I may or may not be profoundly disturbed. I'm also aware of the meaning of justice, and prejudging someone's guilt and imposing a penalty based purely on their clothing is not justice.
The court case for that death could get very interesting. If you're in fear of your life, you've already been attacked, you've seen someone injured by acid.. it could well fail on a murder charge.
I'd hope for justice but can't see that happening. The prosecution will be beholden to public outrage and the defense will be ludicrously well funded, so minimal chances of the actual truth being discussed.
I don't think those resources can properly be suppressed. China has been trying that approach for a decade.
It would be rather nicer to understand why people feel or become "dispossessed" and address those issues.
When you're told you're racist because you speak out against immigration, having seen its impact on jobs and wages, having seen preferential provision of services to immigrants.. you're not going to be scared of listening to a group that empathises with you just because they're also vilified as racists.
I think Islamic radicalisation has other roots but again, when you're told your beliefs are wrong, when you're demonised as a terrorist or a paedophile, you're going to seek comfort.
So do counter the extremist measures but people also need to start listening and accepting other views. Otherwise you get.. well, Brexit, or Trump, or a reciprocal escalation of violence in Charlottesville.
The acts of last weekend have the same relevance as those of 1642: if someone didn't physically attack you then you have no legal or moral grounds to assault them.
That's called civilisation, consider giving it a go.
Instead you throw around labels then insist that violence is acceptable based on those labels. Hope nobody labels you.
Well, that's gone and educated me a little. Although I instinctively reject charts that try and label politics as left or right because individuals invariably get stereotyped by a crude placement on the chart, disregarding their actual views or behaviour towards any specific policy or issue.
The Pournelle chart at least avoids that left/right divide but will suffer the same stereotype issues. I think the rationality axis could be better named too; while it offers an interesting mechanism to differentiate political creeds, describing some as rational and others as irrational works against objective evaluation and exploration.
In particular writing off extremist views as irrational is a barrier to understanding and countering those views.
But all three charts only work at the macro level. Individual communists still have a sense of personal ownership of belongings, anarchists form power structures, white supremacists can believe in the welfare state. Where is the chart that acknowledges this individuality and supports exploration of the issues and not the identities?
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about white supremacists.
Which according to someone at MSNBC would appear to be pretty much every white person on the planet and many of the others: https://twitter.com/MaryEmilyO...
Hmm. Given the demand for diversity in my industry I reckon being female would be worth a sizeable pay rise for me, plus all the other societal and legal benefits.
Plus you get a far nicer selection of clothing options;)
Well, in the UK it's legal to hire a woman ahead of a man. To hire someone that's BME ("black or minority ethnic", a phrase in use in the UK) instead of someone that's white. Then there's the funding available for things like university grants. Plus there's the fact that women can retire with a state pension at a younger age than men. Perhaps you weren't aware that poor white boys have the lowest educational outcomes in the country right now? I'll close on the constant attacks in the media. Some are subtle, some are downright nasty, and many tacitly support anti-white and/or anti-male writings on less formal channels.
Being blamed for all the woes in the world, getting no credit for individual achievement because of "privilege", seeing laws passed that discriminate against your gender and/or race? Yeah, I wonder how white men think they are being oppressed in this society.
When I hear a white man complaining that he can't get ahead in his career due because of affirmative action then all the evidence I have in my life tells me that that man probably isn't as good at his job as he thinks.
In the UK it's legal to hire a woman instead of a man if they're both equally capable on the basis that she's female. The inverse is not true.
You really think that would be enshrined in law if it never happened? Really?
All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.
My generation was held to a higher standard. We were taught to treat everybody equally.
Sadly that's no longer the case. Mainstream media is rampant with anti-white and anti-male writing, and at its most hysterical when the two intersect.
I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly.
I have never been in or seen a workplace that intentionally tried to treat any population group badly.
I've heard of a few, e.g. people that have worked there have told me you'll always be treated as a second-class citizen at a certain Japanese IT company if you're not Japanese.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
Most of the people that I see complaining about the treatment of white males are merely seeking the equality that the people acting in a sexist or racist way keep yelling that they're trying to achieve.
E.g. Google claim they're seeking to boost diversity and assure equality for women and ethnic minorities.. apparently by offering mentoring to women and ethnic minorities that isn't available to white men. Who needs a fucking villain to highlight that this is hardly equal treatment?
Interesting question. I have no way of enumerating the volume of hate speech but I do know that I rarely hear the hate speech from the right. It seems to be isolated in its enclaves, and I don't visit those.
The hate speech from the left is all over the fucking place and pretty much impossible to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
In and of itself? No.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/417...
I may or may not be profoundly disturbed. I'm also aware of the meaning of justice, and prejudging someone's guilt and imposing a penalty based purely on their clothing is not justice.
Well, there is that. Deny justice to a large and well armed group, good luck recovering in hospital.
Good luck with the inevitable court hearing.
The court case for that death could get very interesting. If you're in fear of your life, you've already been attacked, you've seen someone injured by acid.. it could well fail on a murder charge.
I'd hope for justice but can't see that happening. The prosecution will be beholden to public outrage and the defense will be ludicrously well funded, so minimal chances of the actual truth being discussed.
Assaulting people because they have different ideas to you is an evil idea.
Be a hero, punch yourself, you bigoted ignorant twat.
I don't think those resources can properly be suppressed. China has been trying that approach for a decade.
