ut dealing with much of the Rockies being on fire in the north (from dry and hot temperatures) and the south being flooded from powerful hurricanes (wet and hot temperatures) is completely free!
Even if they were caused by climate change, the solution is simple: those structures have already been destroyed, the federal government is foolishly paying for the damage, so let's simply not allow people to rebuild in areas that are prone to hurricanes or flooding, either naturally or from climate change.
Right now, progressives are wanting the government to spend to rebuild in areas threatened by climate change and then simultaneously use those risks to justify spending even more money to combat climate change. It's a crony capitalist scheme on an utterly unprecedented scale.
It's almost like our farm land and the use of it was based on the idea of the climate being suitable at the time the land was established.
The distribution of arable land is constantly changing and has been throughout human history. Pretending that stabilizing CO2 levels will stabilize the distribution of arable land is a ridiculous lie.
Generally, colder global temperatures mean less arable land, less precipitation, more deserts, and less agricultural output; warmer global temperatures mean more arable land, more precipitation, smaller deserts, and more agricultural output. I think the choice is pretty clear.
Things that pollute the air are not good for humans in any event; so how is it not a no-brainer to do things to reduce to eliminate those sources of pollution? Seriously.
Whether carbon dioxide is "pollution" is a question of politically-motivated definitions. However, carbon dioxide at up to a few thousand ppm is not harmful to humans or plants (in fact, it is beneficial).
When you have ONE of something (the Earth) and screwing it up beyond saving means you all DIE, then why is it so damned hard to play it safe?
If you look at Earth's history, you'll find that CO2 concentrations of 1000ppm, the highest we are likely to be able to achieve, are perfectly fine, and arguably beneficial.
I don't understand the logic (or lack thereof) behind the deniers, and never will I guess
The people you lump together as "deniers" hold a wide variety of beliefs. The majority are perfectly happy with the idea that it's getting warmer and that humans are contributing it. What we "deny" is that this is cause for concern, or that even if it were cause for concern, the cost of political action is justified by any potential benefits. People like you don't understand such arguments because you don't even understand the basics of science or climate and instead think in terms of apocalyptic terms like "screwing up the Earth" and propaganda like "CO2 is a pollutant".
I wish people would actually try to push through some of these proposals to cool the earth; the resulting lawsuits over lost farm productivity and other costs would quickly put to rest the idea that warmer temperatures are harmful.
If it isn't, why does everyone, literally everyone, who uses the term SJW, also argue against feminism, anti-racism, and movements that try to lift up the disadvantaged?
You can call me a "faggot" (pejorative) or you can call me a "gay man" (neutral); both of them are accurate descriptions of my sexuality. Likewise, "social justice warrior" (pejorative) and "social justice activist" (neutral) describe the same kind of political beliefs, they simply express a different attitude by the speaker.
If the problem were hypocrisy nobody would give a shit because you'd still agree with the central issue SJWs are raising.
A pilot's natural reaction to a stalled plane is to pull on the stick because that's usually what you do to raise the nose, but that only makes the stall worse, and eventually the plane will crash. That's the problem with social justice activists: they perceive certain problems in society, they come up with intuitive policies intended to address those problems, and they end up making the problems worse. For example, the social justice answer to high rents is rent control, the social justice answer to the working poor is minimum wages, the social justice answer to discrimination is anti-discrimination laws.
The primary problem with social justice activists is not hypocrisy (although there is plenty of that too) that causes social justice activists to promote such harmful policies, it's ignorance and incompetence. And after a century of experience with progressivism and socialism, this kind of deeply harmful ignorance and incompetence is utterly deplorable.
And that is why I consider using a pejorative term to refer to social justice activists to be fully justified.
If more people become more productive, we're all better off in some ways.
Again, you simply keep stating without any evidence that persuading more women and minorities to go into computer programming is beneficial to... well, someone. It's the same b.s. progressives did a hundred years ago when they engaged in other forms of social engineering.
You're a totalitarian at heart; you never made the transition into the post-Enlightenment era where individuals make their own choices and live with the consequences.
You probably have never seen the terms "totalitarian", "fascist", or "communist" used favorably either, yet when they started out, they were considered positive terms. It's a common phenomenon that left wing ideologies take some positive term and over time turn it into something reprehensible.
Therefore, "SJW" should be translated as "(and I'm an asshole, probably a right-wing asshole)", because that's how it's used and what it means in practice.
"You are a SJW" should be translated as "you are someone who advocates social justice, and I'm a right wing asshole". That is, it says something about both the speaker and the subject. Oh, and I happily embrace the the label "I'm a right wing asshole"; being deplored and denounced as "right wing" by progressives and socialists is a matter of pride. So go on, keep insulting me.
"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics.
