States rights is an outdated racist doctrine. It's wrong to have 50 different state laws when one federal law will do. You've been tricked by Trump into supporting his position that citizens should do it themselves rather than depend on the government. I thought Californians were smarter than that?
He did that to seize evidence from New York cops, who know how to prosecute corruption. Get the evidence safely in the hands of the FBI, where it can be buried.
What was Hillary thinking, anyway? Sending classified information on a crappy Windows server? She should be in Leavenworth for that! You and I certainly would be.
LOL loyalty to the constitution! What a laugh. Comey? Since when did the FBI supporting Left ever give a shit about the constitution? Hell, when did they start supporting the FBI?
Leftists, not liberals. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. You regularly deplatform even ordinary right wingers and cave their skulls in with bike locks. You're no liberal.
Well, let's be honest: you SJW communists would really be happier in another country besides America. It's constant stress living with us deplorables on a daily basis. This depletes your telomeres and shortens your life. Really. In fact, that's one of the arguments you use against free speech: that when your telemeres are shortened by hearing our ideas, that counts as violence, and thus when you hear us speak we are committing violence on you. Yup.
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech - at least certain types of speech - can be a form of violence.
So, where will you be going? It must be a relief to finally come to this conclusion. Canada? France? There are the countries that have implemented your left-wing systems, so you'll obviously want to check those out: Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba. Bon Voyage! Good luck in your stress-free home where our words can't harm you.
Don't worry! This tech will be used by the globalists in the US government to conquer all the countries in the world. Imagine a game of Risk, and you get the idea. After the whole map has only one country's armies on it, there will be no further war. Ever. Pax Eternal.
It's literally the most advanced technology in the world. The idea that "why aren't all of them equally advanced" is so intellectually infantile I don't even know where to start. It's the sort of thought a seven-year-old would have.
So, the New York Times - the Grey Lady - the paper of record - a liberal's liberal - is not just a conservative newspaper, but an untrustworthy rag. Indisputably right wing. That's what you're going with? Seriously?
I think you're really, really far left. If the New York Times looks right wing to you, what's your stand on Mao Zedong? He wasn't left enough for you? Too much of a softie?
Yaknow, if bicyclers weren't such gigantic assholes, you might get me to endorse or vote for an idea like that. It sounds good. But,no, I don't want you pricks celebrating. So fuck off.
Boy, Germans looking down on the English for once instead of the Americans. This seems weird! I'm used to being the target of your hate, seeing someone else take the abuse is so unexpected. Is there anyone the Germans don't look down on, besides fellow developed First World countries? Obviously shithole countries can do no wrong and would never be criticized.
It costs money to change over. You think bankers got rich by spending money? Hell no. We must all suffer so they can make a few more coppers. That's how sociopaths work.
And it's a good thing that we're starving other countries of these people. They'll never get ahead while we rob them blind of their best people. This is very profitable for us and will ensure American dominance for a long time to come.
They can keep the illiterate ones, though. Nobody wants them. It's not America's job to be the world's toilet.
That STEM dominance was built by already-educated people fleeing Europe to a similar culture with which they shared many values. Adding millions of low intelligence third-world peasants who are illiterate in their own native languages, much less English, is not a secret to success for any nation. Other countries wonder aloud what we think we're going to accomplish by it.
Because immigration was good in the past does not mean it's good in the present, or the future. That's a logical fallacy, I forget which one. Absolutely keep stealing badly-needed educated people from other countries so that these other countries never go anywhere. We need to keep them down by denying their ability to self-improve, that's very profitable for us. But the commoners, the morons, the deplorables? We don't want them and they don't benefit us at all.
They literally admitted it in print. WTF? I really don't see how you can be convinced if you reject basic facts. If you think the New York Times is right-wing, you're a nutbag, plain and simple.
That's why it's so wrong that we meddle so often in other countries' military affairs and have this gigantic trading empire. We need to stop these ridiculous outdated projects like NATO and withdraw our troops home, so that we can pay for these badly needed improvements to our society. Being considered a backwater by the rest of the world stings badly, and there's a lot of things we need to stop doing. If we cut the US Navy down to half the number of ships, we can afford to improve ourselves. Other countries will of course support this, as who wants to be the ally of a backwater shithole like the USA?
Uhh...did you not just endorse a call for civil war in America? Jesus Christ. You need to unite with us against Putin, not do his goddamned work for him!
In his remarkable book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, scholar Jonathan Haidt recalls a telling experiment. He and his colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham sought to discover how well conservative and what Haidt terms 'liberal' (ie: progressive) students understood one another by having them answer moral questions as they thought their political opponents would answer them. "The results were clear and consistent," remarks Haidt. "In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals." Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don't hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don't understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the 'conservative advantage,' and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don't understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don't understand.
Johnathan Haidt's research has so far uncovered six evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception, subconscious intuitive understanding, and conscious reasoning. He calls them moral foundations. He ALSO finds that moral foundations are the essential building blocks of human society. In his 2008 TED Talk "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives" he explains that human society is possible through the use of "all the tools in the toolbox." It's no coincidence that evolution pre-wired them into our brains.
