There were plenty of progressive rioters in the 60's, but the specific riots I'm talking about, where conservative.
You weren't talking about specific riots, you made a generic statement: "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating." Then you tried to support that (historically laughable) generic statement by cherry-picking your examples.
And this was in the context of a large discussion, namely my statement that there was no clear link between the plight of blacks today and 19th century slavery; in fact, blacks today tend to be poorer largely as a consequence of segregation, eugenics, and the destruction of the black family, all progressive policies.
Yes, I reached back even further to show conservative riots.
No, you showed a few riots by whites against integration and desegregation, not by conservatives. Since segregation was a progressive policy, those whites were rioting for progressive causes, not conservative causes. Just look at the three great progressive presidents: Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Wilson segregated the federal government, and all three were vile racists.
We've seen alot of progressive riots because the conservatives held (hold) the legal power and framework of the state.
Well, much of the 20th century, progressives were in power in the US.
But, yes, that's typical: when progressives can't win at the ballot box, they riot. It's an explicit, deliberate part of left-wing politicial strategy manuals, from Marx to Alinsky.
No, sitting on your ass and eating far more calories than you need to sustain said sedentary lifestyle is a prescription for weight gain and all the other problems that go with it. The calorie (or more precisely, kilocalorie) is a measurement of energy. It doesn't matter if it's coming from carbs, protein, or fat. A calorie is a calorie.
You're wrongly assuming there that caloric intake is an independent variable. But caloric intake and activity depend on what you eat and your physiological state, and they are nearly impossible to override through calorie counting and exercise targets. So, if you eat some kinds of food, you'll tend to eat more calories and be less active than when you eat other kinds of food. Calories are not all equal because people aren't simple chemical reactors that you feed with a fixed mass of nutrients every day.
BTW, an editorial from a group of rejects funded by big beef probably isn't the best source of unbiased research.
That's irrelevant in this case, because it's a simple fact that US governmental dietary guidelines don't work. How do we know? We look at obesity rates.
In addition, worrying about whether research is "unbiased" is just a sophisticated form of ad hominem; it doesn't matter whether research is biased, what matters is whether it is correct. In fact, I expect most correct research is done by people who are highly biased in favor of the outcome they found (that's what it takes to persist in science), but have the integrity not to defraud people.
This is a decent strategy if you're active. Since carbs are the preferred fuel of your muscles, it would make sense to consume carbs over fats as the primary energy source.
If by "active" you mean "olympic athlete before a competition". For almost everybody else, running out of fuel is not a problem, since good nutrition is more important than running another mile. But keeping your glycogen storage full all the time is a pretty sure way of gaining weight.
Doubly so considering the number of calories per gram of fat, as you'd also be limiting your calorie intake.
People eat until their brain gets a signal that they are full. High carb diets actually tend to cause people to overeat; the lower energy density of carbs is irrelevant because satiety isn't primarily determined by quantity.
The very idea of governmental dietary guidelines for the population is stupid. The guideline should be "people are different; experiment and pay attention to what works".
Nobody knows whether it's bad or not. In fact, right now, it seems like it depends on your genetic makeup and other factors. That is "what is a good diet for human beings" isn't even a meaningful question.
What is crystal clear is that government dietary guidelines for the past 50 years were based on bad science, even if they are accidentally right on something. What's also crystal clear is that government dietary guidelines were heavily influenced by industry lobbying.
Saturated fat can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
The worst part isn't even that they falsely identified saturated fats as bad, but that for years governments told people to eat a low-fat, high-carb diet, which is pretty much a prescription for weight gain and diabetes.
This discussion about riots started with your statement:
The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating.
That is simply historically wrong. The rioters of the 1960's were overwhelmingly leftists and anarchists. Heck, I lived through that period!
Your premise was "conservatives don't riot".
I didn't say that either. What I actually said was "Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.". That's a general historical observation that I made which merely makes your wrong assertion about the 1960's riots even more implausible. But regardless of whether conservatives riot more or less than leftists, it is crystal clear that the 1960's riots were not "conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating", they were progressives and anarchists rebelling against the system.
