/industrial mixed in, horror themes....check, check, CHECK! Really excited now! Sounds like someone decided to remake Skinny Puppy or something. Cant wait to get some new music!
I scroll down to the "Bands and artists" section...
I object to your use of the word privilege in this context. The problems in poor schools in the Houston school system are in large caused by elements of their own communities. Politicians representing these poorer communities are notorious for preventing reform (Sheila Jackson Lee for one), or even enacting policies that are counter productive. They, along with the teachers union and community activists and leaders, also make it damn near impossible to fire, suspend, or constructively reassign teachers from underperforming schools in these communities. They seem hell bent on making sure these schools continue to underperform.
In addition, any talk of encouraging competition in education, or providing these communities with additional educational options for their children, are called racist, or a "war on education." So, they wont improve the system they have, they rabidly oppose any alternatives, and they definitely don't want to take responsibility for how their brinkmanship and inflexibility affects their community.
It is one thing to recognize and then try to make adjustments to compensate for perceived societal inequalities. I support this as rational and responsible behavior. Its entirely another thing for political and community leaders to create inequalities in their own communities that are destructive to the educational potential of their constituents, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty, and then blame it on something or someone else.
Makes me suspicious. "AI is bad! Keep away!!!" Meanwhile in his super secret underground lair he's got a few slaving away creating his next idea.
Joking aside, I would not be surprised if large companies with money to be made and vast processing power on tap decide that a propaganda campaign against AI is just what they need to incite regulatory bodies into restricting research. And when the government's new AI regulatory body needs staffing with "experts" they will need look no further than the companies whose clarion call started the firestorm. Thusly have all the major sector leaders in the U.S. achieved ascendency, by controlling the regulatory bodies and thereby gaining access to the umbilicus of newly formed companies. Just a little squeeze, here and there, on that regulatory lifeline and all of your future competitors are stillborn.
This is the stupidest thing ever attributed to Ghandi. And eye for an eye is a limitation on the scope of punishment for a crime. It states that judicial retribution should be commensurate with the crime committed. You hear about how some person got 20 years in jail for possession of a single joint; "an eye for and eye" is the argument against that. Similarly, when you have some rich kid get probation for murder, "an eye for an eye" supports those that feel justice was not done.
So if Ghandi actually said that he is either a total moron, or he didn't understand the concept.
I agree with your points regarding police and their misuse of power, the social repercussions of our destructive over-prosecution and incarceration systems, and even that minorities (and especially black people) have suffered from restrictions on housing, access to medical care, and educational opportunities. However, I differ in opinion to the reasons why. Let's approach this semi-Socratically and start with a question: why is it even remotely arguable that our country's first black president can be said to have done more for, and tried harder to pander to, illegal residents of this country than he has for our own black citizens? Another question: why are the republicans fielding presidential candidates that are supporting amnesty for illegal aliens when conventional wisdom paints them all as racist pigs who hate Mexicans? I believe the answer to these questions is directly related to the reason why black Americans continue to suffer in our country. Namely this, when a group remains flexible in their political approach and support, they will have the advantage of participating in and reaping the benefits of the political policies generated by both the democrats and the republicans. However, when a group remains singlemindedly dedicated to one party, either the democrats or the republicans, and is antagonistic toward the other, their ability to maintain meaningful representation and to effectively influence the political landscape is destroyed. Just look at Christian religious groups and individuals in the U.S. In the past they had great control over both parties. Now as the faithful lapdog of the republicans, they get to watch while their Armageddon approaches. Gay marriage and rights legislation are passing in state after state, and even some of their republican leaders are beginning to entertain the idea of coming out for gay rights. Similarly, black Americans have watched as their infrastructure, business opportunities, and educational prospects have dwindled to the point of permanent subclass status, all under the care and feeding of the democrats they elected and that overwhelmingly control the ghettoized landscapes where they are increasingly forced to live. They watch as their children are undereducated and let their leaders prevent any competition in their school systems and make underperfomring teachers impossible to fire. They see businesses retreat from their neighborhoods in droves, and continue to elect candidates who raise taxes on business. They vote in leaders that offer social programs, instead of economic opportunity. And who can blame either party for taking these people for granted? These black peoples and religious zealots are almost exactly the same. They have proven time and time again that they will sacrifice their personal integrity, compromise their beliefs and ethics, and whore themselves without reservation to their dedicated political party, regardless of the abuse and distain they are treated with, without a care for what those parties do to their closely held beliefs, and without a thought for the future of their progeny. So, let's contrast the Hispanic voting block with the two sad-sacks I just mentioned. They appear similar to both groups actually. Religious, maybe even overwhelmingly so to some. A minority with a history of abuse and disenfranchisement. No outright slavery in their past, but if you knew how hard undocumented produce workers had to labor for less than minimum wage and with no benefits, well it's hardly above slavery at that point. And yet, here we have two parties competing for their vote. They haven't thrown their hat in one ring and started the aggressively self-enforced indoctrination of their children and peers toward one party, punishing those who dare to be different with ostracism, vituperation, and even violence. Hell no man! They are doin it right, esse! They have both parties eating out of their hand, offering them everything they want. I mean really, our first black president decided to (ostensibly) violate the fr
As punishment, lets leave all the "Warp Deniers" on Earth when we travel to Alpha Centauri.
