If you're okay with that, so be it. I'd rather not associate, or be associated, with hate-groups
So, why not just join the club? Become a Klansman, skinhead, or whatever they call members of that particular anti-Islamic group? If you're okay with hatred, bigotry, and oppression, why not be more open about it?
Is it because you know that they're in the wrong but still can't bring yourself to let go of your insecurities? Is it that you don't want to be bigot living in fear, but can't bring yourself to accept Muslims as regular people?
Or is it something else? You think it's great to spread hatred and fear and to oppress others, but don't want other people to know that you're bigot?
So... should I tremble in fear of the local Mosque or should I take the offensive and destroy them before they suddenly turn?
No, as a traitor and coward, I'll just live peacefully with them side-by-side like we have for years. I'll treat them honestly and fairly, like they treat me, and (in my ignorance) give no regard to the looming threat the present.
I can't reason with bigots. Enjoy your paranoid delusions.
The problem, of course, is that you -- in your bigotry -- believe that Muslims are violent and interested only in dominance.
Here in reality, Muslims are no different than anyone else. They want to go about their daily lives free of harassment, oppression, and bigotry. They want their children to grow up in a safe and peaceful community.
Your problem is that you don't see them as people, but as animals. It's a disgusting viewpoint that makes it easy for bigots, like you, to justify atrocious acts against others. Sam Harris (a bigot to which you're likely align yourself) famously suggested that they be slaughtered, so "dangerous" were their beliefs.
No, fear and hatred are the real problem here. Only one "side" is openly advocating the ridicule, humiliation, isolation, and slaughter of the other. That's the side you're on. People like you are far more dangerous than you imagine Muslims to be.
Nonsense. Do you honestly believe that? The Muslims in my community are terrified, and have been since 9/11, but not a single one has ever acted out violently. Once involved members of our community, they're now isolated and afraid -- all because of bigoted assholes like you.
(To make matters worse, we lost two great middle-eastern restaurants. Are you proud of yourself?)
You're clearly blinded by your own hated and bigotry. People like you are a far larger problem than the one you imagine is caused by Muslims. The trouble has always stemmed from fear and hatred, which you actively promote! If we should have "no level of tolerance" for anything, it's attitudes like your own.
Disgraceful, isn't it? I would have expected more from him as a leader.
While I wouldn't call him a bigot, he did side with those bigots ultimately responsible for the much-needed uprising in Baltimore. I'd rather describe him as 'misguided'.
We're not talking about censure. We're talking about inclusion. Muslims are exposed to plenty of bigotry and hate every day from the people in their communities without special events with cash prizes from organized hate groups. Yes, they're even exposed, from their perspective, to near-continuous blasphemy. Do we really need an event to send the message "the people here hate you so much that we're holding a party intended to upset you and further isolate you from our community"?
If you want fewer extremists, integration is the best approach. By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve. This is true for any group of people, of course, not just Muslims, as we've recently seen. Oppressed groups tend to fight against oppression.
Oppression also tends to promote group unity. It's why you see so many groups seek any excuse to believe their oppressed, or look for opportunities to show some form of oppression. You've very likely seen this from both Christian groups and atheist groups. You've also seen how it calls the rank-and-file to sometimesviolent action.
I'm amazed at the nonsense posted here. It's like seeing Klansman claim that if they burn enough crosses and hold enough marches "them **** will learn their place!" It's foolish and counterproductive. (Unless, of course, your real goal is to further oppress them. Hmmm...)
yes several individuals who set up this event are (unlike the Charlie Hebdo staff) known asshats.
Is it really okay for you to support the actions of "known asshats" if you don't actually join the club? How does that work? "I'm no Klansman, but those asshats sure do a good job! Keep it up boys!" What does that say about you and your beliefs?
The event was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is considered an anti-Muslim group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
The group said it specifically picked the venue, a public school-owned facility, because it was host to a event denouncing Islamophobia in January.
So it was a hate-group out to ruin an event intended to promote unity.
They promote violent reactions because far too many Moslems are violent maniacs.
What pushes them to violence? It's not because they're all just "maniacs". It could just be the continuous provocation, social isolation, and the bigotry and abuse that they suffer daily than leads some to react violently.
