This is the law of the land because a little boy was unable to reach the beach near his home and had to walk for miles to swim in the ocean. Then that little boy grew up, and became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
It is a truly inspiring story that a judge can corrupt private property rights because of his petty childhood grievances! If only we all had that power and the world would be a better place!
I don't think debate is going to change companies like Google; these are people who are willfully ignorant of even basic biology and have the gall to tell others to "look up the science".
What's going get them to pay attention is hurting them in the pocket book, by having talented people leave in droves and join competitors.
Think of Google as a company run and populated by fundamentalist Christians. If they told you they want to have "an honest debate about the existence of God", would you think they mean it? When fundamentalist Christians tell you that they would like to pit their scientific evidence for God against your scientific evidence, do you really think they are talking about science?
Progressivism and the social justice movement have become like fundamentalist religions; you can't argue with these people, they are inaccessible to reason and argument. And like fundamentalist Christians, they are often wealthy, powerful, and vindictive.
The only thing you can do is roll your eyes and leave quietly.
Step 1. Underallocate resources to a district containing voters of the wrong team.
Step 2. When voting lines are huge and many voters are turned away, blame the voters themselves for the long lines because they are unprepared and undeserving of a vote.
You apparently can't read. I strongly oppose both those things. Where we disagree is the means of preventing it. You propose giving the federal government more and more control, and redistributing money. I'm saying: this is a local and state problem, and it needs to be solved by local communities and states.
There is something the federal government can do: outlaw voting machines and mandate paper ballots. That lowers costs, means districts merely need more volunteers, and reduces the ability to commit widespread fraud. Instead, organizations like the Clinton Foundation have been getting in bed with voting machine manufacturers.
Step 3. Use your newfound political power to apply this tactic on a national level and systematically rig the system to end democracy.
Actually, that is exactly what you are proposing, namely by giving the federal government more and more power relative to local and state government. You invent all sorts of fanciful injustices and purposes to justify that. That's how the federal government gets its "newfound power" to corrupt democracy in the first place: people like you give it that power. It's textbook fascism.
Hopefully that's not too vague for you. But it is repulsive to me.
You're a repulsive fascist prick, compounded by the fact that you don't even realize it. I hope that is not too vague for you.
You have a company full of wealthy, straight, privileged white males screaming at the top of their lungs how wealthy, straight, privileged white males have too much power, and then exercising that power in order to hurt, blacklist, and oppress people they disagree with, and to make patronizing statements about women and minorities.
If you give a company a $3b tax break on a $10b investment in order to lure them to your state, that costs the state nothing. And calling a $3b tax break an "investment" is absolutely ludicrous.
Wisconsin doesn't want the Foxconn plant? No problem, I think Foxconn is happy to put it somewhere else.
The fact that you don't acknowledge how easily this would be abused undesired votes from the system and disenfranchise arbitrary people groups means that you're being willfully obtuse.
Bullshit. You're being willfully vague, hiding behind the passive voice and weasel words.
I'm guessing you aren't a fan of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act didn't actually create any new rights; it's redundant with the Constitution (SCOTUS said so). So, yes, I am a "fan of the Voting Rights Act".
What I am not a fan of is the racist and patronizing attitudes of Democrats.
Greater than 10x between voting districts in the same city?
Murder rates? You get 10x differences within half a mile.
Nice ad hominem there. If that is really the case it should be easy for you to point out several specific errors rather than just hurling insults.
Even if I had insulted you, it wouldn't be an ad hominem. But I'm simply saying: it's not worth discussing this with you.
Ignoring statistical observations that suggest a voting rights violation is immoral and anti-democratic
Quite the opposite: treating people as statistics and denying their ability to take responsibility for defending their own rights is anti-democratic, patronizing, and authoritarian.
Ultimately, it seems that you are trying to argue that any difficulty in voting because of long lines is the fault of the voters, and is therefore acceptable.
Actually, I was talking about the example of only minority voters being turned away and the election observer taking that as evidence of discrimination; sorry, it's not. Given the massive cultural, social, and economic differences between minorities and Caucasians, this is in no way unexpected.
We should allocate resources as needed to ensure that any citizen that chooses to has the ability to vote.
If you have a problem with long voting lines in your community, you need to put in the money and the work to fix it; don't go running to me or other people to fix it for you. And, as you are discovering, the problem is self-limiting: if you can't get your act together on voting, you simply lose power at the state and national level. I see nothing wrong with that.
