The only reason the Clintons were not frog marched in cuffs for numerous felonies over the years was the swamp and the fact that the elites in both parties have been covering for each other for decades. Ask any active duty military. If they had done what Hillary did with her email sever and classified emails, they would be in jail. Nearly all politicians are crooked, but to try to claim that the Clintons are not outright mobsters is laughable to anyone who has been paying attention. Hell, Bill Clinton straight up raped several women and got away with it.
Every country in the world requires an ID to vote. Every country. Not requiring it makes us look like a third world shithole. How can we verify non-citizens aren't voting in our elections? We can't. Please consult this informative infographic.
In some states, illegal immigrants--by state policy--can get driver's licenses. You can register to vote at the DMV without any form of ID showing you are a US citizen. If any system dealing with PII, finances, etc. in your life had such a low barrier on security, would you use it? I don't think you would.
No one on the world is ok to live under a religious regime.
OK, I see now what I'm arguing with. You're a crazy loon, and I say that without sarcasm. Tons and tons and tons of people are perfectly happy to live under a religious regime, and if you're not aware of this, you really need to broaden your horizons. Lots of Muslims desire to live under a religious regime - remember all of them in Europe calling for Shariah? Didn't the UK endorse religious courts so they could feel right at home?
The liberals were allied with the Ayatollahs against the Shah. Jesus you don't know anything.
This is the logical fallacy known as guilt by association. Question: did you or did you not know this before posting? If you didn't, you're ignorant and were poorly educated. If you did, you're openly engaging in the kind of faulty argument your professors warned you against. So, which is it?
Wow, way to put words in my mouth! You just said a whole BUNCH of shit I did - not - say. In fact, it sounds like you've been successfully propagandized and have drunk the Fla-Vor-Aid.
Who's pretending it isn't happening? I'm saying that there is a ton of good environmental news out there that is being deliberately ignored. The reason for this is if this good news were known, it would be personally destructive to the people who work on this issue. They would lose funding and many would lose their jobs. So, obviously, the worse things are perceived to be, the better the situation is for themselves. Therefore they want the news to be uniformly bad, all the time, to generate a sense of crisis. Unless we act now and increase their funding, we're doomed! Pay us or the planet gets it!
Besides, if you're an environmentalist, don't you want humanity to go extinct? I mean, you people aren't exactly known for kindness and empathy. That's denial my friend, pure and simple.
There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.
Not at all. There's a ton of good environmental news out there. It's just we never hear about it, because it would disturb the artificial sense of crisis created by stories like these. Good news would take the wind out of their sails, and moreover jeopardize a lot of well-paying jobs. We're not the worst culture to ever live, not even by a long shot. We're the best culture to ever live. Western culture didn't start the African slave trade, Western culture ended the African slave trade.
That's the old way of thinking. You're talking about the old Eurocentric way of thinking, the one that has been used to dominate other people. For the past several decades, more and more academics have called this way of thinking into question, especially the sort of rationalist worldview that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The one that came up with outdated ideas like the one you espouse, the rights of innocents. The world has moved on, and if innocents must be harmed to fight a greater evil, then so be it. You want to argue, go find some post-structuralist thinkers and tell them your 18th century values are still valid in a globalized world.
So where was the outcry back then? There was none. There was general approval. Now, suddenly there's an outrage? How does this work? The same exact thing is being done.
Sexual urges do not cause rape. Patriarchy causes rape. Are you not familiar with the core tenets of feminism? How did you graduate university without knowing them?
It's about stopping evil activity by throwing out the evil with the good, and saying it's OK if good is harmed. Since these prostitution platforms are used for illegal human trafficking, they must be thrown out even if it harms "legitimate" prostitutes. It must be a wonderful feeling to lay down one's closely held values for the sake of freeing slaves. The sensation of sacrifice must be thrilling.
Surprise, the internet is global. There are other countries. Tons of them in fact. Jeez, get out of your bubble once in a while. This is just an opportunity for the international community to profit at America's expense by scooping up all this business while the prudish Americans forego the sweet, sweet revenue. Don't we like a good America-bashing?