Every time you see something you just swap it around and pretend the conservatives are on whatever side you support.
I'm not defending conservatives. I don't even like conservatives or their ideology. What I am saying is that your statement that "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating." is wrong.
You then shifted the goalpost to 1920's lynchings and riots and blame "conservatives" for those. I just pointed out two things: first, that you provided no evidence that these were conservatives, and second, that it is far more likely that they were angry white working class people enraged by the racially divisive rhetoric at the time.
Your trying to reframe things and act like I'm some sort of race baiter.
Not at all. I understand perfectly why you believe what you do; I used to hold pretty similar beliefs about conservatism, racism, race, and slavery. Obviously, those beliefs are common, otherwise 25% of the US wouldn't identify as progressives. Those beliefs are widely taught in government schools and promoted by an intellectual elite. But you ought to reflect on why 36% of the population are conservatives and 39% are independents; do you seriously think they/we are all dumb, uneducated racists?
I can't do more than point you in the right direction. To make it easy, start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Maybe a poor black Southerner is more convincing to you than a gay atheist immigrant, I don't know. He also provides tons of references in his books, and, of course, he lived through somewhat more of the history than I have.
The climate is fucked. Not enough people care, and those who do aren't the right kind of people. Buckle up and just get ready for the fucking ride, because there's no getting off this crazy train.
The climate is "fucked" no matter what: the carbon we have emitted is going to stay in the air for centuries even if we reduced emissions to zero.
But that "fucked" climate is actually not bad: already warm places are going to stay about the same, cold places are going to warm up a bit, there will generally be more precipitation, and plants will grow a bit faster. Sure, the beach homes of the mega-wealthy may float away over the next century, but that's a small price to pay (or even beneficial: hello Streisand and Ellison).
Wind and solar are about to become unstoppable, natural gas and oil production are approaching their peak, and electric cars and batteries for the grid are waiting to take over. This is the world Donald Trump inherited as U.S. president. And yet his energy plan is to cut regulations to resuscitate the one sector that's never coming back: coal.
If cutting regulations on coal doesn't make it come back, then obviously it doesn't matter, either for the climate or the economy.
If cutting regulations on coal leads to a comeback of coal and a delay of the adoption of "wind and solar", then that shows you conclusively that it was regulations that were pricing coal out of the market, not the competitiveness of wind and solar.
In fact, however, the whole article is a false dichotomy. Wind and solar are still fairly expensive. They may be competitive for electricity generation in about a decade, but you still need other generation technologies to smooth out supply. And the fossil fuel technology we'll be using in the meantime is probably mostly natural gas.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it is likely that diversity goals may have played a role here. You know, I'm stating an inference of a probability, not a fact. We usually do that when talking about accidents, deaths, etc.: what might have caused this and how might we prevent it in the future. That's the responsible thing to do. And the responsible thing here is to remind people not to let diversity goals trump skills, because whether it actually played a role in this case or not, it often works out badly.
've provided multiple citations and links and you spin them around and pretend they are the opposite of what they say.
You provided a bunch of links about white people doing bad things to black people, and then you conclude that those white people must have been "conservatives" because progressives and liberals would never do such things. What you have proven there is your ignorance of history and your bigotry, nothing more. The fact is that the progressive movement is primarily responsible for racism in the 20th century.
I've given you a couple of links where a Harvard-educated, highly respected black economist and political scientist explains to you how you are wrong. I suggest you read them and try to understand them instead of continuing to wallow in your ignorance.
He went from happy engineer to suicide in less than five months?
If you get hired into a job you can't handle, face losing your $170k/year salary, and are stuck with your family in a city surrounded by the ultra-wealthy? Absolutely. Job changes are extremely stressful even without all those added pressures.
If he was so stressed out that he committed suicide, it means he wasn't a good match for the job. But he must have been quite a bit above average to even make it that far and he could easily have found a well-paying job elsewhere.
