There are quite a large number of hours of footage. There's bound to be a few mistakes.
Sarkeesian's problem isn't that she makes "mistakes", it's that her videos are hours upon hours of self-righteous indignation by a pampered privileged princess who has made a career out of appealing to sex-starved male nerds coming to her defense. It's so stupid, it's actually kind of funny.
You know that's a word with an actual meaning right?
Yes, and the terms "sexist" (prejudice or stereotyping based on sex) and "bigot" (intolerance towards those holding different opinions) clearly apply to Sarkeesian, regardless of whether you agree with her politics.
Does Anita cause a slew of very large advertisers to stop paying huge amounts of money all at once?
I suspect she actually does, but since Google favors her political views, they are likely willing to pay a significant price in advertising revenue.
Posturing about the law, and ignorance of the law, them two make a saucy shit sandwich. Every. Time
I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time. Even now that I am a citizen, my family abroad has no right to visit me here or live with me (although they occasionally enjoy that privilege after going through the paperwork). That's the way US and international law both work and have always worked.
And I agree: posturing and ignorance of the law are the problem here, namely posturing by people who evidently know little about (or deliberately misrepresent, for self-serving reasons) immigration-related law in the US and abroad and who naively assume for political and ideological reason that fairness demands that non-citizens are treated like citizens.
And US law is also clear that border searches are not police searches.
On the other hand, the US signed a treaty (actually a couple) that says my wife and son, both not citizens of the USA, can wander into the USA any time they want
Really? A treaty that grants non-citizens unconditional legal rights to enter the US? Being an immigrant myself, most of whose family lives outside the US, I'd love to hear about that! Can you provide pointers?
You're literally worse than the stinking Communists that actually let me visit my West German grandfather.
Why would communists prevent you from visiting your West German grandfather? West Germany was never run by communists.
As for the "stinking Communists", their problem was that they violated the fundamental right of people to leave their country. That's why most of my family couldn't visit me after I emigrated, being stuck behind the iron curtain and all that. Of course, it was easy for Westerners to visit East Germany: Westerners brought hard currency and were very unlikely to stay in those shitholes.
Immigrants like myself who actually have first-hand experience with "stinking Communism" need to speak up to prevent ignorant, privileged fools like you from turning the US into the kind of shitholes we came from.
The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly white male countries.
Any information you hand over is you consenting to a search. They will make feel like you can't get into the country without a social media account. That's not true. It's just a scare tactic.
Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet. How do I know? I have lived in half a dozen countries and immigrated to the US.
Even as a citizen, you can be searched at the border.
It's just 9/11 united in hatred and ignorance bullshit group think all over again.
The "ignorance and group think" is people like you who confuse legal protections of citizens with immigration procedures.
I wanna know where are all the NAACP related groups and protestors on this?
Quite apart from the legal issues, the NAACP stands up for the rights and advancement of a population that suffers from, on average, lower education, lower skills, and lower incomes. What possible reason would the NAACP have to advocate the admission into the US of even more people who compete for already scarce low skill jobs?
Channels like FeministFrequency are really offensive, sexist, and bigoted. But YouTube tries to live up to free speech ideals, so they try to tolerate people like Anita as much as humanly possible.
Populism is where the majority takes the reigns and says, "no, we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it our way because it provides the most benefit to us, the majority."
In a presidential election, about 60-70 million people vote for the winning candidate out of a population of about 320 million, which is a little more than 20%. That's not a "majority". Those 60-70 million represent a huge diversity of interests and reasons for picking one candidate or another. The idea that "the majority" is a valid concept and represents a group of people with common interests is absolutely ludicrous. The same is true for state and local elections.
Of course, economically, it may seem like you are part of something like "the majority of the bottom 90%" and that taking money from the top 10% and transferring it to the bottom 90% is a good idea for the bottom 90%. However, that is not only unjust, it also simply doesn't work in the long term. It's also not what other progressive welfare states do: European countries finance their welfare states with much higher taxes on the middle class.
"The aristocracy" and "feudal lords" weren't bankers and merchants, they were people who were given special privileges by the church and the state and thought themselves intellectually superior and divinely justified. Then, as now, people like you, Warren, and Sanders hated successful businessmen with a passion, often leading directly to antisemitism and pogroms. And you're right that the hatred of successful businessmen, their denunciation as an "aristocracy", and calls for their expropriation are both progressive and populist; when they become more extreme (usually, after progressives and populists like you have destroyed the economy), they turn into pogroms and overt fascism.