When a Baltimore community reacts similarly in response to years of abuse at the hands of the police, only the bigots say that black people are "violent maniacs". When it's two Muslims reacting violently to long-standing, daily, oppression, what makes you think you're not just a closed-minded bigot when you make statements like that?
How would you react if an event was hosted specifically to feature pictures of your mother molesting children or whatever might upset you? What if you and your family were subject to daily abuse and social isolation, and these sort of events were regularly held with the sole intent of provoking you? Would that make you more likely to lash-out or less likely?
This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with bigotry and hate. Let's stop pretending that the known hate-group responsible for this absurd event has the moral high-ground.
As long as they provoke violent reactions, they are relevant and meaningful
Well, if your intention is to "provoke violent reactions" then it's a great success. If it's to put an end to extremism, then you're failing miserably. I suspect it's the former, and thus simply an outlet for bigotry.
If you actually want change, try thinking about why these ridiculous events "provoke violent reactions" and what can be done to change that. Hint:Picking at that scab isn't going to make it heal any faster.
What amazes me is that idiots still think "draw Muhammad" "protests" are relevant and meaningful. That ship has sailed. It's just an outlet for bigotry at this point.
If you want actual change, you're going to have to actually do something useful. How about working to help them better integrate into their local communities? If you really want Muslims to "lighten up" further isolating them is counterproductive.
I cannot disagree, which is upsetting as my wife and I discussed it and both came to the conclusion that "it's fine". Thanks for the healthy does of reality.
Your ignorance is that you can't tell the difference between refinement and disprovement.
What gave you that impression? What I've written is about as controversial as Kuhn -- indeed, a great deal is borrowed directly from him. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against, but it certainly isn't anything I've written!
You seem to have this odd belief that science progresses iteratively toward truth. It's a strange belief, to be sure, but one that, at least to some small degree, was implied by Popper. (That is to say, I can understand both the attraction and the misconception.) Science, by necessity, cannot lead to truth. Knowledge gained through scientific means is always provisional. If that were not the case, progress would be impossible.
The mountain of evidence is of sufficient height that in order to actually disprove and overturn one of theories your mountain of contrary evidence would have to be even bigger.
I'm not sure even the most ardent falsificationist would accept that unusual interpretation. Duhem does a far better job than I can of explaining what's wrong in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Happily, I found the bit important to this discussion described in this equally useful paper: Falsification and The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lucky
I'm going to guess that you don't have a formal background in science. From what you've written, I'd be willing to bet you're more of an interested layperson as that's the kind of nonsense you'll see written on blogs and forums by the undereducated "defenders of science". I've seen little good come from those groups, and an awful lot of nonsense. Steer clear of them. They've done far more harm to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious young-earth creationist has ever dreamed.
Short of a university education, which is a bit much to demand of you, I can make some recommendations. Whitehead as a wonderful introduction at the beginning of Science and the Modern World which is well-worth your time just for the historical overview. Kuhn and Popper should follow. Even if you only bother with a summary of their more influential ideas, it should give you a better grounding.
Okay, 39/100 is an absolute, total and complete failure in all possible regards. Legitimate scientific fields don't get recognized for being able to backup 39% of there research.
Yes, that's why we abandoned the pseudo-science of medicine ages ago. Oh, wait...
Given the little data we have, psychology is 'average'. We won't know if they're doing exceptionally well, or exceptionally poorly, until more studies are done not only on reproducibility in psychology, but in other fields as well.
Reproducibility problems aren't often investigated, and very few fields are actively studying the issue. I suspect that we'll find serious problems in virtually all branches of science as these studies continue. Nature has already taken action. I expect this crisis to hit even physics which is certainly not immune to controversy.
There's also the question of fraud, to which no branch of science is immune. It would be difficult to determine, but very helpful, if reproducibility problems could be divided between methodological problems and fraudulent or falsified results. It's difficult enough to stop computer generated articles from slipping through. How much more difficult would it be to find "real" papers with falsified data?
If nothing else, this should stress the importance of replication in all fields. Scientists are humans, after all, not the purely objective machines you imagine them to be. It's a dangerous belief, often held by non-scientist "science fans", which ultimately undermines the whole enterprise in the minds of the public.