It would be rather nicer to understand why people feel or become "dispossessed" and address those issues.
When you're told you're racist because you speak out against immigration, having seen its impact on jobs and wages, having seen preferential provision of services to immigrants.. you're not going to be scared of listening to a group that empathises with you just because they're also vilified as racists.
I think Islamic radicalisation has other roots but again, when you're told your beliefs are wrong, when you're demonised as a terrorist or a paedophile, you're going to seek comfort.
So do counter the extremist measures but people also need to start listening and accepting other views. Otherwise you get.. well, Brexit, or Trump, or a reciprocal escalation of violence in Charlottesville.
The acts of last weekend have the same relevance as those of 1642: if someone didn't physically attack you then you have no legal or moral grounds to assault them.
That's called civilisation, consider giving it a go.
Instead you throw around labels then insist that violence is acceptable based on those labels. Hope nobody labels you.
Well, that's gone and educated me a little. Although I instinctively reject charts that try and label politics as left or right because individuals invariably get stereotyped by a crude placement on the chart, disregarding their actual views or behaviour towards any specific policy or issue.
The Pournelle chart at least avoids that left/right divide but will suffer the same stereotype issues. I think the rationality axis could be better named too; while it offers an interesting mechanism to differentiate political creeds, describing some as rational and others as irrational works against objective evaluation and exploration.
In particular writing off extremist views as irrational is a barrier to understanding and countering those views.
But all three charts only work at the macro level. Individual communists still have a sense of personal ownership of belongings, anarchists form power structures, white supremacists can believe in the welfare state. Where is the chart that acknowledges this individuality and supports exploration of the issues and not the identities?
Sadly we seem to have circled back round to the education system failing poor white boys.
And since, historically, their tactics have been murderous - punching them in the face is a very restrained response.
Well, historically members of my clan waged war on the English. Punching me in the face is not a restrained fucking response.
How about you learn how to manage a difference of opinion without initiating violence.
I should have been less subtle: That's how extremists recruit the disaffected.
Well, give people the love and sense of belonging they've always hoped for, you're going to sway them towards your views.
See also: The film "This is England" (which is superb)
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about white supremacists.
Which according to someone at MSNBC would appear to be pretty much every white person on the planet and many of the others:
https://twitter.com/MaryEmilyO...
Hmm. Given the demand for diversity in my industry I reckon being female would be worth a sizeable pay rise for me, plus all the other societal and legal benefits.
Plus you get a far nicer selection of clothing options ;)
Well, in the UK it's legal to hire a woman ahead of a man. To hire someone that's BME ("black or minority ethnic", a phrase in use in the UK) instead of someone that's white.
Then there's the funding available for things like university grants.
Plus there's the fact that women can retire with a state pension at a younger age than men.
Perhaps you weren't aware that poor white boys have the lowest educational outcomes in the country right now?
I'll close on the constant attacks in the media. Some are subtle, some are downright nasty, and many tacitly support anti-white and/or anti-male writings on less formal channels.
Being blamed for all the woes in the world, getting no credit for individual achievement because of "privilege", seeing laws passed that discriminate against your gender and/or race? Yeah, I wonder how white men think they are being oppressed in this society.
When I hear a white man complaining that he can't get ahead in his career due because of affirmative action then all the evidence I have in my life tells me that that man probably isn't as good at his job as he thinks.
In the UK it's legal to hire a woman instead of a man if they're both equally capable on the basis that she's female. The inverse is not true.
You really think that would be enshrined in law if it never happened? Really?
That may be the case, although I disagree (cf white women). But white men are told that they have to treat everybody equally.
So why doesn't everybody else also have to?
All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.
My generation was held to a higher standard. We were taught to treat everybody equally.
Sadly that's no longer the case. Mainstream media is rampant with anti-white and anti-male writing, and at its most hysterical when the two intersect.
I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly.
I have never been in or seen a workplace that intentionally tried to treat any population group badly.
I've heard of a few, e.g. people that have worked there have told me you'll always be treated as a second-class citizen at a certain Japanese IT company if you're not Japanese.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
Most of the people that I see complaining about the treatment of white males are merely seeking the equality that the people acting in a sexist or racist way keep yelling that they're trying to achieve.
E.g. Google claim they're seeking to boost diversity and assure equality for women and ethnic minorities.. apparently by offering mentoring to women and ethnic minorities that isn't available to white men. Who needs a fucking villain to highlight that this is hardly equal treatment?
Interesting question. I have no way of enumerating the volume of hate speech but I do know that I rarely hear the hate speech from the right. It seems to be isolated in its enclaves, and I don't visit those.
The hate speech from the left is all over the fucking place and pretty much impossible to avoid.
Out of curiosity, what would you have him do instead, given he clearly perceives there to be an issue.
If you don't want him to speak about it because you find that to be snivelling and twittish, which actions do you recommend?
Hmm. So all of one group are guilty of crime by groupthink but members of another group are all individuals?
Please, at least pretend to hide your hypocrisy.
There are shares, the company has an unknown value, this means each share is worth an unknown amount
Where the flying fuck did I say that anybody knew the share price?
an unknown amount is not a price
I don't know how much a new Bugatti costs but it still has a fucking price.
There is no "share" price [...] the price/share that the last sucker paid
You managed to contradict yourself in the first paragraph.
To help you out a little: There are shares, the company has value, this means each share is worth a specific amount.
We call that the share price.