Everything about how this was written looks like someone wanted to create fear about all artificial sweetners, and after trying and trying they found one specific "in the lab" reaction that is utterly and completely unrepresentative of how things happen "in the field," and then deliberately used confusing and vague language to explode the results and make it sound like a completely unrelated and unwarranted conclusion is the proven result of this study.
That's typical. There's been an ongoing effort to demonize sweeteners for decades now. Every couple years one of these "studies" comes out, people freak out, and nothing changes.
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[4] Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[5][6][7][8] Corporatist ideas are common to ideologies including absolutism, fascism and liberalism.[9]
I do wonder if they are trying to bar him from taking SpaceX public (since he would be restricted in his seat at public companies).
Unlikely. There's no reason for them to oppose such a move... and it's unlikely anyway; there's absolutely no good reason for Elon to take SpaceX public at this point and everything he has said thusfar seems to indicate he has no desire to do so.
I'm glad you enjoyed the post but I'm curious why you think I "tossed logic out the window for that one". As i said, many other grouos could have fit the criteria, but muslims were the first group to come to mind and are doubly suitable because the same people who lose their minds over white supremacy are topically more than happy to jump to the defense of Muslims and call you an "islamaphobe" when you use much less inflammatory language to criticize Islam. How is it illogical to point out that the same language can be used to describe both groups?
Because I needed an example. Apply it to whatever other similar groups you like; it doesn't change what I was saying. On the contrary it rather reinforces the point that there are many groups which historically were just as bad as the Nazis, or worse, yet we don't paint them with the same brush today.
Yes, I do, and now you're being a disingenuous ass. You know full well that some of the authors he cited disagreed with him while other authors he cited agreed with him. You're cherry picking the former and ignoring the latter.
I don't know why you decided to go ahead and confirm that you can't be reasonable, but good job; you did it perfectly.
People aren't willing to leave their own country? That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Black Panthers don't want to move back to Africa.
Your argument is misleading. If Nazis are using their ideological beliefs to justify killing jews, those Nazis should be condemned. That is not, however, justification to condemn all Nazis just those who are engaging in such behavior.
Although I'm not aware of White Seperarists killing anyone, they did some pretty vile things in the name of their beliefs. They professed to be conservatives and used their beliefs to justify some rather offensive speech. They're also a fringe element of conservatism, but even if their membership was substantially larger, it wouldn't be representative of all of conservatism.
Is it reasonable to condemn conservatives because of the White Separatists and other groups like them? Or should we perhaps take a more intelligent view of conservatism and recognize that most conservatives consider them to be perverting the ideology?
You've presented a false dichotomy. Even the rampant genocide in the Nazi Party is hardly representative of the views of all Nazis. The Nazi Party has actively covered up some disgusting abuse and shielded the abusers from justice. This can and should be condemned, but there's a difference between condemning that and generally condemning Nazis.
You can say whatever you like but, at this point, your argument boils down to "these words are wrong because I say so". That's not very persuasive.
Of course you're not unique by any stretch of the imagination. You've joined a proud human tradition spanning many thousands of years, of religious fundamentalists declaring certain words and phrases to be heretical. We managed to reverse that kind of thinking to some extent back around the time that The Enlightenment swept through Europe, but we still have some remnants here and there... and you'd be right at home in the Islamic world! They're all about pronouncing random shit to be Haram.
Yes, we do. One side decided to have a peaceful rally, while the other side showed up with the express purpose of picking a fight. It's pretty clear which side acted worse. Unfortunately some people seem more concerned with the consequent violence than with the original intent. I suspect it's the same kind of idiots who watch a woman repeatedly hit a man for a good 10 minutes, and then scream at him when he snaps and knocks her out.
No, he didn't, but even if he had it would be irrelevant. It's as if we were talking about vegetarianism and you said "yeah, well, Hitler was a vegetarian too". Well, no, he probably wasn't, but even if he had been it has nothing to do with the discussion, and you are definitely inviting a flame war.
with the same pseudo-scientific explanation and so the rebuttal of that is relevant.
