I doubt that Facebook will complain too much about the reams of additional lifetime data garnered during developmental years. Plus, when Facebook identifies these accounts they can really dig in the hooks with content experiments that teenagers and adults are more resilient to.
How incredible that we allow a company with the singular purpose of decoding, mastering, and controlling the human stimulus-response system unfettered access to our children. Nothing could ever go wrong, could it?
Cultural differences between males and females result in different expressions externally. What occurs under the surface is more similar than you might think. Boasting is the only valid expression available to a male of a certain age who is assaulted by an older woman. Also, social expectation is that unaccompanied heterosexual males will welcome and respond to all sexual invitations from attractive females. Women have their bases covered, even if the age difference is drastic. See "MILF," "GILF," and "Cougar" for the relevant details.
So, boasting may not actually be boasting. It could be a cry for help, translated through the cultural matrix of what is available to young heterosexual males.
Until someone is able to negotiate and establish the boundaries of consent before sexual congress occurs, and is enthusiastic in maintaining those boundaries for all partners, they are mentally and socially unprepared for sex. I think 18 represents an age where a young person is both able to endure the devastating effects of a poorly informed and structured sexual life, and also is able to sign contracts for loans and take financial responsibility for a child if one were to occur. Not that either of these outcomes are optimal, it's just the most convenient age to put the responsibility and consequences strictly on the individual. Before that it is the parent's responsibility. Sadly many children do not achieve sexual escape velocity by that age and repeat the same mistakes, or interrelated aftereffects of their parent's mistakes, until they either learn better (negative reinforcement) or transform themselves.
You cannot maintain a child's innocence though ignorance. Teach the basics, like consent discussion, as early as possible. Of course this means you need to be speaking to someone with near encyclopedic knowledge of sexual anatomy, practices, and sexual health. These are the precursors to the basics of sex education. If your child does not know all about these things from you, backed up by authoritative and 100% factual knowledge, and they are of the age where this is relevant to their experience of life, you are failing your child as their parent and opening the door for them to experience abuse.
In short, if you are not having frank, open, structured, and cogent discussions about human sexuality with your children you are failing them. You will be the reason they get an STD, get raped, or cause a pregnancy. You will be the reason they are confused, shamed, and conflicted. You will be the reason they cannot express themselves sexually, why they are passive and submissive rather than self assured (being passive and submissive AND self assured is a very different thing), and you will open them up to manipulation and subversion.
Be advised, due to many social influences your child will receive a full sex education by the age of 7-9 years old, whether you want them to or not. If you do not provide the proper information, someone else will provide improper information. First in last out rules apply, so be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time correcting assumptions based on incorrect information that gets there first. Delay is your enemy. Your conflicted thoughts are also dangerous. Your squeamishness and inability to act and deal with the reality of your child's sexual health can have lifelong consequences that are not only physical but emotional and psychological as well.
For your child's sake, and for the sake of the rest of us who have to live in a world with your child, do your goddamned job as a parent. Thanks!/rant
"Later they restored a bowlderized version which replaced the offensive subservient black english of "I's been `specting you missus poppins" with "i have been anticipating your arrival Miss Mary Poppins"."
What do you call this? Reverse cultural appropriation? Cultural whitewashing?
Seems pretty racist to completely remove the cultural signature of a minority racial group from a work of literature.
That aside, the recursive aspect of a book about censorship being censored is ironically humorous to me.
Motherboard is full of shit. A brief study of complex systems and emergence will convince most people of what many already know. Namely, that the universe we can observe is anything but deterministic. This is perspicuous and observable at the macro level, without even having to appeal to the mystical incantations of the quantum level.
Looks more like a hype article based on false assumptions and completely eviscerated of any possible relevance by a combination of click-hunting and grant-hunting word sieves.
"Instead of hiring time diversity efforts, why aren't we studying why women overwhelmingly choose careers in other industries to create conscientious changes at Google which will attract and keep women? We are obviously doing it wrong, otherwise we would have more women here. How can we change to make this a better place for women to work?"