Hayek makes the economic case for why people like you are worshipers and enablers of feudalism in his book "The Road to Serfdom". I suggest you read it.
The question is what we do when the possibilities of realistically supporting yourself evaporate completely, and we go back to a semi-feudal system -- the nobles having all the power and letting the peasants who serve them exist at the bare minimum standard.
You mean the kind of economy and society that people like Sanders and Warren want to bring about? Because that's what social democracy, the welfare state, and progressivism lead to: a "semi-feudal system".
Yeah, they may "pay them little". But if the people taking these jobs had higher paying alternatives, they would be taking them. So, "paying them little" is better than getting no money at all.
I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.
RTFA:
“In court the boy's friend told the truth - that I hadn't assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
In any case, this is just one of many examples where Britain calls things "hate crimes" that merely amount to speech that offends someone.
You should try actually being honest instead of peddling lies.
It's perfectly alright for Britain to draw the line between free speech and hate crimes differently from the US, and it's perfectly fine for me to point that out. That's also simply a fact.
In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible can get you locked up for a hte crime. Even if (like me) you think that the Bible is a bunch of hooey, that's not the way free societies ought to function.
So, sure, Google needs to conform to British cultural norms if they want to do business there. But a good deal of skepticism is in order whether this actually about "hate-filled videos" or simply bizarre British preferences. That is, US media shouldn't just repeat such statements without qualification because the term "hate-filled" seems to mean something very different over there.
"shipping"? It costs that much more to ship from China to New Zealand than from China to the USA?
"Mostly shipping and regulatory compliance."
Maybe, maybe not. A rational actor sells products at the price that brings the most profit. If Apple's costs go up, that doesn't change the price expectations of Apple's customers.
There is no "maybe" about it: certainly, no new money would flow into NZ. Furthermore, it's unlikely that Apple would lower their profit margin in NZ either because they simply don't have to.
which was visible to everyone when they decided to boot old and ailing people and 20 million others out of healthcare.
The ACA is simply not sustainable as is. That's not my opinion, that's Obama's opinion. So, the "newly covered" under ACA aren't actually covered long term, they are simply disposable pawns in a Democratic strategy to ensure long-term majorities. ACA (like DACA and amnesty) is a cynical and corrosive political ploy by Democrats, and they obviously don't give a f*ck who they hurt in the process as long as they stay in power.
to fund the next big bomb manufacturing plant that is going to aggravate whatever conflict they choose
After a couple of decades of Democratic war mongering, and in particular Hillary's constant war boner, that statement is so silly as to not even warrant a response.
I would like to see some proof about your claims that social programs are ineffective
The war on poverty has been going on for over 50 years. Affirmative action has been going on for just as long. I suggest you look into what they accomplished. You might also want to look into the historical connections between Democrats, racism, segregation, abortion, minimum wage, welfare, etc. There are plenty of books on that.
The liberal elite would have given us a sensible budget proposal that wouldn't have disenfranchised thousands of needy people all over the country
In different words, the liberal elite would have continued to create more and more government dependency, because their calculation is that it is their ticket to permanent single party rule, the same way leftists operate single party states all over the world.
I don't see how you were a democrat to begin with if you are ok with the draconian cuts to the budgets Trump has made
A bunch of reasons. First, as a gay man, there wasn't really any choice, given that Republicans were quite homophobic; that has fortunately changed. Second, I believed the lies the Democrats like to tell about themselves until I actually bothered to read up on history and economics. Third, the Democratic party used to have a sizeable contingent of actual liberals, but now it is mostly progressives (basically, proto-fascists) and democratic socialists, the same kind of people that turned the country I emigrated from into such a shithole.
The fair amount is what ever the corporate tax rate is in NZ calculated on profits generated in NZ.
And the "profits generated in NZ" are... pretty much zero. Hence, no taxes.
If you don't want to pay a countries taxes don't operate in that country
I doubt Apple has any interest in operating in NZ; they do it because the NZ government has created barriers that effectively forces them to. In a free world, New Zealanders could simply order Apple products directly from America.
Unless you are going to argue that apple contributed to the ports, rail, roads, schools, heathcare etc that has created a market for them.
