Why am I allowed to grow my own flowers? If I want to give some to my girlfriend, and I can simply pick them out of my garden, shouldn't the federal government be trying to stop me, so that millions of guys across America don't get the same idea? Isn't there a concern in D.C. that my actions could lead to a collapse of the entire floral industry?
"my email password is usually a 50 character random string that I don't like entering on public computers if I even could"
"I almost feel like I have to compromise my email password which is much more valuable"
I understand your concern. I suggest using either two-factor authentication (such as Google's) or creating a "throwaway" email account just for this purpose.
It's especially hard to spot them when they put swastikas at the top of the main page of their website, the same one which is linked in their HN profile. I propose a startup to prevent this sort of sneaky behavior. Of course, we'll have to put in logic which exempts from exclusion any website which uses the swastika for religious purposes, and other such situations.
Okay then, I'm a racist, and I'm only saying that because I don't want to seem as insufferable as you make me out to be. See? I can be accommodating. However, your first sentence is not at all clear, because you contradict yourself. You are saying that I am a racist independent of whether I recognize differences between people based on the concept of "race". Well, no, calling me a "racist" is absolutely dependent on whether I see race as a real thing, not a concept, and on whether I use it to gauge people based on their differences, which are most obviously indicated by skin color.
"Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others."
If you actually believe that there is "Something You Can't Say" then you most certainly are a person who can "dismiss an argument made seriously".
"At any given moment, the [Overton] "window" includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office."
The US government has generally admitted to torture, in its "fight against terrorism". Given that the US government wasn't replaced, even partially, or its policies changed in any significant way, through the massive outrage of its citizenry, I am guessing that most people agree with "something as appalling as torture", today, in Western Civilization, as long as it's done for "all the right reasons".
EDIT: I didn't notice this the first time around.
"And capitalizing white as if that accident of birth should be an honorific like an accomplishment? That sounds kind of unhinged."
Why don't you use that line on jews, who insist on "J" simply and entirely due to the mother's religion? They get very upset when you don't capitalize the "j", no matter where the word appears. Even the spellchecker in my Google Chrome browser underlines "jews" in red when I write it in all lowercase. If the power which jews possess is significant enough that it reaches deep down into the bowels of my web browser, then I think that I can get away with referring to the originators and guardians of Western Civilization as White.
You might find it even more unhinged that I usually refer to non-Whites as "unWhite", and I try not to use it at the beginning of a sentence, so as to avoid having to write it with a "U'. Likewise, I avoid using "jews" at the beginning of a sentence. Also, I refer to neo-nazis as "nazis", who are most of the ones you see today, mere pretenders, and I save "Nazis" for those, such as myself, who I think deserve the capitalization. Therefore, "White" doesn't mean every person with pale skin, so, really, it's not about honoring someone because of an accident of birth.
I didn't take offense, but I haven't wished a beating on anyone here, not even on the people whose skin color is not the same as mine, and not even to prove a point, as you tried to do. A few downvotes does not a majority make. I agree that my IQ is very likely lower than the HN average, but that is not the same as being a low-IQ human, which is generally at the level of actual retardation. Race is not only about skin color.
I'm a hacker and a scientist, like most HNers. There is no cause to delete my account, especially as you can see that the vast majority of my comments have nothing to do with race, but rather with hacking and science. Also, deleting my account would be like admitting that your points system doesn't work as intended. If certain of my comments go below a certain amount of points, they won't be seen to most HNers, which is how it's supposed to work. Deleting my account would be superfluous and overkill. Lastly, I'm pretty sure that wishing a beating upon me is not a statement which PG would condone, especially given that you work for him.
That's a good point, but what you see there is my personal symbol, which is the banner of the Third Reich with the swastika's tips chiseled. The symbolism is therefore unique to me, because, as far as I know, no one else uses it. Also, I give a detailed explanation of whether I am a Nazi. It just takes a few clicks to get to it. I've let that website wither, and really should get it into shape some day.