Haidt finds that conservatives use all of them but liberals use about half of them, and of that half mostly just one. There's no conservative moral foundation that is not also a liberal one, but half of the conservative foundations are external to, and inaccessible by, liberal cognition.
When half of the evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception and understanding are essentially unavailable to one's subconscious intuitions and conscious reasoning one is left with no cognitive alternative for understanding people who think differently but to conclude that they're afflicted with some sort of mental dysfunction.
A conversation about social issues between a liberal and a conservative is like a conversation about rainbows between a color blind person and a fully sighted one in which the color blind liberal "knows" that the sighted conservative is an extremist nut case because he sees moral colors that "everybody knows" are just not there, and conservative think liberals are misinformed because they DON'T see moral colors that everybody knows ARE there.
R. R. Reno concluded his review of The Righteous Mind in the magazine First Things as follows:
"Thus the profound problem we face. Liberalism is blind in one eye, yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern."
Congratulations for completely not addressing anything I said and changing the topic - once again - to America's perceived shortcomings. Your comment is literally whataboutism.
You didn't actually address any of my points. Instead you used a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem". Care to try again? Here's another argument:
China is a trade manipulator. Right now China enjoys the status of a developing country under the WTO rules, granting it the right to trade protections not available to developed countries. Sure, China is still developing--in parts--but is highly developed in other parts (the developed city centers of China now constitute a middle class as large as that of the U.S.). The consequence is China has essentially hacked the WTO to its advantage.
Common sense policy making? Like safe spaces and microaggressions? Like caving people's skulls in with bike locks? When you think injecting cattle with hormones is evil, but injecting kids with hormones to arrest their puberty is just fine?
Conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives donâ(TM)t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the worldâ(TM)s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressiveâ(TM)s latest demands and says, "I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think youâ(TM)ve overlooked the following..." In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, "I have *no idea* why you would believe that. Youâ(TM)re probably a racist."
Keep up the good work, Ivan. Keep us fighting with one another, at each other's throats. Putin is cheering for you.
It's comments like this that utterly baffle me. It's like the poster lives in an entirely different universe where American education is not the best in the world. Chinese send massive numbers of students to America for the superior education. How many students does America send to China? Hell, people will advise you NOT to get a degree from a Chinese school because it's worthless (unless you want to spend the rest of your life in China). They cheat on their grades and the professors are worthless layabouts.
Slashdot Mirror
States rights is an outdated racist doctrine. It's wrong to have 50 different state laws when one federal law will do. You've been tricked by Trump into supporting his position that citizens should do it themselves rather than depend on the government. I thought Californians were smarter than that?
Show me on the doll where the Libertarian touched you.
Are you in the right story? Your comment was an incoherent rant against Christians, this is about a corrupt FBI official.
What was Hillary thinking, anyway? Sending classified information on a crappy Windows server? She should be in Leavenworth for that! You and I certainly would be.
LOL loyalty to the constitution! What a laugh. Comey? Since when did the FBI supporting Left ever give a shit about the constitution? Hell, when did they start supporting the FBI?
Leftists, not liberals. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. You regularly deplatform even ordinary right wingers and cave their skulls in with bike locks. You're no liberal.
Well, let's be honest: you SJW communists would really be happier in another country besides America. It's constant stress living with us deplorables on a daily basis. This depletes your telomeres and shortens your life. Really. In fact, that's one of the arguments you use against free speech: that when your telemeres are shortened by hearing our ideas, that counts as violence, and thus when you hear us speak we are committing violence on you. Yup.
So, where will you be going? It must be a relief to finally come to this conclusion. Canada? France? There are the countries that have implemented your left-wing systems, so you'll obviously want to check those out: Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba. Bon Voyage! Good luck in your stress-free home where our words can't harm you.
Don't worry! This tech will be used by the globalists in the US government to conquer all the countries in the world. Imagine a game of Risk, and you get the idea. After the whole map has only one country's armies on it, there will be no further war. Ever. Pax Eternal.
Then the US will kneel before the UN or successor supranational organization and surrender its sovereignty, to become a province of a global government. This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory, it's the conclusion reached by elites that the post-Westphalian world needs to go. For more information, read Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley Bill Clinton had him as a professor, and called him the most important influence on his life. You can read it free online here. The more high-tech war equipment we have, the more wars we can start, and the sooner we can achieve world conquest.
It's literally the most advanced technology in the world. The idea that "why aren't all of them equally advanced" is so intellectually infantile I don't even know where to start. It's the sort of thought a seven-year-old would have.
So, the New York Times - the Grey Lady - the paper of record - a liberal's liberal - is not just a conservative newspaper, but an untrustworthy rag. Indisputably right wing. That's what you're going with? Seriously?
I think you're really, really far left. If the New York Times looks right wing to you, what's your stand on Mao Zedong? He wasn't left enough for you? Too much of a softie?