It seems likely, given the nature of Uber, Silicon Valley, and San Francisco, that diversity goals may have played a role in his hire. We know from academic environments (where this is easier to study) that this kind of mismatch harms its intended beneficiaries. Success at technical jobs is, after all, not just a question of privilege and knowing the right people.
Lynchings are different then Riots, but I also linked to RIOTS that not only did property damage, they completely destroyed black towns.
Yes, you did. Your reasoning was something like "(1) white people attacked blacks, (2) white people attacking blacks must be conservatives, (3) therefore conservatives riot". Your error was in premise number (2). So, no support for your claim that the Tulsa riots were riots by "conservatives". Based on history and circumstance, it seems more plausible that they were whites angry at the economic success of some blacks, which would make them progressive rather than conservative, but we simply don't know for certain. Your example didn't support your point, but it reveals your ignorance about the history of racism in the US.
And what we were discussing your the claim that slavery in the 19th century caused blacks in the 21st century to be disadvantaged, which your example had nothing to do with.
I'm not commenting on this further. Your stating clear falsehoods and someday someone will find your comments and assume they have some basis in reality. You don't deserve any further opportunity to post your lies.
Look, I understand where you are coming from: I used to be a progressive and moderate leftist as well: it was the obvious choice as a gay, atheist immigrant, but that changed when I actually started reading history and political science (I'm an independent now).
There is tons of stuff you ought to read, but a good start might be Sowell, who grew up poor in the South and was started out as an ardent leftist:
It is the taxes paid by hedonistic godless coastal states that keeps the fly over country afloat.
If that were true, then the coastal states would be conservative and lobby for lower federal taxes and spending while fly over country would be liberal and lobby for higher federal taxes and spending. But it isn't true, which is also why you see the opposite ideological distribution.
The only steady jobs there are the ones funded by the federal government.
You're welcome to try to scare up some data to support that ridiculous statement. But it is true that there are a significant number of federal jobs in Western states and the people who live there would like to get rid of them.
Social security forms 30% of the purchasing power of those states.
That's because smart retirees move to places with low cost of living and mainly live mainly off social security and leave their savings untouched. It's certainly what I'm planning on doing. That is hardly an indictment of those states.
All those hedonistic godless people are showered with such high incomes, while the God fearing folks in the fly over country are getting very low wages. Why, God! Why are you testing your faithful believers so much?
In my experience, God's faithful believers are happy in flyover country, and their primary political concerns are that they don't want their nice little corner of the world to turn into San Francisco or Detroit, and that they don't want to be taxed in order to pay for the lifestyles of the "hedonistic godless people" in those places.
Lynchings are overwhelmingly a Southern and 19th century phenomenon.
But since you brought up lynchings, you got those wrong too.
there are photos of people picnicking with their families, with lynching victims in the background.
So, not a riot then.
were due to minor social transgressions (conservative issue) and fear of interracial sex (conservative issue)
The overwhelming justification for lynchings was rape and murder, not "minor social transgressions" or consensual "interracial sex". People were also lynched for theft and political beliefs. And both blacks and whites were lynched for these reasons.
Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were pushed by progressives, based on what they claimed was the scientific consensus at the time, a leftist and progressive cause; Christian churches have been marrying people of different races for 2000 years. And Southern whites were angry at blacks because blacks were willing to work for less than union wages, another leftist and progressive cause. Rape hysteria and elimination of due process for those accused of rape can still be found today among leftists and progressives; look at Title IX and Hillary's "all rape victims deserve to be believed".
It was truly seen as a legitimate extension of the will of the people. It was truly a conservative phenomenon.
So you are saying that conservatism represents the will of the people, while progressivism and leftism does not? Interesting.
Heck, the vaunted Boston Tea party was essentially a conservative riot, destruction of property and all.
People who fight against an existing aristocracy are "left-wing" pretty much by definition; that's where the term comes from. So, the Boston Tea Party was a left-wing riot, destruction of property and all. The fact that these people now seem conservative to you only shows you how extremely left wing Democrats and progressives have really become.
