Those Dell systems are "not for the general public, and had found their way to the website only inadvertently. The laptops are available only by custom order and only to military, government and intelligence agencies", and the other two have to hack the Management Engine, fighting Intel every step of the way.
That's basically an admission that the ME is a backdoor, and calling ME-free systems something any individual can purchase is farcical or malicious.
As much as I appreciate the article trying to stem the tide of racism by pointing out the El Paso shooting, I don't think such arguments are fruitful.
Firstly, that shooting doesn't mean immigration is good for the US (or, let's be blunt, for whites in the US), just as the lack of such a shooting wouldn't mean immigration is bad.
Secondly, an opponent could simply point to (anecdotal) murders perpetrated by immigrants as a counter-argument (well, counter-ad-hominem, since the El Paso shooting isn't really an argument for or against immigration). And in fact many publications do just that - the Daily Mail, NY Post, and Fox News to a lesser extent.
In the end it boils down to who can shout the loudest, regardless of the underlying truth. This might not be the case if they used statistics, but they prefer emotionally-resonating anecdotes, which, in a country of 330 million, are meaningless - you can find anecdotes to fit any preconception.
So what I would suggest is using arguments where truth, not just volume, provides an advantage. Instead of merely calling replacement theory "false", substantiate that with demographic statistics, showing that nobody is being "replaced". Anything less is simply yelling "nu-uh" - completely unpersuasive, and much more ineffective than manipulating people with cherry-picked crimes.
Unfortunately journalists are notoriously allergic to statistics, so we have little hope of laying this "debate" to rest.
The rise could be due to the bar for "hate crime" being so low that leaving tire marks on graffiti on a public road qualifies [1] (and an even lower standard is used in Canada [2]). Regardless, two things are lacking in the article.
One is the population covered by the police departments submitting the data [3]. Without normalizing for that, we have no idea if hate crimes increased, or if we are simply counting hate crimes among a larger population. The article heavily implies that the rise would be even worse if the "thousands of agencies" that did not submit data in 2020 had submitted it. But it doesn't actually tell us whether more or fewer agencies submitted data in 2020 than in 2019, 18, 17... The honest thing to do would have been to give us normalized values to begin with.
The second issue is that, despite how granular the statistics are for the victims, not one word is spent on the perpetrators. I wonder why... [4]
Keep going. What makes "colonial rule" different from rule by an aristocrat that inherited lands, if people have no concept of nationhood, and one aristocrat is as good as another?
> Back then there was no concept of nations and nation-states, which only evolved a couple of centuries later.
Just because the power structures didn't perfectly reflect nations, doesn't mean nations didn't exist. Look at, for example, Catalonia, that still has a concept of its own nationhood despite being ruled by Spain.
Or look at the British Raj, for that matter. Britain and India were both ruled by the same royal family, yet no-one pretends their people's identities weren't distinct.
> Its pretty explicit in the agreement terms that you need to separately click to agree on every purchase:
It's okay to lie everywhere else, as long as they tell the truth somewhere inside the small print nobody reads? And we are supposed to know which parts are lies and which the truth?
According to the article, the main problem of a financial police state where you cannot so much as buy a loaf of bread without permission and surveillance from the payment system, is that not everyone is included.
White Americans are descended from Europeans, and the post was talking about being proud to be white, not "white American". Though I don't see why oppression is a requirement for pride - does achievement not suffice?
And "white fragility" is simply a way to dismiss objections without addressing if they are factual. So in that sense, your use of the term is correct. Any resistance is "white fragility", and the only way to avoid that accusation is to submit to and agree with every attack against whites.
On the other hand, those US laws, if they carry comparable sentences as she is facing, are equally unjust. If this case is what it takes to realize how disproportionately cruel the US laws are, and to get them changed, then so be it.
I will also speculate that most of the people agitating for her release are also opposed to those US laws you mentioned, so it's not hypocritical for them to lobby for her release, even if it may be hypocritical for the US as a whole to focus on her, without releasing the many non-violent low-level drug offenders they imprison.
That's odd. Their graph shows almost no reduction in immigration during 2016-2020. There's a dip in 2019, but it looks largely compensated by the spikes in years prior. I thought Trump was a xenophobe that promised a crackdown on immigration? Yet voting for him does not seem to have even dented immigration - only the pandemic had a significant effect.
> The idea of being "proud" to be white only conjures up one thought for even the most lightly informed about our nation's history.
Twice defending Vienna from Ottoman sieges? Retaking Spain from the Moors? The failed last stand at Constantinople before the city, and Byzantium itself, fell to Muslim conquerors? Ending the Barbary slave trade, that raided Europe for centuries, kidnapping two million slaves into the Muslim world? Holding off the Mongol invasion? Or maybe you mean inventing antibiotics and the tractor? Or germ theory and the transistor?
Of course you're right. The trans-Atlantic slave trade (ignore the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade) is the only thing "white pride" conjures up. The propaganda has been incredibly effective, erasing all white history from the public mind except that which can be used to shame them.
> White people as a group have not been systemically oppressed.
Yes, all the barely or not-at-all held-off invasions I listed aren't oppression. Nor was the blood tax much of eastern Europe had to pay the Ottomans [1], nor the Pontic genocide [2]. It was always all sunshine and rainbows for the white man, that has never faced an external threat in all of Europe's history.
You could say this is the founding ideal of the US ("founding" since 1903, when The New Colossus Poem was mounted on the Statue of Liberty). All the battles for freedom and survival are reduced to "storied pomp", and the Colossus of Rhodes, built to celebrate the defence of that city, is re-interpreted as an ode to violent conquest, "With conquering limbs astride from land to land;". Your country has asked you to believe that Europeans and European-Americans never faced an external threat, never had to fight for survival, never lost such a battle, and never contributed anything to the world but violent conquest.
And you obliged whole-heartedly obliged, because you are a good person.
> While it is true that unsustainable tourism has skyrocketed since Hawaii has lifted COVID-19 regulations, the effects of settler colonialism are an insidious rot that spreads throughout Hawaii’s statehood and colonization.
On the other hand, mass immigration to countries that haven't been colonized is entirely beneficial, and completely unlike what is happening to Hawaii. Because of.. uhmm... nuanced reasons.
> For years, kānaka maoli (Native Hawaiians) and non-Indigenous longtime residents have advocated limiting outside influence on the islands. [..] Hawaiian culture is deeply rooted in land stewardship. Hawaiians see the land not as property owned or sold, but as family, something newcomers often fail to recognize.
But now the searches are extended into homes. I'm sure schools will argue that the laptops are school property and therefore children (or parents) have no rights on them, but let's think through what is happening here. I hate to use libertarian phrasing, but it will paint the clearest picture:
The state takes money from parents. Money the parents now can't use to buy laptops for their children. Instead, the state buys the laptops, but now families have no rights on the laptops their money bought.
That's basically an admission that the ME is a backdoor, and calling ME-free systems something any individual can purchase is farcical or malicious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Commer...