Equality of opportunity is really, really hard to measure.
If you believe that, you don't understand what the term means.
Inequality of outcomes has very often turned out to be inequality of opportunity
I don't know of any example where that has been demonstrated. But, again, it is clear that you operate with some twisted definition of "equality of opportunity", so who knows what you mean. And neither do I care, frankly.
A leading British global investment firm [Schroder's] has a warning for its clients:
Sure... and the most likely explanation is that Schroder's placed a bunch of bad bets in the market (Brexit loss, Clinton win, Paris implementation) and are now trying to limit their losses with a feeble, FUD-based pump-and-dump scheme. Schroder's seems to be pushing green and alternative energy investments, and it's blowing up in their face.
+8C by the end of the century isn't a realistic scenario. Even if it were, it wouldn't make Earth "uninhabitable for humans". In fact, long term, it would likely be a more habitable Earth if we go by paleontological precedent; whatever the problems and costs of global warming are, they are clearly only transient problems.
but actually conscientiousness doesn't seem to correlate one way or the other with criminal behavior: h ttps://www.aseanjournalofpsyc... [aseanjourn...hiatry.org]
The major results mentioned in the paper you cite:
"among the “Big Five” components of trait personality, agreeableness and conscientiousness have been found to be predictive of adult criminal behaviour"
"Heaven [16] found neuroticism in addition to agreeableness and conscientiousness to be predictive of delinquent behaviour."
"physical aggression in men and women is found to be associated with low agreeableness, low conscientiousness and high neuroticism"
no strong correlations based on demographic features, on average we would expect
Look up Simpson's Paradox and try to understand it.
What is the supposed mechanism here?
I have no idea. You brought up this straw man, not me.
the idea that there is dramatic variation in voter preparedness between communities, enough to cause a greater than 10x difference in voting time, is patently absurd
There is such dramatic variation in many other observations (murder rates, drug use, single parenthood, etc.). It is "patently absurd" to deny the possibility that the same would be true for voter registration.
Of course, there are lots of caveats that can be imagined [...] If there's an obvious flaw in my statistical reasoning, I'd be happy to hear about it,
Your reasoning is so shoddy and unscientific that it would be pointless. More importantly, it's also irrelevant. If legitimate voters are denied their right to vote, that's a matter for the legal system, requiring proper evidence and process in each individual case. Inferring voting rights violations from statistical observations is not acceptable.
Finally, we can get most of these issues off the table by having uniform voter identification requirements across the nation: you must show a government ID in order to vote, regardless of race, neighborhood, polling station, etc. You should have your government ID and your voter registration letter in order to vote. It's the sane and rational thing to do, and it is "patently absurd" that the US still isn't doing it.
Men on AVERAGE differ from women on AVERAGE in terms of behavior, how they think, and ultimately what they value in terms of jobs and occupations.
And note that we are talking about AVERAGES precisely because progressives are complaining about differences in AVERAGE salaries and AVERAGE employment rates.
"Scientific racism" is when people say "we need to treat group X differently from group Y because of scientifically observed differences between those groups". That is what Democrats and progressives are doing: they were doing it with eugenics a century ago, and they are doing it with affirmative action and equality of outcome today.
Liberalism says the opposite: "because there are scientifically observed differences between groups X and Y, you expect there to be different outcomes; we should accept those different outcomes and not treat those two groups differently". Liberalism demands equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
When science observes differences between two groups, we can debate what policies we should adopt as a result. Progressives prefer intervention, while classical liberals prefer non-intervention. But trying to suppress stating scientific facts, as you seem to try to do, is not acceptable.
I think that's being exceedingly generous. It may sound 'sciencey', but certainly he does not have study data to back him up.
Genetically rooted sex differences in cognition, preferences, IQ, brain function, and brain structure at the population level are settled science; there are thousands of studies that back them up. You can find them on Google Scholar by search for "sex differences...", followed by "IQ", "cognitive abilities", "brain", etc. Damore even cited some of them, although that shouldn't be necessary: you have to be scientifically illiterate not to know about them.
First, you arbitrarily equate "unprepared voters" with "conscientiousness", now you engage in laughably faulty statistical reasoning. If you every took any science classes in college, demand your money back: you don't know how to reason, and you don't understand even basic statistics.