I have no idea why you think socialism is a totalitarian ideology. Marxism-Leninism certainly is, but there's lots more to socialism than that.
I think I was pretty clear about why. Let me repeat again:
(1) All the forms of socialism I experienced were, in fact, totalitarian.
(2) All the major philosophical and political works advocating socialism (e.g., Marx, Engels, Zinn, etc.) describe a totalitarian ideology, as do the political programs of socialist parties in Democracies.
(3) There are numerous books actually explaining why socialism ends up being (effectively or explicitly) totalitarian (e.g., Hayek, von Mises, Schumpeter).
So far, you haven't been specific about explaining how your ideal form of socialism actually is supposed to operate or what it means. You don't even need to explain this yourself, there are probably thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of papers and essays describing variants of socialism, just pick the one that reflects your views.
Then explain how it deals with the economic calculation problem, how it deals with people who refuse to comply with the economic directives you need to impose in a socialist regime, and what new mechanisms it employs so that people like Stalin, Honecker, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ceausescu, or Tito cannot get into power as they have in other socialist regimes.
I can't quite figure out why anybody would want to use Microsoft SQL Server.
Want to retract that now?
Absolutely I want to retract it! I now understand that there is still a vocal population if Microsoft zealots out there to whom "integrates with Windows domains" and "has a Windows GUI" are actually desirable features that trump "has predictable long-term pricing and availability" and "doesn't lock you into one vendor".
venting your anger here or some such by trolling [...] A successful career has no room for zealotry and willful ignorance
I would suggest, rather than assuming you know it all and making sweeping comments about products you do not understand
I didn't make "sweeping comments", I asked a question.
you say you want to learn, but you're not listening
I am listening, but you haven't told me anything I didn't already know: MS SQL Server seems to be a reasonably good and stable product on Windows. It doesn't seem to be open source (despite your claims) and only seems to have Linux pre-releases. Saying that it can "easily hold it's own against Oracle and PostgreSQL" means that it isn't substantially better than either even on Linux. So, still no compelling reason to use it, and two very compelling reasons not to use it: incomplete Linux support and lack of source code.
then hating people and childishly making them your foe
I don't "hate you", the "foe" tag is simply my "has nothing substantive to say" marker. It means I'll preferentially skip your postings in the future. In the dim past, one could automatically downrank people like you. I wish Slashdot had killfiles.
Those weren't conservatives marching to Selma for Civil Rights.
Indeed, they were a mix of mostly leftists, although there was probably a reasonable number of libertarians as well. They didn't clash with "conservative rioters"; they didn't clash with rioters at all. Who they clashed with is police and white supremacist groups.
The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating.
That's ridiculous. The 1960's rioters were generally the same people as the 1960's protesters, namely leftists. Aggressive defiance of authority, civil disobedience, and provocation was a hallmark of the 1960's leftists movements. You see the same thing today: when BLM protests turn into riots, it's the protesters themselves becoming violent, usually in response to police action. And the police acts not because they are "conservative", but because the neighborhoods that the protesters go through are tired of the disturbances. Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.
Slashdot Mirror
You weren't talking about specific riots, you made a generic statement: "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating." Then you tried to support that (historically laughable) generic statement by cherry-picking your examples.
And this was in the context of a large discussion, namely my statement that there was no clear link between the plight of blacks today and 19th century slavery; in fact, blacks today tend to be poorer largely as a consequence of segregation, eugenics, and the destruction of the black family, all progressive policies.
No, you showed a few riots by whites against integration and desegregation, not by conservatives. Since segregation was a progressive policy, those whites were rioting for progressive causes, not conservative causes. Just look at the three great progressive presidents: Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts. Wilson segregated the federal government, and all three were vile racists.
Well, much of the 20th century, progressives were in power in the US.
But, yes, that's typical: when progressives can't win at the ballot box, they riot. It's an explicit, deliberate part of left-wing politicial strategy manuals, from Marx to Alinsky.