This is pretty much what Damore asked with his memo, and he was burned for it; called a sexist, you name it. Now Lee is saying in her lawsuit that the culture at Google is so male-centric that she fells like what Google considers "normal" behavior is actively hostile to women.
Looks like the whole company is on the same page to me. I am curious what you think Damore's criticism of Google's "hiring time only" approach to diversity was intended to lead to? Did you think that Damore was wanting Google to fire all of the women and minorities? See, that is exactly the opposite of what Damore was trying to accomplish. His objective was to create a change in the company which would lead to an "organic" transfer of diverse talent to Google, and which would be sustainable in the long run because it was based on recognition of other industries that attract and keep women, and that women overwhelmingly choose to educate themselves in preparation for. Apparently those ideas are sexist, reprehensible, and good for a firing as well as a public humiliation.
Hilarious that Damore asked "What do women want?" and the response from feminists was "Your head."
Are you daft?!?! I would point to Lee's experience at Google, and the resulting lawsuit, as exact proof of Damore's conjecture.
If one is capable of reading Damore's criticism of Google (without intentionally trying to get offended) there is only one way to interpret what he says: As a result of decades of male domination, the work environment at Google is inhospitable to the psyche of culturally normal, neurotypical women.
If you can't see how Damore pointed to what some would call "the pervasive effects of institutionalized Patriarchy" you are looking way too hard for something that isn't in what he wrote. He suggested Google needed to do more to change the culture and environment of Google to harmonize with the kind of work environment and culture that women enjoy working in.
His criticism was not towards women, but at the methods used to create "diversity" at Google. He said Google wasn't doing enough to make women want to work there. Now we see a talented and intelligent woman saying the "bro-culture" at google is inhospitable to women. Looks like exactly what Damore was saying to me.
I'm not surprised if you don't get how the two are related. When women's groups and feminists came down on Damore instead of Google I was baffled. I saw an employee saying, "Conditions at this company are, by design or accident, repulsive to talented women who can do the work. Given a free choice without coercion or incentivization, they will go elsewhere to work. Google needs to address the deeper issues of why their corporate identity and culture repels women. If we make our workplace culture more amenable to women they will choose to work here." Then I saw women's rights groups (and many others) saying, "Damore is a sexist pig who hates women." and "Damore says women are too stupid to be softeware engineers." I am still baffled that women's groups would support institutional sexism and so thoroughly trash someone who asked Google to update and positively change their androcentric work environment.
So while I am still baffled, the surprise is gone. Having seen so many feminists demand Google resist any changes to the patriarchy inherent in their culture, and then beg for Google and everyone else to burn at the stake someone who was championing their cause, my surpise-o-meter is permanently borked. Pretty simple though, in retrospect. If you are really just angry at men for being men, sexism is what they call that, you will choose to hurt men if given the chance, even if it means missing the single largest opportunity ever to push your agenda to the forefront of the public consciousness and bring to heel a huge male dominated corporation that scoffs at the thought of making their company more attractive to women through anything other than dangling pretty baubles in front of them at hiring time.
As with most things dealing with gender, sex, and sexuality there are more layers than what you initially perceive. "Normal" for current western society is not "normal" for other societies throughout history. Moreover, there are innumberable instances of different "normals" on this planet right now. One could assume that because we are genetically similar to our predecessors and inhabitants of places where "normal" differs from here, but are not incorporating the same sexual proclivities and gender expressions in our definition of "normal" that the definition of "normal" is not a recognition of phenotype or genotype.
Without that fundamental basis to argue "normalcy" from, and with the wide range of observable variation from history and other places, one realizes very quickly that the definitions of "normal" are a result of the cultural and socio-sexual programming of an individual society. "Normal" is nothing more than a transmission of cultural norms and standards from your kin. They are a tautology, circularly arguing for their very existence through generational hearsay. "Normal" is, if anything, a fallacy.