So let's say NZ imposes a $100m tax on Apple. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Neither Apple stockholders nor Apple customers in other countries are going to pay for that. The only place those $100m can come from is from NZ customers: Apple would simply raise prices until supply, demand, and taxes balance out. If taxes become so high in NZ that there is no viable business, Apple simply leaves entirely.
A "tax on Apple" in NZ is simply a tax on New Zealanders who happen to buy Apple products; there is no other source of money. Furthermore, you can't even make a protectionist argument for it since there are simply no competitive NZ companies.
Please then explain why iPhones cost approximately 10% more in NZ [scoop.co.nz] than in the USA? Clearly there is some added value that had incurred in NZ.
Mostly shipping and regulatory compliance.
Yeah, charging a tax on the cost of complying with protectionist and crappy regulations! That's the ticket!
In any case, ultimately, it's New Zealanders, not Apple, who is going to pay for this.
All you mention are the problems that exist today like they are the fault of the liberal elite that is acknowledging the problems and doing something to fix it.
The problems that I mentioned (racial disparities, inner city violence, a failing medical system) are indeed the fault of the "liberal elite"; more specifically, they are the result of decades of failed and ineffective progressive and social justice policies.
Plus you make assumptions about my feelings and conscience.
I go by what you advocate: corruption, the continuation of ineffective program, and the aggrandizement of a class of corrupt, greedy liars. That tells me everything I need to know about your conscience and your feelings.
Intentions don't matter. Actions do.
Oh, so very true. Yet you say: "A liberal elite who cares is much better than a populist demagogue".
In any case, as I was saying: I didn't vote for Trump. But hypocrites like you made me quit the Democratic party in disgust.
A liberal elite that would not cut funding for meals on wheels. A liberal elite that would not have abandoned humanitarian aid for South Sudan in a time of crisis. A liberal elite that would have kept all the programs that benefit veterans and aging people who didn't vote for her or trust her anyway. A liberal elite who would have kept the after-school programs that keep children off the streets. A liberal elite who cares is much better than a populist demagogue backed by an entire party of elites.
True: a liberal elite that hands out tax dollars like candy to its cronies, while US inner cities sink deeper and deeper into poverty and violence and while social security and the medical system careen out of control towards the abyss.
That's because all that that liberal elite really cares about is their own wealth and power, and making it through the next election.
And the liberal mediocrity that votes for the liberal elite, people like you, don't give a f*ck about the poor here or in South Sudan either; all you are doing is trying to ease your conscience and assuage your guilt by advocating that other people do good deeds.
I didn't vote for Trump, but, gosh, people like you make me glad he won. You're really channeling all the lies, dishonesty, corruption, and violence of his opponents. Keep it up!
If those Kiwis set up a business in the US to deal with the importing, then yes, the US would indeed be charging them corporation tax.
Yes, on the profits from the importing themselves. Those businesses make profits because moving sheep and fruit around the world takes skill, risk, and labor.
You do realise that Apple has a NZ incorporated subsidiary, right?
Yes, and that subsidiary has approximately zero profit, because there is essentially no added value in the act of importing iPhones. The only activities that are slightly difficult are the shipping and the insurance, and both of those are already taxed.
That's why the Apple subsidiary that imports iPhones should pay $0 in taxes: they don't actually provide anything of significant value and hence generate no profit. All the value is generated outside NZ, by R&D in California and manufacturing in China.
Slashdot Mirror
Sarkeesian's problem isn't that she makes "mistakes", it's that her videos are hours upon hours of self-righteous indignation by a pampered privileged princess who has made a career out of appealing to sex-starved male nerds coming to her defense. It's so stupid, it's actually kind of funny.
Yes, and the terms "sexist" (prejudice or stereotyping based on sex) and "bigot" (intolerance towards those holding different opinions) clearly apply to Sarkeesian, regardless of whether you agree with her politics.
I suspect she actually does, but since Google favors her political views, they are likely willing to pay a significant price in advertising revenue.
In any case, your sarcasm meter is broken.
I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time. Even now that I am a citizen, my family abroad has no right to visit me here or live with me (although they occasionally enjoy that privilege after going through the paperwork). That's the way US and international law both work and have always worked.