You're wrongly assuming there that caloric intake is an independent variable. But caloric intake and activity depend on what you eat and your physiological state, and they are nearly impossible to override through calorie counting and exercise targets. So, if you eat some kinds of food, you'll tend to eat more calories and be less active than when you eat other kinds of food. Calories are not all equal because people aren't simple chemical reactors that you feed with a fixed mass of nutrients every day.
That's irrelevant in this case, because it's a simple fact that US governmental dietary guidelines don't work. How do we know? We look at obesity rates.
In addition, worrying about whether research is "unbiased" is just a sophisticated form of ad hominem; it doesn't matter whether research is biased, what matters is whether it is correct. In fact, I expect most correct research is done by people who are highly biased in favor of the outcome they found (that's what it takes to persist in science), but have the integrity not to defraud people.
If by "active" you mean "olympic athlete before a competition". For almost everybody else, running out of fuel is not a problem, since good nutrition is more important than running another mile. But keeping your glycogen storage full all the time is a pretty sure way of gaining weight.
People eat until their brain gets a signal that they are full. High carb diets actually tend to cause people to overeat; the lower energy density of carbs is irrelevant because satiety isn't primarily determined by quantity.
The very idea of governmental dietary guidelines for the population is stupid. The guideline should be "people are different; experiment and pay attention to what works".
Nobody knows whether it's bad or not. In fact, right now, it seems like it depends on your genetic makeup and other factors. That is "what is a good diet for human beings" isn't even a meaningful question.
What is crystal clear is that government dietary guidelines for the past 50 years were based on bad science, even if they are accidentally right on something. What's also crystal clear is that government dietary guidelines were heavily influenced by industry lobbying.
That's pretty rich, given that government guidelines have been saying for years that saturated fat is bad:
Saturated fat can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
The worst part isn't even that they falsely identified saturated fats as bad, but that for years governments told people to eat a low-fat, high-carb diet, which is pretty much a prescription for weight gain and diabetes.
Mr Scott, have you always multiplied your engineering estimates by a factor of four?
Oh, laddy, you got a lot to learn!
This discussion about riots started with your statement:
That is simply historically wrong. The rioters of the 1960's were overwhelmingly leftists and anarchists. Heck, I lived through that period!
I didn't say that either. What I actually said was "Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.". That's a general historical observation that I made which merely makes your wrong assertion about the 1960's riots even more implausible. But regardless of whether conservatives riot more or less than leftists, it is crystal clear that the 1960's riots were not "conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating", they were progressives and anarchists rebelling against the system.
I'm not defending conservatives. I don't even like conservatives or their ideology. What I am saying is that your statement that "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating." is wrong.
You then shifted the goalpost to 1920's lynchings and riots and blame "conservatives" for those. I just pointed out two things: first, that you provided no evidence that these were conservatives, and second, that it is far more likely that they were angry white working class people enraged by the racially divisive rhetoric at the time.
Not at all. I understand perfectly why you believe what you do; I used to hold pretty similar beliefs about conservatism, racism, race, and slavery. Obviously, those beliefs are common, otherwise 25% of the US wouldn't identify as progressives. Those beliefs are widely taught in government schools and promoted by an intellectual elite. But you ought to reflect on why 36% of the population are conservatives and 39% are independents; do you seriously think they/we are all dumb, uneducated racists?
I can't do more than point you in the right direction. To make it easy, start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Maybe a poor black Southerner is more convincing to you than a gay atheist immigrant, I don't know. He also provides tons of references in his books, and, of course, he lived through somewhat more of the history than I have.
The climate is "fucked" no matter what: the carbon we have emitted is going to stay in the air for centuries even if we reduced emissions to zero.
But that "fucked" climate is actually not bad: already warm places are going to stay about the same, cold places are going to warm up a bit, there will generally be more precipitation, and plants will grow a bit faster. Sure, the beach homes of the mega-wealthy may float away over the next century, but that's a small price to pay (or even beneficial: hello Streisand and Ellison).
If cutting regulations on coal doesn't make it come back, then obviously it doesn't matter, either for the climate or the economy.