Once you realize that "normal" is an organic product of collective thinking you might also realize that the definition is mutable. If you are really smart and like to categorize things, compare trends, and analyze data you might realize that the true "normal" is that human sexuality and gender expression exist not on a spectrum, but more like emission spectra, each one unique and scattered about the spectrum. It always has. That is the one thing that never changes.
Even more interesting to me is the changing nature of "normal." As homosexuality has become part of "normal" there have been some interesting side effects. I watched friends struggle for decades to be accepted by society as gay men, only to turn around and ostracize any gay man from their clique who admitted having sex with a woman. I saw the same behavior from lesbians who admitted sleeping with men. And I have seen both bisexuals and transsexuals ostracized by certain members of the gay community. I would have thought that people who fought so hard for acceptance for so long would certainly understand the terrible repercussions that follow from ostracism and torment of our fellow humans. Apparently this was not the case, and in some ways is still not the case.
If this behavior looks familiar to you you might be starting to get what I got. For those who presuppose "normal" it is two part. "Normal" encompasses acceptance by society on one hand, and scapegoating and oppression on the other. Once you are "normal" your admittance is predicated on keeping everyone else out, and rooting out and exposing those who are traitors and phonies.
Unfortunately, since human sexuality is not always a continuous function within each individual, you get people who are culturally forced into suppressing or hiding their true sexual and gender expression. Instead, they restrict themselves to expressing the mainstream flavors of "normal" sexuality and gender identity or they risk ostracism. Fortunately our cultural "normal" now encompasses more flavors than previous generations, and the repercussions of true self expression are generally less than they were.
Now, referring back to your position on the term "cisgender," I would put it in the same category as the words "straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, Asian..." It is merely an artificial construct designed to represent boundaries between normal and not-normal. They are the back of the hand of "normalcy," used for the enforcement side of those that presuppose the existence of "normal."
You may not see it as such, but from my perspective it's just more of the same thing that you humans do to each other. You require sacrifice from those that want to be seen as "normal." One must give up the parts of themselves that others might find objectionable in order to belong. Sadly, the result of joining is the further enforcement of separation, otherwise you face t
You asked a question on a website that was originally a safe space for Linux developers. What you just received was the normal level of assistance this guy is used to providing for people with questions.
ie.: He just told you "GO RTFM NOOB!!!" even though he knows there isn't one to read.
I do not believe you are correct about all self proclaimed Social Justice Warriors. I have encountered many of them who have simply decided that anything white and male is the enemy. White females are (sometimes) tolerated. That is not justice, nor is it sane. It is merely racist.
One example that really perplexed me: I tried to express to someone the virtues of restorative justice, and how the ideals underpinning them, when faithfully executed, are a balm for the victims as well as a path to redemption and positive change for the perpetrator. The response from a self proclaimed SJW biracial female was "How dare you, a white male, speak about this! You don't get to talk."
This person, who prides themselves on their connection to justice, couldn't see past my skin color and sex to hear the message I was delivering. The takeaway was that anyone who says they are after "social justice" is more likely using those words to hide their base motivations, and given enough rope, will hang themselves with their own hatred and bigotry. This conjecture has proven itself correct over and over, both online and in person. It is exceptionally rare that anyone who espouses "Social Justice" is not overtly biased, motivated by vengeance for imagined slights, and more concerned with punishing groups of people they don't like than treating everyone equally and fairly.
YMMV, and hopefully it does. I would gladly join a group of people trying to create a colorblind and genderblind society based on the concept of universal acceptance of all humans exactly as they are. Unfortunately, the social justice movement is anything but that.
Since America is not a Christian nation I wonder what country Mr. Colbert is referring to. Just where the hell he was when he originally stated this? Is the Congo a Christian nation? Was he there when he said this? If so that quote might make finally make some damn sense.
If not, we are back at square one: You and Colbert both having no understanding of the US government, Christians, and of the Bible.
Who are you to judge their cultural standards? You aren't Congolese so how dare you comment anyways. SO racist!
