Conspiracy to commit mass murder of minorities etc... is not a first amendment right, and that's exactly what the Nazis are all about.
Please, show me where the anti-First Amendment crowd broke up a meeting/talk where that was the topic of discussion. Because you know damn well it's never happened.
Antifa = everybody-I-disagree-with-is-a-fascist Nazi, and say-hello-to-my-commie-friends
You don't need to know what is in somebody else's mind when they make their intentions clear, both directly and indirectly. But I'm sorry your brain is so nonfunctional that you can't understand these simple concepts.
they're only willing to fight for their own freedoms
So when black nationalists agitate for a black state within America, it's called "fight for their own freedoms", but when white nationalists advocate for a white state within America, it's supremacy.
If I'm walking down a dark street at night and on one side of the street are some Black Panthers, and on the other side of the street are some skinheads, I'm definitely crossing to the Black Panther side
It's called using your brain. Killing a bunch of civilians for an ideology to inspire terror is, what for it... terrorism! Killing a bunch of people just for the sake of killing people because you're a sick fuck... is not.
You can label yourself as "against fascism" and be something else. Antifa in the US is anti-First Amendment, everybody-I-disagree-with-is-a-fascist Nazi, and say-hello-to-my-commie-friends.
No, but can we agree that if a Muslim shoots 50 people we'll call it "terrorism," and if a Christian shoots 50 people we'll call it "mass murder?"
No, because that's like saying a serial killer is a terrorist. There is still no discernible motive in the Vegas shooting, and generally it looks like the guy was just fucked up and wanted to go on a killing spree, kinda like this guy.
No, the "civilized world" has become a laughing stock. They rejected enlightenment values and common sense, and opened their borders to third world countries with barbaric cultures and religions. They are more worried about virtue signaling than helping their citizens.
Actually, the major plot point was that the Unabomber's brother recognized his writing style and fingered him to the FBI. Without that, they probably never would have caught him.
You are confused if you believe that Gnome 3 was intended to be used on a tablet computer or a phone. Gnome 3 was designed to be a cohesive user experience based on the scientific principle of Fitts's law.
And you're in denial if you think they weren't influenced by smart phone mania. Fitt's law doesn't say you should be removing buttons, or turning a desktop screen into a giant app screen that, coincidentally, was aping smart phone designs.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous. Getting your foot in the door is an amazing opportunity. Being given training and taken under wing is even more amazing.
And those are for people "who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship" and "new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there". Holy crap, and you just brush this aside? Can you imagine how many "non-diversity" candidates would love this opportunity?
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
It's a straightforward comparison in response to your blunt assessment: "Thing is he ain't a victim. He did something damaging to a company so the fired his ass. That's exactly the same as how when a thief gets sent to prison be isn't a victim either."
So he if was a black guy that complained about racism, and they fired his ass because it was damaging to the company, would you still be comparing him to a thief that gets sent to prison?
He was more scientific than the agenda pushers for equality of outcome, who are never challenged to provide science and are given the de facto position of unchallenged truth.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third? Why the secrecy? Do you know what prompted Damore to write his memo? It was a "diversity summit" which was not recorded (which Damore said was unusual for Google) and in which he felt very uncomfortable with what was being said.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates, and secret "diversity summit" programs. Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
It took a long ass time for the country to come to the majority opinion that the nebulous concept of race does not determine ability
There are statistical differences among the races.
(despite the idea that "all men are created equal" is a core principle of the founding of our country)
Equal before the law and given the same rights. That doesn't mean they are all equally capable.
And there are still occasional spurts of reactionary rhetoric that try to argue against it
Yes, those pesky statistical truths do rear their head now and again, despite the constant attempts to hammer them down.
(in fact, one of the less discussed problems with Damore's essay is that he also condemned diversity programs that address racial inequality, probably because he didn't even bother to justify that position, just tossed it in with his conclusions about gender)
Look at all the howling over his discussion of gender differences. Can you imagine if he dropped the intelligence bomb on them? Did you ever wonder why the white racists at Google hire 35% Asian, while they only make up 6% of the US population?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean you don't need to be a mind reader when "when they make their intentions clear, both directly and indirectly".
Conspiracy to commit mass murder of minorities etc... is not a first amendment right, and that's exactly what the Nazis are all about.
Please, show me where the anti-First Amendment crowd broke up a meeting/talk where that was the topic of discussion. Because you know damn well it's never happened.
Antifa = everybody-I-disagree-with-is-a-fascist Nazi, and say-hello-to-my-commie-friends
You don't need to know what is in somebody else's mind when they make their intentions clear, both directly and indirectly. But I'm sorry your brain is so nonfunctional that you can't understand these simple concepts.
they're only willing to fight for their own freedoms
So when black nationalists agitate for a black state within America, it's called "fight for their own freedoms", but when white nationalists advocate for a white state within America, it's supremacy.
