Of course it isn't legal for Chester to molest..er. The point was (and is) that Chester now has more opportunity to molest! You get that right?
Yes, I get it. I'm just saying there are so many other powerful arguments that outrank this by comparison. The number of times that Chester actually takes advantage of this are so minuscule that it'd make more sense to put armed guards in every bathroom.
If the majority want this law then less people will be uncomfortable after the law is implemented.
You can't just go by the number of total people on this one. We live in majority rules with minority rights country. Some day you'll find that you or your loved ones happen to be in a minority, and then you'll appreciate this. Yes, it made a whole lot of white people feel good to own slaves. But it sucked so much for the numerically fewer slaves, but logic and a sense of humanity should tell you it should not have been done (if you consider long term economics, fiscal responsibility should tell you it should not have been done). If 1000 people laugh while one person is unjustly murdered, I still want that one person to not be murdered. By similar argument, bathroom bills are affecting a small number of people a *lot*. Transgenders get harassed all the time, and very often actually get physically attacked. The larger number of uptight people are often "uncomfortable", but the total amount of discomfort weighs on the side of the trans-genders.
How about this though. Government should not make bathroom laws at all. Let people sort out their own social mores just like they used to. So if a dude tries to go into a female bathroom and they beat him out of their enmasse with their handbags (lol) then that's the will of the people.
Ah, I just realized who I'm talking to. Never mind. But you will understand one day, I've seen it so many times.
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
Agreed.
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises.
Disagree. Almost everything he promised on day one hasn't even been done yet - 100+ days out.
Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
If you actually look at the previous link or probably find any other metric, compare by numbers with Hillary or *any* other president (potential or not), you find the difference astounding. The man is, by all unbiased metrics, the biggest liar we've ever seen at this level, by (very) far.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
Hillary was attacked by the right for decades, Russia added a ton more propaganda to make the country believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Pizzagate is not a thing. The FBI said her crimes were piddly and would be laughed out of court. You can't compare running her own email server to the possibility of perjury, espionage, and treason that the current Administration is under investigation for. The current topic of Paris agreement is an economic no-brainer. Those are oil & gas companies saying we should go forward with it because there is money to be made in leading the world in technology. If you believe the scientists, this is a huge moral issue with millions of lives at stake. Secretary of Defense James Mattis sees climate change as a national security threat. This choice is a ridonculous one, and you can't compare this Administration to the boringness of what Clinton's would have been.
I like the idea of experimentation, but how often do states find that things work and the rest of the country does them? Usually, idiot states like Alabamawallow in poverty watching other states do smart things. The conservative Romney Careworked. So all states should do that right? But if you give states choice they'll reject the same thing by another name like it's going to kill them.
How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?
So what you're saying is that you want Chester to be allowed the right to enjoy equal-opportunity molestations?
How very...Progressive...of you.
Strat
I think the point was "if you're going to be pedantic, ignore realities, and argue that making a useless and discriminatory law will prevent Chester from molesting, then the counter-argument is that Chester can still molest, this law doesn't prevent that."
After looking up the numbers, I have to agree. The vast majority of physical attacks are against trans-gender people, not by them, and the law does not noticeably impact the child-molesters. My common sense reiterates that, knowing that most child-molestations and rapes are by people the victim is familiar with.
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Have you no critical-thinking skills?
Chester the Molester does. He figures this will be a pretty sweet opportunity to go into the women's bathroom after your little girl goes in by just saying he identifies as female today.
Aw, are we trying critical thinking today?
1. Where is it legal for Chester to molest? If Chester were following any laws at, he'd avoid the biggest one first. This isn't an end-all argument, just used to judge impact vs consequences.
2. Almost all the people this law will affect are law abiding citizens. People too afraid to think just haven't noticed most of them before.
3. So, now you're creating a law that makes more people uncomfortable than there are right now, and tempting a whole lot of law-abiding citizens to break the law. (I think it's like speeding on the highway, I'd be for autobahn-style laws that actually make sense but I digress).
4. It makes me wonder why are normally anti-government-regulation types all of a sudden wanting over-regulation?
Somehow, Slashdot readers will spin this as a reason to criticize Bill Gates.
Well that all depends on what Bill Gates is getting out of it... I'll applaud him when he gives without expecting anything in return.
It's always good for the tech industry to get more programmers applying. I think I agree with both of you - this seems to help the companies contributing, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the market wanting more workers that can do the job. I'd rather a kid study programming that complaining there's no coal jerbs any more.