Your idea of rebutting Damore is cherry-picking random articles which talk about scientists mildly criticizing his interpretation of the data while ignoring all the scientists who say "yeah, he pretty much got it right". You then do a little victory dance, congratulate yourself on having proven that he's horrible, and then marvel at the fact that others scoff at you.
No matter how many times you insist that this is a rebuttal, it is not. The scientists quoted in your article aren't nearly as dismissive of him as you are. The fact of the matter is that most of what he wrote was scientifically based and quite reasonable. He may have overreached in a few areas but whatever mistakes he may have made were honest ones, and they pale in comparison to the kinds of broad unwarranted generalizations which you make on a regular basis. Nobody is going to take your demonization of the man seriously as long as you keep demonstrating that you are far less reasonable and nuanced than he was.
While court cases are of course not a substitute for science, the court will examine the science and decide if Damore's interpretation is reasonable.
Wonderful. A modern Scopes Trial. That ought to put the nail in the coffin! No more evolution for anyone.
Anyway, I dispute your claim. We can't talk about him, even on stories about him anything suggesting that he might be wrong is modded as flamebait.
Nonsense. You repeatedly "debunking" him with the same cherry picked articles might get modded as flamebait. It probably shouldn't, but there's no "-1 Repetitive And Annoying" so the mods go with that they have.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the guy that's certainly possible, but you have to actually be reasonable first. You have to be willing to acknowledge the scientific support he has recieved, AND you have to stop overselling the scientific criticism being put forward against him.
You should also probably stop injecting him into conversations in which he doesn't belong.
Eh, I don't see cunt or bitch as being denigrating of women either. If I call someone a dick, nobody in their right mind will say I'm denigrating men.
This is what people mean when they complain about political correctness. It's perfectly fine for a black comedian to talk about cracker ass crackas, but if a white comedian talks about nlggers everyone loses their fucking minds. It's fine to call someone a dick, but call him a pussy and ohmagawd you're a misogynist. It's hilarious and insightful to talk about how the Catholic church is full of pedophiles, but link Islam with terrorism and you're just an evil islamaphobe.
I vehemently oppose the language police on principle, but if you're going to do it you should at least be consistent.
Ah, makes sense. It's really the criminal charges that matter to you. So if a bunch of Nazis have a nonviolent protest and a girl-scout punches one of them and is arrested for assault, you would, of course, condemn the girl scouts. Or if the Nazis clash with BLM, they all beat the fuck out of each other, and then a BLM guy runs over some Nazis with a car, you would condemn BLM and would insist that anyone who condemned both sides must be evil.
Glad I understand your position now. You're still all kinds of fucked up, but thanks for clarifying.
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi is not the paradox of tolerance. Advocating violence against nonviolent bigots is not the paradox of tolerance. You arw way out of your depth.
We can definitely talk about the guy; he just wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand, and the way you brought him up initially was absurd. It came out of nowhere, with no actual connection to what we were talking about, AND you somehow managed to suggest that the court ruling on his case would somehow substitute for actual science. It was ridiculous and very flamebaity, which is why I didn't respond to it.
The link you provided in this branch of the discussion was not flamebait because it was actually relevant, even if the quality of the article was crap. I can chock that up as an honest but misguided attempt. Your other comment... not so much.
Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it
The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups.
If you actually listen to the most prominent "white supremacists" these days, none of them advocate violence. Their followers certainly do, but as far as the official ideology goes it's all about "separation of the races" via nonviolent means. Obviously any remotely fairminded person would disagree with that objective, but calling it "overtly evil" seems a stretch. There are plenty of other racial groups which seek to maintain a distinct population in which they are a majority, and nobody calls that "evil".
On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals. Even worse, they don't just target actual Nazis; they're perfectly fine with using violence against anyone whose politics lean even slightly right of Stalin.
There's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to condemn Nazis and white-supremacists as unredeemably evil, due to the history of those movements. However, putting aside the historical context for a minute and just looking at the words and actions of the two sides in the here and now, it's pretty hard to justify applying those labels only to that particular side.
