We all do. Bias isn't a flaw in your thinking, or their thinking, or my thinking, it's literally the way we all think. Biases are simply the cognitive shortcuts we execute in order to get through our day - and most of our thinking and reasoning is just pulling things from cache, not actually thinking hard on things.
I think, from your point of view, it might be better to accuse WSJ of having an agenda.
Not trying to be pedantic, but I think it's a distinction worth making.
Apparently the real people they answer to don't care if it costs some Republicans their seats, they'll just replace them with a Democrat. It's pretty clear at this point that Paul Ryan was always the "pretend opposition" for the Obama and the Democrats and has always working for the same people that Obama and the other Democrats are - and I don't mean the American people. The primary thing that differentiated Trump from his GOP primary opponents was his very, very vocal opposition to any sort of amnesty for existing illegals, strong enforcement to keep illegals out, and his advocacy for net reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants we were allowing in.
It's pretty telling that Nancy Pelosi came out and condemned Antifa before Paul Ryan did. It was interesting when Paul Ryan did it, almost as if he got a message to go ahead and condemn them from his handler.
We haven't yet reached the age of no scarcity. I agree that when the production function goes from y = f(k,l), y = f(k), that we'll certainly need a UBI (or the horror counter scenario, where the rich holders of capital exterminate everyone else with their robot armies), but it's a ways away from being viable.
The AZ law attempting to limit DACA got tossed because the states don't have standing. Unfortunately, lack of standing keeps a lot bad actions from being ruled unconstitutional.
>When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
So, a couple of factual errors here, which is awesome for one single sentence. One, Trump admin didn't execute or attempt to execute a "ban on Muslims", they executed a ban on all nationals from 7 specific countries. Secondly, the ban wasn't done on the basis of immigration concerns, but national security concerns, which the Constitution actually does grant the President great leeway with regards to - which is why the SCOTUS unanimously overturned the lower court decisions that had blocked Trump's moves.
>Now that the Trump administration does not want to continue DACA, they are arguing that they have absolutely no power over immigration.
That's actually NOT what the Trump administration is saying. They are saying the Executive Branch does not have legal authority to grant permanent residency and work permission to the "Dreamers" - that this status can only be conferred by legislative action. This is also true and consistent with the law - which might be novel to you because you got used to the President doing whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, law be damned. Since you happened to agree with his actions, you probably didn't care so much, but again, the law is consistent with both Trump's prior actions and current actions.
>And remember, Obama was called the "Deporter In Chief" for how fervently he was deporting them... More than 2.5 million were removed. He was not soft on immigration.
LOL. Sorry, no. The Obama admin started counting "turn-backs" as "deportations," which no administration had previously counted before. This allowed them to falsely and greatly inflate the numbers of reported "deportations" when the opposite was actually true. Deportations are legal procedures executed in court. Those fell precipitously under Obama, as did actual turn backs.
What makes you think that? Can you look into the man's eyes and see what is in his heart?
Most of the "dreamers" aren't kids, they are over the age of 18. This was a naked political ploy by Obama.
Every strategy employed by the Democrats when it comes to immigration is to replace the voters they have with the voters they want. This is why the Democrats (and the judges they have in their hip pocket) throw out all the stops to prevent any serious investigation into voter fraud or requiring any sort of ID to vote or any restrictions on legal and illegal immigration. When illegal aliens vote - and they do vote - they vote Democrat by about a 4 to 1 or a 5 to 1 margin. And when immigrants naturalize and vote legally (and they do that too), they vote Democrat by a 2 to 1 margin.
When what is "moral" happens to neatly coincide with what's in your personal best interests, it's safe to say that morality probably isn't a key determinant to the decision, particularly when that policy runs counter to every single other country in the world. What do you think Mexico does to "dreamer" age kids they find in their country illegally (assuming the Cartels don't kill them - which happens too)? They don't offer them a work visa and say "no problemo" - no, they deport their asses back to wherever they came from.
US immigration "policy" is insane - unless you view it from the perspective of destroying the existing American electorate and labor force, and then it makes perfect sense.
Two problems with Google: it has too much power, and it's now abusing it's power. This instance is only one of many other similar instances of Google throwing its weight around.
No longer content to try to develop and bring to market superior products, Google is now suppressing outside negative opinions (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?mcubz=0), kneecapping competition in the best tradition of Microsoft of old, and ruthlessly enforcing a groupthink internally, not to mention demonetizing subjects on AdSense or Youtube that they don't like or disagree with (examples: Trump supporters or Ron Paul supporters or gun videos).