And I agree: posturing and ignorance of the law are the problem here, namely posturing by people who evidently know little about (or deliberately misrepresent, for self-serving reasons) immigration-related law in the US and abroad and who naively assume for political and ideological reason that fairness demands that non-citizens are treated like citizens.
And US law is also clear that border searches are not police searches.
Really? A treaty that grants non-citizens unconditional legal rights to enter the US? Being an immigrant myself, most of whose family lives outside the US, I'd love to hear about that! Can you provide pointers?
Why would communists prevent you from visiting your West German grandfather? West Germany was never run by communists.
As for the "stinking Communists", their problem was that they violated the fundamental right of people to leave their country. That's why most of my family couldn't visit me after I emigrated, being stuck behind the iron curtain and all that. Of course, it was easy for Westerners to visit East Germany: Westerners brought hard currency and were very unlikely to stay in those shitholes.
Immigrants like myself who actually have first-hand experience with "stinking Communism" need to speak up to prevent ignorant, privileged fools like you from turning the US into the kind of shitholes we came from.
Just as true...
FTFY
And that's a justification for anything... why?
Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet. How do I know? I have lived in half a dozen countries and immigrated to the US.
Even as a citizen, you can be searched at the border.
The "ignorance and group think" is people like you who confuse legal protections of citizens with immigration procedures.
Quite apart from the legal issues, the NAACP stands up for the rights and advancement of a population that suffers from, on average, lower education, lower skills, and lower incomes. What possible reason would the NAACP have to advocate the admission into the US of even more people who compete for already scarce low skill jobs?
Channels like FeministFrequency are really offensive, sexist, and bigoted. But YouTube tries to live up to free speech ideals, so they try to tolerate people like Anita as much as humanly possible.
In a presidential election, about 60-70 million people vote for the winning candidate out of a population of about 320 million, which is a little more than 20%. That's not a "majority". Those 60-70 million represent a huge diversity of interests and reasons for picking one candidate or another. The idea that "the majority" is a valid concept and represents a group of people with common interests is absolutely ludicrous. The same is true for state and local elections.
Of course, economically, it may seem like you are part of something like "the majority of the bottom 90%" and that taking money from the top 10% and transferring it to the bottom 90% is a good idea for the bottom 90%. However, that is not only unjust, it also simply doesn't work in the long term. It's also not what other progressive welfare states do: European countries finance their welfare states with much higher taxes on the middle class.
"The aristocracy" and "feudal lords" weren't bankers and merchants, they were people who were given special privileges by the church and the state and thought themselves intellectually superior and divinely justified. Then, as now, people like you, Warren, and Sanders hated successful businessmen with a passion, often leading directly to antisemitism and pogroms. And you're right that the hatred of successful businessmen, their denunciation as an "aristocracy", and calls for their expropriation are both progressive and populist; when they become more extreme (usually, after progressives and populists like you have destroyed the economy), they turn into pogroms and overt fascism.
Hayek makes the economic case for why people like you are worshipers and enablers of feudalism in his book "The Road to Serfdom". I suggest you read it.
You mean the kind of economy and society that people like Sanders and Warren want to bring about? Because that's what social democracy, the welfare state, and progressivism lead to: a "semi-feudal system".
Yeah, they may "pay them little". But if the people taking these jobs had higher paying alternatives, they would be taking them. So, "paying them little" is better than getting no money at all.
Since both kinds of stroke cause damage by depriving brain regions of oxygen, this should be applicable to both.
RTFA:
“In court the boy's friend told the truth - that I hadn't assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”
In any case, this is just one of many examples where Britain calls things "hate crimes" that merely amount to speech that offends someone.
It's perfectly alright for Britain to draw the line between free speech and hate crimes differently from the US, and it's perfectly fine for me to point that out. That's also simply a fact.
it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.
In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible can get you locked up for a hte crime. Even if (like me) you think that the Bible is a bunch of hooey, that's not the way free societies ought to function.
So, sure, Google needs to conform to British cultural norms if they want to do business there. But a good deal of skepticism is in order whether this actually about "hate-filled videos" or simply bizarre British preferences. That is, US media shouldn't just repeat such statements without qualification because the term "hate-filled" seems to mean something very different over there.
"Mostly shipping and regulatory compliance."
There is no "maybe" about it: certainly, no new money would flow into NZ. Furthermore, it's unlikely that Apple would lower their profit margin in NZ either because they simply don't have to.
