Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. Just now, Laxtonto said:

    The funny part is that now with how genetic mapping is being conducted and the rise of the various analytics techniques, I can already start designing a way to dive into the analysis without ever using race. Just start with the end product of multiple intelligence tests and then do clustering or other aggregation techniques back until you get a consistent set of subset predictors and then start using that with the overlays of "race" or "subpopulaiton" categorization and some simple Bayesian statistical techniques  or conditional probabilistic approaches.

    335.jpg

    • Like 2
  2. 4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    The question is whether serious geneticists can study a serious genetics topic which has racial implications without being attacked personally.  So far we know they can't.

    Evidence for this bullshit statement?

    Which serious geneticists are under attack and by whom? Be specific.

    Quote

    Do you support letting Reich and others do work in this area?

    Who has ever either stopped him or advocated stopping him? Phantom demons in your pathetic and dying mind.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, NIUHuskies said:

    Surprised that there is no mention of the Oklahoma teacher walk-out that is happening right now.

    Not a labor-friendly crowd here at the Shag.

    I fully support the teachers in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. I hope this is a movement that spreads.

    Corrupt governance needs to be annihilated at all levels.

    Quote

    Inspired by West Virginia teachers, who went on strike and got a pay raise from their state leaders, educators in other states such as Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arizona are taking similar action.

    Kentucky teachers are decrying what they call "bait-and-switch" changes to their pensions, after state lawmakers tucked those reforms into another bill about sewage and passed that bill last week. 
    And in Oklahoma, protesters are rallying for higher teacher and support staff raises, as well as increased funding for education -- which has plummeted by 28% over the past decade, the state teachers' union president said.

     

    • Like 2
  4. 41 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

    What is she going to sell to the Midwest? The US economy is leaving you behind due to unfair trade policy! I know the other guy said that but I'm not a complete fucking idiot. I'm not corrupt. I'm not in bed with foreign powers. I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs to Wall Street and Russia. I'm not an embarrassment. I'm not a sex offender. I'm not a rapist. I'm not a racist. I'm not ignorant of basically every function of government. I'm not a coward. I'm not golfing half my life. I'm not insecure. I'm not watching TV all day.

    This, basically.

  5. 24 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    The Harvard geneticist didn't equate race with distinct subpopulations.  Andrew Sullivan didn't and I don't.

    Thread Title: Genetics and Race

    haha fuck off

     

    [edit]

    too fast for me, brisket

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    If I'm against policies that are crafted around the"needs"of less than 1% of the population, why would I support a policy aimed at a group who's numbers represent less than 1% of the population?

    It's very weird that you can't answer a simple yes/no question.

    Would you support legislation that allowed for housing discrimination against Jews as long as they were less than 1% of the local population? Should a guy who owns a rental home be allowed to deny housing to Jews if Jews are less than 1% of the local population?

    The question exists because you made a statement that I think you made in bad faith. I do not think you actually believe what you said when you said, "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population."

    Getting people away from their bad faith arguments can be very tedious and time-consuming, but if people started out being honest it wouldn't be so annoying.

  7. 8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    It's a topic (((they))) don't want studied.

    Fixed.

    This is the perfect shitty Tahoe thread. Vague, outraged, full of strawmen, only-slightly-hidden racial resentment.

    I did the thing I highly doubt Tahoe did: I read all of the pieces involved in the story.

    The original David Reich piece in the NYT has seemingly nothing to do with Andrew Sullivan's. Sullivan cites Ezra Klein's "encyclical" as an example of LIBERALS freaking out. (Klein blasts Sam Harris, justifiably because Harris (like Sullivan) is an idiot.)

    Here's what Ezra Klein had to say about Reich's article:

    Quote

     I do not find this column as troubling as Harris seems to think I will.

    So the liberal menace in all this, Ezra Klein, was fine with Reich's piece. But the white Right is so eager to feel victimized that they pretend that Klein was freaking out even though Klein was shrugging his shoulders.

    The reality is that there is nothing at all forbidden about studying genetics and race. Reich has done it for years unmolested. Many other genetic scientists do it without a herd of ANTIFA lesbians overturning their bunsen burners and smashing their beakers.