Well, I've done enough casual reading on CAR-T to know that it's being used in clinical trials on pretty much every type of cancer out there, child and adult including solid (and incurable) cancers like pancreatic cancer.
One reason why they may have initially focussed on childhood leukemia is PR: saving children is good PR, and good PR results in more funding which results in more research which ultimately insures the broadest range of therapies released. Another is, it's possible (conjecture here) that the leukemia disease model is very well known compared to other cancers, and so it's an easier initial target. I do know that because leukemia is blood born, drug delivery to target the cancer is easier, and it doesn't form "structures" like some solid tumors do that allow other cancers to hide from immune cells and drug therapies. All of these may have played a factor in selecting leukemia over glioblastoma or other brain tumors.
Although Pizzagate was a big component of "fake news" claims, there were lots of other "fake news" stories that the Democrats tried to spike. Hillary's health, for example. The DNC actively working against Bernie Sanders. When these were alleged, they were dismissed as fake news, and turned out to be real news in short order.
Again, my main thesis is that companies like Facebook aren't doing this because of any concern over "fake" news. They are doing it because they are trying to control the flow of information (false and true) and shape public perception in ways that are congruent with their interests and beliefs. Because most of the staff of Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself) tilts to the left, this takes the form of a left-ward bias. For example, there is more evidence of "Pizzagate" than there is of Russian-Trump collusion. Which one did the media take an interest in and why?
There are some aspects of Pizzagate that are real. There are lots of aspects that are clearly dubious or outright false. Did James Alefantis have a kill room in a walled off section of Comet Ping Pong? Normalcy bias says probably not. Did James Alefantis have a connection to Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. Yep. Did James Alefantis host bands that have outright pedo themes? Yep. Was Comet's logo almost identical to a pedo symbol as outlined in an FBI document on pedophilia? Yep. Did Hillary Clinton intercede on Laura Silsby's behalf after she was arrested for child trafficking (and ultimately convicted for "arranging irregular travel" for attempting to smuggle (i.e, transport without any authorization) children out of the country who were not orphans? Yep. Do Tony and John Podesta have a rather disturbing collective art collection that depicts posing of murder victims and child pedo / murder themes? Yep. Do some of the emails sent to and John Podesta make no literal sense? Yep. Do some of them make sense if they are talking in code? Sort of. Does the code map to terms supposedly used by pedophiles? Yep. Did Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton both take trips on Epstein's private plane (dubbed the Lolita express) to Epstein's private island - Bill Clinton doing so without his Secret Service escorts? Yep. Do Tony and John Podesta bear a striking resemblance to suspect sketches involved in the disapperance of Madeline McCann? Yep. Have pedophile scandals engulfed high government levels in the US and European countries previously? Yep.
Is there a smoking gun with dead bodies of kids found in Podesta's house? Nope.
Podesta and Hillary Clinton could be completely innocent and it's just an intersection of really creepy coincidences. But the Democrats and their media allies spent a lot of effort spiking the story. Twitter scrubbed it, Reddit scrubbed it, ShareBlue downvote brigrades brigaded any mention of it. That's not really what you see happen for a nothingburger story.
Nevertheless, it may be a nothingburger story.
But would you let your kids spend the night at John Podesta's house? I know I would not.
None of the damaging information on Clinton or the DNC was refuted, nor did they even attempt to refute it. It wasn't fake news, it was real news that the media elected not to cover until it was already common knowledge because events outpaced their ability to contain the flow of information. This move by Facebook and others is simply a move to take back control of the information flow so they can keep the proles from getting information their betters deem they shouldn't have.
According to the media, the alt-right isn't about small, limited government, it's about racism and sexism and homophobia, so you appear to be conflating your own misunderstanding about the various factions of the right when it's convenient.
Using Snopes as a fact checker is literally like asking a few random people on the Internet to google stuff for you.
Literally, it's a small staff with well established biases (note: we all have biases, they aren't special or especially bad in this regard), and are hardly authoritative on any subject at all.
Their "refutation" of Pizzagate was literally citing a Washington Post article (who Podesta writes and consults for, among other things) which declared it an unfounded conspiracy theory without looking at any of the underlying data or points, some of which were pretty well documented (for example, Hillary interceding with Haiti to get Laura Silsby freed - who was allegedly involved with child trafficking there, or the Podesta's brothers bizarre art collection depicting murder and child torture, or Bill and Hillary Clinton's many trips on the Lolita Express to Epstein's private island). This is simply a type of normalcy bias. There's some really shady stuff associated with the Podesta brothers and the Clinton circle. It wasn't all fake news.