If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
Or better, "If we actually want the public to have more control over their laws, we should get to vote individually on every issue." While it's true, we could spend forever wishing for better representation. But, that doesn't discount that right here and now, we have this avenue for our voice, and it's getting marginalized by malicious actors in an obvious way. If we don't stand up and fight, but just sit around wishing the world were different, then we'll quickly lose the few rights that we have left.
Has anyone bothered to do a check on a sample of pro-net neutrality comments to see if similar problems exist there, or are only anti-nn comments worth investigating?
I'd be interested too, but please post all the relevant information, like methods and percentages. Who cares if there were 1,000 fake comments, I want to know for both pro & con: # total comments, top 5 most common text, of each of those, the percentage given by date & time, percentage of validated comments - for & against
Maybe shorthand would be: any pattern that has been deemed suspicious, check for that pattern on the other side and show which happened more frequently.
Granted, I doubt I'll be disappointed, all the evidence I've seen thus far leads me to believe these were bots
This comment on the previous thread applies to this one as well:
Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards" sprouting pro-Putin and pro-Trump talking points.
And in effect anti-net-neutrality.
Adjust your skepticism accordingly. They're rattled -- there's been a strong uptick in Putinbot activity in the last few days, which makes me wonder if pro-Western forces are getting closer to the truth on Kremlingate.
In the absence of Slashdot waking up to themselves and getting rid of "Anonymous Coward", you'll have to wade through a lot of Putinbot spam in the meantime.
I agree, except for the part about Putin being thrown out. I was under the impression that the economic consequences of corruption he brings would doom Russia. Indeed I can see it has hurt them short and long-term, and his actions have also brought economic sanctions. However, he's somehow managed to trick Russian people with propaganda, enough to keep some level of popularity despite terrible economic conditions. Russian people, like my American back-country neighbors, blindly support the strongmen that abuse them.
With the rising price of oil, some of that economic pain will ease. Now is the time I thought he'd have been ousted, but with the success of his propaganda machine in electing Trump, I'm wondering what evidence we have of Putin's impending demise?
Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?
This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.
None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart
I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one.
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds.
But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
I thought it was a little funny, but I'm considering the context. The president regularly uses his position of power to intimidate the press. In this case, he dismissed the reporter simply for asking him 'what his opinion was'. He also stooped down to the level of grade-school insults, a level almost never reached by people in the respected position until now. Usually that type of thing is done by comics. So to approach an equal come-back in defense of the responsible reporter, Colbert had to go beyond the normal limit.
It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label.
But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.
I have to almost agree but just barely (there's power aspects in the insult more important than the sexuality of the act), but I think Colbert did too ("I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be"). But I'm not upset about it because of my judgement plus the fact that that offense is really judged by those who are offended. The targets take the accused offender into account because they have to decide how it was meant, and Colbert has always been an apparently genuine supporter of LGBT people and rights. My gay friends weren't offended for this reason.
The FCC...
You had both +/- comments about their decision, so I'll just let them stand.
There is a paragraph about phishing that largely is quoted in the summary. The article doesn't make clear whether these are phishing attacks from the Russian government, or just from Russia.
Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:
In one case last year, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, a Russian soldier based in Ukraine successfully infiltrated a U.S. social media group by pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife and weighing in on political debates with specially tailored messages.
Overall, the article is an example of the breathless hyperbole that fills every news article these days.
Heh TFA says "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources". Hrm.
Heh "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources".
If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media. How many hyped up bullshit stories is it going to take before news media consumers realize it's 95% storytelling and 5% actual events?
To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it. As he puts it,
"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.
I'm white and I've had just enough black friends to see that racism still is a problem. The linked quotes are about not stopping minorities from saying so. Through the years, I've realized that yes, we're all a little racist. The studies actually show that minorities are often racist against themselves. It's not fair. There's a belief among some of my white friends that the pendulum has swung in favor of minorities, and anti-white racism is worse than pro-white. I've seen otherwise. Not just anecdotal from people, but empirical studies show this. I know it's hard to believe. If you ever have a chance to take one of the studies, try it and see. Here's just one thing off the top of a search, I can't find the study I participated in right now. https://www.psychologytoday.co...
All that said, what are we afraid of? If minorities are allowed to say racism is real, how does it hurt us? You're probably afraid of laws being made that actually hurt us, affirmative action. First off, whatever laws are made, and not even one is likely to ever happen at this point, it would have been nothing compared to slavery, Jim Crow, and even the subtle racism since then that hurts every life opportunity. That said, I don't think affirmative action should be in the workforce, because it won't make a lasting difference there, all it does is hurt whites for one generation. It could be in school. If when we close our eyes and think of minorities, if we thought of them as even equally educated, then racism would actually disappear.