I guess what I'm really asking here is how are you drawing that line? Is the historical context the important thing? If so, why wouldn't we consider Muslims to also be "so overtly evil that no sane person would want to be associated with them"? Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens. What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?
I hope you'll give this some serious consideration, and provide a serious response. It's something which has been bugging me for a while, and I'm honestly curious about how people draw these lines. Outside of a kind of ingrained cultural disgust for white supremacy, I'm not seeing any actual difference.
Sure, as long as you're stuck in your own little world, that's exactly how things happened.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, he was asked to comment on the violence and he rightly condemned violence on both sides. Later, after several days of jackasses like you pretending that condemning violence on both sides actually translates to "I love Nazis", the guy came out and specifically stated:
"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups"
And yet still you morons continue to pretend that he's never criticized nazis and is aspiring to be the next Hitler.
As I said, reality is secondary; your narrative is all you really care about.
And the reason you're being excluded is your utter unwillingness to actually discuss ideas.
That's hilarious. On the one hand you defend the hecklers veto, where a group of idiots mindlessly shut down someone trying to have a conversation. You then turn around and pretend that it's also OK to exclude the person because he didn't really want to have a conversation.
This is the state of the "progressive" mindset these days. It's OK to shout down and exclude anyone who disagrees with you because they don't REALLY want to have a discussion. After all, if they wanted to have a discussion then they would agree with you!
You're right not everything need to be a trade-off, there is no acceptable middle ground between tolerance and bigotry.
If you criticize Muslims for throwing homosexuals off of buildings, are you being tolerant of homosexuals or are you being bigoted against Muslims?
The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything about how this was written looks like someone wanted to create fear about all artificial sweetners, and after trying and trying they found one specific "in the lab" reaction that is utterly and completely unrepresentative of how things happen "in the field," and then deliberately used confusing and vague language to explode the results and make it sound like a completely unrelated and unwarranted conclusion is the proven result of this study.
That's typical. There's been an ongoing effort to demonize sweeteners for decades now. Every couple years one of these "studies" comes out, people freak out, and nothing changes.
No, he's right, and you're wrong. From wikipedia:
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[4] Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[5][6][7][8] Corporatist ideas are common to ideologies including absolutism, fascism and liberalism.[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I do wonder if they are trying to bar him from taking SpaceX public (since he would be restricted in his seat at public companies).
Unlikely. There's no reason for them to oppose such a move ... and it's unlikely anyway; there's absolutely no good reason for Elon to take SpaceX public at this point and everything he has said thusfar seems to indicate he has no desire to do so.
I suppose that technically makes it illegal for people with pacemakers to ride a bike.
I'm glad you enjoyed the post but I'm curious why you think I "tossed logic out the window for that one". As i said, many other grouos could have fit the criteria, but muslims were the first group to come to mind and are doubly suitable because the same people who lose their minds over white supremacy are topically more than happy to jump to the defense of Muslims and call you an "islamaphobe" when you use much less inflammatory language to criticize Islam. How is it illogical to point out that the same language can be used to describe both groups?
But why single out them?
Because I needed an example. Apply it to whatever other similar groups you like; it doesn't change what I was saying. On the contrary it rather reinforces the point that there are many groups which historically were just as bad as the Nazis, or worse, yet we don't paint them with the same brush today.
Yes, I do, and now you're being a disingenuous ass. You know full well that some of the authors he cited disagreed with him while other authors he cited agreed with him. You're cherry picking the former and ignoring the latter.
I don't know why you decided to go ahead and confirm that you can't be reasonable, but good job; you did it perfectly.
People aren't willing to leave their own country? That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Black Panthers don't want to move back to Africa.
No more so than all the boy scouts on the other side.
Your argument is misleading. If Nazis are using their ideological beliefs to justify killing jews, those Nazis should be condemned. That is not, however, justification to condemn all Nazis just those who are engaging in such behavior.