Afghanistan is less developed than most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The whole country has around 2 (as in 2.0) miles of railway. The literacy rate is 38%. Whoever expects electronic payments to take off in Afghanistan probably thinks we can eradicate poppy cultivation in exchange for planting corn and raising sheep.
> If you remove religion, then shouldn't all life be preserved?
How do you figure? From a purely biological perspective, all life exists at the expense of some other life. Even plants poison and crowd out their competitors. Now, if you argue that morality and/or ethics can exist independently of religion, then I agree with you. All three are human constructions. It does not follow, however, that the life of a murderer is just as sacred as the life of an unborn child (or fetus).
Likewise, lots of people - given the choice and ability, to end their own lives because of terminal, painful illnesses. I mean, do you really want to tell someone suffering from glioblastoma that all life is sacred, their life is sacred, and despite the intense and agonizing pain before their soon to be certain death, they should keep on keeping on?
Weak as in insufficient to get a prosecution unless someone goes jury shopping, and almost certainly too weak to secure a conviction.
Why? Because there is no tangible evidence that anything of value was exchanged. Every single public claim has evaporated under scrutiny. Even the Don Jr. story was that he met with a Russian woman in exchange for information on Hillary Clinton that never was delivered - and even if useful information had been delivered, you would have to establish that it had *value* in a monetary sense. And then, even then, you have to contend with things like Al Gore taking cash donations (and admitting it) from Chinese government officials back in 1996 where there was no prosecution or conviction to see how significant the Federal government takes "crimes" of this nature. And then you'll have to reconcile the prosecution of Don Jr. with the non-prosecution of Alexandra Chalupa on behalf of the Clinton campaign, whose involvement with foreign nationals on behalf of Hillary Clinton was much more overt than anything Don Jr. did.
Slashdot Mirror
We all do. Bias isn't a flaw in your thinking, or their thinking, or my thinking, it's literally the way we all think. Biases are simply the cognitive shortcuts we execute in order to get through our day - and most of our thinking and reasoning is just pulling things from cache, not actually thinking hard on things.
I think, from your point of view, it might be better to accuse WSJ of having an agenda.
Not trying to be pedantic, but I think it's a distinction worth making.
Apparently the real people they answer to don't care if it costs some Republicans their seats, they'll just replace them with a Democrat. It's pretty clear at this point that Paul Ryan was always the "pretend opposition" for the Obama and the Democrats and has always working for the same people that Obama and the other Democrats are - and I don't mean the American people. The primary thing that differentiated Trump from his GOP primary opponents was his very, very vocal opposition to any sort of amnesty for existing illegals, strong enforcement to keep illegals out, and his advocacy for net reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants we were allowing in.
It's pretty telling that Nancy Pelosi came out and condemned Antifa before Paul Ryan did. It was interesting when Paul Ryan did it, almost as if he got a message to go ahead and condemn them from his handler.
> I am skeptical of claims made by the WSJ. They are often biased.
LOL. EVERYONE is biased.
We haven't yet reached the age of no scarcity. I agree that when the production function goes from y = f(k,l), y = f(k), that we'll certainly need a UBI (or the horror counter scenario, where the rich holders of capital exterminate everyone else with their robot armies), but it's a ways away from being viable.
>Two storms of unusual magnitude
After 12 uneventful years, clearly global warming now!
The AZ law attempting to limit DACA got tossed because the states don't have standing. Unfortunately, lack of standing keeps a lot bad actions from being ruled unconstitutional.
>When the Trump administration was fighting lawsuits regarding the "ban on Muslims", the Trump administration argued that they should be granted tons and tons of power on issues surrounding immigration. Because the Trump administration wanted to do it.
So, a couple of factual errors here, which is awesome for one single sentence. One, Trump admin didn't execute or attempt to execute a "ban on Muslims", they executed a ban on all nationals from 7 specific countries. Secondly, the ban wasn't done on the basis of immigration concerns, but national security concerns, which the Constitution actually does grant the President great leeway with regards to - which is why the SCOTUS unanimously overturned the lower court decisions that had blocked Trump's moves.
>Now that the Trump administration does not want to continue DACA, they are arguing that they have absolutely no power over immigration.
That's actually NOT what the Trump administration is saying. They are saying the Executive Branch does not have legal authority to grant permanent residency and work permission to the "Dreamers" - that this status can only be conferred by legislative action. This is also true and consistent with the law - which might be novel to you because you got used to the President doing whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, law be damned. Since you happened to agree with his actions, you probably didn't care so much, but again, the law is consistent with both Trump's prior actions and current actions.