Is it worth it? Should we sacrifice "so much" just to live in a diverse society? The answer is yes. It's been proven, again empirically, that most aspects of diversity directly lead to more powerful groups, more productive workforces, more profits even. This is actually what has and can make our country great.
Liberals legislate everything to the point where it hurts, and conservatives eliminate legislation to the point where it hurts.
The optimism and making plans for the future is refreshing, thanks for adding that. But to counter this one point, I'm a liberal and I strongly believe in the free market. But I also understand that in no point in human history has there ever been a real completely free market. Businesses inherently want to abuse people and the shared environment because that gets the most profit. So some rules will obviously always be necessary, and the rules should focus on protecting the little guy and the shared environment to allow for the most competition possible. Things like "health care for all" sounds like it hurts individuals by increasing our premiums, when the truth is that employees are more competitive when healthy. Businesses that employ healthy people are more competitive. Countries that supply health care are more competitive because of it (note that there are countries that spend 1/6 of the % of GDP as we do on health care, except theirs is universal). So it's not actually legislation to the point of pain, it just seems like that to those that haven't studied the issue enough (and I'm talking about/most/ issues not all - like I'm against minimum wage). Of course we've fought hard for net neutrality, this one should be more obvious to everyone.
I totally agree. One more point in defense of the uneducated poor Trump supporters is that they were surrounded, which also made it easier to conform. Doesn't necessarily mean they're dumb, only human.
I agree with this, except the part about 'party lines'. The Dems fought for net neutrality. In this case, and manyothers like it, one party is obviously worth voting for.
How about voting against Republicans. Then start voting for 3rd party candidates/after/ the Dems are in charge. Because the Dems fought/for/ net neutrality. As well as almost all other issues favoring the little guy and believing in science. But Reps have done everything from Citizen's United to gerrymandering, both the major factors that have brought us to where we are, finally getting rid of net neutrality which they are 99% responsible for.
Not removing Trump won't remove the ideology either, actually it will help it. Removing trump will diminish the power of the ideology. Just keep fighting afterwards.
THIS. is what allowed us to balance the budget in the 90's. But screw that, let's chase today's dollars because who wants to lead the world or a balanced budget? #thanksrepublicans
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it isn't legal for Chester to molest..er. The point was (and is) that Chester now has more opportunity to molest! You get that right?
Yes, I get it. I'm just saying there are so many other powerful arguments that outrank this by comparison. The number of times that Chester actually takes advantage of this are so minuscule that it'd make more sense to put armed guards in every bathroom.
If the majority want this law then less people will be uncomfortable after the law is implemented.
You can't just go by the number of total people on this one. We live in majority rules with minority rights country. Some day you'll find that you or your loved ones happen to be in a minority, and then you'll appreciate this. Yes, it made a whole lot of white people feel good to own slaves. But it sucked so much for the numerically fewer slaves, but logic and a sense of humanity should tell you it should not have been done (if you consider long term economics, fiscal responsibility should tell you it should not have been done). If 1000 people laugh while one person is unjustly murdered, I still want that one person to not be murdered. By similar argument, bathroom bills are affecting a small number of people a *lot*. Transgenders get harassed all the time, and very often actually get physically attacked. The larger number of uptight people are often "uncomfortable", but the total amount of discomfort weighs on the side of the trans-genders.
How about this though. Government should not make bathroom laws at all. Let people sort out their own social mores just like they used to. So if a dude tries to go into a female bathroom and they beat him out of their enmasse with their handbags (lol) then that's the will of the people.
Ah, I just realized who I'm talking to. Never mind. But you will understand one day, I've seen it so many times.
>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."
Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...
Agreed.
But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises.
Disagree. Almost everything he promised on day one hasn't even been done yet - 100+ days out.
Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.
If you actually look at the previous link or probably find any other metric, compare by numbers with Hillary or *any* other president (potential or not), you find the difference astounding. The man is, by all unbiased metrics, the biggest liar we've ever seen at this level, by (very) far.
I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.
Hillary was attacked by the right for decades, Russia added a ton more propaganda to make the country believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Pizzagate is not a thing. The FBI said her crimes were piddly and would be laughed out of court. You can't compare running her own email server to the possibility of perjury, espionage, and treason that the current Administration is under investigation for. The current topic of Paris agreement is an economic no-brainer. Those are oil & gas companies saying we should go forward with it because there is money to be made in leading the world in technology. If you believe the scientists, this is a huge moral issue with millions of lives at stake. Secretary of Defense James Mattis sees climate change as a national security threat. This choice is a ridonculous one, and you can't compare this Administration to the boringness of what Clinton's would have been.