Well, since all the news we ever receive on the environment is bad, it sure seems to me that we never do anything right. If the news ever reported that things were getting better, there wouldn't be a persistent sense of crisis and environmental NGOs would lose that most precious resource: money. People would lose their jobs. They have a conflict of interest in generating as much "the sky is falling" rhetoric as possible. This is very harmful. It feeds pessimism in Western countries and you get a lot of people firmly convinced that instead of being the best culture to ever live, we are the worst culture to ever live.
There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.
The "high priest" caste is suppressing the population, and they want to be free.
That's where you're wrong, bucko. Most of Iran is totally OK with living under an Islamist regime. That's how Mohammed wanted his people to live. He does not approve of young people kissing at the park. Iran has free and fair elections and everything. It's just the malcontents that are making a fuss.
I know dozens of Persian people who left when ever they could.
Ah, here's the problem. You only hear from the malcontents. This is called bias, and by only getting one side of the story, you're missing out on the other side.
the Shah was disposed by the CIA
BZZT wrong, the Shah was installed by the CIA. The Shah was overthrown by Islamic radicals allied with Iranian liberals. After the revolution, in a total surprise move, the Islamists turned on the liberals and either killed them or drove them into exile. These English-speaking exiles are where we get our news about Iran from, and shockingly to hear from them everything is horrible.
The problem with that kind of test case (and any small-scale experiment, really) is that some of the major benefits of UBI only emerge when the entire community is involved.
But you don't KNOW that. You have no PROOF. How can you be educated and yet not realize this? You are just stating an assertion. Or do you know damn well what you're doing and engaging in a bald-faced lie?
I wonder why the summary mentions Switter in passing and yet doesn't bother to mention what it is. All part of the typical "victim building" narrative. People might get the idea that some virtuous service was unfairly targeted. Switter is a Mastodon instance that was meant from the outset to facilitate the prostitution of people. The lovely irony here is that the sex traffickers feared being banned by Twitter so they set up their own service. Cloudflare, the site that banned the Daily Stormer, has now banned Switter as well.
The basic thing that the outrage machine either does not realize or is deliberately ignoring is that one of Trump's signature policies is attacking human trafficking. It gets very little press for obvious reasons: it paints him as a good person, and we all know that Trump is nothing less than Adolf Hitler. Didn't Hitler disrupt public spaces and ban things he didn't like the sound of? Oh the irony. This attack inevitably harms the "good" prostitutes right along with the evil human traffickers. The problem is, you can't tell them apart and "legitimate" prostitution platforms are used for evil means. The howl seems to be, "you're hurting all the good ones just to get a few bad apples!"
"If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud."
Likewise this Switter prostitution service isn't being deprived of life and liberty, they're being transferred to another internet provider. It's not a big deal. What's that I hear, it is a big deal? So it's not OK to do it to an organization specifically set up to facilitate the prostitution of human beings, but it's OK to do it to humans falsely accused of rape?
"We should no more be encouraging rapists to find a supposedly safe outlet for it than we should facilitate murderers by giving them realistic, blood-spurting dummies to stab...to make such a solution available is to risk normalizing rape by giving it a publicly acceptable face."
So, we can't try it out to see if it works, we have to implement it on a massive scale and only then can we know? Yeah, we're not going to experiment with all of society like that. Those kind of social experiments have a bad history of negative outcomes, something that educated people know.
Plus you pull out something completely new, that is also untested and unknown? Huh?
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason the Clintons were not frog marched in cuffs for numerous felonies over the years was the swamp and the fact that the elites in both parties have been covering for each other for decades. Ask any active duty military. If they had done what Hillary did with her email sever and classified emails, they would be in jail. Nearly all politicians are crooked, but to try to claim that the Clintons are not outright mobsters is laughable to anyone who has been paying attention. Hell, Bill Clinton straight up raped several women and got away with it.