I think you give humans too much credit in your last sentence. Careless, absolute knowledge claims are the default position of the human brain. Fortunately we have developed the scientific method and it works moderately well at counterbalancing that natural human predisposition.
American politicians have worked for decades to decode the U.S. voter and their habits. They spend millions of dollars annually on "focus groups" and "mock votes" in order to successfully determine the most advantageous avenues to manipulate the electorate into supporting them in their efforts to remove rights from the electorate, disenfranchise the electorate, and more firmly establish the elected as a modern day aristocracy in spite of US law and constitutional impetus. Look up "wedge issue" to see how the party leadership will use specific issues to fracture a voting block and turn them against each other. Watch how each party incites their proscribed demographic to feel threatened by others. Note how politicians play at fighting the other party, but vote as a whole when presented with an opportunity to curtail, circumvent, or remove rights guaranteed to the people by the constitution and/or bill of rights. And pay special attention to the media mouthpieces when they call out their leaders on their faults. It provides a voice for people's recognition of total incongruity on the part of their leaders, but by voicing it the supporters' ire is assuaged and they go merrily and sheepishly back to fighting the opposition and completely forget to hold their leaders accountable.
In America there are two political parties. They are not liberal and conservative. They are not Republican and Democrat. They are simply the elected and the electorate. Anyone who forgets this or fails to see it, at any time, is a pawn, a sheep...and therefore untrustworthy, compromised. They are exactly equal to those religious people that atheists and sceptics so vociferously condemn. They have lost control of their intellect and sacrificed their freedom and judgement in pursuit of an empty purse. They cannot be trusted even with their own self interest, much less the advancement of society as a whole.
So, welcome to America, where Rome is burning and all anyone does is comment on how good it looks in HD. Stay away if you value your sanity, your freedom, and your connection to humanity.
First, you can become as educated as you want without facing racial slurs and attacks from people of your own color.
You can speak in regular English without facing the same ridicule as above.
You can react to other races with courtesy and respect, again without the above negative consequences.
You have the freedom to not violently attack old people, children, anyone caught alone, and females without being thought of by your peers as weak and deserving of physical attack yourself.
You have the freedom of a wide selection of role models from a young age, many of whom are not in any way involved in criminal activity, misogyny, and/or drug use; and who are not advocating for these things.
You have the freedom of selecting a political party without reprisals from your contemporaries. And you have the added benefit of the respect of both political parties. This is mainly due to the fact that you haven't idiotically ignored institutionalized abuse by the party you overwhelmingly vote for, while actively alienating the other party, which has resulted in almost complete political sterilization for your entire racial group.
Yes, you are 100% right when you say that being white is a big benefit. However, the greatest portion of that benefit comes not from being white, but from not being black.
Have any of you even considered that our government is releasing this information now, at this specific time, for a specific reason? I hear a bunch of people talking about how terrible this is/was. What I think is really brutal is a government that willfully decided to perform all of these actions, with the consent and support of relevant members of both political parties, and now uses the "revelation" of these practices as a political tool designed to manipulate the public.
Our politicians didn't give one weak fuck for how this would make our country look to the rest of the world, how this would make people feel at home and abroad, or what people might do in reaction and retaliation for this behavior or the revelation thereof. They simply used it as they would any other thing within their control, to establish greater control over the electorate, and to stamp out any coalition of the people that might challenge the way they want the American pie divided.