Personally I'm just glad the overwhelming threat of "cultural appropriation" accusations from China and the Congo keeps the US from employing children in mines. Do you have any idea how expensive medical coverage is for a 7 year old working in a mine? I have three children. Talk about cutting into my Starbucks budget! Ugh!/sarcasm
Think of atomic clocks as time machines that transport observers to a very specific time in the present. This one is more powerful, so it is better at transporting the observer to the present than previous versions.
When you have a "race consciousness" movement that requires participants to espouse multiculturalism as the highest form of societal arrangement while simultaneously requiring them to eschew the tenets of multiculturalism when considering people with white skin, then yes, fault lines will be created. It is inevitable, predictable, and appears to be ominously intentional.
Trump polled lower due to reticence in vocalizing support for Trump. Why the reticence? If you have to ask you don't know anything about America and aren't honest with yourself. One news outlet got it right though, and predicted the Trump win after they realized that many people who were going to vote for Trump were purposely obfuscating their choice when asked.
After getting that part totally wrong you just kinda look like a blindfolded skier trying to downhill in an avalanche: lots of unintelligible grunts and squeaks, punctuated with "I meant to do that!"
This whole fake news "problem" boils down to one thing:
Politicians, news outlets, and technology companies are pissed that someone else is doing a better job of lying to the American electorate than they are.
Slashdot Mirror
He thinks any smart or witty comments must be made by Russians, because, well...have you met Americans?
He sure has. He is one, so he knows first hand.
I doubt that Facebook will complain too much about the reams of additional lifetime data garnered during developmental years. Plus, when Facebook identifies these accounts they can really dig in the hooks with content experiments that teenagers and adults are more resilient to.
How incredible that we allow a company with the singular purpose of decoding, mastering, and controlling the human stimulus-response system unfettered access to our children. Nothing could ever go wrong, could it?
When the affair became public it, apparently, triggered a "morality clause" in his contract and he was fired.
Bwahahahahah! A journalist with a "morality clause" in their contract! OMFG I'm dying!
Speaking of Chris Hansen, shouldn't law enforcement solicit young children for naked photos on Facebook, and when they provide them, put them in jail?
It seems only fair. Clean up the supply side and demand will follow. Right?
Cultural differences between males and females result in different expressions externally. What occurs under the surface is more similar than you might think. Boasting is the only valid expression available to a male of a certain age who is assaulted by an older woman. Also, social expectation is that unaccompanied heterosexual males will welcome and respond to all sexual invitations from attractive females. Women have their bases covered, even if the age difference is drastic. See "MILF," "GILF," and "Cougar" for the relevant details.
So, boasting may not actually be boasting. It could be a cry for help, translated through the cultural matrix of what is available to young heterosexual males.
Incoming rant:
Until someone is able to negotiate and establish the boundaries of consent before sexual congress occurs, and is enthusiastic in maintaining those boundaries for all partners, they are mentally and socially unprepared for sex. I think 18 represents an age where a young person is both able to endure the devastating effects of a poorly informed and structured sexual life, and also is able to sign contracts for loans and take financial responsibility for a child if one were to occur. Not that either of these outcomes are optimal, it's just the most convenient age to put the responsibility and consequences strictly on the individual. Before that it is the parent's responsibility. Sadly many children do not achieve sexual escape velocity by that age and repeat the same mistakes, or interrelated aftereffects of their parent's mistakes, until they either learn better (negative reinforcement) or transform themselves.
You cannot maintain a child's innocence though ignorance. Teach the basics, like consent discussion, as early as possible. Of course this means you need to be speaking to someone with near encyclopedic knowledge of sexual anatomy, practices, and sexual health. These are the precursors to the basics of sex education. If your child does not know all about these things from you, backed up by authoritative and 100% factual knowledge, and they are of the age where this is relevant to their experience of life, you are failing your child as their parent and opening the door for them to experience abuse.