Every country in the world requires an ID to vote. Every country. Not requiring it makes us look like a third world shithole. How can we verify non-citizens aren't voting in our elections? We can't. Please consult this informative infographic.
Maxine Waters, an advocate against voter ID, requires an ID to attend her town hall meeting.
Hillary Clinton's Book Tour. Valid Photo ID Required. Suppressing Minority Turnout.
In some states, illegal immigrants--by state policy--can get driver's licenses. You can register to vote at the DMV without any form of ID showing you are a US citizen. If any system dealing with PII, finances, etc. in your life had such a low barrier on security, would you use it? I don't think you would.
No one on the world is ok to live under a religious regime.
OK, I see now what I'm arguing with. You're a crazy loon, and I say that without sarcasm. Tons and tons and tons of people are perfectly happy to live under a religious regime, and if you're not aware of this, you really need to broaden your horizons. Lots of Muslims desire to live under a religious regime - remember all of them in Europe calling for Shariah? Didn't the UK endorse religious courts so they could feel right at home?
The liberals were allied with the Ayatollahs against the Shah. Jesus you don't know anything.
What's stupid about it? The democrats have long loved communists. Bernie Sanders took his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.
EU nations don't need to provide such proof. Only in the racist USA is it a big deal.
This is the logical fallacy known as guilt by association. Question: did you or did you not know this before posting? If you didn't, you're ignorant and were poorly educated. If you did, you're openly engaging in the kind of faulty argument your professors warned you against. So, which is it?
Wow, way to put words in my mouth! You just said a whole BUNCH of shit I did - not - say. In fact, it sounds like you've been successfully propagandized and have drunk the Fla-Vor-Aid.
Who's pretending it isn't happening? I'm saying that there is a ton of good environmental news out there that is being deliberately ignored. The reason for this is if this good news were known, it would be personally destructive to the people who work on this issue. They would lose funding and many would lose their jobs. So, obviously, the worse things are perceived to be, the better the situation is for themselves. Therefore they want the news to be uniformly bad, all the time, to generate a sense of crisis. Unless we act now and increase their funding, we're doomed! Pay us or the planet gets it!
Besides, if you're an environmentalist, don't you want humanity to go extinct? I mean, you people aren't exactly known for kindness and empathy. That's denial my friend, pure and simple.
There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.
Not at all. There's a ton of good environmental news out there. It's just we never hear about it, because it would disturb the artificial sense of crisis created by stories like these. Good news would take the wind out of their sails, and moreover jeopardize a lot of well-paying jobs. We're not the worst culture to ever live, not even by a long shot. We're the best culture to ever live. Western culture didn't start the African slave trade, Western culture ended the African slave trade.
That's the old way of thinking. You're talking about the old Eurocentric way of thinking, the one that has been used to dominate other people. For the past several decades, more and more academics have called this way of thinking into question, especially the sort of rationalist worldview that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The one that came up with outdated ideas like the one you espouse, the rights of innocents. The world has moved on, and if innocents must be harmed to fight a greater evil, then so be it. You want to argue, go find some post-structuralist thinkers and tell them your 18th century values are still valid in a globalized world.
So where was the outcry back then? There was none. There was general approval. Now, suddenly there's an outrage? How does this work? The same exact thing is being done.
Sexual urges do not cause rape. Patriarchy causes rape. Are you not familiar with the core tenets of feminism? How did you graduate university without knowing them?
It's about stopping evil activity by throwing out the evil with the good, and saying it's OK if good is harmed. Since these prostitution platforms are used for illegal human trafficking, they must be thrown out even if it harms "legitimate" prostitutes. It must be a wonderful feeling to lay down one's closely held values for the sake of freeing slaves. The sensation of sacrifice must be thrilling.
Surprise, the internet is global. There are other countries. Tons of them in fact. Jeez, get out of your bubble once in a while. This is just an opportunity for the international community to profit at America's expense by scooping up all this business while the prudish Americans forego the sweet, sweet revenue. Don't we like a good America-bashing?
