Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.
I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.
There is no one so far to the left that, eventually, they will not be attacked -- from someone even *farther* to the left. Go ahead and laugh. You'll laugh, you good progressive -- until the surreal moment when it happens to you.
Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.
Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina. Or if Clinton had been indicted for getting a blowjob, rather than for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he was clearly *guilty* of -- the politicians of his own party just declined to *impeach* him for it).
More generally speaking, in a thread about ignorance, your whole post doesn't exactly come across as Nobel Prize-winning stuff. I guess maybe it felt clever to you when you wrote it, but I feel like I should advise you it doesn't really come across that way to others.
So here we have a paper about *sexism*, garnering a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
So, this would suggest to me (not by any means an expert) that the reviewer was quite aware of what he was saying -- he was being sarcastic, and/or trying to be funny. In other words, the over-the-top sexist tone was deliberate.
Wise? Probably not. But people often try to make points in misguided ways, and of those, sarcasm probably leads the pack. I'm reminded of the Justine Sacco controversy. Sacco, if you recall, was the flack who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!" So all the Right-Thinking People were all outraged. Except, Sacco is a Good Progressive. Her tweet was (obviously, to some of us) an attempt to sarcastically tweak White Privilege. (Picture her saying it while rolling her eyes.)
Hey, Mr. Science: Were you trying to give us textbook examples of both Argument Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority?
Save me your sputtering but nonsensical reply (which is what you guys ALWAYS respond with, every time, without fail). tompaulco presented facts. Are they correct? I don't know - but I know even less after your reply, which just makes everyone who reads it a little stupider. If the information exists to refute it... well, why not present THAT, and really look smart, instead of spouting your textbook examples of logical fallacies?
No, no, he was talking about Japan, right? Or, no, wait -- Switzerland?
Well, let's see what Google ("World's most peaceful countries") gives us.
Iceland tops that list, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Norway.
[Scanning list for diversity]... Well... let's see... Those are some startlingly homogeneous cultures. I guess New Zealand is a bit diverse? No, not really -- 69 percent are "New Zealand European." OK. Canada? Well, according to Wikipedia, their largest non-European ethnicity is Chinese at... 4.31 percent.
Bottom line: Evidence that more homogeneity means more strife =... zero.
You live in a libertarian fantasy land where wages have much at all to do with competition.
I don't understand. I've read that for most large companies, at least, wages and associated benefits are their primary expense. Is that not true? I didn't read it in some libertarian fantasy newsletter -- it was on Forbes or the WSJ or something.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."
$31 million seem like it would buy... a lot of diversity... I guess.
Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.
I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?
If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.
My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.
Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?
Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.
Good point. It was also a little surreal to have the SC rule that the mandate was, in effect, a tax, when the official position of the administration -- i.e., the ones pushing the law in the first place -- was that it was NOT a tax.
See here, for just one of many examples:
"The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. " -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
I'm not sure what you are asserting. If the motion was "We should tax every American a dollar a year, and give that money to Alaska Jack," then would I support it? Of course. Does that mean it would be good for the country? No.
*I* was going to refer the the "fireman first" principle -- I just didn't think I needed to.
The fireman-first principle (Or Washington Monument syndrome) is a *conservative/libertarian* argument, not a progressive one. Notice how it is attributed to National Review? It basically states that when taxpayers express a wish to scale back the size or scope of government, politicians often fight to preserve it by threatening to cut, not areas that are wasteful or inessential, but essential or highly visible government services -- like firemen.
That this principle exists does not mean that National Review doesn't think the size or scope of government should be restrained. It doesn't mean "Oh well, politicians will threaten to cut the police force, so we should just keep feeding the beast." As even a moment's thought would make obvious, I would have thought.
It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"
3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.
"Blindly "tightening the purse strings" leads to those parts of government that are good and useful to be sacrificed first, while the partisan and corrupt parts better defend themselves and their budgets. So, instead of a progressive nation of healthy, happy, nutritionally fed, employed, well educated citizens in a nation focused on freedom, scientific and technological advancement, we have become the secretive spymasters and bullies of the world, looking for the next war to line the pockets of the oligarchs, while the bigoted, ignorant masses fight from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find a job, until they die from easily preventable disease, if they survive the worst infant mortality rate of any first world nation."
There's no evidence for this, and a moment's thought will reveal that it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence. As the federal government has grown, it has steadily expanded its scope far beyond what the framers seem to have intended... and it's consumed more money to do so.
"The worst infant mortality" part just shows your bias. It's been shown time and time again that this claim is misleading. (In a nutshell, it's because the US counts nearly every pregnancy, even those where the fetus is for various reasons given very little chance of survival. Other countries "write off" these problematic pregnancies and births. This is how Cuba, for example, claims to have a lower IM rate that the US, which is preposterous given the level of care available there.)
"Instead of demanding that the money be taken away, we should be demanding that the places where the money is being mis-spent be stopped"
Exactly right. There's nothing mysterious here; these are not mutually exclusive qualities. The fact that the OP thinks they are suggests some confirmation bias on his part -- i.e., he is looking too hard for something to disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.
I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.
There is no one so far to the left that, eventually, they will not be attacked -- from someone even *farther* to the left.
Go ahead and laugh. You'll laugh, you good progressive -- until the surreal moment when it happens to you.
And Hitler agrees with you on the importance of breathing. So?
This isn't a troll. It's exactly what happened.
Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.
Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina. Or if Clinton had been indicted for getting a blowjob, rather than for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he was clearly *guilty* of -- the politicians of his own party just declined to *impeach* him for it).
More generally speaking, in a thread about ignorance, your whole post doesn't exactly come across as Nobel Prize-winning stuff. I guess maybe it felt clever to you when you wrote it, but I feel like I should advise you it doesn't really come across that way to others.
lllll AJ
Isn't this argument by anecdote? Exactly what global warming scientists hate?