What amazes me is that someone with no scientific background can make such absurd statements about a field, of which they have absolutely no understanding, with such conviction.
Nonsense is nonsense, regardless of the intent. There's little more dangerous to the public understanding of science than bad arguments and nonsense offered in defense of science.
Here, I say that if it's settled, then it isn't science as science can not be 'settled'. Science wouldn't work if such a thing were possible.
Equally, science is indeed frequently overturned. It is designed to be overturned! It could not progress otherwise. Further promulgating the myth of successive refinement (like the person to which I replied) is deeply harmful as it implies that science leads ultimately to truth. (Which, as you know, is impossible.) It sounds like a nice thing for people to believe, sure, but such a fundamental misunderstanding is deeply harmful to the public understanding of science. What would they think, then, when science is necessarily overturned as it advances?
I don't see why you think it's overturned infrequently. Even foundational aspects of science, in nearly every branch, have undergone significant revisions even over just the last century. That's a good thing. It means science is working. If more people understood science, they'd know that it's a positive thing as well. Hiding that fact, which you seem to find uncomfortable, just to get more people to "believe in" or "trust" science isn't helpful. They just end up believing in nonsense they mistakenly call science.
The options are: 1) Use a library that harms both performance and readability 2) Don't use a library and enjoy better performance and readability.
With jQuery, you save maybe a few minutes of development time, assuming the developer is already familiar with the library, but it costs you a lot in application performance and maintenance costs. The few extra minutes it takes to do things right in the first place quickly pays for itself.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're okay with that, so be it. I'd rather not associate, or be associated, with hate-groups
So, why not just join the club? Become a Klansman, skinhead, or whatever they call members of that particular anti-Islamic group? If you're okay with hatred, bigotry, and oppression, why not be more open about it?
Is it because you know that they're in the wrong but still can't bring yourself to let go of your insecurities? Is it that you don't want to be bigot living in fear, but can't bring yourself to accept Muslims as regular people?
Or is it something else? You think it's great to spread hatred and fear and to oppress others, but don't want other people to know that you're bigot?
So ... should I tremble in fear of the local Mosque or should I take the offensive and destroy them before they suddenly turn?
No, as a traitor and coward, I'll just live peacefully with them side-by-side like we have for years. I'll treat them honestly and fairly, like they treat me, and (in my ignorance) give no regard to the looming threat the present.
I can't reason with bigots. Enjoy your paranoid delusions.
, if I understanding what you're saying
It's safe to assume that you don't.
The problem, of course, is that you -- in your bigotry -- believe that Muslims are violent and interested only in dominance.
Here in reality, Muslims are no different than anyone else. They want to go about their daily lives free of harassment, oppression, and bigotry. They want their children to grow up in a safe and peaceful community.
Your problem is that you don't see them as people, but as animals. It's a disgusting viewpoint that makes it easy for bigots, like you, to justify atrocious acts against others. Sam Harris (a bigot to which you're likely align yourself) famously suggested that they be slaughtered, so "dangerous" were their beliefs.
No, fear and hatred are the real problem here. Only one "side" is openly advocating the ridicule, humiliation, isolation, and slaughter of the other. That's the side you're on. People like you are far more dangerous than you imagine Muslims to be.
I didn't know that Hitler's plan was to integrate Jews in to society... I must be terribly ignorant of history.
marketed and clearly honestly intended to educate westerners
The problem is that bit about honesty. There's nothing honest about your plan.
Nonsense. Do you honestly believe that? The Muslims in my community are terrified, and have been since 9/11, but not a single one has ever acted out violently. Once involved members of our community, they're now isolated and afraid -- all because of bigoted assholes like you.
(To make matters worse, we lost two great middle-eastern restaurants. Are you proud of yourself?)
You're clearly blinded by your own hated and bigotry. People like you are a far larger problem than the one you imagine is caused by Muslims. The trouble has always stemmed from fear and hatred, which you actively promote! If we should have "no level of tolerance" for anything, it's attitudes like your own.
Disgraceful, isn't it? I would have expected more from him as a leader.
While I wouldn't call him a bigot, he did side with those bigots ultimately responsible for the much-needed uprising in Baltimore. I'd rather describe him as 'misguided'.
