> Police and prosecutors can and do make mistakes, inadvertently or sometimes prejudiciously.
That's one of the reasons murder is used. Hard to fudge the statistics on it, immune to overpolicing, most of it is intra-racial, and it's hard to misidentify a perpetrator so bad that they go from white to black.
US homicide rate: 6.5, Black population: 12.1%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.54
UK homicide rate: 1.1, Black population: 3.15%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.35 (0.65x that of the US)
So gun control seems to have helped, but not as much as 1500 vs 50,000. It would be interesting to see the homicide rate for UK Blacks specifically, but I could only find data about homicide victims by race, not perpetrators. Sources:
I did. It's using a lot of words to obfuscate its central thesis: That even if you select against a trait, that trait won't diminish. It may as well be arguing that antibiotic resistance cannot develop, or that corn can't be selectively bred to increase yield.
It's sad that even 163 years after On the Origin of Species, people are still trying to deny it.
Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
> Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs.
Please don't spread the great replacement conspiracy theory.
> There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence. Genes flow fluidly
I don't see why we need to talk about "distinct subpopulations" at all, when individuals suffice. Besides, if you think "gene flow" means intelligence is immune to evolution, doesn't that apply to every other trait as well? What you're arguing is that evolution doesn't happen.
A comedy, but based in fact - e.g. educational attainment is inversely correlated with fertility. For a less individual view, you can visit Wikipedia's list of countries by fertility rate, and sort them by said rate.
The younger generations are the target audience, who will believe these lies about your education. As old times slip from living memory, they are rewritten into a caricature of themselves to serve the current zeitgeist.
This is not an isolated case, e.g. this article [1] about appropriating babywearing fashion that tried to gaslight us into thinking Europeans simply had no way of carrying their children prior to strollers, and so we should feel appropriately guilty over using modern baby carriers based on "indigenous knowledge".
> It's really depressing how we totally fail to permanently learn our lessons. [..] It's so bizarre that people will campaign for and champion the rollback of regulations that negatively affect them directly.
From my exposure to the political right, they've been preoccupied with CRT, drag queen story hour, and censorship. Occasionally immigration pops up, but politicians even on the right prefer to ignore that (as any graph of immigration to the US vs. which party is in power will show).
I haven't seen even a hint of a grassroots campaign against child labor restrictions - or any kind of campaign at all, just bills suddenly appearing out of the blue. This is strictly a top-down push, not even from the politicians, but their puppet-masters. They're banking on voters' loyalty and lack of alternatives to not lose any votes.
If there's a lesson we forgot, it's how to limit corruption in politics, not that maybe child labor is OK.
As people such as Martinez fill Stanford and rise through its ranks, each subsequent president becomes more likely to endorse such actions, instead of demanding apologies for them.
Surely we can agree that a protest out on the streets, or inside a lecture hall, differ. And for outdoors, "loud and disruptive" is the norm. There the line is usually drawn at violence.
The objection is one can't effectively lecture while heckled, not that they can't "handle" it. Disrupting class, in other words.
Though FIRE also calls that heckling "unlawful", which, unless I'm missing something, I disagree with - I don't see which laws the hecklers broke, since as far as protesting goes, they were tame, if allegedly uncivil and in the wrong venue.
I saw the video of him calmly saying "you are an appalling idiot" twice to a student after the student said what he's doing is disgusting (thrice) [1]. Is there a video of him shouting it?
In that video he calmly replies "You're an appalling idiot" to the person calling him* "disgusting". I was more interested in the alleged shouting at civil questions.
*Correction: The student is calling what he's doing disgusting, not the man himself.
> Your typical Stanford student, assuming they're not a legacy, is extremely hard-working and bright. Top of their class. Whereas your typical judge is a mediocre lawyer who happened to be a known commodity among oily politicians.
The typical judge, perhaps, but Duncan [0] graduated summa cum laude [1] from Louisiana State University, which seems to be well regarded, and earned a Master of Laws from Columbia Law School, which is "widely regarded as one of the most prestigious law schools in the world and has always ranked in the top five schools in the United States" [2].
But more pertinent is engineer_22's comment [3] that he was invited to speak by some of those students you think so highly of.
"The law was originally approved as a temporary cabinet resolution during the second intifada, but was extended every year since. In 2021, then-Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said it is 'one of the tools aimed at ensuring a Jewish majority in Israel'"
Previous reports on this law: Israel's Knesset passes law barring Palestinian spouses
I see. So despite the sources saying that "these subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor", and, presumably, were also used for the documented human sacrifice, we know that they otherwise treated their slaves relatively well? How do we know this?
You also say "enslaving each other", but from what was written so far it seems to have been mostly Buganda enslaving its neighbors - they didn't take turns.
> The event that led to the slow demise of Arabian slavery, the Zanj rebellion, occurred a thousand years before transatlantic slavery even existed.
Slow indeed:
It is estimated that, in the 17th and 18th centuries, 1.4 million slaves were compelled to make the trek through the Sahara [..] 1.2 million slaves are estimated to have been sent through the Sahara in the 19th century. In the 1830s, a period when slave trade flourished, Ghadames was handling 2,500 slaves a year. Even though the slave trade was officially abolished in Tripoli in 1853, in practice it continued until the 1890s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_slave_trade
Robert Davis estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
Then HN is an exception, because I never come across it otherwise. Which is not surprising, given the complete absence of those instances of slavery and imperialism from pop culture.
Sorry, near complete - I'm sure if you really try, you can dig up some movie showing it, and claim it has equal weight to the torrent of movies about US's slavery.