I agree it's more beneficial to seek justice for the 99% than the 11%, but not if it comes at the cost of massively deferring or abandoning the 11% getting justice. If the alt-right is pursuing this tactic it could possibly even make sense to join forces with them on this goal and go back to fighting them tooth and nail after it's achieved. But you have to be very careful about joining forces with the worst people operating with the worst intentions.
I suspect that the definition of "alt-right" is as muddy as hacker these days. In any case the sooner the tactic of pitting one racial group against another, and thus fragmenting the 99%, the sooner we can get on with economic policies that actually do favor the 99%. There has been ~50 years of trying to get progress for minorities by way of special handouts. It hasn't worked. Two generations later that should be obvious. Let's get back to progress for the 99% and the 11% will by definition get progress as well.
Uhhhh, you might want to stop for a minute and learn about the thing you're commenting on. Pensions aren't similar to welfare in any way shape or form. They'd be more similar to a 401K. It's a retirement plan. You work your entire life, and theoretically the company you work for is funding in to a pension which they then pay out to you in your retirement. Just because the company you work for is the government, that doesn't fundamentally change how pensions are SUPPOSED to work.
If you insist on eliminating my 401K for a UBI, well, we're gonna have problems, and they may become violent. I'm going to guess most would feel the same about their pension.
The police and fire pensions that let them retire lavishly are like welfare on steroids. Both are paid out of the public purse, unlike a 401k which you pay for largely on your own. Bankrupting cities is not serving or protecting anyone.
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.
You would expect to see fewer and fewer big discoveries as we get closer to understanding nature.
It depends on how you look at it. To use a puzzle as an analogy the closer you get to the end the faster the remaining pieces come together. Perhaps we are more akin to having gotten the border done and now have the harder task of filling in the middle.
In the US, the median white family has nearly 10x the wealth of the median black family, and this gap has not been steadily decreasing. Broadly speaking there are only two possible explanations, one acknowledges racism (that slavery's legacy is still hurting people today and minorities are still discriminated against - IOW, white privilege is real) and the other is racist (that there is some inherent difference between races that produces this huge inequality independently of any possible societal biases). Choose one.
HINT: Racist beliefs are ethically and scientifically wrong bullshit for dimwits.
First off your either / or is wrong because it is a false dilemma. A few Bill Gates do a lot to pull up the average. This is why averages, even when true, are misleading. It's also true that while Bill Gates and other billionaires are white it helps me exactly zero. No privilege there. This is obvious. Your going to have to do better to prove your case about white privilege than just averages.
Under your racial privilege paradigm Obama's daughters are far less privileged than a poor white child. Does that sound like reality to you?
As an alternate, consider using wealth as the dominant privilege factor. Under my paradigm, Obama's daughters would be considered to have more privilege than a poor white kid. Now let's look more at the averages you love. On average blacks would get more perks, like college preference and such, than average white kids. So you can rejoice that on average your favored group is still benefiting more. Moreover by moving away from racist schemes towards economic schemes we can begin to seek justice for the 99%, which is far better than only attempting justice for the 11%.
I'm saying I totally disagree with your points, I just think our leadership has for so long not thought of our tax dollars like a business does. Run the numbers. Does this tax break offset the full cost, and what does the city/county/state get in return?
I often wish this logic was applied to illegal immigration. Is it a good idea to let in millions of people with few skills who don't speak the language? They cost the state tons of money, a smart person would minimize the hell out of that demographic.
The notion of 'Leaving money on the table' is the shiny side of the same coin as 'race to the bottom'.
Basically extracting as much from any given situation as possible; which just results in even greater concentrations of wealth; at the expense of people, suppliers, and society at large.
In this case though, it's especially repugnant because those 'gibs' amazon was trying to cajole local governments into granting would have to be paid for by the citizens, who get absolutely no say in the matter.
And for what? a few extra jobs (potentially!) that the bureaucrats can use for re-election fodder? Would the net tax base actually expand after all the concessions? Would Amazon's tricky bastard accountants figure out how to dodge them?
It's a democracy, it can be changed. Once the idiots figure out that white privilege is a myth but wealth privilege isn't then we can move on to solving this race to the bottom. Anyone who actually believes white privilege is a useful idiot of the 1%.
