You cannot mention any "racist" facts without threatening your livelihood and worse.
Anon, I think you nailed the issue. Having to keep your racist, sexist bullshit to yourself because people call you out if you try to spread it is what all this whining is ultimately about. My heart bleeds for your plight.
Maybe you didn't get the memo, but according to the new wave of feminists, ALL men are chauvinistic pigs and ALL men are teh evilz who have nothing other to do than keep the females of the species down.
And yet it seems only SOME men are actually accused of such things.
You play video games? You watch movies? All of them chauvinistic and misogynist, so you are one of us.
I play video games and occasionally watch movies. So there must be some other variable to account for these differences in our experiences. I wonder what it could possibly be?
Also, no one is predicting economic slowdowns reversing. They may stabilize and increase marginally, but what would lead to strong economic growth again? Good government? Population growth? Rising productivity? Trade liberalization? What?
At the end of the day, what pulls economy is consumer demand. What determines consumer demand is how much money people have. And most people get their income from wages, which have been in the decline for decades now. So if you want economy to start rising, you need to increase demand, which requires increasing the income of Joe Average, otherwise Joe Investor can't invest since he doesn't have anyone to sell his products to.
The heart of the problem is that capitalism treats labour as just another resource and tries to minimize its cost, which causes an uncontrollable feedback loop after productivity rises to the level where availability of labour is no longer the limiting factor in production. The easiest way to fix that is to simply give everyone a flat sum per month - a citizen wage - and accept the resulting inflation.
Syria isn't Saudi Arabia, which has a huge population of educated, unemployed young people who are used to the good life and don't revolt only because they're being paid off.
In other words, Saudi Arabia has a lot of people who have both the ability and the motivation to build a decent nation, once oil gets out of the way.
No more payoffs means no more placidity, which means more radicalism.
Radicalism has no "good life" to offer, and often no life at all. ISIS is offering a practical demonstration of just that in the area.
Anyway, as long as it shuts them up about us being fascist pigs for trying to keep out illegal Mexicans, bully on them for trying to deal with their own illegal immigration problem.
One might argue it's a case of old masters showing young wannabes how it's done.
Sorry dude, it's the law. A white guy must be racist and any guy must be misogynist.
And yet I'm a white guy who doesn't seem to run into accusations of either racism or chauvinism. It makes me wonder if all the people who complain about being harassed by the politically correct hordes are, in fact, the innocent victims they try to present themselves as.
Took me a while to get used to it but once you're accustomed to being a racist woman hater it's not that bad. I can't shave with a straight razor anymore 'cause I fear I might off that asshole, but that's a small price to pay to fit into the politically correct paradigm again.
It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State.
"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion? Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.
It's quite clear that the original poster didn't advocate making everyone equally competent in all endeavors.
Yes, he did. He probably didn't mean to, which is why I pointed this out to him.
Opportunity doesn't mean competence, training, ability, etc.
See, that's the problem: I don't think "equal opportunity" means anything in conservative rhetoric. It's simply a way to handwave away the problems inherent in the conservative value system by claiming you support equality in some abstract sense which has no effect on the actual, extremely inequal outcomes. That would be fine if this was just some philosophical debate, but people have to live with those outcomes.
If you don't like the "curated" life so much, stop taking all my money to distribute among those the government has decided is more worthy.
Not more worthy, more needy. We The People includes those people too, and more cynically, too many people hurting will lead to unrest or even outright rebellion.
I'd rather have rich, intelligent, productive overlords than stupid, diseased, ignorant, lazy super predators getting my money.
But what you actually have is rich, intelligent, productive super predators seeking to devour every tiny bit of economic power from you before casting your now-useless remains away.
If you subsidize joblessness and tax wages and earnings, you get more joblessness and less industry. Encouraging negative behaviors and penalizing positive behaviors is one of the major problems with progressive policies.
The problem is, joblessness is not a behaviour but a circumstance. Bad economy is not the fault of those with no economic power but those with lots. So who's bad habits should we be more concerned about, Joe Bum or Joe Businessman? And who, then, requires more encouragement and penalization - in other words, regulation - and also deserves to pay for mitigating its negative effects?