"(have sexual relations with) and run" (feel free to substitute synonyms for the parenthetical phrase) is a perfectly viable male reproductive strategy in the case of species (like humans) where paternity is uncertain, generally because fertility is not limited to a short obvious cycle.
Like most mammals, humans have a mix of reproductive strategies. The predominant one is pair bonding and fidelity.
Now, add millennia of social behavior onto that biological substrate, and things get really complicated.
Which is why the statement "but aggressiveness and the sexual hunt for women is natural for men" as an explanation for sexual harassment is false. Millennia of social behavior have generally found ways of keeping these tendencies under control, namely marriage, self control, condemnation of promiscuity, etc. The widespread increase in sexual harassment is a predictable consequence of sexual liberation and governmental support of single parenthood, i.e., left wing, social justice, and progressive policies. You're free to argue that that has been a tradeoff worth making, but it is no accident that these problems are so common in progressive and left wing populations.
hell, my Dad at upper 70's still looks and chats up women while we're out.
Does your Dad have prepubescent children right now? Is he chatting up women with prepubescent children? If not, then his actions are consistent with what I said.
The drive never stops...
The drive to reproduce never stops, but it is temporarily attenuated in most males by the need for parental investment in offspring: fatherhood.
If that were true, then you'd not see all the men (and many women) having affairs, and the high divorce rate, etc.
To the contrary: one of the strongest factors protecting against divorce is having prepubescent children, consistent with what I said.
but aggressiveness and the sexual hunt for women is natural for men
Only until they get married and become fathers; after that, biology generally switches behavior to parental investment in kids.
It's no surprise that as long as men or women have not produced any offspring, their energies are directed towards finding a partner to reproduce with, rather than worrying about the future of the tribe.
No, the definition of SJW is "evil boogeymen" with a side order of "I'm a fuckwit".
That may be your definition. My definition is "someone who advocates social justice". I simply observe that that this frequently does not coincide with "someone who promotes social justice through their actions".
You don't see the difference between big, showy perpetually "almost ready" technologies like rotor sails, and invisible internal improvements like fuel injection? Seriously?
No, it's trivially true because that's the definition of "SJW".
Which part of You're confusing what people say with what they do. did you not understand? The definition of a "SWJ" is someone who advocates social justice, not someone who realizes social justice in their own lives.
People are members of political movements like social justice based on what they say. People often act inconsistent with their stated political beliefs; that is particularly common for people who hold political beliefs that involve placing responsibility upon other groups or "society" as a whole.
Rotor ships are right up there with Sterling engines, fuel cells, and a lot of other "great ideas" that turn out not to be so great in practice. When a fairly simple technology like this hasn't caught on for over a century, there's probably a good reason for it. My guess is in the case of rotor ships, it's higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, higher weight, higher center of gravity, vulnerability to high winds, and insufficient savings under real weather conditions.
Look, ErichTheRed made the claim that "SJWs" are the only ones who "can act normally around the opposite sex". And, of course, it's obviously false, since there are plenty of non-SJWs who "can act normally around the opposite sex".
But I also question whether SJWs "act normally around the opposite sex". SJWs often come from a political culture and a social environment that encourages extramarital sex, promiscuity, single motherhood, and one night stands; that does not seem to promote "normal behavior" towards the opposite sex.
So, if ErichTheRed and you still want to persist in claiming that "SJWs are the only ones who can act normally around the opposite sex", you provide some evidence or you retract the statement. Otherwise, take your own advice and stop making shit up, OK?
Everyone is about to pile in here calling people who can act normally around the opposite sex "SJWs" and similar.
You're confusing what people say with what they do. Some of the most ardent SJWs are young, wealthy, successful, male progressives in San Francisco, and many of the same group are also lewd and promiscuous. I suspect that if you did a survey, you'd find that the vast majority of techies accused of sexual harassment are Democrats and Hillary voters.
Elizabeth Scott is a marketing expert suing a marketing company (UploadVR) for sexual harassment. A marketing company in San Francisco no less, a city ruled by sex and drugs. I generally have low expectations for people in marketing.
But what does this have to do with women in tech, or even technology? Why is this crap on Slashdot?
The best way to try to avoid single motherhood is to...
So you are saying that portraying single motherhood as normal and inconsequential in many TV series really has no effect on society, while portraying the occasional hacker as frequently white, nerdy, and undesirable keeps women and minorities out of the tech industry.
And while Google is simply behaving like a self-interested big corporation, throwing its money and weight around to increase its supply of labor and thereby decrease its labor costs, we should all ignore and pretend that Google is doing this out of noble motives of advancing racial equality.
Really, the gullibility, capability for irrationality and self-deception of people like you seems limitless.