>> Their economics expertise is unquestioned.
Well then. I guess that settles that!
So here we have a paper about *sexism*, garnering a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
So, this would suggest to me (not by any means an expert) that the reviewer was quite aware of what he was saying -- he was being sarcastic, and/or trying to be funny. In other words, the over-the-top sexist tone was deliberate.
Wise? Probably not. But people often try to make points in misguided ways, and of those, sarcasm probably leads the pack. I'm reminded of the Justine Sacco controversy. Sacco, if you recall, was the flack who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!" So all the Right-Thinking People were all outraged. Except, Sacco is a Good Progressive. Her tweet was (obviously, to some of us) an attempt to sarcastically tweak White Privilege. (Picture her saying it while rolling her eyes.)
Same idea might apply here.
Hey, Mr. Science: Were you trying to give us textbook examples of both Argument Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority?
Save me your sputtering but nonsensical reply (which is what you guys ALWAYS respond with, every time, without fail). tompaulco presented facts. Are they correct? I don't know - but I know even less after your reply, which just makes everyone who reads it a little stupider. If the information exists to refute it ... well, why not present THAT, and really look smart, instead of spouting your textbook examples of logical fallacies?
You know, you probably tell yourself, "I'm not a complete asshole in real life. It's just kind of like this persona I play when I'm online."
Well, you TELL yourself that....
I'd like to be able to ask Facebook:
"Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"
Wouldn't that be cool?
No, no, he was talking about Japan, right? Or, no, wait -- Switzerland?
Well, let's see what Google ("World's most peaceful countries") gives us.
Iceland tops that list, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Norway.
[Scanning list for diversity] ... Well ... let's see ... Those are some startlingly homogeneous cultures. I guess New Zealand is a bit diverse? No, not really -- 69 percent are "New Zealand European." OK. Canada? Well, according to Wikipedia, their largest non-European ethnicity is Chinese at ... 4.31 percent.
Bottom line: Evidence that more homogeneity means more strife = ... zero.
lllll AJ
You live in a libertarian fantasy land where wages have much at all to do with competition.
I don't understand. I've read that for most large companies, at least, wages and associated benefits are their primary expense. Is that not true? I didn't read it in some libertarian fantasy newsletter -- it was on Forbes or the WSJ or something.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."
$31 million seem like it would buy ... a lot of diversity ... I guess.
Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.
lllll AJ
"Scum"?
I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?
lllll AJ
If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.
lllll AJ
My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.
Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?
Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.
lllll AJ
Good point. It was also a little surreal to have the SC rule that the mandate was, in effect, a tax, when the official position of the administration -- i.e., the ones pushing the law in the first place -- was that it was NOT a tax.
See here, for just one of many examples:
"The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. " -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
lllll AJ
SuricouRaven -- what do you recommend as far as the best place to find instructions for doing this?
lllll AJ
Is he right? I don't know. But whoever modded him "Troll" should be really fucking ashamed of themselves.
lllll AJ
I'm not sure what you are asserting. If the motion was "We should tax every American a dollar a year, and give that money to Alaska Jack," then would I support it? Of course. Does that mean it would be good for the country? No.
You don't understand.
*I* was going to refer the the "fireman first" principle -- I just didn't think I needed to.
The fireman-first principle (Or Washington Monument syndrome) is a *conservative/libertarian* argument, not a progressive one. Notice how it is attributed to National Review? It basically states that when taxpayers express a wish to scale back the size or scope of government, politicians often fight to preserve it by threatening to cut, not areas that are wasteful or inessential, but essential or highly visible government services -- like firemen.
That this principle exists does not mean that National Review doesn't think the size or scope of government should be restrained. It doesn't mean "Oh well, politicians will threaten to cut the police force, so we should just keep feeding the beast." As even a moment's thought would make obvious, I would have thought.
lllll AJ
1. As demonlapin points out, you don't understand how tax brackets work.
2. Tax experts have pointed out, literally hundreds of times, that the attacks against Romney's income tax rate were politically motivated sound-bites meant to outrage people like you, who don't understand how taxes work. Here are just a couple of links: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/01/19/media_promote_myths_about_romneys_15_99470.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/27/1137048/-The-myth-of-Romney-s-tax-rates
It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"
3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.
lllll AJ
"Blindly "tightening the purse strings" leads to those parts of government that are good and useful to be sacrificed first, while the partisan and corrupt parts better defend themselves and their budgets. So, instead of a progressive nation of healthy, happy, nutritionally fed, employed, well educated citizens in a nation focused on freedom, scientific and technological advancement, we have become the secretive spymasters and bullies of the world, looking for the next war to line the pockets of the oligarchs, while the bigoted, ignorant masses fight from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find a job, until they die from easily preventable disease, if they survive the worst infant mortality rate of any first world nation."
There's no evidence for this, and a moment's thought will reveal that it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence. As the federal government has grown, it has steadily expanded its scope far beyond what the framers seem to have intended... and it's consumed more money to do so.
"The worst infant mortality" part just shows your bias. It's been shown time and time again that this claim is misleading. (In a nutshell, it's because the US counts nearly every pregnancy, even those where the fetus is for various reasons given very little chance of survival. Other countries "write off" these problematic pregnancies and births. This is how Cuba, for example, claims to have a lower IM rate that the US, which is preposterous given the level of care available there.)
"Instead of demanding that the money be taken away, we should be demanding that the places where the money is being mis-spent be stopped"
Huh?
lllll AJ
Exactly right. There's nothing mysterious here; these are not mutually exclusive qualities. The fact that the OP thinks they are suggests some confirmation bias on his part -- i.e., he is looking too hard for something to disagree with.
lllll AJ