So for those of you who are blaming Republicans, or Democrats, or the military, or whoever else....go fuck yourselves. You are the tools of a system of government that doesn't care one whit for any of you and who uses and misleads you intentionally. By your mental attitudes and voiced opinions you attack, condemn, and destroy the only source of redress for government actions like these, namely cooperation and coalition of the people. Specific leaders from both political parties are responsible for this insane miscarriage of justice, and now they are using their monstrous actions to brutalize the American public. They will not bear the brunt of the reprisals for this, we will. When someone is taken hostage and murdered in retaliation, it wont be someone who ordered this, it will be a journalist, or a businessman, but not a politician who was actually involved. And in spite of these facts, played out in ever repeating fashion, there in the midst of this are the imbeciles, shaking their pom-poms for their favorite political party, pointing fingers at others. In all of their glorious idiocy, they are defending the politicians that commanded these hideous acts and attacking people that had nothing to do with them.
I'm really almost done. Don't know how much longer I can stand living in a country peopled by arrogant idiots that will continue to support a government that uses (among other things) torture as a weapon against their enemies as well as their citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if there is a legitimate law suit against phone manufacturers (or any manufacturer for that matter) that produces a product that says it has encryption but has a back door knowingly built into it. Wouldn't that be false advertising? Its not really encryption anymore. Its a sieve that leaks information to ANYONE that has the key to the back door, law enforcement or not.
Police don't typically beat people to death, shoot them for being the wrong color, or generally go around trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens either, but I definitely don't want to give them easy access to revisionary tactics that would make covering up misuse of power as easy as 1-2-3.
A law stating that it is illegal to upload photos of a certain type without waiting a certain time frame would be incredibly easy to abuse. The police only need to utter one phrase and you are on the ground, cuffed, and taking the ride downtown where who knows what will happen to your person and personal effects. That phrase? "Are you uploading that video?" Presto! You're now a victim of the "system."
But a police officer would have a perfect reason to detain you if you recorded them beating or shooting someone. Of course they would ostensibly be working for the rights of the family of the person they mangled. You know, ensuring the video didn't get out before it was legal. But then the video gets erased, or the recording device disappears.
This is the last thing we need.
What if a police officer was beating your kid. With this law in place anyone recording the beating could be taken into custody to prevent the premature dissemination of the video. Oh, and would you look at that, somehow the footage of the police beating that poor dead kid just disappeared.
Yeah, no way this is a bad idea.
1) Stir up trouble with terrorism
2) Watch governments implement increasingly harsh restrictions on their own citizens because governments do that and people are too stupid to say no.
3) Move to said country as a refugee with 100,000 of your closest relatives.
4) Breed the indigenous people out of office and institute Sharia.
5) Prophet.
I have had similar thoughts and sincerely hope that this is the case.
“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny ”
Pretty much sums up the whole dark matter subject for me at this point.
Just so you are aware, I definitely want this experimentation to continue. What I want more is an answer to all of the phenomena described in the article you linked, and eventually I want a couch made from dark matter, if it exists. Which has yet to be determined.
That being said, lets talk about this. Lets use your article so there is no confusion or even problem with your point. Your linked article (which I read a while back, among many others) is titled "Five Reasons We Think Dark Matter Exists." Its not "5 times we have detected dark matter," or even "one time we detected dark matter." It even goes on to restate the article's dubious title just before listing the 5 reasons, but it includes something different than at the top, a small innocuous mark that I am sure missed your detection, just like the facts in the article. Its an asterisk placed strategically by the word think...like this "think*".
Direct quote from the article, in the section at the bottom that the asterisk refers you to: "“We think” means “we’re very sure, but we haven’t detected it yet so we can’t say ‘we know.’”
So it hasn't been detected yet. Detection, distillation, isolation, synthesis, observation...those would be empirical evidence of it. Conjecture, strongly supporting evidence, fitting the model, yada yada yada are not, are specifically not, empirical evidence of it. We have empirical evidence of phenomena that leads us to make a rational conclusion that something like it exists, however, no one has touched, seen, smelled, tasted, or even electronically detected it. And apparently, in your world, thinking something exists means it does. Suffice it to say, I hope you never serve on a jury.
In short, "supporting empirical evidence" and "empirical evidence" are explicitly not the same thing. I know for a fact that you are willfully ignorant of this, based on what you wrote. I won't ask you to keep anything to yourself though. That would be a cheap attempt to disguise ignorance and fear, and that's just not me.
So a murdering madman intent on blasting holes in kids would not create a "bloodbath" all on his own? I think you have exceeded the load limits of your tortured and tired little brain. Might have burned something out there little guy, have a seat.
