Doubly so when it's in some way controversial, stupid or outrageous.
I think it's sad anyone finds King's statement controversial. It's both common sense and undeniably true. Name a civilization that can be restored or propagated with somebody else's babies. You can't restore the Islamic Golden Age with Christian babies. You can't spread Chinese civilization with black babies. You can't preserve African culture with Japanese babies. You can't strengthen Japanese civilization with Australian aborigine babies.
The sun rises in the east, water is wet, grass is green, western civilization needs western babies. Where's the controversy?
telling each other made up stories about the future?
This is one of the most annoying things about current "news" media. They're not telling you what happened anymore they're trying to predict (or scare you about) what might happen. CNN musing about what might happen if Horrible Evil Republican Idea #23431 is enacted is not news. Humans are terrible at predicting the future.
Keep laughing. Dems are fucked. They're an alliance between ideological leftists and minority grievance groups. If they stick with the grievance politics, they further alienate the working class, pushing them to Trump. If they tone down the identity politics and address working class economic issues, that means pandering to or at least not constantly shitting on poor white people, which will "betray" the "fuck straight white christian males" BLM/feminist crowd.
Dems can't win because the only thing holding them together is a shared hatred of everyone outside the cities. That doesn't win elections.
Happy isn't always useful, though. Echo chambers tend to make people happy, but are not useful for meaningful discussion, finding common ground with those who think differently, evaluation of new ideas, etc.
Reddit just results in echo chambers because the voting system requires a level of conscientiousness most people simply do not have. You're supposed to vote up comments that contribute to the discussion, and downvote comments that do not contribute to the discussion. Instead people upvote things that agree with them (i.e., the emergent groupthink) and downvote dissent. So for instance if someone posts on/r/AskReddit what they think about, say, illegal immigration, you would want the top comments to be the very best arguments for open borders (or against harsh enforcement of immigration laws) and the very best arguments against illegal immigration.You could actually use that to hear the best arguments from all sides and decide what makes the most sense to you! That would be useful! Instead you'll get the top comments are stupid quips about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is an evil hateful racist who irrationally despises the Mexican race and any thoughtful comment laying out the case for enforcement of immigration laws will be at -1000 karma and hidden from view. This is not useful.
Slashdot works better because 1) the karma gain or loss from a post is not extreme and 2) meta-moderation. There's no penalty for fucking up the moderation system on reddit and upvoting low-effort crap and downvoting worthwhile comments. There is on Slashdot. The meta-moderator who doesn't have a dog in your political fight is going to see you marking an insightful but controversial comment as flamebait because you disagree with it, mark it unfair, and you'll take a hit to your moderation privileges. So you think twice before you do that.
To be honest, I think the slashcode system is the only internet moderation system I've ever seen that actually works somewhat effectively.
there is legitimate reason to suspect that Russia may have influence over him.
What is the legitimate reason? "Well it sounds like something Putin would want to have" isn't a legitimate reason. Putin would want influence over Hillary Clinton, too. Is that a legitimate reason to suspect that Russia has influence over her?
We need to know that.
I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove he's not secretly mind controlled by Putin. That means it's on you to show some evidence, and when there is zero evidence, that indicates you're hallucinating.
with a vote as phony as the Austrian annexation vote in 1938
Are there no legitimate reasons Crimeans would want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine? You'll notice they're not really making any fuss over it. There are no Crimean separatist groups fighting against the evil illegitimate occupation by Russian forces. Their elected government had a coup that included neo-nazis holding marches at the tombs of anti-Russian heroes and they removed Russian (the language most Crimeans speak) from the official languages of Ukraine. Color me shocked that the ethnic Russian Crimeans don't want to be ruled by anti-Russian Ukrainian ethno-nationalists. Next comes the ethnic cleansing. And are you suggesting the Crimeans be forced back under Ukrainian rule against their will? Why?
I am aware that Russia has good hackers, that Putin would like to mess with US support for NATO, and that Putin has no scruples. From this, it's very reasonable to expect Putin to try to influence the US election, and Putin's not the type of guy to keep strict distinctions between government and non-government activity. Which of these statements do you specifically disagree with?
