that's the problem. that ambiguity is itself coded signaling.
If you're asked certain questions, there is only one legitimate response, unless you're a psychopath who threatens us all.
Consider Bender, from the Futurama, being asked "Do you think we should kill all humans?"
A weasel who wants to leave the door open would hem and haw.
But the only legitimate answer should be "No, of course not. That's not right."
But Trump was given several of these questions where he did hem and haw,
"Do you disavow the support for your campaign of the KKK and David Duke?" -- "I never heard of them" "Do you want to ban Muslims?" -- "Maybe Yes I don't know. It's something we should loot at." "Do you think there should be a registry of Muslims?" -- Maybe Yes I don't know. It's something we should loot at."
That hemming and hawing can, and I argue should, be taken as a signal to people who actually do support those things. Because any actually decent person would oppose those things, and not be hesitant to say so.
But by not actually saying it outright, by being ambiguous, he also leaves the door open for those who would not support him if he did come right out and advocate those positions to still support him, and to rationalize it away by saying "well he didn't actually say it. he didn't actually advocate for it". Thus he, Trump, gets the best of both worlds, and gets the support of both groups.
No, the real racists are the ones who pretend racism doesn't exist, or that racism is exclusively the "crazy uncle saying bad things". Real racism is often hidden inside structural or institutional systems, out of sight yet present. the crazy uncle is only the most visible form, and most easily combatted.
structural racism is far more insidious. and its the kind you're engaging in right now.
In fact, because words matter, lets get some definitions out there so that there is a basis for common communication. the best definition of racism is "racial bias combined with power".
the crazy uncle usually doesn't have much power, and may be better described as a bigot rather than a racist these days (though say being white in the jim crow south was itself a form of empowerment).
but under this definition structural racism becomes easy to see, especially in our increasingly data driven world.
the big granddaddy of them all would be the enormous economic growth of wealth from 400 years of unpaid slave labor whose ramifications are still felt today, being even less likely to experience economic mobility, or be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and when they do having to pull themselves up harder and farther.
but there are others well, such as law enforcement (no more likely to commit a crime, but far more likely to be arrested convicted and jailed, far less likely to be let off with a warning or light sentence), environment (far more likely to live near a source of pollution or have substandard drinking water), or education (far more likely to have underfunded, overcrowded, and substandard schools).
I notice that your person A,B C model keeps evolving. I think if that goes on long enough, you eventually create a realistic model actual human interaction, and at that point either realize who colossally stupid you've been as it disproves your very foundation, or abandon it entirely because you refuse to accept that you truly are ignorant.
again proving that libertarians are ignorant of history.
Those things have been done privately forever
No they weren't. Which you'd know if you actually knew history.
As to whether governments would be formed, history shows us that yes, governments always form, however that history was also based around the technologies that are at this point outdated. Today an individual is capable of moving across the boarders in hours, moving money in seconds, working, living, shopping, resting, paying taxes in all different countries
All enabled by things brought about by government investment. Hell, you don't even seem to understand Civic 101: Government is the People, the People are the government. Put 2 people in a room they have to share, they will come up with rules agreeable to both, and thus a rudimentary government.
Again: not sure of satire or just stupid. but leaning towards stupid.
really? so then....if one side breaches the contract, where and how do you enforce it?
Contracts have everything to do with government. Government is what makes contracts enforceable in the first place.
The alternative if you grab your gun and try to do it yourself. But then maybe a life short, brutish, and hard, red in tooth and claw, is the life you want.
A Day in the Life of Joe Antigovernment Conservative:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.
He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberal
starting with the military, right? or maybe the national weather service? maybe nasa? how about the NWS satellites watching the earth and space (oh ya, they do space weather too, so that when an incoming solar storm is detected we can prepare the electrical grid to hopefully prevent blackouts) ? or the oceanographers who mapped the ocean currents (or oceans period) to create the trade lanes that we ship goods across? what about the researchers and responders at the CDC who track prevent and fight infectious diseases? or the diplomats who smooth over Trumps frequent missteps with foreign powers?
but then those folks are all easy to spot material benefits you say.
you just mean the useless ones, right? the bureaucrats? surely those administrators and paper pushers are all useless, right?
except...
who then takes care of ensuring the military's pay is handled properly? who files the research from the CDC and disseminates it to local health officials? who makes sure the doer's get where they need to be and makes sure they have the tools they need to get the job done?
Answer: those "useless" administrators.
again: not sure if satire or stupid. but leaning towards stupid.