Your argument is:
Someone might get hurt while trying to stop a madman from killing children, therefore; let the madman continue killing children until he runs out of ammo or kids, or just plain gets tired and goes home to wank to the visuals of babies' heads exploding from repeated 9mm hollow point impacts.
Also, make sure to prevent any responsible, law abiding citizens from deterring said madman's targeting of a facility full of children by making damn sure no one there is able to defend the kids through open display of firearms in accordance with the second amendment and local laws.
You are a special person. Please move to California.
Thank you for the post. Wish I had mod points.
Both links were well worth a look. Much appreciated.
If we don't find anything, how long do we keep looking? Given that it is inherently difficult to prove the existence of something that is by definition elusive, what are the chances it isn't there in the first place? Furthermore, how much looking with no results will get us a reasonable certainty of that?
Its kind of like SETI. I have seen ruminations and calculations about how long it might take for us to identify intelligent signals from the vastness of space. That's all fine, lets look. However, at some point we should be able to say we have looked enough, and if we haven't found a thing its time to let it go and rethink what we are doing. Not saying we have come near this threshold with either search yet, but it should be part of our strategy.
An open ended, never ending search for something that has no empirical evidence is downright silly. Faith and hope in something that has no evidence...well lets just say that there are many people who despise that sort of thing.
True, but talking to the police could inadvertently end up with you charged with a crime you didn't commit, as well as various and sundry other inconveniencing issues.
See this video for details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Warning, this video contain the views of professional attorneys, past attorney generals, and law enforcement. It will make sense and you will learn something. Please don't view this if you are contemplating a crime.
Send it to Mars and Europa. See what happens...
I disagree. Just because someone, or even a consortium or "consensus," labels an area of research "discredited" doesn't mean the burden of proof should be greater. To increase the burden of proof is to design in denial to the scientific method and gives undue weight to maintaining the status quo regardless of the proof at hand.
The only burden of proof needed is externally verified repeatable results. Any burden of proof larger than that is prejudicial and has a chilling effect on publication, discussion, acceptance, and ultimately the advancement of science. Care to ask Galileo about requirements for a "higher burden of proof?"
Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers went into great detail about the feedback loop of being slightly older and therefore slightly more developed physically and coaches spending more time working with these kids because they perform better than the slightly younger, less developed kids. The result is that being slightly older than the other kids in your grade level results in a greater chance of being a "star" athlete. Hockey was one sport mentioned.
Journalism, as originally implemented in this country, and listed in this definition "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation" no longer exists. The opposite is taught in universities, reinforced through advertising revenues and page hit models, and is all but required by the manages and execs in our media outlets.
So, journalism did exist before there were online comments sections. It just doesn't anymore.
"every bit of tax Apple dodges is a bit more incentive for your government(s) to try to get it out of your skin instead since you are a softer target"
Bullshit. They will tax us as much as they can get away with, corporation and citizen alike. They will use propaganda, intentional obfuscation and lying (ACA for instance), even the threat of force to get the tax money they feel is already owed to them. Even worse, there are members of our government who have stated on record, in financially obscure terms, that every dollar is owed to the government. They just let us keep what they don't tax, however any corporate profit or household income above the debt line they view as "lost revenue." In short, some members of our government feel they own every dollar you earn, they just let you have some of it back to keep you from voting them out.
I hadn't hear of witchhouse until your post. I was all excited reading the Wikipedia article intro; solid base in my old goth faves, electronica/industrial mixed in, horror themes....check, check, CHECK! Really excited now! Sounds like someone decided to remake Skinny Puppy or something. Cant wait to get some new music!
I scroll down to the "Bands and artists" section...
Turns out I have already heard all of them. WTF!
I object to your use of the word privilege in this context. The problems in poor schools in the Houston school system are in large caused by elements of their own communities. Politicians representing these poorer communities are notorious for preventing reform (Sheila Jackson Lee for one), or even enacting policies that are counter productive. They, along with the teachers union and community activists and leaders, also make it damn near impossible to fire, suspend, or constructively reassign teachers from underperforming schools in these communities. They seem hell bent on making sure these schools continue to underperform.
In addition, any talk of encouraging competition in education, or providing these communities with additional educational options for their children, are called racist, or a "war on education." So, they wont improve the system they have, they rabidly oppose any alternatives, and they definitely don't want to take responsibility for how their brinkmanship and inflexibility affects their community.