I don't disagree with any of those statements. What is bullshit, though, is pushing the narrative on zero evidence using only wild speculation that Trump is somehow controlled by or compromised by Putin. You're scaring the stupids and trying to undermine the legitimacy of the US government for political reasons. I absolutely agree Putin would rather have Trump in office than Hillary, because Hillary's State Department armed the moderate beheaders in Syria and on the campaign trail Hillary said she would make removing Putin's ally Assad a top priority and her support for a no-fly zone in Syria, which means possibly shooting down Russian planes. No shit Putin wants anyone other than Hillary.
Oh, and Hillary held these opinions because she was being paid by KSA and Qatar so they could get their pipeline. You want to talk about "foreign influence?" Nothing about US involvement in the Syrian civil war was in the national interest of the United States. You're making wild speculation, with no evidence with regards to Trump while ignoring the clear and obvious foreign influence over Hillary.
Trump: no evidence of foreign control. Also not taking pro-Russian actions.
Hillary: Millions of dollars in payments from KSA and Qatar. Directly funded insurrection in Syria in the interests of KSA and Qatar.
If you were rooting for Hillary and against Trump, I don't believe you really give a shit about foreign influence over US leaders.
For the sake of argument, assume the DNC was hacked and Podesta was phished by Putin himself. If libertarian-leaning, anti-interventionist Rand Paul had been the Republican nominee instead of Trump, do you think Putin would have still released the hacked/phished emails? If you think he would have, does that mean Rand Paul is also under Putin's thumb? If so, can you give me the short list of US elected officials who are not being blackmailed or bought off by Putin?
Of course he'd make this bet. It's not about solving a problem, it's about creating a very expensive dependency on his company.
It's probably also about making a big PR splash. Even if he has to bust ass to get it done, ever other municipality in the world that has inconsistent power supply problems will ask "gee, if Elon could do it in Australia, why not here?"
We need to define racism here. To me, the modern definition seems to be "acknowledging that more than superficial differences exist between different ethnic groups." That is, denying the biological equivalence of all groups of people is "racism" in 2017.
This is different than saying that people of all races are human, have human rights, are equal in the eyes of God, or should be treated equally under the law.
What made Jesus different and eventually split Christianity off is that it overruled some old Jewish teachings, including teachings on racism.
You selectively quoted me, leaving out the very next statement "except to say that God is the God of all races."
The teachings of Jesus on the matter could best be described as "non-Jews are human, too," which is hardly a call for equal rights or social standing between Jews, Greeks, Romans. And absolutely does not imply racial equivalence.
Parable of Good Samaritan. The parable is basically about not to judge or treat people by their race.
Agreed, but again, this is not a call for equality. He wasn't saying Samaritans were equally as morally upstanding as faithful Jews. If he were the story wouldn't even make any sense...there'd be nothing special about the general poor character of Samaritans to contrast with this particular Samaritan's behavior. He was saying it is by the way people act (like a good person) rather than by their kinship (a fucking Samaritan, can you believe it?!) that they will be judged. Again, common humanity, but not equivalence. If Jesus came back to Sweden today (and boy do they need Him) and told the story of "the good Somalian who found an unconscious white girl and, get this...I know, I know what you're going to say, no, he didn't rape her and throw grenades at her, he helped her instead!" I'm pretty sure He would get arrested for hate speech.The message is literally "they're not all like that, even though most totally are." This is not an egalitarian anti-racist message.
Christianity led the charge in abolition
And plenty argued slavery was justified by the bible, even "because race" (see curse of Ham).
Were many abolitionists racial egalitarians? If you were at an abolitionist meeting in 1850 and said "slavery is abominable, no man should own another!" you'd get a cheer. Follow that up with "because the Negro is equivalent to the white man, and only differs superficially via skin color!" I'm pretty sure you'd get some confused looks and/or outright rage directed back at you. These people believed the practice of slavery was immoral (or unproductive), not that the white race and black race were the same. You can be opposed to enslaving another people without believing those people are equivalent to yours.
Lincoln himself was no egalitarian, saying candidly to a group of black clergymen "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."
In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln said, "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The "Party of Lincoln" was explicitly white supremacist and Lincoln planned to ship blacks back to Africa. When it comes to racism, Donald Trump ain't got nothing on Abe.