Well, since all the news we ever receive on the environment is bad, it sure seems to me that we never do anything right. If the news ever reported that things were getting better, there wouldn't be a persistent sense of crisis and environmental NGOs would lose that most precious resource: money. People would lose their jobs. They have a conflict of interest in generating as much "the sky is falling" rhetoric as possible. This is very harmful. It feeds pessimism in Western countries and you get a lot of people firmly convinced that instead of being the best culture to ever live, we are the worst culture to ever live.
There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.
So the vile assault on Palin wasn't misogyny? And calling Hillary a criminal was misogyny? You're just making my point for me, that when We The Good People engage in disgusting misogyny, it's OK because we're doing it to The Other. When The Other does it to us, it's wrong because they're not Us.
The "high priest" caste is suppressing the population, and they want to be free.
That's where you're wrong, bucko. Most of Iran is totally OK with living under an Islamist regime. That's how Mohammed wanted his people to live. He does not approve of young people kissing at the park. Iran has free and fair elections and everything. It's just the malcontents that are making a fuss.
I know dozens of Persian people who left when ever they could.
Ah, here's the problem. You only hear from the malcontents. This is called bias, and by only getting one side of the story, you're missing out on the other side.
the Shah was disposed by the CIA
BZZT wrong, the Shah was installed by the CIA. The Shah was overthrown by Islamic radicals allied with Iranian liberals. After the revolution, in a total surprise move, the Islamists turned on the liberals and either killed them or drove them into exile. These English-speaking exiles are where we get our news about Iran from, and shockingly to hear from them everything is horrible.
The problem with that kind of test case (and any small-scale experiment, really) is that some of the major benefits of UBI only emerge when the entire community is involved.
But you don't KNOW that. You have no PROOF. How can you be educated and yet not realize this? You are just stating an assertion. Or do you know damn well what you're doing and engaging in a bald-faced lie?
The same platforms that are used by "legitimate" prostitutes are also used by human traffickers. Since we can't tell them apart, all of them have to go. "If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people."
I wonder why the summary mentions Switter in passing and yet doesn't bother to mention what it is. All part of the typical "victim building" narrative. People might get the idea that some virtuous service was unfairly targeted. Switter is a Mastodon instance that was meant from the outset to facilitate the prostitution of people. The lovely irony here is that the sex traffickers feared being banned by Twitter so they set up their own service. Cloudflare, the site that banned the Daily Stormer, has now banned Switter as well.
The basic thing that the outrage machine either does not realize or is deliberately ignoring is that one of Trump's signature policies is attacking human trafficking. It gets very little press for obvious reasons: it paints him as a good person, and we all know that Trump is nothing less than Adolf Hitler. Didn't Hitler disrupt public spaces and ban things he didn't like the sound of? Oh the irony. This attack inevitably harms the "good" prostitutes right along with the evil human traffickers. The problem is, you can't tell them apart and "legitimate" prostitution platforms are used for evil means. The howl seems to be, "you're hurting all the good ones just to get a few bad apples!"
Luckily, the precedent has already been set: it's acceptable to get rid of 10 if only 2 are guilty. FOSTA is just following in the footsteps of proud people that have blazed the trail.
Likewise this Switter prostitution service isn't being deprived of life and liberty, they're being transferred to another internet provider. It's not a big deal. What's that I hear, it is a big deal? So it's not OK to do it to an organization specifically set up to facilitate the prostitution of human beings, but it's OK to do it to humans falsely accused of rape?
"We should no more be encouraging rapists to find a supposedly safe outlet for it than we should facilitate murderers by giving them realistic, blood-spurting dummies to stab...to make such a solution available is to risk normalizing rape by giving it a publicly acceptable face."
-- The New York Times
The Federal Reserve is not a bank, it is a private corporation like Apple or Microsoft.
So, we can't try it out to see if it works, we have to implement it on a massive scale and only then can we know? Yeah, we're not going to experiment with all of society like that. Those kind of social experiments have a bad history of negative outcomes, something that educated people know.
Plus you pull out something completely new, that is also untested and unknown? Huh?