It is one thing to recognize and then try to make adjustments to compensate for perceived societal inequalities. I support this as rational and responsible behavior. Its entirely another thing for political and community leaders to create inequalities in their own communities that are destructive to the educational potential of their constituents, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty, and then blame it on something or someone else.
Makes me suspicious. "AI is bad! Keep away!!!" Meanwhile in his super secret underground lair he's got a few slaving away creating his next idea.
Joking aside, I would not be surprised if large companies with money to be made and vast processing power on tap decide that a propaganda campaign against AI is just what they need to incite regulatory bodies into restricting research. And when the government's new AI regulatory body needs staffing with "experts" they will need look no further than the companies whose clarion call started the firestorm. Thusly have all the major sector leaders in the U.S. achieved ascendency, by controlling the regulatory bodies and thereby gaining access to the umbilicus of newly formed companies. Just a little squeeze, here and there, on that regulatory lifeline and all of your future competitors are stillborn.
This is the stupidest thing ever attributed to Ghandi. And eye for an eye is a limitation on the scope of punishment for a crime. It states that judicial retribution should be commensurate with the crime committed. You hear about how some person got 20 years in jail for possession of a single joint; "an eye for and eye" is the argument against that. Similarly, when you have some rich kid get probation for murder, "an eye for an eye" supports those that feel justice was not done.
So if Ghandi actually said that he is either a total moron, or he didn't understand the concept.
I agree with your points regarding police and their misuse of power, the social repercussions of our destructive over-prosecution and incarceration systems, and even that minorities (and especially black people) have suffered from restrictions on housing, access to medical care, and educational opportunities.
However, I differ in opinion to the reasons why.
Let's approach this semi-Socratically and start with a question: why is it even remotely arguable that our country's first black president can be said to have done more for, and tried harder to pander to, illegal residents of this country than he has for our own black citizens?
Another question: why are the republicans fielding presidential candidates that are supporting amnesty for illegal aliens when conventional wisdom paints them all as racist pigs who hate Mexicans?
I believe the answer to these questions is directly related to the reason why black Americans continue to suffer in our country. Namely this, when a group remains flexible in their political approach and support, they will have the advantage of participating in and reaping the benefits of the political policies generated by both the democrats and the republicans. However, when a group remains singlemindedly dedicated to one party, either the democrats or the republicans, and is antagonistic toward the other, their ability to maintain meaningful representation and to effectively influence the political landscape is destroyed.
Just look at Christian religious groups and individuals in the U.S. In the past they had great control over both parties. Now as the faithful lapdog of the republicans, they get to watch while their Armageddon approaches. Gay marriage and rights legislation are passing in state after state, and even some of their republican leaders are beginning to entertain the idea of coming out for gay rights.
Similarly, black Americans have watched as their infrastructure, business opportunities, and educational prospects have dwindled to the point of permanent subclass status, all under the care and feeding of the democrats they elected and that overwhelmingly control the ghettoized landscapes where they are increasingly forced to live. They watch as their children are undereducated and let their leaders prevent any competition in their school systems and make underperfomring teachers impossible to fire. They see businesses retreat from their neighborhoods in droves, and continue to elect candidates who raise taxes on business. They vote in leaders that offer social programs, instead of economic opportunity.
And who can blame either party for taking these people for granted? These black peoples and religious zealots are almost exactly the same. They have proven time and time again that they will sacrifice their personal integrity, compromise their beliefs and ethics, and whore themselves without reservation to their dedicated political party, regardless of the abuse and distain they are treated with, without a care for what those parties do to their closely held beliefs, and without a thought for the future of their progeny.
So, let's contrast the Hispanic voting block with the two sad-sacks I just mentioned. They appear similar to both groups actually. Religious, maybe even overwhelmingly so to some. A minority with a history of abuse and disenfranchisement. No outright slavery in their past, but if you knew how hard undocumented produce workers had to labor for less than minimum wage and with no benefits, well it's hardly above slavery at that point. And yet, here we have two parties competing for their vote. They haven't thrown their hat in one ring and started the aggressively self-enforced indoctrination of their children and peers toward one party, punishing those who dare to be different with ostracism, vituperation, and even violence. Hell no man! They are doin it right, esse! They have both parties eating out of their hand, offering them everything they want. I mean really, our first black president decided to (ostensibly) violate the fr
As punishment, lets leave all the "Warp Deniers" on Earth when we travel to Alpha Centauri.