Abolition was not about equality and certainly not equivalence.
Except that we've had some cases of Trump associates having dealings with the Russians that only showed up later under investigation. Had they had contacts, and said they'd had contacts, and said what they were about, there would have been no grounds for suspicion (assuming they told the truth and didn't overstep).
It's not like they were secret, though. They were routine, and therefore not worth mentioning, but the "investigations" involved...looking at publicly available records. This is not Deep Throat. Manafort never hid his consulting job for the pro-Russian Ukrainians, and Sessions' chats with ambassadors in his role as a senator are public record.
A friend of mine's wife would find a business card with a woman's name on it in his wallet and say that proved he was cheating. That he ran a commercial landscaping business that kept grounds at an apartment complex for which the 60 year old, 200lb woman was the property manager was irrelevant to her.
That doesn't mean we should favor Russian attack and annexation. That's behavior we want to discourage in general.
The US is not the world's policeman. No one is "favoring" Russian annexation. We're just not caring. Again, you've taken an anti-Russia stance, and are accusing anyone who isn't as anti-Russia as you are as being "pro-Russia." This is Bush (or Anakin Skywalker) tier "If you're not with me you're against me" false dichotomy.
You can sit here and hallucinate Russian spies under your bed all you want but I'm not joining your delusions. You'll notice there's basically nobody who wasn't already anti-Trump who's come around and said "gosh, I thought these Russian allegations were crap, but now after the 12th time the NY Times has cited 'anonymous sources' and twisted routine contact between the administration and Russian diplomats into sensationalist headlines I'm totally convinced!"
We've both analyzed the same data and come to different conclusions. One of us is wrong. Usually, though, the one claiming to see the dancing pink elephants is the one hallucinating, not the one who doesn't see the dancing pink elephants. That is, humans tend to hallucinate seeing things that aren't there, not hallucinate away things that really are there. The Russian conspiracy theories exist in your mind as wishful thinking, but are not real.
By the way, I'd love to hear your thoughts on allegations Obama is a secret muslim because of his time in a muslim school, his frequent praise for the Islamic faith, and friendly relations with Islamic groups like CAIR. I'm sure you're just as convinced Obama is a muslim agent as you are that Trump is a Russian agent.
Can you link me to one of the Vault 7 docs where they say they intercepted the electronic communications of Americans? So long as they're using these tools against foreigners...that's their job.
My problem is the things they're doing that aren't illegal, like holding back the discovery of exploits in commercial products made and used by Americans. But if you can point to a document, and a specific law that document proves they're breaking that would be useful.
they've also sucked up a tremendous amount of grant money and investment targeting nanotech commercialization over the last 30 years without actually commercializing any of the technologies they've worked on.
Interesting. Why do you think this is? Are the technologies simply not commercially viable? Is it government interference?
The problem with pocket universes is always laundry. You forget to take them out and then when you open the drier you've got universe smeared all over your clothes.
It's true. I called Mouser and tried to buy an atom and they didn't have any discrete components to sell me. They are only available for extremely high unit count bulk purchase.
So interpolation is "making it up" now? They interpolated it based on the tested average IQs of the nearby nations. Is this not a reasonable technique for estimating mean IQ? Why or why not?
Also, can you provide me with any evidence that the intelligence of the average Somalian (or people elsewhere in Africa) is not significantly different than that of Europeans or Asians? This seems to me to be the remarkable claim. You can observe the cultural, technological and philosophical progress of different groups of people through history and obviously conclude "these people here in the mud huts are not like these people here with the cathedrals, orchestras and airplanes." You can measure different skin tones, facial features, susceptibility to diseases, tolerance for lactose, heights, weights, and compare ethnic group A to ethnic group B and nobody bats an eye. State the completely obvious: "I don't think the people in the mud huts are as smart as the people who fly the rockets to the moon" and the left loses their damn minds.
And the response is never to conduct scientific studies of their own to prove that no such intelligence difference exists. Wouldn't this be a remarkable feat! Racism, eternally blown the fuck out! Instead they just hand wave away the actual scientists with unsubstantiated claims of bias, or by making claims that an interpolated number is "made up." I wonder why that is?