If cutting regulations on coal leads to a comeback of coal and a delay of the adoption of "wind and solar", then that shows you conclusively that it was regulations that were pricing coal out of the market, not the competitiveness of wind and solar.
In fact, however, the whole article is a false dichotomy. Wind and solar are still fairly expensive. They may be competitive for electricity generation in about a decade, but you still need other generation technologies to smooth out supply. And the fossil fuel technology we'll be using in the meantime is probably mostly natural gas.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it is likely that diversity goals may have played a role here. You know, I'm stating an inference of a probability, not a fact. We usually do that when talking about accidents, deaths, etc.: what might have caused this and how might we prevent it in the future. That's the responsible thing to do. And the responsible thing here is to remind people not to let diversity goals trump skills, because whether it actually played a role in this case or not, it often works out badly.
You provided a bunch of links about white people doing bad things to black people, and then you conclude that those white people must have been "conservatives" because progressives and liberals would never do such things. What you have proven there is your ignorance of history and your bigotry, nothing more. The fact is that the progressive movement is primarily responsible for racism in the 20th century.
I've given you a couple of links where a Harvard-educated, highly respected black economist and political scientist explains to you how you are wrong. I suggest you read them and try to understand them instead of continuing to wallow in your ignorance.
Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are tons of other sources you can read that make the same point.
If you get hired into a job you can't handle, face losing your $170k/year salary, and are stuck with your family in a city surrounded by the ultra-wealthy? Absolutely. Job changes are extremely stressful even without all those added pressures.
If he was so stressed out that he committed suicide, it means he wasn't a good match for the job. But he must have been quite a bit above average to even make it that far and he could easily have found a well-paying job elsewhere.
It seems likely, given the nature of Uber, Silicon Valley, and San Francisco, that diversity goals may have played a role in his hire. We know from academic environments (where this is easier to study) that this kind of mismatch harms its intended beneficiaries. Success at technical jobs is, after all, not just a question of privilege and knowing the right people.
I see, when arguments fail you and facts contradict your world view, you simply resort to ad hominems.
Yes, you did. Your reasoning was something like "(1) white people attacked blacks, (2) white people attacking blacks must be conservatives, (3) therefore conservatives riot". Your error was in premise number (2). So, no support for your claim that the Tulsa riots were riots by "conservatives". Based on history and circumstance, it seems more plausible that they were whites angry at the economic success of some blacks, which would make them progressive rather than conservative, but we simply don't know for certain. Your example didn't support your point, but it reveals your ignorance about the history of racism in the US.
And what we were discussing your the claim that slavery in the 19th century caused blacks in the 21st century to be disadvantaged, which your example had nothing to do with.
Look, I understand where you are coming from: I used to be a progressive and moderate leftist as well: it was the obvious choice as a gay, atheist immigrant, but that changed when I actually started reading history and political science (I'm an independent now).
There is tons of stuff you ought to read, but a good start might be Sowell, who grew up poor in the South and was started out as an ardent leftist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.amazon.com/Intelle...
If that were true, then the coastal states would be conservative and lobby for lower federal taxes and spending while fly over country would be liberal and lobby for higher federal taxes and spending. But it isn't true, which is also why you see the opposite ideological distribution.
You're welcome to try to scare up some data to support that ridiculous statement. But it is true that there are a significant number of federal jobs in Western states and the people who live there would like to get rid of them.
That's because smart retirees move to places with low cost of living and mainly live mainly off social security and leave their savings untouched. It's certainly what I'm planning on doing. That is hardly an indictment of those states.
In my experience, God's faithful believers are happy in flyover country, and their primary political concerns are that they don't want their nice little corner of the world to turn into San Francisco or Detroit, and that they don't want to be taxed in order to pay for the lifestyles of the "hedonistic godless people" in those places.
We're talking about riots, not lynchings.
Lynching is an extrajudicial punishment or a means of political oppression.
Riots are a form a civil disorder.
Lynchings are overwhelmingly a Southern and 19th century phenomenon.
But since you brought up lynchings, you got those wrong too.