What Damore said about the science of gender differences was pretty much mainstream biology: women and men, statistically, show significant differences in cognitive abilities, IQ, reproductive strategies, and these have a strong genetic component. In fact, it would be truly astounding if there were no genetic differences in any of these areas, given that there are significant structural differences between male and female brains, that most people grow up to be heterosexual (i.e., male and female brains need to encode different sexual preferences), and that the X chromosome contains disproportionately many genes expressed in the brain. All of these would be more than sufficient to explain sex ratios in the tech industry. Of course, lopsided sex ratios in professions often simply occur by chance. And even if job preferences were purely culturally determined, they would still be a matter of choice and neither governments nor businesses have any justification for meddling with these preferences.
But let's be clear here: we are talking about statistical differences, not biological determinism; many women are more aggressive, have better spatial reasoning skills, have higher IQ, etc than many males. It is true in a sense that women in general can beat men in general in any field (and the converse is also true). But if you are talking about salary statistics and job demographics, you also need to talk about group statistics for cognition, IQ, and reproductive strategies.
Google isn't doing themselves any favors with this. Their ideological distortion of science may play well with immature college graduates who don't know any better, but it's not going to go over well with more mature employees. In fact, to people who have gone through making career decisions, turning down promotions, raising kids, etc., such sex differences are simply a matter of personal experience. In leaked internal surveys, it looks like more than 1/3 of employees generally agreed with Damore. And his firing certainly makes a mockery of Google's statement to tolerate other views and want to engage in open debate.
You understand the patterns of where civilizations have developed over the last 10,000 is intrinsically tied to post-glacial climate.
You apparently don't understand that the patterns where civilizations developed over the last 10000 years have radically shifted over the past 10000 years. Your ignorance of this fact alone illustrates how irrelevant climate change is to human civilization.
and now that we're seriously fucking that up
And how do you believe we are "seriously fucking that up"? Do you even understand what the effects of climate change are going to be? You don't add 2C uniformly to every temperature on the globe. Before you spread such FUD, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts.
Your rationale doesn't hold up - statistically, we would expect conscientiousness to be randomly distributed throughout the populace with no real geographical bias
I can't actually think of anything that is "randomly distributed throughout the populace with no real geographical bias"; if you know of examples, please share them.
Certainly, measurements that are indicative of conscientiousness, such as single parenthood and crime rates, differ greatly by geography, even at the neighborhood level.
The recent election is a prime example- many of the most electable candidates on the republican side lost to those with strong backing from vocal minorities. On the democrat side, Bernie quickly became the "Not Hillary" candidate but was too far left to go very far.
What the recent election is an example of is that in the Republican party, a candidate won the primaries who was hated by the party establishment (and not particularly loved by the base), while in the Democratic party, the party establishment managed to push through a candidate that was hated by the base. The only person foolish enough to run against Hillary was a senile socialist who would have lost against Trump even more decisively. And Trump won against the field of Republican candidates, not because Republican voters loved him, but by process of elimination: the alternatives were either right wing Christian nutcases or candidates who favored high taxes, high spending, and big government and looked pretty much indistinguishable from a Democratic candidate.
If we had a viable third party, that might help, but that is a bit of a pipe dream.
We will never have a "viable third party" because our election system has winner-take-all built in at multiple levels. And that's a good thing, whether you realize it or not.
What really needs to happen is that moderates in both parties need to get more involved in the primary and pre-primary processes.
The reason we don't get any good candidates is because you have to be insane to want to run for public office. And that's why we get such lousy politicians. Insanity and incompetence among presidents express themselves in many ways.
Furthermore, your view that there is such a thing as a "moderate" is out of touch with reality. The US political "spectrum" (one should probably call it a "field" or "spread, since it is not one-dimensional) has many different ideological groups, and those are all actually represented pretty well in elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, accusing others are what you are: a typical tactic of totalitarians and fascists.
It is a truly inspiring story that a judge can corrupt private property rights because of his petty childhood grievances! If only we all had that power and the world would be a better place!
What's going get them to pay attention is hurting them in the pocket book, by having talented people leave in droves and join competitors.