Onus is on you, friend. Prove the mud hut people aren't slightly less intelligent than the rocket ship people. In the meantime, you're betting the future of Sweden on your unproven (and remarkably unlikely) assumption that if you move Somalians into Malmo and give them Swedish education you produce tanned Swedes...rather than simply create Little Somali in Malmo. The grenade attacks, crime, and rapes seem to indicate the latter is result.
Except they didn't make it up. They interpolated it based on the tested average IQs of the nearby nations. Is this not a reasonable technique for estimating mean IQ? Why or why not?
Also, can you provide me with any evidence that the intelligence of the average Somalian (or people elsewhere in Africa) is not significantly different than that of Europeans or Asians? This seems to me to be the remarkable claim. You can observe the cultural, technological and philosophical progress of different groups of people through history and obviously conclude "these people here in the mud huts are not like these people here with the cathedrals, orchestras and airplanes." You can measure different skin tones, facial features, susceptibility to diseases, tolerance for lactose, heights, weights, and compare ethnic group A to ethnic group B and nobody bats an eye. State the completely obvious: "I don't think the people in the mud huts are as smart as the people who fly the rockets to the moon" and the left loses their damn minds.
And the response is never to conduct scientific studies of their own to prove that no such intelligence difference exists. Wouldn't this be a remarkable feat! Racism, eternally blown the fuck out! Instead they just hand wave away the actual scientists with unsubstantiated claims of bias, or by making claims that an interpolated number is "made up." I wonder why that is?
Onus is on you, friend. Prove the mud hut people aren't slightly less intelligent than the rocket ship people. In the meantime, you're betting the future of Sweden on your unproven (and remarkably unlikely) assumption that if you move Somalians into Malmo and give them Swedish education you produce tanned Swedes...rather than simply create Little Somali in Malmo. The grenade attacks, crime, and rapes seem to indicate the latter is result.
I understand. Hastings' death was suspicious as fuck. I would very much like to see evidence if in fact Hastings was assassinated by the CIA. So far I have not.
"Contacts with" is evidence of wrongdoing when the contacts are kept secret.
Except they're not. There's nothing secret about any of the contacts between the Trump administration/campaign and Russians.
"Pro-Russia" in this context means "supports the Russian armed intervention in Ukraine".
Can't you also not give a fuck? Ukraine is not our ally, not part of NATO, not part of the EU.
You are anti-Russia for...reasons I don't know. Neither I nor Trump are pro-Russia. We are Russia-neutral, but you have redefined neutrality to be support. That's your bias, not ours.
That's just the ability to do so. The military also has the ability to kill every human on the planet. It's only a problem if they're actually doing it.
The intentionally putting everyone at risk by actively avoiding closing known security flaws - and allowing them to be exploited by foreign powers - goes directly against their stated reason to exist, but is more morally and professionally reprehensible than illegal.
I agree, that is a serious problem, though not currently illegal to my knowledge. We have thousands of years of military history from which to create our philosophies of war, rules of engagement, proportional response, and the relationship between citizen and soldier. Not so with the cyber. We need to the ability to hack the enemy, but is it possible to do so while not leaving our own people defenseless?
let's ignore the purportedly criminal and corrupt activity
What did the leaks reveal (so far) that might be criminal? I agree with regards to the NSA leaks because they showed them issuing general warrants (those things that cause "times that try men's souls"), but I didn't see anything criminal in the CIA leaks.
Ah, welcome visitor from an alien world! On Earth, human females are enticed to engage in sexual activity primarily with men of high social status. This social status is frequently advertised with an outlay of "cash money." How do mating rituals work on your planet?
How can we expect equal pay in the same professions if women are STILL choosing to avoid math and technology?
The solution is simple. We must use the government to force women to be engineers and mathematicians. When women sign up for Gender Studies courses they should be told "NO! You will go do math!"
Slashdot Mirror
Doubly so when it's in some way controversial, stupid or outrageous.
I think it's sad anyone finds King's statement controversial. It's both common sense and undeniably true. Name a civilization that can be restored or propagated with somebody else's babies. You can't restore the Islamic Golden Age with Christian babies. You can't spread Chinese civilization with black babies. You can't preserve African culture with Japanese babies. You can't strengthen Japanese civilization with Australian aborigine babies.