I like the idea of experimentation, but how often do states find that things work and the rest of the country does them? Usually, idiot states like Alabama wallow in poverty watching other states do smart things. The conservative Romney Care worked. So all states should do that right? But if you give states choice they'll reject the same thing by another name like it's going to kill them.
I'd like to remind you who droughts affect first.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Me and everyone I know on the left is pro-weed. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I don't see any empirical numbers you're putting up.
How is this any different than Chester Thr Molester molesting my SON in the MENs room?
So what you're saying is that you want Chester to be allowed the right to enjoy equal-opportunity molestations?
How very...Progressive...of you.
Strat
I think the point was "if you're going to be pedantic, ignore realities, and argue that making a useless and discriminatory law will prevent Chester from molesting, then the counter-argument is that Chester can still molest, this law doesn't prevent that."
After looking up the numbers, I have to agree. The vast majority of physical attacks are against trans-gender people, not by them, and the law does not noticeably impact the child-molesters. My common sense reiterates that, knowing that most child-molestations and rapes are by people the victim is familiar with.
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
Have you no critical-thinking skills?
Chester the Molester does. He figures this will be a pretty sweet opportunity to go into the women's bathroom after your little girl goes in by just saying he identifies as female today.
Aw, are we trying critical thinking today?
Somehow, Slashdot readers will spin this as a reason to criticize Bill Gates.
Well that all depends on what Bill Gates is getting out of it... I'll applaud him when he gives without expecting anything in return.
It's always good for the tech industry to get more programmers applying. I think I agree with both of you - this seems to help the companies contributing, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the market wanting more workers that can do the job. I'd rather a kid study programming that complaining there's no coal jerbs any more.
If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
Or better, "If we actually want the public to have more control over their laws, we should get to vote individually on every issue." While it's true, we could spend forever wishing for better representation. But, that doesn't discount that right here and now, we have this avenue for our voice, and it's getting marginalized by malicious actors in an obvious way. If we don't stand up and fight, but just sit around wishing the world were different, then we'll quickly lose the few rights that we have left.
Has anyone bothered to do a check on a sample of pro-net neutrality comments to see if similar problems exist there, or are only anti-nn comments worth investigating?
I'd be interested too, but please post all the relevant information, like methods and percentages. Who cares if there were 1,000 fake comments, I want to know for both pro & con: # total comments, top 5 most common text, of each of those, the percentage given by date & time, percentage of validated comments - for & against
Maybe shorthand would be: any pattern that has been deemed suspicious, check for that pattern on the other side and show which happened more frequently.
Granted, I doubt I'll be disappointed, all the evidence I've seen thus far leads me to believe these were bots
Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards" sprouting pro-Putin and pro-Trump talking points.
And in effect anti-net-neutrality.
Adjust your skepticism accordingly. They're rattled -- there's been a strong uptick in Putinbot activity in the last few days, which makes me wonder if pro-Western forces are getting closer to the truth on Kremlingate.
In the absence of Slashdot waking up to themselves and getting rid of "Anonymous Coward", you'll have to wade through a lot of Putinbot spam in the meantime.
I agree, except for the part about Putin being thrown out. I was under the impression that the economic consequences of corruption he brings would doom Russia. Indeed I can see it has hurt them short and long-term, and his actions have also brought economic sanctions. However, he's somehow managed to trick Russian people with propaganda, enough to keep some level of popularity despite terrible economic conditions. Russian people, like my American back-country neighbors, blindly support the strongmen that abuse them.
With the rising price of oil, some of that economic pain will ease. Now is the time I thought he'd have been ousted, but with the success of his propaganda machine in electing Trump, I'm wondering what evidence we have of Putin's impending demise?
Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?
This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.
None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart
I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one.
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds. But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
I thought it was a little funny, but I'm considering the context. The president regularly uses his position of power to intimidate the press. In this case, he dismissed the reporter simply for asking him 'what his opinion was'. He also stooped down to the level of grade-school insults, a level almost never reached by people in the respected position until now. Usually that type of thing is done by comics. So to approach an equal come-back in defense of the responsible reporter, Colbert had to go beyond the normal limit.
It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label. But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.
I have to almost agree but just barely (there's power aspects in the insult more important than the sexuality of the act), but I think Colbert did too ("I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be"). But I'm not upset about it because of my judgement plus the fact that that offense is really judged by those who are offended. The targets take the accused offender into account because they have to decide how it was meant, and Colbert has always been an apparently genuine supporter of LGBT people and rights. My gay friends weren't offended for this reason.