In short, if you are not having frank, open, structured, and cogent discussions about human sexuality with your children you are failing them. You will be the reason they get an STD, get raped, or cause a pregnancy. You will be the reason they are confused, shamed, and conflicted. You will be the reason they cannot express themselves sexually, why they are passive and submissive rather than self assured (being passive and submissive AND self assured is a very different thing), and you will open them up to manipulation and subversion.
Be advised, due to many social influences your child will receive a full sex education by the age of 7-9 years old, whether you want them to or not. If you do not provide the proper information, someone else will provide improper information. First in last out rules apply, so be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time correcting assumptions based on incorrect information that gets there first. Delay is your enemy. Your conflicted thoughts are also dangerous. Your squeamishness and inability to act and deal with the reality of your child's sexual health can have lifelong consequences that are not only physical but emotional and psychological as well.
For your child's sake, and for the sake of the rest of us who have to live in a world with your child, do your goddamned job as a parent. Thanks! /rant
You don't get it. *SEX* is wrong. It's a dirty, nasty, hideous thing that must be eradicated from the earth before it kills us all. /puritan
"Later they restored a bowlderized version which replaced the offensive subservient black english of "I's been `specting you missus poppins" with "i have been anticipating your arrival Miss Mary Poppins"."
What do you call this? Reverse cultural appropriation? Cultural whitewashing?
Seems pretty racist to completely remove the cultural signature of a minority racial group from a work of literature.
That aside, the recursive aspect of a book about censorship being censored is ironically humorous to me.
Motherboard is full of shit. A brief study of complex systems and emergence will convince most people of what many already know. Namely, that the universe we can observe is anything but deterministic. This is perspicuous and observable at the macro level, without even having to appeal to the mystical incantations of the quantum level.
Looks more like a hype article based on false assumptions and completely eviscerated of any possible relevance by a combination of click-hunting and grant-hunting word sieves.
"Instead of hiring time diversity efforts, why aren't we studying why women overwhelmingly choose careers in other industries to create conscientious changes at Google which will attract and keep women? We are obviously doing it wrong, otherwise we would have more women here. How can we change to make this a better place for women to work?"
This is pretty much what Damore asked with his memo, and he was burned for it; called a sexist, you name it. Now Lee is saying in her lawsuit that the culture at Google is so male-centric that she fells like what Google considers "normal" behavior is actively hostile to women.
Looks like the whole company is on the same page to me. I am curious what you think Damore's criticism of Google's "hiring time only" approach to diversity was intended to lead to? Did you think that Damore was wanting Google to fire all of the women and minorities? See, that is exactly the opposite of what Damore was trying to accomplish. His objective was to create a change in the company which would lead to an "organic" transfer of diverse talent to Google, and which would be sustainable in the long run because it was based on recognition of other industries that attract and keep women, and that women overwhelmingly choose to educate themselves in preparation for. Apparently those ideas are sexist, reprehensible, and good for a firing as well as a public humiliation.
Hilarious that Damore asked "What do women want?" and the response from feminists was "Your head."
Are you daft?!?! I would point to Lee's experience at Google, and the resulting lawsuit, as exact proof of Damore's conjecture.
If one is capable of reading Damore's criticism of Google (without intentionally trying to get offended) there is only one way to interpret what he says:
As a result of decades of male domination, the work environment at Google is inhospitable to the psyche of culturally normal, neurotypical women.
If you can't see how Damore pointed to what some would call "the pervasive effects of institutionalized Patriarchy" you are looking way too hard for something that isn't in what he wrote. He suggested Google needed to do more to change the culture and environment of Google to harmonize with the kind of work environment and culture that women enjoy working in.
His criticism was not towards women, but at the methods used to create "diversity" at Google. He said Google wasn't doing enough to make women want to work there. Now we see a talented and intelligent woman saying the "bro-culture" at google is inhospitable to women. Looks like exactly what Damore was saying to me.