The sun rises in the east, water is wet, grass is green, western civilization needs western babies. Where's the controversy?
telling each other made up stories about the future?
This is one of the most annoying things about current "news" media. They're not telling you what happened anymore they're trying to predict (or scare you about) what might happen. CNN musing about what might happen if Horrible Evil Republican Idea #23431 is enacted is not news. Humans are terrible at predicting the future.
Keep laughing. Dems are fucked. They're an alliance between ideological leftists and minority grievance groups. If they stick with the grievance politics, they further alienate the working class, pushing them to Trump. If they tone down the identity politics and address working class economic issues, that means pandering to or at least not constantly shitting on poor white people, which will "betray" the "fuck straight white christian males" BLM/feminist crowd.
Dems can't win because the only thing holding them together is a shared hatred of everyone outside the cities. That doesn't win elections.
Whatever makes people happy
Happy isn't always useful, though. Echo chambers tend to make people happy, but are not useful for meaningful discussion, finding common ground with those who think differently, evaluation of new ideas, etc.
Reddit just results in echo chambers because the voting system requires a level of conscientiousness most people simply do not have. You're supposed to vote up comments that contribute to the discussion, and downvote comments that do not contribute to the discussion. Instead people upvote things that agree with them (i.e., the emergent groupthink) and downvote dissent. So for instance if someone posts on /r/AskReddit what they think about, say, illegal immigration, you would want the top comments to be the very best arguments for open borders (or against harsh enforcement of immigration laws) and the very best arguments against illegal immigration.You could actually use that to hear the best arguments from all sides and decide what makes the most sense to you! That would be useful! Instead you'll get the top comments are stupid quips about how anyone who doesn't want open borders is an evil hateful racist who irrationally despises the Mexican race and any thoughtful comment laying out the case for enforcement of immigration laws will be at -1000 karma and hidden from view. This is not useful.
Slashdot works better because 1) the karma gain or loss from a post is not extreme and 2) meta-moderation. There's no penalty for fucking up the moderation system on reddit and upvoting low-effort crap and downvoting worthwhile comments. There is on Slashdot. The meta-moderator who doesn't have a dog in your political fight is going to see you marking an insightful but controversial comment as flamebait because you disagree with it, mark it unfair, and you'll take a hit to your moderation privileges. So you think twice before you do that.
To be honest, I think the slashcode system is the only internet moderation system I've ever seen that actually works somewhat effectively.
Also I missed church this morning, and evening Mass never feels the same. Ditch DST.
there is legitimate reason to suspect that Russia may have influence over him.
What is the legitimate reason? "Well it sounds like something Putin would want to have" isn't a legitimate reason. Putin would want influence over Hillary Clinton, too. Is that a legitimate reason to suspect that Russia has influence over her?
We need to know that.
I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove he's not secretly mind controlled by Putin. That means it's on you to show some evidence, and when there is zero evidence, that indicates you're hallucinating.
with a vote as phony as the Austrian annexation vote in 1938
Are there no legitimate reasons Crimeans would want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine? You'll notice they're not really making any fuss over it. There are no Crimean separatist groups fighting against the evil illegitimate occupation by Russian forces. Their elected government had a coup that included neo-nazis holding marches at the tombs of anti-Russian heroes and they removed Russian (the language most Crimeans speak) from the official languages of Ukraine. Color me shocked that the ethnic Russian Crimeans don't want to be ruled by anti-Russian Ukrainian ethno-nationalists. Next comes the ethnic cleansing. And are you suggesting the Crimeans be forced back under Ukrainian rule against their will? Why?
I am aware that Russia has good hackers, that Putin would like to mess with US support for NATO, and that Putin has no scruples. From this, it's very reasonable to expect Putin to try to influence the US election, and Putin's not the type of guy to keep strict distinctions between government and non-government activity. Which of these statements do you specifically disagree with?