You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?
I would if they want to be held harmless for the content they host. If you're pruning content them you're liable for what remains. Want to be held harmless - then leave it all alone.
I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population.
I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.
All the examples of PC speech I can think of are attempts at dodging the truth or smearing someone with negative labels for stating the truth (ie Nazi, racist, etc). If people had the truth on their side in the first place 'PC' wouldn't be needed.
You really can't have both. Don't believe me? Consider how easily some are offended. You have a choice of not trying to offend anyone, a fools errand, or pushing ahead and offending someone. It all sounds good to 'not be a jerk' but how do topics like illegal immigration get honestly discussed in a PC way. That's the trouble with PC efforts, they ignore or try and re-label reality and reality doesn't bend. If an immigrant is here illegally then they are by definition an illegal immigrant. The euphemism of undocumented immigrant is not helpful and just muddies the water. Is stealing theft or merely an undocumented purchase? I'm a fan of not being a jerk but I'm also a fan of honest discussion and not simply seeking to deplatform those you disagree with.
... In 2013...From around 2009 to 2013, the U.S. intelligence community experienced crippling intelligence failures related to the secret internet-based communications system, a key means for remote messaging between CIA officers and their sources on the ground worldwide....until more than two dozen sources died in China in 2011 and 2012 as a result, according to 11 former intelligence and national security officials.
So another scandal under Obama and Clinton that was buried. He was easily the most protected president by the media since Kennedy.
Ps, while Gilsap previously had 39% of HVP filings, Judge Robert William Schroeder III, had 24%. That's 63% for just those two judges.
After TC Heartland, only 3% of filings go to Schroeder.
Some people think that to fix this we have to completely throw out the patent system. These two judges, two people, were 63% of the problem. Handle those two guys and you're most of the way there.
So 2 bullets and a bit of gas money. This is not nearly as expensive as thought.
Oh, and then I consider Tom Steyer, a nice enough guy, who lives in San Francisco. Perhaps, tom, you should be working on the problems your home town has, and leave us in Arizona to deal with our problems? Not enough problems in San Francisco? Just go away.
It would be good if places started putting limits on people from out of area owning too much.
It sucks their rocket didn't make it, but remember too, SpaceX's early rockets didn't make it to orbit either. The whole company almost went bust before they got one to work.
Now they are shaking up the entire launch industry.
Chinese companies will have plenty of government support and they will succeed. That is a matter of when not if.
Indeed. This plays to their strengths. It's already been done before so no real innovation and just needs the right mix of cost cutting.
Of course they will not just use this data to provide interactive video but to provide all manner of feedback for other purposes as well (to "tailor the user experience")
Ads, political content, news stories, and on and on. Just the next step in sculpting your own individual rendition of reality.
Many people I know live in their own bubble anyway. My hunch is that might help everyone get along a bit better. I think that's why some are so surprised that some topics have more depth to them, they've only been hearing one side and didn't realize that there was more than one facet to the problem. It's not uncommon that both 'sides' of an issue are roughly stating the truth, they just focus on different aspects of the truth.
My home extends to my walls -- a country is just a plot of land cursed with a (generally bad) government. I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.
Your thinking is muddled. Am I allow to camp out on your front lawn then? If not, how about the sidewalk in front of your house? Lastly - if it's so bad why don't you leave? Go to where the grass is always greener.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it's more beneficial to seek justice for the 99% than the 11%, but not if it comes at the cost of massively deferring or abandoning the 11% getting justice. If the alt-right is pursuing this tactic it could possibly even make sense to join forces with them on this goal and go back to fighting them tooth and nail after it's achieved. But you have to be very careful about joining forces with the worst people operating with the worst intentions.
I suspect that the definition of "alt-right" is as muddy as hacker these days. In any case the sooner the tactic of pitting one racial group against another, and thus fragmenting the 99%, the sooner we can get on with economic policies that actually do favor the 99%. There has been ~50 years of trying to get progress for minorities by way of special handouts. It hasn't worked. Two generations later that should be obvious. Let's get back to progress for the 99% and the 11% will by definition get progress as well.