We're not talking about censure. We're talking about inclusion. Muslims are exposed to plenty of bigotry and hate every day from the people in their communities without special events with cash prizes from organized hate groups. Yes, they're even exposed, from their perspective, to near-continuous blasphemy. Do we really need an event to send the message "the people here hate you so much that we're holding a party intended to upset you and further isolate you from our community"?
If you want fewer extremists, integration is the best approach. By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve. This is true for any group of people, of course, not just Muslims, as we've recently seen. Oppressed groups tend to fight against oppression.
Oppression also tends to promote group unity. It's why you see so many groups seek any excuse to believe their oppressed, or look for opportunities to show some form of oppression. You've very likely seen this from both Christian groups and atheist groups. You've also seen how it calls the rank-and-file to sometimes violent action.
I'm amazed at the nonsense posted here. It's like seeing Klansman claim that if they burn enough crosses and hold enough marches "them **** will learn their place!" It's foolish and counterproductive. (Unless, of course, your real goal is to further oppress them. Hmmm...)
yes several individuals who set up this event are (unlike the Charlie Hebdo staff) known asshats.
Is it really okay for you to support the actions of "known asshats" if you don't actually join the club? How does that work? "I'm no Klansman, but those asshats sure do a good job! Keep it up boys!" What does that say about you and your beliefs?
The event was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is considered an anti-Muslim group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.
The group said it specifically picked the venue, a public school-owned facility, because it was host to a event denouncing Islamophobia in January.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/...
So it was a hate-group out to ruin an event intended to promote unity.
They promote violent reactions because far too many Moslems are violent maniacs.
What pushes them to violence? It's not because they're all just "maniacs". It could just be the continuous provocation, social isolation, and the bigotry and abuse that they suffer daily than leads some to react violently.
When a Baltimore community reacts similarly in response to years of abuse at the hands of the police, only the bigots say that black people are "violent maniacs". When it's two Muslims reacting violently to long-standing, daily, oppression, what makes you think you're not just a closed-minded bigot when you make statements like that?
How would you react if an event was hosted specifically to feature pictures of your mother molesting children or whatever might upset you? What if you and your family were subject to daily abuse and social isolation, and these sort of events were regularly held with the sole intent of provoking you? Would that make you more likely to lash-out or less likely?
This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with bigotry and hate. Let's stop pretending that the known hate-group responsible for this absurd event has the moral high-ground.
As long as they provoke violent reactions, they are relevant and meaningful
Well, if your intention is to "provoke violent reactions" then it's a great success. If it's to put an end to extremism, then you're failing miserably. I suspect it's the former, and thus simply an outlet for bigotry.
If you actually want change, try thinking about why these ridiculous events "provoke violent reactions" and what can be done to change that. Hint:Picking at that scab isn't going to make it heal any faster.
What amazes me is that idiots still think "draw Muhammad" "protests" are relevant and meaningful. That ship has sailed. It's just an outlet for bigotry at this point.
If you want actual change, you're going to have to actually do something useful. How about working to help them better integrate into their local communities? If you really want Muslims to "lighten up" further isolating them is counterproductive.
Then stop using jQuery. Your users will thank you.
I've seen it included with CCleaner and Avast. It's a plague.
I cannot disagree, which is upsetting as my wife and I discussed it and both came to the conclusion that "it's fine". Thanks for the healthy does of reality.
Your ignorance is that you can't tell the difference between refinement and disprovement.
What gave you that impression? What I've written is about as controversial as Kuhn -- indeed, a great deal is borrowed directly from him. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against, but it certainly isn't anything I've written!
You seem to have this odd belief that science progresses iteratively toward truth. It's a strange belief, to be sure, but one that, at least to some small degree, was implied by Popper. (That is to say, I can understand both the attraction and the misconception.) Science, by necessity, cannot lead to truth. Knowledge gained through scientific means is always provisional. If that were not the case, progress would be impossible.
The mountain of evidence is of sufficient height that in order to actually disprove and overturn one of theories your mountain of contrary evidence would have to be even bigger.