I don't disagree with any of those statements. What is bullshit, though, is pushing the narrative on zero evidence using only wild speculation that Trump is somehow controlled by or compromised by Putin. You're scaring the stupids and trying to undermine the legitimacy of the US government for political reasons. I absolutely agree Putin would rather have Trump in office than Hillary, because Hillary's State Department armed the moderate beheaders in Syria and on the campaign trail Hillary said she would make removing Putin's ally Assad a top priority and her support for a no-fly zone in Syria, which means possibly shooting down Russian planes. No shit Putin wants anyone other than Hillary.
Oh, and Hillary held these opinions because she was being paid by KSA and Qatar so they could get their pipeline. You want to talk about "foreign influence?" Nothing about US involvement in the Syrian civil war was in the national interest of the United States. You're making wild speculation, with no evidence with regards to Trump while ignoring the clear and obvious foreign influence over Hillary.
Trump: no evidence of foreign control. Also not taking pro-Russian actions.
Hillary: Millions of dollars in payments from KSA and Qatar. Directly funded insurrection in Syria in the interests of KSA and Qatar.
If you were rooting for Hillary and against Trump, I don't believe you really give a shit about foreign influence over US leaders.
For the sake of argument, assume the DNC was hacked and Podesta was phished by Putin himself. If libertarian-leaning, anti-interventionist Rand Paul had been the Republican nominee instead of Trump, do you think Putin would have still released the hacked/phished emails? If you think he would have, does that mean Rand Paul is also under Putin's thumb? If so, can you give me the short list of US elected officials who are not being blackmailed or bought off by Putin?
Of course he'd make this bet. It's not about solving a problem, it's about creating a very expensive dependency on his company.
It's probably also about making a big PR splash. Even if he has to bust ass to get it done, ever other municipality in the world that has inconsistent power supply problems will ask "gee, if Elon could do it in Australia, why not here?"
We need to define racism here. To me, the modern definition seems to be "acknowledging that more than superficial differences exist between different ethnic groups." That is, denying the biological equivalence of all groups of people is "racism" in 2017.
This is different than saying that people of all races are human, have human rights, are equal in the eyes of God, or should be treated equally under the law.
What made Jesus different and eventually split Christianity off is that it overruled some old Jewish teachings, including teachings on racism.
You selectively quoted me, leaving out the very next statement "except to say that God is the God of all races."
The teachings of Jesus on the matter could best be described as "non-Jews are human, too," which is hardly a call for equal rights or social standing between Jews, Greeks, Romans. And absolutely does not imply racial equivalence.
Parable of Good Samaritan. The parable is basically about not to judge or treat people by their race.
Agreed, but again, this is not a call for equality. He wasn't saying Samaritans were equally as morally upstanding as faithful Jews. If he were the story wouldn't even make any sense...there'd be nothing special about the general poor character of Samaritans to contrast with this particular Samaritan's behavior. He was saying it is by the way people act (like a good person) rather than by their kinship (a fucking Samaritan, can you believe it?!) that they will be judged. Again, common humanity, but not equivalence. If Jesus came back to Sweden today (and boy do they need Him) and told the story of "the good Somalian who found an unconscious white girl and, get this...I know, I know what you're going to say, no, he didn't rape her and throw grenades at her, he helped her instead!" I'm pretty sure He would get arrested for hate speech.The message is literally "they're not all like that, even though most totally are." This is not an egalitarian anti-racist message.
Christianity led the charge in abolition
And plenty argued slavery was justified by the bible, even "because race" (see curse of Ham).
Were many abolitionists racial egalitarians? If you were at an abolitionist meeting in 1850 and said "slavery is abominable, no man should own another!" you'd get a cheer. Follow that up with "because the Negro is equivalent to the white man, and only differs superficially via skin color!" I'm pretty sure you'd get some confused looks and/or outright rage directed back at you. These people believed the practice of slavery was immoral (or unproductive), not that the white race and black race were the same. You can be opposed to enslaving another people without believing those people are equivalent to yours.
Lincoln himself was no egalitarian, saying candidly to a group of black clergymen "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."
In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln said, "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The "Party of Lincoln" was explicitly white supremacist and Lincoln planned to ship blacks back to Africa. When it comes to racism, Donald Trump ain't got nothing on Abe.