Although I'm not aware of White Seperarists killing anyone, they did some pretty vile things in the name of their beliefs. They professed to be conservatives and used their beliefs to justify some rather offensive speech. They're also a fringe element of conservatism, but even if their membership was substantially larger, it wouldn't be representative of all of conservatism.
Is it reasonable to condemn conservatives because of the White Separatists and other groups like them? Or should we perhaps take a more intelligent view of conservatism and recognize that most conservatives consider them to be perverting the ideology?
You've presented a false dichotomy. Even the rampant genocide in the Nazi Party is hardly representative of the views of all Nazis. The Nazi Party has actively covered up some disgusting abuse and shielded the abusers from justice. This can and should be condemned, but there's a difference between condemning that and generally condemning Nazis.
It only sounds intolerant to people who can't grasp that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group with the same ideas and ideals.
Neither are Nazis.
Now what?
You can say whatever you like but, at this point, your argument boils down to "these words are wrong because I say so". That's not very persuasive.
Of course you're not unique by any stretch of the imagination. You've joined a proud human tradition spanning many thousands of years, of religious fundamentalists declaring certain words and phrases to be heretical. We managed to reverse that kind of thinking to some extent back around the time that The Enlightenment swept through Europe, but we still have some remnants here and there ... and you'd be right at home in the Islamic world! They're all about pronouncing random shit to be Haram.
Yes, we do. One side decided to have a peaceful rally, while the other side showed up with the express purpose of picking a fight. It's pretty clear which side acted worse. Unfortunately some people seem more concerned with the consequent violence than with the original intent. I suspect it's the same kind of idiots who watch a woman repeatedly hit a man for a good 10 minutes, and then scream at him when he snaps and knocks her out.
he made the same argument
No, he didn't, but even if he had it would be irrelevant. It's as if we were talking about vegetarianism and you said "yeah, well, Hitler was a vegetarian too". Well, no, he probably wasn't, but even if he had been it has nothing to do with the discussion, and you are definitely inviting a flame war.
with the same pseudo-scientific explanation and so the rebuttal of that is relevant.
Your idea of rebutting Damore is cherry-picking random articles which talk about scientists mildly criticizing his interpretation of the data while ignoring all the scientists who say "yeah, he pretty much got it right". You then do a little victory dance, congratulate yourself on having proven that he's horrible, and then marvel at the fact that others scoff at you.
No matter how many times you insist that this is a rebuttal, it is not. The scientists quoted in your article aren't nearly as dismissive of him as you are. The fact of the matter is that most of what he wrote was scientifically based and quite reasonable. He may have overreached in a few areas but whatever mistakes he may have made were honest ones, and they pale in comparison to the kinds of broad unwarranted generalizations which you make on a regular basis. Nobody is going to take your demonization of the man seriously as long as you keep demonstrating that you are far less reasonable and nuanced than he was.
While court cases are of course not a substitute for science, the court will examine the science and decide if Damore's interpretation is reasonable.
Wonderful. A modern Scopes Trial. That ought to put the nail in the coffin! No more evolution for anyone.
Anyway, I dispute your claim. We can't talk about him, even on stories about him anything suggesting that he might be wrong is modded as flamebait.
Nonsense. You repeatedly "debunking" him with the same cherry picked articles might get modded as flamebait. It probably shouldn't, but there's no "-1 Repetitive And Annoying" so the mods go with that they have.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the guy that's certainly possible, but you have to actually be reasonable first. You have to be willing to acknowledge the scientific support he has recieved, AND you have to stop overselling the scientific criticism being put forward against him.
You should also probably stop injecting him into conversations in which he doesn't belong.
Eh, I don't see cunt or bitch as being denigrating of women either. If I call someone a dick, nobody in their right mind will say I'm denigrating men.
This is what people mean when they complain about political correctness. It's perfectly fine for a black comedian to talk about cracker ass crackas, but if a white comedian talks about nlggers everyone loses their fucking minds. It's fine to call someone a dick, but call him a pussy and ohmagawd you're a misogynist. It's hilarious and insightful to talk about how the Catholic church is full of pedophiles, but link Islam with terrorism and you're just an evil islamaphobe.