Yet your uber benefits from and utilizes: -public roads to drive on -public education of its engineers/software developers, and its drivers -public invented internet that allowed the connectivity in the first place -public road and car safety regulations
how many do I really need to list before hte point sinks in?
Uber would not exist at all without all those things you hate so vigorously.
Again: can't tell if satire or just stupid. But leaning towards stupid.
burying research that agreed with the research of others, but was detrimental to their bottom line, and then discrediting the similar findings of other groups for the same reason....that's the admission of guilt.
when talking about global averages, that's a fuckton.
just a couple degrees cooler and we had snowball earth, with ice sheets that extended south beyond new York city. ice sheets 2 miles or more thick. for reference, that also meant that all of Europe, except for the very southern tips of spain and Italy and turkey were covered by those ice sheets. the only continents left unscathed were Africa (incidentally the period when hominids evolved, and homo sapiens spread across the land), the Indian subcontinent, china, and Australia. South America's southern tips would have been covered too. oceans were also 400 feet below where they are today.
a couple degrees the other way, and we're back in dinosaur land, with a tropical Antarctica, and seas 200+ feet above current levels.
so yeah...its "just a couple of degrees". what does it matter?
Slashdot Mirror
that's the problem.
that ambiguity is itself coded signaling.
If you're asked certain questions, there is only one legitimate response, unless you're a psychopath who threatens us all.
Consider Bender, from the Futurama, being asked "Do you think we should kill all humans?"
A weasel who wants to leave the door open would hem and haw.
But the only legitimate answer should be "No, of course not. That's not right."
But Trump was given several of these questions where he did hem and haw,
"Do you disavow the support for your campaign of the KKK and David Duke?" -- "I never heard of them"
"Do you want to ban Muslims?" -- "Maybe Yes I don't know. It's something we should loot at."
"Do you think there should be a registry of Muslims?" -- Maybe Yes I don't know. It's something we should loot at."
That hemming and hawing can, and I argue should, be taken as a signal to people who actually do support those things.
Because any actually decent person would oppose those things, and not be hesitant to say so.
But by not actually saying it outright, by being ambiguous, he also leaves the door open for those who would not support him if he did come right out and advocate those positions to still support him, and to rationalize it away by saying "well he didn't actually say it. he didn't actually advocate for it". Thus he, Trump, gets the best of both worlds, and gets the support of both groups.
No one should read Scott Adams' writings.
They say never meet your heroes.
The same applies to their writings.
Scott Adams is a delusional twit , who found a kindred spirit in Trump, and happens to write a relatable comic strip about office life.
-5 Not insightful.
No, the real racists are the ones who pretend racism doesn't exist, or that racism is exclusively the "crazy uncle saying bad things".
Real racism is often hidden inside structural or institutional systems, out of sight yet present.
the crazy uncle is only the most visible form, and most easily combatted.
structural racism is far more insidious.
and its the kind you're engaging in right now.
In fact, because words matter, lets get some definitions out there so that there is a basis for common communication.
the best definition of racism is "racial bias combined with power".
the crazy uncle usually doesn't have much power, and may be better described as a bigot rather than a racist these days (though say being white in the jim crow south was itself a form of empowerment).
but under this definition structural racism becomes easy to see, especially in our increasingly data driven world.
the big granddaddy of them all would be the enormous economic growth of wealth from 400 years of unpaid slave labor whose ramifications are still felt today, being even less likely to experience economic mobility, or be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and when they do having to pull themselves up harder and farther.
but there are others well, such as law enforcement (no more likely to commit a crime, but far more likely to be arrested convicted and jailed, far less likely to be let off with a warning or light sentence), environment (far more likely to live near a source of pollution or have substandard drinking water), or education (far more likely to have underfunded, overcrowded, and substandard schools).
except for the fact the claims were rooted in racism and spread by racists.
a statement doesn't have to contain an explicit racial slur to be racist.
but then you've tried this line of thought before where you pretend that dog whistle racism doesn't exist.
how nice of you to ignore that both the NSA and Drone programs began under Bush.
I notice that your person A,B C model keeps evolving.
I think if that goes on long enough, you eventually create a realistic model actual human interaction, and at that point either realize who colossally stupid you've been as it disproves your very foundation, or abandon it entirely because you refuse to accept that you truly are ignorant.
again proving that libertarians are ignorant of history.
Those things have been done privately forever
No they weren't.
Which you'd know if you actually knew history.