If I'm walking down a dark street at night and on one side of the street are some Black Panthers, and on the other side of the street are some skinheads, I'm definitely crossing to the Black Panther side
That's because you're a useful idiot.
It's called using your brain. Killing a bunch of civilians for an ideology to inspire terror is, what for it... terrorism! Killing a bunch of people just for the sake of killing people because you're a sick fuck... is not.
What defines terrorism from other kinds of murder is intent. Try a dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.co...
There was no political motive. He wasn't trying to achieve a social change, or spread a message. It was just mass murder for the sake of mass murder.
Nearly all the people being called white supremacists are generally white nationalists.
Please name a black supremacist with a verified account.
https://twitter.com/louisfarra...
You can label yourself as "against fascism" and be something else. Antifa in the US is anti-First Amendment, everybody-I-disagree-with-is-a-fascist Nazi, and say-hello-to-my-commie-friends.
No, but can we agree that if a Muslim shoots 50 people we'll call it "terrorism," and if a Christian shoots 50 people we'll call it "mass murder?"
No, because that's like saying a serial killer is a terrorist. There is still no discernible motive in the Vegas shooting, and generally it looks like the guy was just fucked up and wanted to go on a killing spree, kinda like this guy.
Why not just call it terrorism, or... something more focused?
Ok, Islamic terrorism.
Is there a stronger correlation of violence in some religions? Sure, but lumping people together doesn't resolve anything.
On the contrary. You can't tackle the problem if you can't identify it. The "religion of peace" bullshit isn't working.
We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.
No, the "civilized world" has become a laughing stock. They rejected enlightenment values and common sense, and opened their borders to third world countries with barbaric cultures and religions. They are more worried about virtue signaling than helping their citizens.
Actually, the major plot point was that the Unabomber's brother recognized his writing style and fingered him to the FBI. Without that, they probably never would have caught him.
All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I have a much better vantage point to judge than you do.
You've described the facts from your vantage point and I am free to make my own judgments.
What are my "admitted leanings"?
"Given that, I think it would actually make sense for Google to reject qualified male candidates in order to hire qualified female candidates."
Did you read my essay?
Nope, I wasn't particularly interested after having read what you wrote here.
Yup, and it's kind of revealing that you can't see why. Anyway, you're clearly not going to get it, so you can have the last word if you wish.
Yup.
You are confused if you believe that Gnome 3 was intended to be used on a tablet computer or a phone. Gnome 3 was designed to be a cohesive user experience based on the scientific principle of Fitts's law.
And you're in denial if you think they weren't influenced by smart phone mania. Fitt's law doesn't say you should be removing buttons, or turning a desktop screen into a giant app screen that, coincidentally, was aping smart phone designs.
It was as simplistic as your assessment.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous. Getting your foot in the door is an amazing opportunity. Being given training and taken under wing is even more amazing.
And those are for people "who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship" and "new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there". Holy crap, and you just brush this aside? Can you imagine how many "non-diversity" candidates would love this opportunity?
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
It's a straightforward comparison in response to your blunt assessment: "Thing is he ain't a victim. He did something damaging to a company so the fired his ass. That's exactly the same as how when a thief gets sent to prison be isn't a victim either."
So he if was a black guy that complained about racism, and they fired his ass because it was damaging to the company, would you still be comparing him to a thief that gets sent to prison?
He was more scientific than the agenda pushers for equality of outcome, who are never challenged to provide science and are given the de facto position of unchallenged truth.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third? Why the secrecy? Do you know what prompted Damore to write his memo? It was a "diversity summit" which was not recorded (which Damore said was unusual for Google) and in which he felt very uncomfortable with what was being said.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates, and secret "diversity summit" programs. Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
It took a long ass time for the country to come to the majority opinion that the nebulous concept of race does not determine ability
There are statistical differences among the races.
(despite the idea that "all men are created equal" is a core principle of the founding of our country)
Equal before the law and given the same rights. That doesn't mean they are all equally capable.
And there are still occasional spurts of reactionary rhetoric that try to argue against it
Yes, those pesky statistical truths do rear their head now and again, despite the constant attempts to hammer them down.
(in fact, one of the less discussed problems with Damore's essay is that he also condemned diversity programs that address racial inequality, probably because he didn't even bother to justify that position, just tossed it in with his conclusions about gender)
Look at all the howling over his discussion of gender differences. Can you imagine if he dropped the intelligence bomb on them? Did you ever wonder why the white racists at Google hire 35% Asian, while they only make up 6% of the US population?
Yes, these people exist. They are so loud I don't understand how you can miss them.
He's an SJW apologist.