I vehemently oppose the language police on principle, but if you're going to do it you should at least be consistent.
Ah, makes sense. It's really the criminal charges that matter to you. So if a bunch of Nazis have a nonviolent protest and a girl-scout punches one of them and is arrested for assault, you would, of course, condemn the girl scouts. Or if the Nazis clash with BLM, they all beat the fuck out of each other, and then a BLM guy runs over some Nazis with a car, you would condemn BLM and would insist that anyone who condemned both sides must be evil.
Glad I understand your position now. You're still all kinds of fucked up, but thanks for clarifying.
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi is not the paradox of tolerance. Advocating violence against nonviolent bigots is not the paradox of tolerance. You arw way out of your depth.
We can definitely talk about the guy; he just wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand, and the way you brought him up initially was absurd. It came out of nowhere, with no actual connection to what we were talking about, AND you somehow managed to suggest that the court ruling on his case would somehow substitute for actual science. It was ridiculous and very flamebaity, which is why I didn't respond to it.
The link you provided in this branch of the discussion was not flamebait because it was actually relevant, even if the quality of the article was crap. I can chock that up as an honest but misguided attempt. Your other comment ... not so much.
Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it
The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups.
If you actually listen to the most prominent "white supremacists" these days, none of them advocate violence. Their followers certainly do, but as far as the official ideology goes it's all about "separation of the races" via nonviolent means. Obviously any remotely fairminded person would disagree with that objective, but calling it "overtly evil" seems a stretch. There are plenty of other racial groups which seek to maintain a distinct population in which they are a majority, and nobody calls that "evil".
On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals. Even worse, they don't just target actual Nazis; they're perfectly fine with using violence against anyone whose politics lean even slightly right of Stalin.
There's an understandable knee-jerk reaction to condemn Nazis and white-supremacists as unredeemably evil, due to the history of those movements. However, putting aside the historical context for a minute and just looking at the words and actions of the two sides in the here and now, it's pretty hard to justify applying those labels only to that particular side.
I guess what I'm really asking here is how are you drawing that line? Is the historical context the important thing? If so, why wouldn't we consider Muslims to also be "so overtly evil that no sane person would want to be associated with them"? Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens. What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?
I hope you'll give this some serious consideration, and provide a serious response. It's something which has been bugging me for a while, and I'm honestly curious about how people draw these lines. Outside of a kind of ingrained cultural disgust for white supremacy, I'm not seeing any actual difference.
Sure, as long as you're stuck in your own little world, that's exactly how things happened.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, he was asked to comment on the violence and he rightly condemned violence on both sides. Later, after several days of jackasses like you pretending that condemning violence on both sides actually translates to "I love Nazis", the guy came out and specifically stated:
"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups"
And yet still you morons continue to pretend that he's never criticized nazis and is aspiring to be the next Hitler.
As I said, reality is secondary; your narrative is all you really care about.
Bringing up Damore in the first place was flamebait. Completely pointless unless you're looking to provoke and derail.
Very true. There's only one set of facts, and you're clearly ignoring them.
The fallacy fallacy is the fallacy of our age.
And the reason you're being excluded is your utter unwillingness to actually discuss ideas.
That's hilarious. On the one hand you defend the hecklers veto, where a group of idiots mindlessly shut down someone trying to have a conversation. You then turn around and pretend that it's also OK to exclude the person because he didn't really want to have a conversation.
This is the state of the "progressive" mindset these days. It's OK to shout down and exclude anyone who disagrees with you because they don't REALLY want to have a discussion. After all, if they wanted to have a discussion then they would agree with you!
You're right not everything need to be a trade-off, there is no acceptable middle ground between tolerance and bigotry.
If you criticize Muslims for throwing homosexuals off of buildings, are you being tolerant of homosexuals or are you being bigoted against Muslims?
The funny thing about narrow minded idiots like you is that, in the name of "tolerance", you often end up sounding more intolerant and insane than the "Nazis" you criticize.