As to whether governments would be formed, history shows us that yes, governments always form, however that history was also based around the technologies that are at this point outdated. Today an individual is capable of moving across the boarders in hours, moving money in seconds, working, living, shopping, resting, paying taxes in all different countries
All enabled by things brought about by government investment.
Hell, you don't even seem to understand Civic 101: Government is the People, the People are the government.
Put 2 people in a room they have to share, they will come up with rules agreeable to both, and thus a rudimentary government.
Again: not sure of satire or just stupid.
but leaning towards stupid.
really?
so then....if one side breaches the contract, where and how do you enforce it?
Contracts have everything to do with government.
Government is what makes contracts enforceable in the first place.
The alternative if you grab your gun and try to do it yourself.
But then maybe a life short, brutish, and hard, red in tooth and claw, is the life you want.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E...
A Day in the Life of Joe Antigovernment Conservative:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.
He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberal
you reveal your own ignorance if you actually believe that.
starting with the military, right?
or maybe the national weather service?
maybe nasa?
how about the NWS satellites watching the earth and space (oh ya, they do space weather too, so that when an incoming solar storm is detected we can prepare the electrical grid to hopefully prevent blackouts) ?
or the oceanographers who mapped the ocean currents (or oceans period) to create the trade lanes that we ship goods across?
what about the researchers and responders at the CDC who track prevent and fight infectious diseases?
or the diplomats who smooth over Trumps frequent missteps with foreign powers?
but then those folks are all easy to spot material benefits you say.
you just mean the useless ones, right?
the bureaucrats?
surely those administrators and paper pushers are all useless, right?
except...
who then takes care of ensuring the military's pay is handled properly?
who files the research from the CDC and disseminates it to local health officials?
who makes sure the doer's get where they need to be and makes sure they have the tools they need to get the job done?
Answer: those "useless" administrators.
again: not sure if satire or stupid.
but leaning towards stupid.
again proving libertarians are ignorant of history.
If you are making profit as a business, you are doing right by your customers
jfc, have you even seen the inside of an economics or business class, let alone passed one?
that statement is so ignorant it's not even wrong.
Yet your uber benefits from and utilizes:
-public roads to drive on
-public education of its engineers/software developers, and its drivers
-public invented internet that allowed the connectivity in the first place
-public road and car safety regulations
how many do I really need to list before hte point sinks in?
Uber would not exist at all without all those things you hate so vigorously.
Again: can't tell if satire or just stupid.
But leaning towards stupid.
cant tell if satire or just stupid.
leaning towards stupid.
big numbers are scary, therefore they don't exist!
and now you reject evidence simply because the numbers are too big based on....what?
your gut instinct?
or are big numbers just too hard?
in a world of 7 billion people you think there cant be that many climate scientists?
keep digging that hole deeper.
you mean this "cherry picked group of 74 people" ???
http://www.jamespowell.org/res...
methinks you don't have a clue.
doing research isn't an admission of guilt.
burying research that agreed with the research of others, but was detrimental to their bottom line, and then discrediting the similar findings of other groups for the same reason....that's the admission of guilt.
Google is hard.
There's a train a coming.
You're on the tracks.
It's a long ways off.
But you can see it.
And people are telling you to get off the tracks.
And you're stating that staying on the tracks is a reasonable decision.
You're an idiot.
The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis
Blatantly false BS.
no, you don't think.
that's the problem.
you aren't objective.
youre just stupid.
3/4 of the worlds population lives in areas where they will be displaced by rising seas.
that's 5 billion people.
where are they supposed to go?
who takes them in?
how do you avoid conflicts as a result of mass migration of such numbers of people?
so no.
you don't think.
and if you did, you wouldn't then have the gall to state that its the climate activists who are willing to sacrifice millions.
reality is not a religion.
but apparently ignorance is.
"just a couple of degrees"
when talking about global averages, that's a fuckton.
just a couple degrees cooler and we had snowball earth, with ice sheets that extended south beyond new York city.
ice sheets 2 miles or more thick.
for reference, that also meant that all of Europe , except for the very southern tips of spain and Italy and turkey were covered by those ice sheets.
the only continents left unscathed were Africa (incidentally the period when hominids evolved, and homo sapiens spread across the land), the Indian subcontinent, china, and Australia. South America's southern tips would have been covered too.
oceans were also 400 feet below where they are today.
a couple degrees the other way, and we're back in dinosaur land, with a tropical Antarctica, and seas 200+ feet above current levels.
so yeah...its "just a couple of degrees".
what does it matter?