>And remember, Obama was called the "Deporter In Chief" for how fervently he was deporting them... More than 2.5 million were removed. He was not soft on immigration.
LOL. Sorry, no. The Obama admin started counting "turn-backs" as "deportations," which no administration had previously counted before. This allowed them to falsely and greatly inflate the numbers of reported "deportations" when the opposite was actually true. Deportations are legal procedures executed in court. Those fell precipitously under Obama, as did actual turn backs.
Looks like Democrats and people like Paul Ryan want to make that "temporary" measure permanent...
>I understand his heart was in the right place
What makes you think that? Can you look into the man's eyes and see what is in his heart?
Most of the "dreamers" aren't kids, they are over the age of 18. This was a naked political ploy by Obama.
Every strategy employed by the Democrats when it comes to immigration is to replace the voters they have with the voters they want. This is why the Democrats (and the judges they have in their hip pocket) throw out all the stops to prevent any serious investigation into voter fraud or requiring any sort of ID to vote or any restrictions on legal and illegal immigration. When illegal aliens vote - and they do vote - they vote Democrat by about a 4 to 1 or a 5 to 1 margin. And when immigrants naturalize and vote legally (and they do that too), they vote Democrat by a 2 to 1 margin.
When what is "moral" happens to neatly coincide with what's in your personal best interests, it's safe to say that morality probably isn't a key determinant to the decision, particularly when that policy runs counter to every single other country in the world. What do you think Mexico does to "dreamer" age kids they find in their country illegally (assuming the Cartels don't kill them - which happens too)? They don't offer them a work visa and say "no problemo" - no, they deport their asses back to wherever they came from.
US immigration "policy" is insane - unless you view it from the perspective of destroying the existing American electorate and labor force, and then it makes perfect sense.
Two problems with Google: it has too much power, and it's now abusing it's power. This instance is only one of many other similar instances of Google throwing its weight around.
No longer content to try to develop and bring to market superior products, Google is now suppressing outside negative opinions (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?mcubz=0), kneecapping competition in the best tradition of Microsoft of old, and ruthlessly enforcing a groupthink internally, not to mention demonetizing subjects on AdSense or Youtube that they don't like or disagree with (examples: Trump supporters or Ron Paul supporters or gun videos).
...yeah, about that....
Well, I've done enough casual reading on CAR-T to know that it's being used in clinical trials on pretty much every type of cancer out there, child and adult including solid (and incurable) cancers like pancreatic cancer.
One reason why they may have initially focussed on childhood leukemia is PR: saving children is good PR, and good PR results in more funding which results in more research which ultimately insures the broadest range of therapies released. Another is, it's possible (conjecture here) that the leukemia disease model is very well known compared to other cancers, and so it's an easier initial target. I do know that because leukemia is blood born, drug delivery to target the cancer is easier, and it doesn't form "structures" like some solid tumors do that allow other cancers to hide from immune cells and drug therapies. All of these may have played a factor in selecting leukemia over glioblastoma or other brain tumors.
Surprised ShareBlue even knows about Slashdot.
A follow up to my Pizzagate comment.
Although Pizzagate was a big component of "fake news" claims, there were lots of other "fake news" stories that the Democrats tried to spike. Hillary's health, for example. The DNC actively working against Bernie Sanders. When these were alleged, they were dismissed as fake news, and turned out to be real news in short order.
Again, my main thesis is that companies like Facebook aren't doing this because of any concern over "fake" news. They are doing it because they are trying to control the flow of information (false and true) and shape public perception in ways that are congruent with their interests and beliefs. Because most of the staff of Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself) tilts to the left, this takes the form of a left-ward bias. For example, there is more evidence of "Pizzagate" than there is of Russian-Trump collusion. Which one did the media take an interest in and why?
>Really? Do you still think Pizzagate was real?
There are some aspects of Pizzagate that are real. There are lots of aspects that are clearly dubious or outright false. Did James Alefantis have a kill room in a walled off section of Comet Ping Pong? Normalcy bias says probably not. Did James Alefantis have a connection to Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. Yep. Did James Alefantis host bands that have outright pedo themes? Yep. Was Comet's logo almost identical to a pedo symbol as outlined in an FBI document on pedophilia? Yep. Did Hillary Clinton intercede on Laura Silsby's behalf after she was arrested for child trafficking (and ultimately convicted for "arranging irregular travel" for attempting to smuggle (i.e, transport without any authorization) children out of the country who were not orphans? Yep. Do Tony and John Podesta have a rather disturbing collective art collection that depicts posing of murder victims and child pedo / murder themes? Yep. Do some of the emails sent to and John Podesta make no literal sense? Yep. Do some of them make sense if they are talking in code? Sort of. Does the code map to terms supposedly used by pedophiles? Yep. Did Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton both take trips on Epstein's private plane (dubbed the Lolita express) to Epstein's private island - Bill Clinton doing so without his Secret Service escorts? Yep. Do Tony and John Podesta bear a striking resemblance to suspect sketches involved in the disapperance of Madeline McCann? Yep. Have pedophile scandals engulfed high government levels in the US and European countries previously? Yep.