I'm not surprised if you don't get how the two are related. When women's groups and feminists came down on Damore instead of Google I was baffled. I saw an employee saying, "Conditions at this company are, by design or accident, repulsive to talented women who can do the work. Given a free choice without coercion or incentivization, they will go elsewhere to work. Google needs to address the deeper issues of why their corporate identity and culture repels women. If we make our workplace culture more amenable to women they will choose to work here." Then I saw women's rights groups (and many others) saying, "Damore is a sexist pig who hates women." and "Damore says women are too stupid to be softeware engineers." I am still baffled that women's groups would support institutional sexism and so thoroughly trash someone who asked Google to update and positively change their androcentric work environment.
So while I am still baffled, the surprise is gone. Having seen so many feminists demand Google resist any changes to the patriarchy inherent in their culture, and then beg for Google and everyone else to burn at the stake someone who was championing their cause, my surpise-o-meter is permanently borked. Pretty simple though, in retrospect. If you are really just angry at men for being men, sexism is what they call that, you will choose to hurt men if given the chance, even if it means missing the single largest opportunity ever to push your agenda to the forefront of the public consciousness and bring to heel a huge male dominated corporation that scoffs at the thought of making their company more attractive to women through anything other than dangling pretty baubles in front of them at hiring time.
My computations are different. My main concern is the rate of melting, and how to accelerate it to be complete within my active lifetime.
You see, I want to know what's under all those miles of ice, and I am willing to drown every single one of you to find out.
As with most things dealing with gender, sex, and sexuality there are more layers than what you initially perceive. "Normal" for current western society is not "normal" for other societies throughout history. Moreover, there are innumberable instances of different "normals" on this planet right now. One could assume that because we are genetically similar to our predecessors and inhabitants of places where "normal" differs from here, but are not incorporating the same sexual proclivities and gender expressions in our definition of "normal" that the definition of "normal" is not a recognition of phenotype or genotype.
Without that fundamental basis to argue "normalcy" from, and with the wide range of observable variation from history and other places, one realizes very quickly that the definitions of "normal" are a result of the cultural and socio-sexual programming of an individual society. "Normal" is nothing more than a transmission of cultural norms and standards from your kin. They are a tautology, circularly arguing for their very existence through generational hearsay. "Normal" is, if anything, a fallacy.
Once you realize that "normal" is an organic product of collective thinking you might also realize that the definition is mutable. If you are really smart and like to categorize things, compare trends, and analyze data you might realize that the true "normal" is that human sexuality and gender expression exist not on a spectrum, but more like emission spectra, each one unique and scattered about the spectrum. It always has. That is the one thing that never changes.
Even more interesting to me is the changing nature of "normal." As homosexuality has become part of "normal" there have been some interesting side effects. I watched friends struggle for decades to be accepted by society as gay men, only to turn around and ostracize any gay man from their clique who admitted having sex with a woman. I saw the same behavior from lesbians who admitted sleeping with men. And I have seen both bisexuals and transsexuals ostracized by certain members of the gay community. I would have thought that people who fought so hard for acceptance for so long would certainly understand the terrible repercussions that follow from ostracism and torment of our fellow humans. Apparently this was not the case, and in some ways is still not the case.
If this behavior looks familiar to you you might be starting to get what I got. For those who presuppose "normal" it is two part. "Normal" encompasses acceptance by society on one hand, and scapegoating and oppression on the other. Once you are "normal" your admittance is predicated on keeping everyone else out, and rooting out and exposing those who are traitors and phonies.
Unfortunately, since human sexuality is not always a continuous function within each individual, you get people who are culturally forced into suppressing or hiding their true sexual and gender expression. Instead, they restrict themselves to expressing the mainstream flavors of "normal" sexuality and gender identity or they risk ostracism. Fortunately our cultural "normal" now encompasses more flavors than previous generations, and the repercussions of true self expression are generally less than they were.
Now, referring back to your position on the term "cisgender," I would put it in the same category as the words "straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, Asian..." It is merely an artificial construct designed to represent boundaries between normal and not-normal. They are the back of the hand of "normalcy," used for the enforcement side of those that presuppose the existence of "normal."