Yay, now books can become as predictable as Hallmark movies.
... "approved by the FDA" as a gold standard ...
That standard being those with a lot of gold get to determine the standards. The FDA is largely a scam to protect legal drug dealers.
Uhhhh, you might want to stop for a minute and learn about the thing you're commenting on. Pensions aren't similar to welfare in any way shape or form. They'd be more similar to a 401K. It's a retirement plan. You work your entire life, and theoretically the company you work for is funding in to a pension which they then pay out to you in your retirement. Just because the company you work for is the government, that doesn't fundamentally change how pensions are SUPPOSED to work.
If you insist on eliminating my 401K for a UBI, well, we're gonna have problems, and they may become violent. I'm going to guess most would feel the same about their pension.
The police and fire pensions that let them retire lavishly are like welfare on steroids. Both are paid out of the public purse, unlike a 401k which you pay for largely on your own. Bankrupting cities is not serving or protecting anyone.
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.
citations
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/... https://www.azquotes.com/autho... https://www.naturalnews.com/04...
You would expect to see fewer and fewer big discoveries as we get closer to understanding nature.
It depends on how you look at it. To use a puzzle as an analogy the closer you get to the end the faster the remaining pieces come together. Perhaps we are more akin to having gotten the border done and now have the harder task of filling in the middle.
Lockheed takes the security of this system, and all of their weapons systems, pretty darn seriously.
Then how did this happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hate speech is great, it lets you know who the assholes are so you can fire them, expell them, shun them, etc.
That's one approach to people with different ideas.
In the US, the median white family has nearly 10x the wealth of the median black family, and this gap has not been steadily decreasing. Broadly speaking there are only two possible explanations, one acknowledges racism (that slavery's legacy is still hurting people today and minorities are still discriminated against - IOW, white privilege is real) and the other is racist (that there is some inherent difference between races that produces this huge inequality independently of any possible societal biases). Choose one.
HINT: Racist beliefs are ethically and scientifically wrong bullshit for dimwits.
First off your either / or is wrong because it is a false dilemma. A few Bill Gates do a lot to pull up the average. This is why averages, even when true, are misleading. It's also true that while Bill Gates and other billionaires are white it helps me exactly zero. No privilege there. This is obvious. Your going to have to do better to prove your case about white privilege than just averages.
Under your racial privilege paradigm Obama's daughters are far less privileged than a poor white child. Does that sound like reality to you? As an alternate, consider using wealth as the dominant privilege factor. Under my paradigm, Obama's daughters would be considered to have more privilege than a poor white kid. Now let's look more at the averages you love. On average blacks would get more perks, like college preference and such, than average white kids. So you can rejoice that on average your favored group is still benefiting more. Moreover by moving away from racist schemes towards economic schemes we can begin to seek justice for the 99%, which is far better than only attempting justice for the 11%.
I'm saying I totally disagree with your points, I just think our leadership has for so long not thought of our tax dollars like a business does. Run the numbers. Does this tax break offset the full cost, and what does the city/county/state get in return?
I often wish this logic was applied to illegal immigration. Is it a good idea to let in millions of people with few skills who don't speak the language? They cost the state tons of money, a smart person would minimize the hell out of that demographic.
The notion of 'Leaving money on the table' is the shiny side of the same coin as 'race to the bottom'.
Basically extracting as much from any given situation as possible; which just results in even greater concentrations of wealth; at the expense of people, suppliers, and society at large.
In this case though, it's especially repugnant because those 'gibs' amazon was trying to cajole local governments into granting would have to be paid for by the citizens, who get absolutely no say in the matter.
And for what? a few extra jobs (potentially!) that the bureaucrats can use for re-election fodder? Would the net tax base actually expand after all the concessions? Would Amazon's tricky bastard accountants figure out how to dodge them?
It's a democracy, it can be changed. Once the idiots figure out that white privilege is a myth but wealth privilege isn't then we can move on to solving this race to the bottom. Anyone who actually believes white privilege is a useful idiot of the 1%.
You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?
I would if they want to be held harmless for the content they host. If you're pruning content them you're liable for what remains. Want to be held harmless - then leave it all alone.