So, not a riot then.
The overwhelming justification for lynchings was rape and murder, not "minor social transgressions" or consensual "interracial sex". People were also lynched for theft and political beliefs. And both blacks and whites were lynched for these reasons.
Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were pushed by progressives, based on what they claimed was the scientific consensus at the time, a leftist and progressive cause; Christian churches have been marrying people of different races for 2000 years. And Southern whites were angry at blacks because blacks were willing to work for less than union wages, another leftist and progressive cause. Rape hysteria and elimination of due process for those accused of rape can still be found today among leftists and progressives; look at Title IX and Hillary's "all rape victims deserve to be believed".
So you are saying that conservatism represents the will of the people, while progressivism and leftism does not? Interesting.
People who fight against an existing aristocracy are "left-wing" pretty much by definition; that's where the term comes from. So, the Boston Tea Party was a left-wing riot, destruction of property and all. The fact that these people now seem conservative to you only shows you how extremely left wing Democrats and progressives have really become.
I see, as usual, you avoid making any factual statements or arguments.
When you can identify specific statements you believe that are wrong, feel free to correct them.
So far, you haven't even been able to state clearly what you actually mean when you talk about "socialism".
I think I was pretty clear about why. Let me repeat again:
(1) All the forms of socialism I experienced were, in fact, totalitarian.
(2) All the major philosophical and political works advocating socialism (e.g., Marx, Engels, Zinn, etc.) describe a totalitarian ideology, as do the political programs of socialist parties in Democracies.
(3) There are numerous books actually explaining why socialism ends up being (effectively or explicitly) totalitarian (e.g., Hayek, von Mises, Schumpeter).
So far, you haven't been specific about explaining how your ideal form of socialism actually is supposed to operate or what it means. You don't even need to explain this yourself, there are probably thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of papers and essays describing variants of socialism, just pick the one that reflects your views.
Then explain how it deals with the economic calculation problem, how it deals with people who refuse to comply with the economic directives you need to impose in a socialist regime, and what new mechanisms it employs so that people like Stalin, Honecker, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ceausescu, or Tito cannot get into power as they have in other socialist regimes.
Absolutely I want to retract it! I now understand that there is still a vocal population if Microsoft zealots out there to whom "integrates with Windows domains" and "has a Windows GUI" are actually desirable features that trump "has predictable long-term pricing and availability" and "doesn't lock you into one vendor".
Good grief, look who's talking.
I didn't make "sweeping comments", I asked a question.
I am listening, but you haven't told me anything I didn't already know: MS SQL Server seems to be a reasonably good and stable product on Windows. It doesn't seem to be open source (despite your claims) and only seems to have Linux pre-releases. Saying that it can "easily hold it's own against Oracle and PostgreSQL" means that it isn't substantially better than either even on Linux. So, still no compelling reason to use it, and two very compelling reasons not to use it: incomplete Linux support and lack of source code.
I don't "hate you", the "foe" tag is simply my "has nothing substantive to say" marker. It means I'll preferentially skip your postings in the future. In the dim past, one could automatically downrank people like you. I wish Slashdot had killfiles.
Indeed, they were a mix of mostly leftists, although there was probably a reasonable number of libertarians as well. They didn't clash with "conservative rioters"; they didn't clash with rioters at all. Who they clashed with is police and white supremacist groups.
That's ridiculous. The 1960's rioters were generally the same people as the 1960's protesters, namely leftists. Aggressive defiance of authority, civil disobedience, and provocation was a hallmark of the 1960's leftists movements. You see the same thing today: when BLM protests turn into riots, it's the protesters themselves becoming violent, usually in response to police action. And the police acts not because they are "conservative", but because the neighborhoods that the protesters go through are tired of the disturbances. Conservatives are simply not involved in most riots.
You were a Master student until age 37 and you didn't even finish? Seems like your education matches your ridiculous technical views.
Well, I'm not a software engineer. Come to think of it, I don't think you're either.
I give it about a month before there will be a decent open source clone. Progress in AI is crazy fast.