Abolition was not about equality and certainly not equivalence.
and civil r
Except that we've had some cases of Trump associates having dealings with the Russians that only showed up later under investigation. Had they had contacts, and said they'd had contacts, and said what they were about, there would have been no grounds for suspicion (assuming they told the truth and didn't overstep).
It's not like they were secret, though. They were routine, and therefore not worth mentioning, but the "investigations" involved...looking at publicly available records. This is not Deep Throat. Manafort never hid his consulting job for the pro-Russian Ukrainians, and Sessions' chats with ambassadors in his role as a senator are public record.
A friend of mine's wife would find a business card with a woman's name on it in his wallet and say that proved he was cheating. That he ran a commercial landscaping business that kept grounds at an apartment complex for which the 60 year old, 200lb woman was the property manager was irrelevant to her.
That doesn't mean we should favor Russian attack and annexation. That's behavior we want to discourage in general.
The US is not the world's policeman. No one is "favoring" Russian annexation. We're just not caring. Again, you've taken an anti-Russia stance, and are accusing anyone who isn't as anti-Russia as you are as being "pro-Russia." This is Bush (or Anakin Skywalker) tier "If you're not with me you're against me" false dichotomy.
You can sit here and hallucinate Russian spies under your bed all you want but I'm not joining your delusions. You'll notice there's basically nobody who wasn't already anti-Trump who's come around and said "gosh, I thought these Russian allegations were crap, but now after the 12th time the NY Times has cited 'anonymous sources' and twisted routine contact between the administration and Russian diplomats into sensationalist headlines I'm totally convinced!"
We've both analyzed the same data and come to different conclusions. One of us is wrong. Usually, though, the one claiming to see the dancing pink elephants is the one hallucinating, not the one who doesn't see the dancing pink elephants. That is, humans tend to hallucinate seeing things that aren't there, not hallucinate away things that really are there. The Russian conspiracy theories exist in your mind as wishful thinking, but are not real.
By the way, I'd love to hear your thoughts on allegations Obama is a secret muslim because of his time in a muslim school, his frequent praise for the Islamic faith, and friendly relations with Islamic groups like CAIR. I'm sure you're just as convinced Obama is a muslim agent as you are that Trump is a Russian agent.
Can you link me to one of the Vault 7 docs where they say they intercepted the electronic communications of Americans? So long as they're using these tools against foreigners...that's their job.
My problem is the things they're doing that aren't illegal, like holding back the discovery of exploits in commercial products made and used by Americans. But if you can point to a document, and a specific law that document proves they're breaking that would be useful.
they've also sucked up a tremendous amount of grant money and investment targeting nanotech commercialization over the last 30 years without actually commercializing any of the technologies they've worked on.
Interesting. Why do you think this is? Are the technologies simply not commercially viable? Is it government interference?
The problem with pocket universes is always laundry. You forget to take them out and then when you open the drier you've got universe smeared all over your clothes.
It's true. I called Mouser and tried to buy an atom and they didn't have any discrete components to sell me. They are only available for extremely high unit count bulk purchase.
So interpolation is "making it up" now? They interpolated it based on the tested average IQs of the nearby nations. Is this not a reasonable technique for estimating mean IQ? Why or why not?
Also, can you provide me with any evidence that the intelligence of the average Somalian (or people elsewhere in Africa) is not significantly different than that of Europeans or Asians? This seems to me to be the remarkable claim. You can observe the cultural, technological and philosophical progress of different groups of people through history and obviously conclude "these people here in the mud huts are not like these people here with the cathedrals, orchestras and airplanes." You can measure different skin tones, facial features, susceptibility to diseases, tolerance for lactose, heights, weights, and compare ethnic group A to ethnic group B and nobody bats an eye. State the completely obvious: "I don't think the people in the mud huts are as smart as the people who fly the rockets to the moon" and the left loses their damn minds.
And the response is never to conduct scientific studies of their own to prove that no such intelligence difference exists. Wouldn't this be a remarkable feat! Racism, eternally blown the fuck out! Instead they just hand wave away the actual scientists with unsubstantiated claims of bias, or by making claims that an interpolated number is "made up." I wonder why that is?