The ACA is simply not sustainable as is. That's not my opinion, that's Obama's opinion. So, the "newly covered" under ACA aren't actually covered long term, they are simply disposable pawns in a Democratic strategy to ensure long-term majorities. ACA (like DACA and amnesty) is a cynical and corrosive political ploy by Democrats, and they obviously don't give a f*ck who they hurt in the process as long as they stay in power.
After a couple of decades of Democratic war mongering, and in particular Hillary's constant war boner, that statement is so silly as to not even warrant a response.
The war on poverty has been going on for over 50 years. Affirmative action has been going on for just as long. I suggest you look into what they accomplished. You might also want to look into the historical connections between Democrats, racism, segregation, abortion, minimum wage, welfare, etc. There are plenty of books on that.
In different words, the liberal elite would have continued to create more and more government dependency, because their calculation is that it is their ticket to permanent single party rule, the same way leftists operate single party states all over the world.
A bunch of reasons. First, as a gay man, there wasn't really any choice, given that Republicans were quite homophobic; that has fortunately changed. Second, I believed the lies the Democrats like to tell about themselves until I actually bothered to read up on history and economics. Third, the Democratic party used to have a sizeable contingent of actual liberals, but now it is mostly progressives (basically, proto-fascists) and democratic socialists, the same kind of people that turned the country I emigrated from into such a shithole.
And the "profits generated in NZ" are... pretty much zero. Hence, no taxes.
I doubt Apple has any interest in operating in NZ; they do it because the NZ government has created barriers that effectively forces them to. In a free world, New Zealanders could simply order Apple products directly from America.
So let's say NZ imposes a $100m tax on Apple. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Neither Apple stockholders nor Apple customers in other countries are going to pay for that. The only place those $100m can come from is from NZ customers: Apple would simply raise prices until supply, demand, and taxes balance out. If taxes become so high in NZ that there is no viable business, Apple simply leaves entirely.
A "tax on Apple" in NZ is simply a tax on New Zealanders who happen to buy Apple products; there is no other source of money. Furthermore, you can't even make a protectionist argument for it since there are simply no competitive NZ companies.
Mostly shipping and regulatory compliance.
Yeah, charging a tax on the cost of complying with protectionist and crappy regulations! That's the ticket!
In any case, ultimately, it's New Zealanders, not Apple, who is going to pay for this.
The problems that I mentioned (racial disparities, inner city violence, a failing medical system) are indeed the fault of the "liberal elite"; more specifically, they are the result of decades of failed and ineffective progressive and social justice policies.
I go by what you advocate: corruption, the continuation of ineffective program, and the aggrandizement of a class of corrupt, greedy liars. That tells me everything I need to know about your conscience and your feelings.
Oh, so very true. Yet you say: "A liberal elite who cares is much better than a populist demagogue".
In any case, as I was saying: I didn't vote for Trump. But hypocrites like you made me quit the Democratic party in disgust.
So you confirm then that you are voting for the liberal elite.
Actually, most of "The People" didn't pay a dime for the development of the technology.
In any case, placing this in the public domain would basically accomplish that.
True: a liberal elite that hands out tax dollars like candy to its cronies, while US inner cities sink deeper and deeper into poverty and violence and while social security and the medical system careen out of control towards the abyss.
That's because all that that liberal elite really cares about is their own wealth and power, and making it through the next election.
And the liberal mediocrity that votes for the liberal elite, people like you, don't give a f*ck about the poor here or in South Sudan either; all you are doing is trying to ease your conscience and assuage your guilt by advocating that other people do good deeds.
Go to hell.
I didn't vote for Trump, but, gosh, people like you make me glad he won. You're really channeling all the lies, dishonesty, corruption, and violence of his opponents. Keep it up!
Yes, on the profits from the importing themselves. Those businesses make profits because moving sheep and fruit around the world takes skill, risk, and labor.
Yes, and that subsidiary has approximately zero profit, because there is essentially no added value in the act of importing iPhones. The only activities that are slightly difficult are the shipping and the insurance, and both of those are already taxed.
That's why the Apple subsidiary that imports iPhones should pay $0 in taxes: they don't actually provide anything of significant value and hence generate no profit. All the value is generated outside NZ, by R&D in California and manufacturing in China.