So, because you saw some other spacecraft, you assume all spacecraft are going to be the same? Seriously? And you call yourself intelligent?
Yaknow, if bicyclers weren't such gigantic assholes, you might get me to endorse or vote for an idea like that. It sounds good. But ,no, I don't want you pricks celebrating. So fuck off.
Boy, Germans looking down on the English for once instead of the Americans. This seems weird! I'm used to being the target of your hate, seeing someone else take the abuse is so unexpected. Is there anyone the Germans don't look down on, besides fellow developed First World countries? Obviously shithole countries can do no wrong and would never be criticized.
It costs money to change over. You think bankers got rich by spending money? Hell no. We must all suffer so they can make a few more coppers. That's how sociopaths work.
And it's a good thing that we're starving other countries of these people. They'll never get ahead while we rob them blind of their best people. This is very profitable for us and will ensure American dominance for a long time to come.
They can keep the illiterate ones, though. Nobody wants them. It's not America's job to be the world's toilet.
They're still treated as a developing country by the WTO. Did you read what I wrote before you started expressing your America-hate?
That STEM dominance was built by already-educated people fleeing Europe to a similar culture with which they shared many values. Adding millions of low intelligence third-world peasants who are illiterate in their own native languages, much less English, is not a secret to success for any nation. Other countries wonder aloud what we think we're going to accomplish by it.
Because immigration was good in the past does not mean it's good in the present, or the future. That's a logical fallacy, I forget which one. Absolutely keep stealing badly-needed educated people from other countries so that these other countries never go anywhere. We need to keep them down by denying their ability to self-improve, that's very profitable for us. But the commoners, the morons, the deplorables? We don't want them and they don't benefit us at all.
They literally admitted it in print. WTF? I really don't see how you can be convinced if you reject basic facts. If you think the New York Times is right-wing, you're a nutbag, plain and simple.
STFU with the whataboutism already. Nobody wants to hear your anti-American whining crap.
That's why it's so wrong that we meddle so often in other countries' military affairs and have this gigantic trading empire. We need to stop these ridiculous outdated projects like NATO and withdraw our troops home, so that we can pay for these badly needed improvements to our society. Being considered a backwater by the rest of the world stings badly, and there's a lot of things we need to stop doing. If we cut the US Navy down to half the number of ships, we can afford to improve ourselves. Other countries will of course support this, as who wants to be the ally of a backwater shithole like the USA?
Uhh...did you not just endorse a call for civil war in America? Jesus Christ. You need to unite with us against Putin, not do his goddamned work for him!
Johnathan Haidt's research has so far uncovered six evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception, subconscious intuitive understanding, and conscious reasoning. He calls them moral foundations. He ALSO finds that moral foundations are the essential building blocks of human society. In his 2008 TED Talk "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives" he explains that human society is possible through the use of "all the tools in the toolbox." It's no coincidence that evolution pre-wired them into our brains.
Haidt finds that conservatives use all of them but liberals use about half of them, and of that half mostly just one. There's no conservative moral foundation that is not also a liberal one, but half of the conservative foundations are external to, and inaccessible by, liberal cognition.
When half of the evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception and understanding are essentially unavailable to one's subconscious intuitions and conscious reasoning one is left with no cognitive alternative for understanding people who think differently but to conclude that they're afflicted with some sort of mental dysfunction.
A conversation about social issues between a liberal and a conservative is like a conversation about rainbows between a color blind person and a fully sighted one in which the color blind liberal "knows" that the sighted conservative is an extremist nut case because he sees moral colors that "everybody knows" are just not there, and conservative think liberals are misinformed because they DON'T see moral colors that everybody knows ARE there.
R. R. Reno concluded his review of The Righteous Mind in the magazine First Things as follows:
"Thus the profound problem we face. Liberalism is blind in one eye, yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern."
Congratulations for completely not addressing anything I said and changing the topic - once again - to America's perceived shortcomings. Your comment is literally whataboutism.
You didn't actually address any of my points. Instead you used a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem". Care to try again? Here's another argument:
China is a trade manipulator. Right now China enjoys the status of a developing country under the WTO rules, granting it the right to trade protections not available to developed countries. Sure, China is still developing--in parts--but is highly developed in other parts (the developed city centers of China now constitute a middle class as large as that of the U.S.). The consequence is China has essentially hacked the WTO to its advantage.
Common sense policy making? Like safe spaces and microaggressions? Like caving people's skulls in with bike locks? When you think injecting cattle with hormones is evil, but injecting kids with hormones to arrest their puberty is just fine?
Keep up the good work, Ivan. Keep us fighting with one another, at each other's throats. Putin is cheering for you.
It's comments like this that utterly baffle me. It's like the poster lives in an entirely different universe where American education is not the best in the world. Chinese send massive numbers of students to America for the superior education. How many students does America send to China? Hell, people will advise you NOT to get a degree from a Chinese school because it's worthless (unless you want to spend the rest of your life in China). They cheat on their grades and the professors are worthless layabouts.