I think the discussion needs to be based on truthfulness not inoffensiveness. Saying illegal immigrants should not be here because they are illegal is fine. Saying they should not be here because they are murders, or lazy, needs evidence that they are more so than the currently population. I think we need more evidence based discussion not just people stating random opinions, or give examples, sure there are examples of migrant workers being murders, there are also examples locals as well.
All the examples of PC speech I can think of are attempts at dodging the truth or smearing someone with negative labels for stating the truth (ie Nazi, racist, etc). If people had the truth on their side in the first place 'PC' wouldn't be needed.
when you can have two? It's double the incentives.
You really can't have both. Don't believe me? Consider how easily some are offended. You have a choice of not trying to offend anyone, a fools errand, or pushing ahead and offending someone. It all sounds good to 'not be a jerk' but how do topics like illegal immigration get honestly discussed in a PC way. That's the trouble with PC efforts, they ignore or try and re-label reality and reality doesn't bend. If an immigrant is here illegally then they are by definition an illegal immigrant. The euphemism of undocumented immigrant is not helpful and just muddies the water. Is stealing theft or merely an undocumented purchase? I'm a fan of not being a jerk but I'm also a fan of honest discussion and not simply seeking to deplatform those you disagree with.
... In 2013 ...From around 2009 to 2013, the U.S. intelligence community experienced crippling intelligence failures related to the secret internet-based communications system, a key means for remote messaging between CIA officers and their sources on the ground worldwide. ...until more than two dozen sources died in China in 2011 and 2012 as a result, according to 11 former intelligence and national security officials.
So another scandal under Obama and Clinton that was buried. He was easily the most protected president by the media since Kennedy.
Ps, while Gilsap previously had 39% of HVP filings, Judge Robert William Schroeder III, had 24%. That's 63% for just those two judges.
After TC Heartland, only 3% of filings go to Schroeder.
Some people think that to fix this we have to completely throw out the patent system. These two judges, two people, were 63% of the problem. Handle those two guys and you're most of the way there.
So 2 bullets and a bit of gas money. This is not nearly as expensive as thought.
Yep, it's basically the definition of loser at least in my book. If it's always someone else's fault, you're a loser.
That sums up all of the aggrieved college majors and many a liberal.
Apple, Amazon, Google and More Than 50 Other Companies Engage in Virtue Signalling
Oh, and then I consider Tom Steyer, a nice enough guy, who lives in San Francisco. Perhaps, tom, you should be working on the problems your home town has, and leave us in Arizona to deal with our problems? Not enough problems in San Francisco? Just go away.
It would be good if places started putting limits on people from out of area owning too much.
There is no meaningful difference. You all think you're better than everyone else ...
There is so much irony in telling someone that they think they're better with such a smug 'I'm better than you' tone.
I wouldn't call them anti-science so much as anti-progress of any type.
When progress is defined as more illegal aliens who can't even speak the language and men in dresses yeah, I'm against progress too
It sucks their rocket didn't make it, but remember too, SpaceX's early rockets didn't make it to orbit either. The whole company almost went bust before they got one to work.
Now they are shaking up the entire launch industry.
Chinese companies will have plenty of government support and they will succeed. That is a matter of when not if.
Indeed. This plays to their strengths. It's already been done before so no real innovation and just needs the right mix of cost cutting.
Of course they will not just use this data to provide interactive video but to provide all manner of feedback for other purposes as well (to "tailor the user experience")
Ads, political content, news stories, and on and on. Just the next step in sculpting your own individual rendition of reality.
Many people I know live in their own bubble anyway. My hunch is that might help everyone get along a bit better. I think that's why some are so surprised that some topics have more depth to them, they've only been hearing one side and didn't realize that there was more than one facet to the problem. It's not uncommon that both 'sides' of an issue are roughly stating the truth, they just focus on different aspects of the truth.
My home extends to my walls -- a country is just a plot of land cursed with a (generally bad) government. I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.
Your thinking is muddled. Am I allow to camp out on your front lawn then? If not, how about the sidewalk in front of your house? Lastly - if it's so bad why don't you leave? Go to where the grass is always greener.