Hollywood's going to mess things up no matter what. I think that having a more diverse set of characters might have a more positive effect. I'm fairly sure that we're losing out on software talent due to social factors
So what? That means higher salaries for the rest of us. Why do you defend Google manipulating the labor market through clandestine propaganda in order to depress salaries in the software professions?
What I don't like about movies and TV is the portrayal of sex and violence as mostly consequence-free possible solutions to problems.
I have no idea what that even is supposed to mean. The fact remains that the same people who justify pushing the portrayal of diversity as a role model by its suppose benefits for society have no problem also pushing the portrayal of clearly harmful role models like single motherhood. Something doesn't add up in their justifications.
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is: "What's wrong with a small elite of people using propaganda to manipulate the behavior of the masses."
Also, if want to use Hollywood to manipulate the population into doing better, why would you focus on racial diversity in coding? Why not start by demanding the elimination of positive portrayals of extramarital sex and single parenthood, probably the two biggest scourges of minority populations?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they were caused by climate change, the solution is simple: those structures have already been destroyed, the federal government is foolishly paying for the damage, so let's simply not allow people to rebuild in areas that are prone to hurricanes or flooding, either naturally or from climate change.
Right now, progressives are wanting the government to spend to rebuild in areas threatened by climate change and then simultaneously use those risks to justify spending even more money to combat climate change. It's a crony capitalist scheme on an utterly unprecedented scale.
The distribution of arable land is constantly changing and has been throughout human history. Pretending that stabilizing CO2 levels will stabilize the distribution of arable land is a ridiculous lie.
Generally, colder global temperatures mean less arable land, less precipitation, more deserts, and less agricultural output; warmer global temperatures mean more arable land, more precipitation, smaller deserts, and more agricultural output. I think the choice is pretty clear.
Whether carbon dioxide is "pollution" is a question of politically-motivated definitions. However, carbon dioxide at up to a few thousand ppm is not harmful to humans or plants (in fact, it is beneficial).
If you look at Earth's history, you'll find that CO2 concentrations of 1000ppm, the highest we are likely to be able to achieve, are perfectly fine, and arguably beneficial.
The people you lump together as "deniers" hold a wide variety of beliefs. The majority are perfectly happy with the idea that it's getting warmer and that humans are contributing it. What we "deny" is that this is cause for concern, or that even if it were cause for concern, the cost of political action is justified by any potential benefits. People like you don't understand such arguments because you don't even understand the basics of science or climate and instead think in terms of apocalyptic terms like "screwing up the Earth" and propaganda like "CO2 is a pollutant".
I wish people would actually try to push through some of these proposals to cool the earth; the resulting lawsuits over lost farm productivity and other costs would quickly put to rest the idea that warmer temperatures are harmful.
You can call me a "faggot" (pejorative) or you can call me a "gay man" (neutral); both of them are accurate descriptions of my sexuality. Likewise, "social justice warrior" (pejorative) and "social justice activist" (neutral) describe the same kind of political beliefs, they simply express a different attitude by the speaker.
A pilot's natural reaction to a stalled plane is to pull on the stick because that's usually what you do to raise the nose, but that only makes the stall worse, and eventually the plane will crash. That's the problem with social justice activists: they perceive certain problems in society, they come up with intuitive policies intended to address those problems, and they end up making the problems worse. For example, the social justice answer to high rents is rent control, the social justice answer to the working poor is minimum wages, the social justice answer to discrimination is anti-discrimination laws.
The primary problem with social justice activists is not hypocrisy (although there is plenty of that too) that causes social justice activists to promote such harmful policies, it's ignorance and incompetence. And after a century of experience with progressivism and socialism, this kind of deeply harmful ignorance and incompetence is utterly deplorable.
And that is why I consider using a pejorative term to refer to social justice activists to be fully justified.
Again, you simply keep stating without any evidence that persuading more women and minorities to go into computer programming is beneficial to ... well, someone. It's the same b.s. progressives did a hundred years ago when they engaged in other forms of social engineering.
You're a totalitarian at heart; you never made the transition into the post-Enlightenment era where individuals make their own choices and live with the consequences.
You probably have never seen the terms "totalitarian", "fascist", or "communist" used favorably either, yet when they started out, they were considered positive terms. It's a common phenomenon that left wing ideologies take some positive term and over time turn it into something reprehensible.
"You are a SJW" should be translated as "you are someone who advocates social justice, and I'm a right wing asshole". That is, it says something about both the speaker and the subject. Oh, and I happily embrace the the label "I'm a right wing asshole"; being deplored and denounced as "right wing" by progressives and socialists is a matter of pride. So go on, keep insulting me.
From Wikipedia:
Like most mammals, humans have a mix of reproductive strategies. The predominant one is pair bonding and fidelity.