Is there a smoking gun with dead bodies of kids found in Podesta's house? Nope.
Podesta and Hillary Clinton could be completely innocent and it's just an intersection of really creepy coincidences. But the Democrats and their media allies spent a lot of effort spiking the story. Twitter scrubbed it, Reddit scrubbed it, ShareBlue downvote brigrades brigaded any mention of it. That's not really what you see happen for a nothingburger story. Nevertheless, it may be a nothingburger story.
But would you let your kids spend the night at John Podesta's house? I know I would not.
That's it exactly.
None of the damaging information on Clinton or the DNC was refuted, nor did they even attempt to refute it. It wasn't fake news, it was real news that the media elected not to cover until it was already common knowledge because events outpaced their ability to contain the flow of information. This move by Facebook and others is simply a move to take back control of the information flow so they can keep the proles from getting information their betters deem they shouldn't have.
According to the media, the alt-right isn't about small, limited government, it's about racism and sexism and homophobia, so you appear to be conflating your own misunderstanding about the various factions of the right when it's convenient.
Using Snopes as a fact checker is literally like asking a few random people on the Internet to google stuff for you.
Literally, it's a small staff with well established biases (note: we all have biases, they aren't special or especially bad in this regard), and are hardly authoritative on any subject at all.
Their "refutation" of Pizzagate was literally citing a Washington Post article (who Podesta writes and consults for, among other things) which declared it an unfounded conspiracy theory without looking at any of the underlying data or points, some of which were pretty well documented (for example, Hillary interceding with Haiti to get Laura Silsby freed - who was allegedly involved with child trafficking there, or the Podesta's brothers bizarre art collection depicting murder and child torture, or Bill and Hillary Clinton's many trips on the Lolita Express to Epstein's private island). This is simply a type of normalcy bias. There's some really shady stuff associated with the Podesta brothers and the Clinton circle. It wasn't all fake news.
Absolutely retarded.
Afghanistan is less developed than most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The whole country has around 2 (as in 2.0) miles of railway. The literacy rate is 38%. Whoever expects electronic payments to take off in Afghanistan probably thinks we can eradicate poppy cultivation in exchange for planting corn and raising sheep.
> suck it up and trudge onward towards the sweet cold embrace of the grave.
My phrase for it is "running out the clock and racing towards oblivion"
It's not everywhere, but it's common in technology.
> If you remove religion, then shouldn't all life be preserved?
How do you figure? From a purely biological perspective, all life exists at the expense of some other life. Even plants poison and crowd out their competitors. Now, if you argue that morality and/or ethics can exist independently of religion, then I agree with you. All three are human constructions. It does not follow, however, that the life of a murderer is just as sacred as the life of an unborn child (or fetus).
Likewise, lots of people - given the choice and ability, to end their own lives because of terminal, painful illnesses. I mean, do you really want to tell someone suffering from glioblastoma that all life is sacred, their life is sacred, and despite the intense and agonizing pain before their soon to be certain death, they should keep on keeping on?
Game never worked, but have some promising features. Let the community fix it!
>Define and defend weak in legal terms.
Weak as in insufficient to get a prosecution unless someone goes jury shopping, and almost certainly too weak to secure a conviction.
Why? Because there is no tangible evidence that anything of value was exchanged. Every single public claim has evaporated under scrutiny. Even the Don Jr. story was that he met with a Russian woman in exchange for information on Hillary Clinton that never was delivered - and even if useful information had been delivered, you would have to establish that it had *value* in a monetary sense. And then, even then, you have to contend with things like Al Gore taking cash donations (and admitting it) from Chinese government officials back in 1996 where there was no prosecution or conviction to see how significant the Federal government takes "crimes" of this nature. And then you'll have to reconcile the prosecution of Don Jr. with the non-prosecution of Alexandra Chalupa on behalf of the Clinton campaign, whose involvement with foreign nationals on behalf of Hillary Clinton was much more overt than anything Don Jr. did.