I'm not sure even the most ardent falsificationist would accept that unusual interpretation. Duhem does a far better job than I can of explaining what's wrong in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Happily, I found the bit important to this discussion described in this equally useful paper: Falsification and The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lucky
I'm going to guess that you don't have a formal background in science. From what you've written, I'd be willing to bet you're more of an interested layperson as that's the kind of nonsense you'll see written on blogs and forums by the undereducated "defenders of science". I've seen little good come from those groups, and an awful lot of nonsense. Steer clear of them. They've done far more harm to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious young-earth creationist has ever dreamed.
Short of a university education, which is a bit much to demand of you, I can make some recommendations. Whitehead as a wonderful introduction at the beginning of Science and the Modern World which is well-worth your time just for the historical overview. Kuhn and Popper should follow. Even if you only bother with a summary of their more influential ideas, it should give you a better grounding.
Okay, 39/100 is an absolute, total and complete failure in all possible regards. Legitimate scientific fields don't get recognized for being able to backup 39% of there research.
Yes, that's why we abandoned the pseudo-science of medicine ages ago. Oh, wait...
Given the little data we have, psychology is 'average'. We won't know if they're doing exceptionally well, or exceptionally poorly, until more studies are done not only on reproducibility in psychology, but in other fields as well.
Reproducibility problems aren't often investigated, and very few fields are actively studying the issue. I suspect that we'll find serious problems in virtually all branches of science as these studies continue. Nature has already taken action. I expect this crisis to hit even physics which is certainly not immune to controversy.
There's also the question of fraud, to which no branch of science is immune. It would be difficult to determine, but very helpful, if reproducibility problems could be divided between methodological problems and fraudulent or falsified results. It's difficult enough to stop computer generated articles from slipping through. How much more difficult would it be to find "real" papers with falsified data?
If nothing else, this should stress the importance of replication in all fields. Scientists are humans, after all, not the purely objective machines you imagine them to be. It's a dangerous belief, often held by non-scientist "science fans", which ultimately undermines the whole enterprise in the minds of the public.
While philosophy still exists, it deals with issues nobody truly gives much of a fuck anymore.
Like epistemology. Oh, wait. That's absolutely essential to modern science. My bad. I didn't mean to disturb your delusion.
What amazes me is that someone with no scientific background can make such absurd statements about a field, of which they have absolutely no understanding, with such conviction.
Nonsense is nonsense, regardless of the intent. There's little more dangerous to the public understanding of science than bad arguments and nonsense offered in defense of science.
Here, I say that if it's settled, then it isn't science as science can not be 'settled'. Science wouldn't work if such a thing were possible.
Equally, science is indeed frequently overturned. It is designed to be overturned! It could not progress otherwise. Further promulgating the myth of successive refinement (like the person to which I replied) is deeply harmful as it implies that science leads ultimately to truth. (Which, as you know, is impossible.) It sounds like a nice thing for people to believe, sure, but such a fundamental misunderstanding is deeply harmful to the public understanding of science. What would they think, then, when science is necessarily overturned as it advances?
I don't see why you think it's overturned infrequently. Even foundational aspects of science, in nearly every branch, have undergone significant revisions even over just the last century. That's a good thing. It means science is working. If more people understood science, they'd know that it's a positive thing as well. Hiding that fact, which you seem to find uncomfortable, just to get more people to "believe in" or "trust" science isn't helpful. They just end up believing in nonsense they mistakenly call science.
Yes, I'm a terrible person. Of course, my apps don't have serious performance issues. Deal with the devil and all that.
That's not even a little bit true.
It's a popular operating system developed by Microsoft, a large software company headquartered in Redmond, WA.
As this is the first time you've heard about that company and their products, you have no reason to care.
Actually yes, science is settled.
Then it's not science.
Science is rarely overturned.
You're not familiar with science, are you?
Science cheerleaders like you have done more harm to the public understanding of science in the past decade than every creationist in history.
The options are: 1) Use a library that harms both performance and readability 2) Don't use a library and enjoy better performance and readability.
With jQuery, you save maybe a few minutes of development time, assuming the developer is already familiar with the library, but it costs you a lot in application performance and maintenance costs. The few extra minutes it takes to do things right in the first place quickly pays for itself.