Think of Google as a company run and populated by fundamentalist Christians. If they told you they want to have "an honest debate about the existence of God", would you think they mean it? When fundamentalist Christians tell you that they would like to pit their scientific evidence for God against your scientific evidence, do you really think they are talking about science? Progressivism and the social justice movement have become like fundamentalist religions; you can't argue with these people, they are inaccessible to reason and argument. And like fundamentalist Christians, they are often wealthy, powerful, and vindictive. The only thing you can do is roll your eyes and leave quietly.
Well, sure, if you quote out of context that makes it sound like that.
Bullshit. I stated that this should be solved at the local level and you accused me of "disenfranchising voters".
Actually, I was just echoing your words. Well, except for the "fascist" part: that's not an insult, that's merely a factual name for your politics.
You apparently can't read. I strongly oppose both those things. Where we disagree is the means of preventing it. You propose giving the federal government more and more control, and redistributing money. I'm saying: this is a local and state problem, and it needs to be solved by local communities and states.
There is something the federal government can do: outlaw voting machines and mandate paper ballots. That lowers costs, means districts merely need more volunteers, and reduces the ability to commit widespread fraud. Instead, organizations like the Clinton Foundation have been getting in bed with voting machine manufacturers.
Actually, that is exactly what you are proposing, namely by giving the federal government more and more power relative to local and state government. You invent all sorts of fanciful injustices and purposes to justify that. That's how the federal government gets its "newfound power" to corrupt democracy in the first place: people like you give it that power. It's textbook fascism.
You're a repulsive fascist prick, compounded by the fact that you don't even realize it. I hope that is not too vague for you.
Actually, the state is paying nothing at all.
You have a company full of wealthy, straight, privileged white males screaming at the top of their lungs how wealthy, straight, privileged white males have too much power, and then exercising that power in order to hurt, blacklist, and oppress people they disagree with, and to make patronizing statements about women and minorities.
Wisconsin doesn't want the Foxconn plant? No problem, I think Foxconn is happy to put it somewhere else.
Bullshit. You're being willfully vague, hiding behind the passive voice and weasel words.
The Voting Rights Act didn't actually create any new rights; it's redundant with the Constitution (SCOTUS said so). So, yes, I am a "fan of the Voting Rights Act".
What I am not a fan of is the racist and patronizing attitudes of Democrats.
Murder rates? You get 10x differences within half a mile.
Even if I had insulted you, it wouldn't be an ad hominem. But I'm simply saying: it's not worth discussing this with you.
Quite the opposite: treating people as statistics and denying their ability to take responsibility for defending their own rights is anti-democratic, patronizing, and authoritarian.
Actually, I was talking about the example of only minority voters being turned away and the election observer taking that as evidence of discrimination; sorry, it's not. Given the massive cultural, social, and economic differences between minorities and Caucasians, this is in no way unexpected.
If you have a problem with long voting lines in your community, you need to put in the money and the work to fix it; don't go running to me or other people to fix it for you. And, as you are discovering, the problem is self-limiting: if you can't get your act together on voting, you simply lose power at the state and national level. I see nothing wrong with that.
If you believe that, you don't understand what the term means.
I don't know of any example where that has been demonstrated. But, again, it is clear that you operate with some twisted definition of "equality of opportunity", so who knows what you mean. And neither do I care, frankly.
Sure... and the most likely explanation is that Schroder's placed a bunch of bad bets in the market (Brexit loss, Clinton win, Paris implementation) and are now trying to limit their losses with a feeble, FUD-based pump-and-dump scheme. Schroder's seems to be pushing green and alternative energy investments, and it's blowing up in their face.
+8C by the end of the century isn't a realistic scenario. Even if it were, it wouldn't make Earth "uninhabitable for humans". In fact, long term, it would likely be a more habitable Earth if we go by paleontological precedent; whatever the problems and costs of global warming are, they are clearly only transient problems.
The major results mentioned in the paper you cite: "among the “Big Five” components of trait personality, agreeableness and conscientiousness have been found to be predictive of adult criminal behaviour" "Heaven [16] found neuroticism in addition to agreeableness and conscientiousness to be predictive of delinquent behaviour." "physical aggression in men and women is found to be associated with low agreeableness, low conscientiousness and high neuroticism"
Look up Simpson's Paradox and try to understand it.
I have no idea. You brought up this straw man, not me.
There is such dramatic variation in many other observations (murder rates, drug use, single parenthood, etc.). It is "patently absurd" to deny the possibility that the same would be true for voter registration.