That's probably because you've never lived, side by side, day to day, with low-IQ humans. They are not the same as us, and therefore require different treatment. To believe otherwise would imply that the Whites of Rhodesia and South Africa were either heartless monsters, or people who couldn't learn from their environment. Neither of those is possible.
What's on my website doesn't change the facts on the ground in the former Rhodesia. Unlike most people with specific belief systems, I feel that I can be objective about anything.
I'm not a coward. If I was, I would have resisted making my original post, because a coward would care about losing HN points. I make the distinction between "racism" and "racial realism" merely because I care about using terms properly. The latter is more precise, whereas the former is tainted with negativity. Also: Why should I refer to myself using a term which I know others see as negative? I would gladly call myself a "racist" if its meaning were taken to be "someone who sees the differences between races and acts appropriately on that knowledge", or something to that effect.
The example you give was a harsh yet necessary action due to the fact that low-IQ humans require brutality to understand when they've done wrong, because nice words and the rule of law just don't cut it with them. Also, you fail to mention the many millions of blacks who were not hung from helicopters. It's not like the hangings were part of a systemic plan of eradication, whereas what the current government is doing to the remaining Whites certainly is. You imply that the current government is somehow enlightened. Have you seen photos of Whites brutally tortured and killed by said government?
The former Rhodesia was a veritable paradise in comparison to most of sub-Saharan Africa. Now it has (according to the following video) the lowest life expectancy of any country in the world. That change is a direct result of the combination of switching from White rule to black rule, and the killing of remaining Whites who continued to want to play a useful role in what they believed was a country in which they still belonged.
What's on my website doesn't change the facts on the ground in the former Rhodesia. Unlike most people with specific belief systems, I feel that I can be objective about anything.
I'm a race realist, and the racial reality in sub-Saharan Africa is that blacks have very low IQs. No amount of foreign aid and wishful thinking will change this fact. You say that it is "on the verge of economic security and prosperity" with the government wanting to "develop respectable and effective network infrastructure that would support the local people", yet you conveniently leave out the fact that Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia, already had all of these things. Whites created economic security, prosperity, and an overall infrastructure which supported everyone, including blacks. It wasn't perfect, just like in South Africa, but it worked, and it did so due to Whites applying their knowledge and creativity to solve hard problems. The current majority, over the last few decades, has been slowly dismantling the civilization which Whites created, while simultaneously drastically increasing the amount of foreign aid the country now needs.
Synchronized flushing won't change the fact that Zimbabwe is a fucking shithole. This kind of "let's cross our fingers and hope for the best" measure was never necessary when the place was called Rhodesia, because when Whites were in control, they knew how to engineer around droughts. If Mugabe's government would simply stop killing Whites, there might be enough left to help out with such situations, even if they are in the minority.
Why are you deleting accounts of people who cosplay? It's mostly kids having fun playing dress up and taking photos and making plans to appear at conventions, all while calling themselves by anime-inspired names. When these kids lose their accounts, they also lose their connections with each other, connections which they spent a great deal of time and energy cultivating, and what's even worse is that it's difficult for them to reconnect, after creating new accounts with their real names, because they know each other only by their cosplay names. It's a nonsensical policy, which does little-to-nothing to keep these kids safe, and which rather effectively kills existing social circles.
Yes, but isn't it worth capturing that content, and in doing so, their users? The search engine I am suggesting could easily transition to being the next Twitter. We grab the content, their users perform searches, and then the users migrate when they see that they can not only search every tweet ever made (since we began indexing) but also add to the database directly (kind of like Google having both a search box and an "add your own URL" box on the main page).
Well then, it's time for a 3rd-party Twitter search engine, using a P2P-based scraper, with no regard for API rules or ToS. In the long term, what's more important: Twitter's bottom line, or content not being thrown down the memory hole?
Why am I allowed to grow my own flowers? If I want to give some to my girlfriend, and I can simply pick them out of my garden, shouldn't the federal government be trying to stop me, so that millions of guys across America don't get the same idea? Isn't there a concern in D.C. that my actions could lead to a collapse of the entire floral industry?