I think you give humans too much credit in your last sentence. Careless, absolute knowledge claims are the default position of the human brain. Fortunately we have developed the scientific method and it works moderately well at counterbalancing that natural human predisposition.
It works like this:
American politicians have worked for decades to decode the U.S. voter and their habits. They spend millions of dollars annually on "focus groups" and "mock votes" in order to successfully determine the most advantageous avenues to manipulate the electorate into supporting them in their efforts to remove rights from the electorate, disenfranchise the electorate, and more firmly establish the elected as a modern day aristocracy in spite of US law and constitutional impetus. Look up "wedge issue" to see how the party leadership will use specific issues to fracture a voting block and turn them against each other. Watch how each party incites their proscribed demographic to feel threatened by others. Note how politicians play at fighting the other party, but vote as a whole when presented with an opportunity to curtail, circumvent, or remove rights guaranteed to the people by the constitution and/or bill of rights. And pay special attention to the media mouthpieces when they call out their leaders on their faults. It provides a voice for people's recognition of total incongruity on the part of their leaders, but by voicing it the supporters' ire is assuaged and they go merrily and sheepishly back to fighting the opposition and completely forget to hold their leaders accountable.
In America there are two political parties. They are not liberal and conservative. They are not Republican and Democrat. They are simply the elected and the electorate. Anyone who forgets this or fails to see it, at any time, is a pawn, a sheep...and therefore untrustworthy, compromised. They are exactly equal to those religious people that atheists and sceptics so vociferously condemn. They have lost control of their intellect and sacrificed their freedom and judgement in pursuit of an empty purse. They cannot be trusted even with their own self interest, much less the advancement of society as a whole.
So, welcome to America, where Rome is burning and all anyone does is comment on how good it looks in HD. Stay away if you value your sanity, your freedom, and your connection to humanity.
Yes, being white has huge advantages.
First, you can become as educated as you want without facing racial slurs and attacks from people of your own color.
You can speak in regular English without facing the same ridicule as above.
You can react to other races with courtesy and respect, again without the above negative consequences.
You have the freedom to not violently attack old people, children, anyone caught alone, and females without being thought of by your peers as weak and deserving of physical attack yourself.
You have the freedom of a wide selection of role models from a young age, many of whom are not in any way involved in criminal activity, misogyny, and/or drug use; and who are not advocating for these things.
You have the freedom of selecting a political party without reprisals from your contemporaries. And you have the added benefit of the respect of both political parties. This is mainly due to the fact that you haven't idiotically ignored institutionalized abuse by the party you overwhelmingly vote for, while actively alienating the other party, which has resulted in almost complete political sterilization for your entire racial group.
Yes, you are 100% right when you say that being white is a big benefit. However, the greatest portion of that benefit comes not from being white, but from not being black.
Have any of you even considered that our government is releasing this information now, at this specific time, for a specific reason? I hear a bunch of people talking about how terrible this is/was. What I think is really brutal is a government that willfully decided to perform all of these actions, with the consent and support of relevant members of both political parties, and now uses the "revelation" of these practices as a political tool designed to manipulate the public.
Our politicians didn't give one weak fuck for how this would make our country look to the rest of the world, how this would make people feel at home and abroad, or what people might do in reaction and retaliation for this behavior or the revelation thereof. They simply used it as they would any other thing within their control, to establish greater control over the electorate, and to stamp out any coalition of the people that might challenge the way they want the American pie divided.
So for those of you who are blaming Republicans, or Democrats, or the military, or whoever else....go fuck yourselves. You are the tools of a system of government that doesn't care one whit for any of you and who uses and misleads you intentionally. By your mental attitudes and voiced opinions you attack, condemn, and destroy the only source of redress for government actions like these, namely cooperation and coalition of the people. Specific leaders from both political parties are responsible for this insane miscarriage of justice, and now they are using their monstrous actions to brutalize the American public. They will not bear the brunt of the reprisals for this, we will. When someone is taken hostage and murdered in retaliation, it wont be someone who ordered this, it will be a journalist, or a businessman, but not a politician who was actually involved. And in spite of these facts, played out in ever repeating fashion, there in the midst of this are the imbeciles, shaking their pom-poms for their favorite political party, pointing fingers at others. In all of their glorious idiocy, they are defending the politicians that commanded these hideous acts and attacking people that had nothing to do with them.
I'm really almost done. Don't know how much longer I can stand living in a country peopled by arrogant idiots that will continue to support a government that uses (among other things) torture as a weapon against their enemies as well as their citizens.