    The only thing "forbidden" is trying to use narrow scientific discoveries to create grand sweeping statements about racial difference.

    • Like 3
  8. 1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

    As for your second point, let's say our good buddy Ben Carson made a policy decision today saying landlords can now discriminate against Jews.  If the Jews have a problem with that rule, then they can take it up in federal court.

    I'm not asking the Supreme Court, I'm asking you.

    You said, "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population."

    I am asking if you actually believe what you said. Would you support legislation that allowed for housing discrimination against Jews as long as they were less than 1% of the local population?

  9. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    What rights are being taken away by not making global policy decisions based on what 1% of the population wants?

    It depends on the policy decision. In this particular case, the right would be the right to keep and bear arms as afforded to law-abiding citizens.

    Jews make up less than 2% of the US Population. Would it be acceptable by your lights to allow housing discrimination against Jews since they are such a small minority?

     

    1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

    ... the disparate treatment of offensive conservative speakers versus offensive liberal speakers at Berkeley are three of many examples where an educational institution dealt with an issue unfairly.

    Be specific. The universities in question spent hundreds of thousands trying to secure a venue for these Mercer-funded trolls.

  10. We must protect our heritage.

    We must secure a future for our children.

    We must preserve our legacy. We are the ones who painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, who wrote the symphonies, who penned the greatest dramas, romances, and tragedies of the world.

    We are... the master race.

    10_37.jpg?itok=fay72OYU

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  11. 5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Exactly which rights are being violated by basing policy decisions on majority rule...i.e. democracy?  And how is that "un-American"?

    You're conflating two very different things.

    1) "Majority rule"

    2) "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the 'needs' of less than 1% of the population."

    The first is about voting majorities making law, the second is an outright rejection of the freedom of the individual. To say a man's rights are not worth protecting if he is in a minority is antithetical to the basic premise of individual freedom that is the fundamental basis of our nation. There needs to be a compelling reason to take that man's rights away and, "fuck it, there are only a few of you" is not a compelling reason.

  12. 3 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

    It has nothing to do with race.  Refugees bring their problems with them.  Antisemitism is suddenly a big problem in Europe and it's most likely caused by the influx of migrants who are most definitely antisemitic.  Within the middle east, outside of Israel it's pretty popular to chant "Death to Israel".   I seriously doubt it's unrelated.

    Then why are the South/Central American immigrants mentioned alongside the anti-Semitic Muslims?

    (It's because they are also non-white.)

  13. Interesting attempt to tie anti-Semitic violence in Europe to South/Central American immigration in America. And by "interesting" I mean "predictably dishonest".

    Quote

    They also chant “we aren't immigrants, we're international workers”

    Singing straight to my heart with that shit.

    El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!

  14. Donald Trump won many areas because he appealed to the material concerns of the people there. He went in and told them their lives would become materially better, and he gave somewhat specific (and completely unrealistic) reasons that would happen (coal coming back, Carrier saving your jobs, etc...). This is not regional. If you go to a people and speak openly (not honestly, but openly) to their direct material concerns they will like you more than someone who speaks in asinine platitudes (Hillary).

    If Warren does a better job of going to any area and speaking to their direct material concerns better than Trump, she'll win that area. Bing bong.

    • Like 1
  15. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    No, it's a consistent position I have across all areas.  I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population.

    That's a fairly disturbing way to look at government and its power. To say an individual's rights are less valuable because they are in a minority is, frankly, un-American.

    I think all legal adults should be able to buy physical-interaction long guns (and cigarettes, and alcohol, and marijuana). Specifying an under-21 veteran is merely an attempt to take the temperature of Anastasis's argument and see how deep his conviction actually goes (it's Anastasis, so it's only as deep as the next "BOTH SIDES!" opportunity).

    When someone's politics extend no further than their own door, and they're happy to "compromise" the rights of others (or, in your case, openly state there is no need to protect minorities), then it's hard to take them seriously.

×
×
  • Create New...