Still it at least proves that being a "licensed teacher" isn't a necessary condition for being a successful educator in modern society.
It is, however, a sufficient condition or can be made so by tweaking the conditions of the license. Yes, Joe Random Stranger may well be a great teacher, or he may be a complete incompetent. Joe Licensed Teacher is, or should be, guaranteed to be at least mediocre.
Nobody actually knows whether this approach will work in actually combating racism - but nobody involved cares about that part.
If the problem perceveres, then at some point the public/law is going to decide they aren't doing enough to combat it, at which point they have to increase the anti-racism budget. Assuming these are somewhat rational businessmen, it would seem to be in their best interests to care.
We're not all the same but deserve the same opportunities, nothing more, nothing less.
You do realize that that is an extremely strong statement? I mean, giving me the same opportunities as, say, Steven Hawkings would require inventing a brain augmenter of some kind, and giving Mr. Hawkings the same opportunities as me would require curing his paralysis. And of course, even then, he'd be several decades older than me...
Heck, taken seriously, your statement makes you a ultra-hardline communist, in the original sense of the word! Welcome to the Left Side, comrade:).
Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?
Well, yes. What did you think the "state/government is evil" meme was all about? Trials and rule of law are manifestations of state power; without it, you have the Law of the Jungle - and even a tiny corporation is the 500-pound gorilla compared to you. Which is why they and their servants keep pushing for it.
Surely only a statist would complain about having the liberty to give up all their rights if they wish to participate in the economy?
Not much consolation for the individuals that play the matyrs,
They aren't martyrs, they're your victims. A martyr is someone who sacrifices themselves, they were sacrificed by you.
I'm indifferent enough with their plight to express a rational detached opinion on how this will have to play out for people to care.
As you demonstrated above, people who claim to be indifferent about the consequences of their actions - in your case promoting such a nasty idea - are usually just lying to themselves about what they're doing. Bonus points for doing so under the guise of rationality.
If you disagree with the law, you can write to your state representative and suggest he/she vote to change the law. That doesn't mean you get to disobey it.
Right, so are anti-prostitution laws legal? What article of Constitution, exactly speaking, gives the Government the power to declare providing or buying this particular service illegal? I suppose it could be interstate commerce if they're doing it standing in a very specific position, but that's unlikely to be a common or typical occurrence.
Coercion, violence, and trafficking are NOT the result of making prostitution illegal. They are the result of demand exceeding supply and of the very high ROI you can get from trafficking in women.
Making something illegal affects the supply and thus the ROI from trafficking.
He'll be fighting against establishment Republicans in congress and ALL Democrats.
Will he? The setting of the political theatre in the US is that the Republicans oppose the Democrats. The two allying to fight Trump risks breaking the habit, and then what?
Trump is winning because his opponents are every bit as horrible people than him but he's more entertaining, so will these horrible people then risk their own political power to do the right thing for the country?
Slashdot Mirror
Anon, I think you nailed the issue. Having to keep your racist, sexist bullshit to yourself because people call you out if you try to spread it is what all this whining is ultimately about. My heart bleeds for your plight.
And yet it seems only SOME men are actually accused of such things.
I play video games and occasionally watch movies. So there must be some other variable to account for these differences in our experiences. I wonder what it could possibly be?
I explained why it does: it increases demand. Do you have some actual counters to my argument?
At the end of the day, what pulls economy is consumer demand. What determines consumer demand is how much money people have. And most people get their income from wages, which have been in the decline for decades now. So if you want economy to start rising, you need to increase demand, which requires increasing the income of Joe Average, otherwise Joe Investor can't invest since he doesn't have anyone to sell his products to.
The heart of the problem is that capitalism treats labour as just another resource and tries to minimize its cost, which causes an uncontrollable feedback loop after productivity rises to the level where availability of labour is no longer the limiting factor in production. The easiest way to fix that is to simply give everyone a flat sum per month - a citizen wage - and accept the resulting inflation.
In other words, Saudi Arabia has a lot of people who have both the ability and the motivation to build a decent nation, once oil gets out of the way.