The FCC ...
You had both +/- comments about their decision, so I'll just let them stand.
"The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife".
Blown right away. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
Kadyrov, is that you?
Oh, wait, maybe you're Mahmoud, I guess since you've been barred from running again, now you're ./ing from your Mom's basement :P
I think we've known for a while that various governments pay people to enter forums and post messages trying control the narrative.
I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:
"Russia's information war might be thought of as the biggest trolling operation in history,"
There is a paragraph about phishing that largely is quoted in the summary. The article doesn't make clear whether these are phishing attacks from the Russian government, or just from Russia.
Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:
In one case last year, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, a Russian soldier based in Ukraine successfully infiltrated a U.S. social media group by pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife and weighing in on political debates with specially tailored messages.
Overall, the article is an example of the breathless hyperbole that fills every news article these days.
Heh TFA says "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources". Hrm.
If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media. How many hyped up bullshit stories is it going to take before news media consumers realize it's 95% storytelling and 5% actual events?
Hrm.
To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it. As he puts it,
"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.
I'm white and I've had just enough black friends to see that racism still is a problem. The linked quotes are about not stopping minorities from saying so. Through the years, I've realized that yes, we're all a little racist. The studies actually show that minorities are often racist against themselves. It's not fair. There's a belief among some of my white friends that the pendulum has swung in favor of minorities, and anti-white racism is worse than pro-white. I've seen otherwise. Not just anecdotal from people, but empirical studies show this. I know it's hard to believe. If you ever have a chance to take one of the studies, try it and see. Here's just one thing off the top of a search, I can't find the study I participated in right now. https://www.psychologytoday.co...
All that said, what are we afraid of? If minorities are allowed to say racism is real, how does it hurt us? You're probably afraid of laws being made that actually hurt us, affirmative action. First off, whatever laws are made, and not even one is likely to ever happen at this point, it would have been nothing compared to slavery, Jim Crow, and even the subtle racism since then that hurts every life opportunity. That said, I don't think affirmative action should be in the workforce, because it won't make a lasting difference there, all it does is hurt whites for one generation. It could be in school. If when we close our eyes and think of minorities, if we thought of them as even equally educated, then racism would actually disappear.
Is it worth it? Should we sacrifice "so much" just to live in a diverse society? The answer is yes. It's been proven, again empirically, that most aspects of diversity directly lead to more powerful groups, more productive workforces, more profits even. This is actually what has and can make our country great.
Liberals legislate everything to the point where it hurts, and conservatives eliminate legislation to the point where it hurts.
The optimism and making plans for the future is refreshing, thanks for adding that. But to counter this one point, I'm a liberal and I strongly believe in the free market. But I also understand that in no point in human history has there ever been a real completely free market. Businesses inherently want to abuse people and the shared environment because that gets the most profit. So some rules will obviously always be necessary, and the rules should focus on protecting the little guy and the shared environment to allow for the most competition possible. Things like "health care for all" sounds like it hurts individuals by increasing our premiums, when the truth is that employees are more competitive when healthy. Businesses that employ healthy people are more competitive. Countries that supply health care are more competitive because of it (note that there are countries that spend 1/6 of the % of GDP as we do on health care, except theirs is universal). So it's not actually legislation to the point of pain, it just seems like that to those that haven't studied the issue enough (and I'm talking about /most/ issues not all - like I'm against minimum wage). Of course we've fought hard for net neutrality, this one should be more obvious to everyone.
I totally agree. One more point in defense of the uneducated poor Trump supporters is that they were surrounded, which also made it easier to conform. Doesn't necessarily mean they're dumb, only human.
I agree with this, except the part about 'party lines'. The Dems fought for net neutrality. In this case, and many others like it, one party is obviously worth voting for.
How about voting against Republicans. Then start voting for 3rd party candidates /after/ the Dems are in charge. Because the Dems fought /for/ net neutrality. As well as almost all other issues favoring the little guy and believing in science. But Reps have done everything from Citizen's United to gerrymandering, both the major factors that have brought us to where we are, finally getting rid of net neutrality which they are 99% responsible for.
Not removing Trump won't remove the ideology either, actually it will help it. Removing trump will diminish the power of the ideology. Just keep fighting afterwards.
THIS. is what allowed us to balance the budget in the 90's. But screw that, let's chase today's dollars because who wants to lead the world or a balanced budget? #thanksrepublicans