Onus is on you, friend. Prove the mud hut people aren't slightly less intelligent than the rocket ship people. In the meantime, you're betting the future of Sweden on your unproven (and remarkably unlikely) assumption that if you move Somalians into Malmo and give them Swedish education you produce tanned Swedes...rather than simply create Little Somali in Malmo. The grenade attacks, crime, and rapes seem to indicate the latter is result.
Except they didn't make it up. They interpolated it based on the tested average IQs of the nearby nations. Is this not a reasonable technique for estimating mean IQ? Why or why not?
Also, can you provide me with any evidence that the intelligence of the average Somalian (or people elsewhere in Africa) is not significantly different than that of Europeans or Asians? This seems to me to be the remarkable claim. You can observe the cultural, technological and philosophical progress of different groups of people through history and obviously conclude "these people here in the mud huts are not like these people here with the cathedrals, orchestras and airplanes." You can measure different skin tones, facial features, susceptibility to diseases, tolerance for lactose, heights, weights, and compare ethnic group A to ethnic group B and nobody bats an eye. State the completely obvious: "I don't think the people in the mud huts are as smart as the people who fly the rockets to the moon" and the left loses their damn minds.
And the response is never to conduct scientific studies of their own to prove that no such intelligence difference exists. Wouldn't this be a remarkable feat! Racism, eternally blown the fuck out! Instead they just hand wave away the actual scientists with unsubstantiated claims of bias, or by making claims that an interpolated number is "made up." I wonder why that is?
Onus is on you, friend. Prove the mud hut people aren't slightly less intelligent than the rocket ship people. In the meantime, you're betting the future of Sweden on your unproven (and remarkably unlikely) assumption that if you move Somalians into Malmo and give them Swedish education you produce tanned Swedes...rather than simply create Little Somali in Malmo. The grenade attacks, crime, and rapes seem to indicate the latter is result.
So were these particular grenades thrown by extremely tanned Russians then? Who happen to speak Somali instead of Russian? Huh. Crazy world, eh?
I understand. Hastings' death was suspicious as fuck. I would very much like to see evidence if in fact Hastings was assassinated by the CIA. So far I have not.
"Contacts with" is evidence of wrongdoing when the contacts are kept secret.
Except they're not. There's nothing secret about any of the contacts between the Trump administration/campaign and Russians.
"Pro-Russia" in this context means "supports the Russian armed intervention in Ukraine".
Can't you also not give a fuck? Ukraine is not our ally, not part of NATO, not part of the EU.
You are anti-Russia for...reasons I don't know. Neither I nor Trump are pro-Russia. We are Russia-neutral, but you have redefined neutrality to be support. That's your bias, not ours.
Assassination by car hack (Michael Hastings)
That's just the ability to do so. The military also has the ability to kill every human on the planet. It's only a problem if they're actually doing it.
The intentionally putting everyone at risk by actively avoiding closing known security flaws - and allowing them to be exploited by foreign powers - goes directly against their stated reason to exist, but is more morally and professionally reprehensible than illegal.
I agree, that is a serious problem, though not currently illegal to my knowledge. We have thousands of years of military history from which to create our philosophies of war, rules of engagement, proportional response, and the relationship between citizen and soldier. Not so with the cyber. We need to the ability to hack the enemy, but is it possible to do so while not leaving our own people defenseless?
let's ignore the purportedly criminal and corrupt activity
What did the leaks reveal (so far) that might be criminal? I agree with regards to the NSA leaks because they showed them issuing general warrants (those things that cause "times that try men's souls"), but I didn't see anything criminal in the CIA leaks.
Lay off the crack pipe idiot.
Insults with no argument are a good tell for cognitive dissonance.
Oh, your dating culture must be quite strange.
Ah, welcome visitor from an alien world! On Earth, human females are enticed to engage in sexual activity primarily with men of high social status. This social status is frequently advertised with an outlay of "cash money." How do mating rituals work on your planet?
How can we expect equal pay in the same professions if women are STILL choosing to avoid math and technology?
The solution is simple. We must use the government to force women to be engineers and mathematicians. When women sign up for Gender Studies courses they should be told "NO! You will go do math!"
We'll see how long this lasts.
Average IQ in Somalia is 68.
Now, where's your proof every ethnic subgroup of humans has the same intelligence distribution?
Todd Akin was a doctor?