Radicalism has no "good life" to offer, and often no life at all. ISIS is offering a practical demonstration of just that in the area.
One might argue it's a case of old masters showing young wannabes how it's done.
And yet I'm a white guy who doesn't seem to run into accusations of either racism or chauvinism. It makes me wonder if all the people who complain about being harassed by the politically correct hordes are, in fact, the innocent victims they try to present themselves as.
Your bravery is an inspiration to us all.
"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion? Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.
Yes, he did. He probably didn't mean to, which is why I pointed this out to him.
See, that's the problem: I don't think "equal opportunity" means anything in conservative rhetoric. It's simply a way to handwave away the problems inherent in the conservative value system by claiming you support equality in some abstract sense which has no effect on the actual, extremely inequal outcomes. That would be fine if this was just some philosophical debate, but people have to live with those outcomes.
MaxMind is a spam facilitation company. Their whole business is victimizing people.
The whole point of capitalism is pocketing the profits while forcing other people to pay the costs.
Not more worthy, more needy. We The People includes those people too, and more cynically, too many people hurting will lead to unrest or even outright rebellion.
But what you actually have is rich, intelligent, productive super predators seeking to devour every tiny bit of economic power from you before casting your now-useless remains away.
Speaking of bullshit, give us that one example: name an adress - with evidence of course - in France the cops won't go into.
The problem is, joblessness is not a behaviour but a circumstance. Bad economy is not the fault of those with no economic power but those with lots. So who's bad habits should we be more concerned about, Joe Bum or Joe Businessman? And who, then, requires more encouragement and penalization - in other words, regulation - and also deserves to pay for mitigating its negative effects?
They're zero-dimensional monomaniacs, so one-dimensional solutions seem enlightened to them, and more-dimensional ones are incomprehensible.
It is, however, a sufficient condition or can be made so by tweaking the conditions of the license. Yes, Joe Random Stranger may well be a great teacher, or he may be a complete incompetent. Joe Licensed Teacher is, or should be, guaranteed to be at least mediocre.
Gamble with your own life.
If the problem perceveres, then at some point the public/law is going to decide they aren't doing enough to combat it, at which point they have to increase the anti-racism budget. Assuming these are somewhat rational businessmen, it would seem to be in their best interests to care.
You do realize that that is an extremely strong statement? I mean, giving me the same opportunities as, say, Steven Hawkings would require inventing a brain augmenter of some kind, and giving Mr. Hawkings the same opportunities as me would require curing his paralysis. And of course, even then, he'd be several decades older than me...
Heck, taken seriously, your statement makes you a ultra-hardline communist, in the original sense of the word! Welcome to the Left Side, comrade :).
EU's emissions are going down, actually.
Well, yes. What did you think the "state/government is evil" meme was all about? Trials and rule of law are manifestations of state power; without it, you have the Law of the Jungle - and even a tiny corporation is the 500-pound gorilla compared to you. Which is why they and their servants keep pushing for it.
Surely only a statist would complain about having the liberty to give up all their rights if they wish to participate in the economy?
They aren't martyrs, they're your victims. A martyr is someone who sacrifices themselves, they were sacrificed by you.
As you demonstrated above, people who claim to be indifferent about the consequences of their actions - in your case promoting such a nasty idea - are usually just lying to themselves about what they're doing. Bonus points for doing so under the guise of rationality.
Right, so are anti-prostitution laws legal? What article of Constitution, exactly speaking, gives the Government the power to declare providing or buying this particular service illegal? I suppose it could be interstate commerce if they're doing it standing in a very specific position, but that's unlikely to be a common or typical occurrence.
Making something illegal affects the supply and thus the ROI from trafficking.
Well then, if that's true, he's sent a slave to a prison for being beaten into submission, and is proud of it. So he's a monster either way.
Will he? The setting of the political theatre in the US is that the Republicans oppose the Democrats. The two allying to fight Trump risks breaking the habit, and then what?
Trump is winning because his opponents are every bit as horrible people than him but he's more entertaining, so will these horrible people then risk their own political power to do the right thing for the country?
Or, more likely, were idiots at 20.