Your reasoning is so shoddy and unscientific that it would be pointless. More importantly, it's also irrelevant. If legitimate voters are denied their right to vote, that's a matter for the legal system, requiring proper evidence and process in each individual case. Inferring voting rights violations from statistical observations is not acceptable.
Finally, we can get most of these issues off the table by having uniform voter identification requirements across the nation: you must show a government ID in order to vote, regardless of race, neighborhood, polling station, etc. You should have your government ID and your voter registration letter in order to vote. It's the sane and rational thing to do, and it is "patently absurd" that the US still isn't doing it.
And note that we are talking about AVERAGES precisely because progressives are complaining about differences in AVERAGE salaries and AVERAGE employment rates.
Liberalism says the opposite: "because there are scientifically observed differences between groups X and Y, you expect there to be different outcomes; we should accept those different outcomes and not treat those two groups differently". Liberalism demands equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
When science observes differences between two groups, we can debate what policies we should adopt as a result. Progressives prefer intervention, while classical liberals prefer non-intervention. But trying to suppress stating scientific facts, as you seem to try to do, is not acceptable.
Genetically rooted sex differences in cognition, preferences, IQ, brain function, and brain structure at the population level are settled science; there are thousands of studies that back them up. You can find them on Google Scholar by search for "sex differences ...", followed by "IQ", "cognitive abilities", "brain", etc. Damore even cited some of them, although that shouldn't be necessary: you have to be scientifically illiterate not to know about them.
First, you arbitrarily equate "unprepared voters" with "conscientiousness", now you engage in laughably faulty statistical reasoning. If you every took any science classes in college, demand your money back: you don't know how to reason, and you don't understand even basic statistics.
But let's be clear here: we are talking about statistical differences, not biological determinism; many women are more aggressive, have better spatial reasoning skills, have higher IQ, etc than many males. It is true in a sense that women in general can beat men in general in any field (and the converse is also true). But if you are talking about salary statistics and job demographics, you also need to talk about group statistics for cognition, IQ, and reproductive strategies.
Google isn't doing themselves any favors with this. Their ideological distortion of science may play well with immature college graduates who don't know any better, but it's not going to go over well with more mature employees. In fact, to people who have gone through making career decisions, turning down promotions, raising kids, etc., such sex differences are simply a matter of personal experience. In leaked internal surveys, it looks like more than 1/3 of employees generally agreed with Damore. And his firing certainly makes a mockery of Google's statement to tolerate other views and want to engage in open debate.
You apparently don't understand that the patterns where civilizations developed over the last 10000 years have radically shifted over the past 10000 years. Your ignorance of this fact alone illustrates how irrelevant climate change is to human civilization.
And how do you believe we are "seriously fucking that up"? Do you even understand what the effects of climate change are going to be? You don't add 2C uniformly to every temperature on the globe. Before you spread such FUD, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts.
I can't actually think of anything that is "randomly distributed throughout the populace with no real geographical bias"; if you know of examples, please share them.
Certainly, measurements that are indicative of conscientiousness, such as single parenthood and crime rates, differ greatly by geography, even at the neighborhood level.
Russia making propaganda against a US candidate isn't a threat. Local officials manipulating vote counts is a threat.
What the recent election is an example of is that in the Republican party, a candidate won the primaries who was hated by the party establishment (and not particularly loved by the base), while in the Democratic party, the party establishment managed to push through a candidate that was hated by the base. The only person foolish enough to run against Hillary was a senile socialist who would have lost against Trump even more decisively. And Trump won against the field of Republican candidates, not because Republican voters loved him, but by process of elimination: the alternatives were either right wing Christian nutcases or candidates who favored high taxes, high spending, and big government and looked pretty much indistinguishable from a Democratic candidate.
We will never have a "viable third party" because our election system has winner-take-all built in at multiple levels. And that's a good thing, whether you realize it or not.
The reason we don't get any good candidates is because you have to be insane to want to run for public office. And that's why we get such lousy politicians. Insanity and incompetence among presidents express themselves in many ways.
Furthermore, your view that there is such a thing as a "moderate" is out of touch with reality. The US political "spectrum" (one should probably call it a "field" or "spread, since it is not one-dimensional) has many different ideological groups, and those are all actually represented pretty well in elections.