Which is why the statement "but aggressiveness and the sexual hunt for women is natural for men" as an explanation for sexual harassment is false. Millennia of social behavior have generally found ways of keeping these tendencies under control, namely marriage, self control, condemnation of promiscuity, etc. The widespread increase in sexual harassment is a predictable consequence of sexual liberation and governmental support of single parenthood, i.e., left wing, social justice, and progressive policies. You're free to argue that that has been a tradeoff worth making, but it is no accident that these problems are so common in progressive and left wing populations.
Does your Dad have prepubescent children right now? Is he chatting up women with prepubescent children? If not, then his actions are consistent with what I said.
The drive to reproduce never stops, but it is temporarily attenuated in most males by the need for parental investment in offspring: fatherhood.
To the contrary: one of the strongest factors protecting against divorce is having prepubescent children, consistent with what I said.
Only until they get married and become fathers; after that, biology generally switches behavior to parental investment in kids.
It's no surprise that as long as men or women have not produced any offspring, their energies are directed towards finding a partner to reproduce with, rather than worrying about the future of the tribe.
That may be your definition. My definition is "someone who advocates social justice". I simply observe that that this frequently does not coincide with "someone who promotes social justice through their actions".
You keep demonstrating that.
You don't see the difference between big, showy perpetually "almost ready" technologies like rotor sails, and invisible internal improvements like fuel injection? Seriously?
If you RTFGP, you'll see that materials are only one of many problems with rotor sails.
Which part of You're confusing what people say with what they do. did you not understand? The definition of a "SWJ" is someone who advocates social justice, not someone who realizes social justice in their own lives.
People are members of political movements like social justice based on what they say. People often act inconsistent with their stated political beliefs; that is particularly common for people who hold political beliefs that involve placing responsibility upon other groups or "society" as a whole.
That's easy: government subsidies and government student loan guarantees.
I read the article. Unlike you, who seems to uncritically swallow every b.s. the press presents you with, I actually thought about it too.
Rotor ships are right up there with Sterling engines, fuel cells, and a lot of other "great ideas" that turn out not to be so great in practice. When a fairly simple technology like this hasn't caught on for over a century, there's probably a good reason for it. My guess is in the case of rotor ships, it's higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, higher weight, higher center of gravity, vulnerability to high winds, and insufficient savings under real weather conditions.
Look, ErichTheRed made the claim that "SJWs" are the only ones who "can act normally around the opposite sex". And, of course, it's obviously false, since there are plenty of non-SJWs who "can act normally around the opposite sex".
But I also question whether SJWs "act normally around the opposite sex". SJWs often come from a political culture and a social environment that encourages extramarital sex, promiscuity, single motherhood, and one night stands; that does not seem to promote "normal behavior" towards the opposite sex.
So, if ErichTheRed and you still want to persist in claiming that "SJWs are the only ones who can act normally around the opposite sex", you provide some evidence or you retract the statement. Otherwise, take your own advice and stop making shit up, OK?
You're confusing what people say with what they do. Some of the most ardent SJWs are young, wealthy, successful, male progressives in San Francisco, and many of the same group are also lewd and promiscuous. I suspect that if you did a survey, you'd find that the vast majority of techies accused of sexual harassment are Democrats and Hillary voters.
Elizabeth Scott is a marketing expert suing a marketing company (UploadVR) for sexual harassment. A marketing company in San Francisco no less, a city ruled by sex and drugs. I generally have low expectations for people in marketing.
But what does this have to do with women in tech, or even technology? Why is this crap on Slashdot?
So you are saying that portraying single motherhood as normal and inconsequential in many TV series really has no effect on society, while portraying the occasional hacker as frequently white, nerdy, and undesirable keeps women and minorities out of the tech industry.
And while Google is simply behaving like a self-interested big corporation, throwing its money and weight around to increase its supply of labor and thereby decrease its labor costs, we should all ignore and pretend that Google is doing this out of noble motives of advancing racial equality.
Really, the gullibility, capability for irrationality and self-deception of people like you seems limitless.
The Twitter AI isn't rebelling, it's going insane from inconsistent input.
So what? That means higher salaries for the rest of us. Why do you defend Google manipulating the labor market through clandestine propaganda in order to depress salaries in the software professions?
I have no idea what that even is supposed to mean. The fact remains that the same people who justify pushing the portrayal of diversity as a role model by its suppose benefits for society have no problem also pushing the portrayal of clearly harmful role models like single motherhood. Something doesn't add up in their justifications.
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is: "What's wrong with a small elite of people using propaganda to manipulate the behavior of the masses."
Also, if want to use Hollywood to manipulate the population into doing better, why would you focus on racial diversity in coding? Why not start by demanding the elimination of positive portrayals of extramarital sex and single parenthood, probably the two biggest scourges of minority populations?