You may not see it as such, but from my perspective it's just more of the same thing that you humans do to each other. You require sacrifice from those that want to be seen as "normal." One must give up the parts of themselves that others might find objectionable in order to belong. Sadly, the result of joining is the further enforcement of separation, otherwise you face t
You asked a question on a website that was originally a safe space for Linux developers. What you just received was the normal level of assistance this guy is used to providing for people with questions.
ie.: He just told you "GO RTFM NOOB!!!" even though he knows there isn't one to read.
I do not believe you are correct about all self proclaimed Social Justice Warriors. I have encountered many of them who have simply decided that anything white and male is the enemy. White females are (sometimes) tolerated. That is not justice, nor is it sane. It is merely racist.
One example that really perplexed me: I tried to express to someone the virtues of restorative justice, and how the ideals underpinning them, when faithfully executed, are a balm for the victims as well as a path to redemption and positive change for the perpetrator. The response from a self proclaimed SJW biracial female was "How dare you, a white male, speak about this! You don't get to talk."
This person, who prides themselves on their connection to justice, couldn't see past my skin color and sex to hear the message I was delivering. The takeaway was that anyone who says they are after "social justice" is more likely using those words to hide their base motivations, and given enough rope, will hang themselves with their own hatred and bigotry. This conjecture has proven itself correct over and over, both online and in person. It is exceptionally rare that anyone who espouses "Social Justice" is not overtly biased, motivated by vengeance for imagined slights, and more concerned with punishing groups of people they don't like than treating everyone equally and fairly.
YMMV, and hopefully it does. I would gladly join a group of people trying to create a colorblind and genderblind society based on the concept of universal acceptance of all humans exactly as they are. Unfortunately, the social justice movement is anything but that.
Since America is not a Christian nation I wonder what country Mr. Colbert is referring to. Just where the hell he was when he originally stated this? Is the Congo a Christian nation? Was he there when he said this? If so that quote might make finally make some damn sense.
If not, we are back at square one: You and Colbert both having no understanding of the US government, Christians, and of the Bible.
Who are you to judge their cultural standards? You aren't Congolese so how dare you comment anyways. SO racist!
Personally I'm just glad the overwhelming threat of "cultural appropriation" accusations from China and the Congo keeps the US from employing children in mines. Do you have any idea how expensive medical coverage is for a 7 year old working in a mine? I have three children. Talk about cutting into my Starbucks budget! Ugh! /sarcasm
I see your brainwashing is complete. Go forth and ignore all factual information forevermore.
Think of atomic clocks as time machines that transport observers to a very specific time in the present. This one is more powerful, so it is better at transporting the observer to the present than previous versions.
When you have a "race consciousness" movement that requires participants to espouse multiculturalism as the highest form of societal arrangement while simultaneously requiring them to eschew the tenets of multiculturalism when considering people with white skin, then yes, fault lines will be created. It is inevitable, predictable, and appears to be ominously intentional.
Jesus. Children.
Judging by their propensity to join radicalized groups at a greater rate than other professions, it is maybe engineers who need ethics the most.
As for business majors, we both know that ethics is wasted on narcissists and people with borderline personality disorder. Wouldn't help.
Trump polled lower due to reticence in vocalizing support for Trump. Why the reticence? If you have to ask you don't know anything about America and aren't honest with yourself. One news outlet got it right though, and predicted the Trump win after they realized that many people who were going to vote for Trump were purposely obfuscating their choice when asked.
After getting that part totally wrong you just kinda look like a blindfolded skier trying to downhill in an avalanche: lots of unintelligible grunts and squeaks, punctuated with "I meant to do that!"
This whole fake news "problem" boils down to one thing:
Politicians, news outlets, and technology companies are pissed that someone else is doing a better job of lying to the American electorate than they are.
UFC in the ISS. It's the only logical path.